Datasets:

---

seongil-dn

/

mteb_arguana_perc

like 0

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02b", "score": 0.8113634586334229, "text": "You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production. British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.” He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2] [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010 [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03a", "score": 0.6675716638565063, "text": "Vegetarianism is healthier There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron. [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03b", "score": 0.6482827663421631, "text": "The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04b", "score": 0.6439501643180847, "text": "Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01b", "score": 0.6432884931564331, "text": "We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con01b", "score": 0.6409905552864075, "text": "These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01b", "score": 0.6363674402236938, "text": "Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-pro03b", "score": 0.6347723007202148, "text": "Whilst rail systems can be environmentally friendly, the higher the speed of a system the more fuel said system consumes. Whilst high speed rail might be useful as a transport system, owing to its high speed nature it does not reduce carbon emissions to a significant extent. Further, high speed rail is of limited popularity and as such it will not get enough drivers off the road to have any significant contribution to the environment. [1] [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro02a", "score": 0.634545087814331, "text": "Environmental Damage Both licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] . [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ [2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b", "score": 0.6306242942810059, "text": "There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ecegthwspc-pro04a", "score": 0.6298215389251709, "text": "Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009).", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro02a", "score": 0.626494288444519, "text": "Blood sports cannot be justified by reference to their role in pest control or conservation All sorts of hunting, shooting, and fishing boil down to slaughtering other animals for pleasure. If the prey is a pest (e.g. foxes), or needs culling (e.g. hares, deer), there are always more humane ways to kill it than hunting it to the point of terror and exhaustion with a pack of hounds- e.g. killing it with a rifle shot. If the prey is being killed for food it is entirely gratuitous. In modern society people do not need to kill food for themselves but can buy it from a source where animals have been killed humanely; indeed no-one needs to eat meat at all and for moral, health, and environmental reasons they should not (see vegetarianism debate). As for fishing, again there is absolutely no need to catch or eat fish; even when anglers throw their catch back in they have first put a hook through its palate.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-pro05b", "score": 0.6254118084907532, "text": "Not having children is not a good way to combat environmental problems. The real answer to environmental issues is developing clean technology and promoting ecological awareness. If we start to produce energy from renewable resources, switch to electrical transportation, recycle waste etc. we won’t need to reduce population in order to sustain the environment. Furthermore, a higher population living in a more eco-friendly manner would be less harmful than the current level of population with its lifestyles.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-economy-epegiahsc-con03a", "score": 0.6222705245018005, "text": "FTAA is bad for the environment. Free trade creates a \"race to the bottom\", whereby developing countries lower their labor and environmental standards in an effort to attract foreign investment. Developed countries, which may have higher standards, are then forced to lower them as well in order to make sure companies don’t relocate or outsource their jobs abroad [1] . [1] Hassoun, Nicole. “Free Trade and the Environment”. Environmental Ethics, Vol. 31.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con02b", "score": 0.6190026998519897, "text": "Hydroelectric power is clean so would be beneficial in the fight against global warming. Providing such power would reduce the need to other forms of electricity and would help end the problem of cooking fires which not only damage the environment but cause 1.9million lives to be lost globally every year as a result of smoke inhalation. [1] Because the dam will be ‘run of the river’ there won’t be many of the usual problems associated with dams; fish will still be able to move up and down the river and much of the sediment will still be transported over the rapids. [1] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘How Hillary Clinton’s clean stoves will help African women’, theguardian.com, 21 September 2010,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con02a", "score": 0.6186721324920654, "text": "A dam would damage the environment Dams due to their generation of renewable electricity are usually seen as environmentally friendly but such mega projects are rarely without consequences. The Grand Inga would lower the oxygen content of the lower course of the river which would mean a loss of species. This would not only affect the river as the Congo’s delta is a submerged area of 300,000km2 far out into the Atlantic. This system is not yet understood but the plume transmits sediment and organic matter into the Atlantic ocean encouraging plankton offshore contributing to the Atlantic’s ability to be a carbon sink. [1] [1] Showers, Kate, ‘Will Africa’s Mega Dam Have Mega Impacts?’, International Rivers, 5 March 2012,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02a", "score": 0.6159852147102356, "text": "There are problems with being vegetarian A vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment. [1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro01b", "score": 0.6153146028518677, "text": "First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow. People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals. Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration. In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-science-sghwbdgmo-pro02a", "score": 0.6120877861976624, "text": "Genetically modified food is a danger to eco-systems. GM foods also present a danger to the environment. The use of these crops is causing fewer strains to be planted. In a traditional ecosystem based on 100 varieties of rice, a disease wiping out one strain is not too much of a problem. However, if just two strains are planted (as now occurs) and one is wiped out the result is catastrophic. In addition, removing certain varieties of crops causes organisms, which feed on these crops, to be wiped out as well, such as the butterfly population decimated by a recent Monsanto field trial. [1] This supports the concerns that GM plants or transgenes can escape into the environment and that the impacts of broad-spectrum herbicides used with the herbicide tolerant GM crops on the countryside ecosystems have consequences. One of the impacts was that the Bacillus Thuringiensis toxin was produced by Bt crops (GMOs) on no-target species (butterflies), which lead to them dying. [2] Another concern is also that pollen produced from GM crops can be blown into neighboring fields where it fertilizes unmodified crops. This process (cross-pollination) pollutes the natural gene pool. [3] This in turn makes labeling impossible which reduces consumer choice. This can be prevented with the terminator gene. However, use of this is immoral for reasons outlined below. Furthermore, not all companies have access to the terminator technology. [1] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000, , accessed 09/02/2011 [2] WWF Switzerland, Genetically modified Organisms (GMOs): A danger to sustainable development of agriculture, published May 2005, www.panda.org/downloads/trash/gmosadangertosustainableagriculture.pdf , p.4 , accessed 09/02/2011 [3] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000, , accessed 09/02/2011", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01a", "score": 0.6104221940040588, "text": "Humans can choose their own nutrition plan Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-pro05a", "score": 0.6093275547027588, "text": "Not having children is environmentally friendly The more people consume in the world, the greater the environmental damage. An average American produces 52 tons of garbage by the age of 75.* However, producing extra litter and pollution is not the only hazard that every child poses to the planet. Increasing world’s population also places incredible stress on Earth’s resources. It is estimated, for instance, that by 2025 three billion people will live in water-scarce countries. By reducing the number of human beings we will manage to avoid numerous overpopulation crises and reverse the damage done to the environment. * Tufts Climate Initiative., 2006,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b", "score": 0.7644092440605164, "text": "There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat." } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro04a", "score": 0.7258751392364502, "text": "Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights. We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights. First of all, animals have an equal capacity to experience pain. While we are unable to know exactly what other humans or animals are experiencing, we can make inference from what we observe. According to Peter Singer: “Nearly all the signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...The behavioural signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on”. [1] In addition we know that animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in a circumstance in which we would feel pain—an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than basic impulses, emotions, and feelings. These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds.” Animals therefore have the capacity for physical and emotional suffering, and so should be granted rights. [1] Singer, Peter. \"All Animals are Equal.\" Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro03a", "score": 0.7237138748168945, "text": "Humanity bears a moral responsibility to other species Human moral responsibility to other species: Humans are unique and unprecedented in life on earth in that their intelligence and sentience far surpasses that of any other species ever known to have existed. Humans are not simply forced to kill or ignore other species by instinct alone, as other species are, but rather can make a variety of choices based not only on information but on moral grounds. Thus with our greater power comes a greater responsibility to act in a moral fashion, and not simply to prioritize our own human good over that of other species. The ability of animal species, for example, to feel pain and suffering is something we should consider and try to avoid, as we recognise that pain is bad for ourselves, and thus must be bad for animals as well. Similarly if we believe our own survival is a good thing, we should recognise that the survival of other species is also a moral good, and act accordingly to protect endangered species.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01a", "score": 0.7220361232757568, "text": "Animals don’t have human rights Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con04b", "score": 0.7187771201133728, "text": "This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro01b", "score": 0.7175405025482178, "text": "This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them? We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’. Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1] [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro02a", "score": 0.7162405848503113, "text": "We should treat animals well It is important to treat animals as kindly as we can. Not causing harm to others is among the basic human rights. Although these rights cannot be said to apply directly to animals, we should extend them a certain respect as living, sentient beings, and as a minimum we should avoid causing them unnecessary harm. [1] Moreover, taking animal welfare seriously will accustom us to considering the effects of our actions in other contexts, and help us be generally sensitive to cruelty. Inflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad thing. Many governments already have many policies aimed at preventing this. For example, in 2004 the UK passed a law banning hunting with dogs on the grounds that it is cruel. [2] The Council of Europe and through it the European Union already requires stunning, with an exception for religious practices. [3] Removing this exception is the best course for animal welfare. Killing animals for food may not be philosophically wrong – after all, many species do the same. But if we are going to do so, we should cause as little harm as possible in the process, and this requires using humane slaughter methods. [1] ‘Why Animal Rights?’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2013, [2] ‘Hunting and the law’, Gov.uk, 4 April 2013, [3] The Member States of the Council of Europe, ‘European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter’, Strasbourg, 10.V.1979,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro03b", "score": 0.7080206274986267, "text": "Superior human intellect and sentience only means that we should make sure we consider the moral ramifications of our actions, not that we should take any particular action as a result. It is entirely in keeping with this for us to conclude that human life and enjoyment are more important than animal life and species survival, and so for us to decide not to protect endangered species when this (as it by definition always will) infringes upon human benefits and enjoyment.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro03b", "score": 0.7061485648155212, "text": "Equality requires that two beings are actually equal on some fundamental level. Human beings have certain essential similarities that make them equal. These do not stretch to animals. Human beings are able to distinguish right from wrong while animals have no notion of ethics. We are thus able to consider what kind of a society we want to live in and we are affected when we feel that there is social degradation. Animals, however, do not have this sense. We have fundamental dignity which animals do not. This is clear in the fact that animals do not experience shame or embarrassment, desire respect, or have a notion of self. Furthermore, human beings can consider their future and have particular desires about how they want their life to play out. These are different for every individual. This is why we are concerned with choice and protecting individualism and religion. Animals on the other hand are concerned only with immediate survival. They have only instincts, not individual desires and wants. For these reasons, we can't consider animals to be equally morally considerable. As for the propositions standard of relevance for the criteria which distinguish animals from humans in any given case, we would argue that the fundamental individuality and humanity of our species is relevant in every case because it makes animal life fundamentally less valuable.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro05b", "score": 0.7040324211120605, "text": "We do not have to justify cock fighting and other acts of animal cruelty as morally permissible. These are different acts to animal research in an important respect. It is not the intention of the researchers to harm the animals, but rather to produce high quality research for the betterment of human lives. Whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible, with pain killers, anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. There are many exceptions in law which maintain moral consistency due to the intention behind the act. For example, killing someone for money would be murder and illegal, whilst an exception might be made if you were killing in war, or self-defence, as the intention behind the act is held to be both different and morally just.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con01b", "score": 0.7006340622901917, "text": "To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate. [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro02b", "score": 0.700609028339386, "text": "To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01b", "score": 0.6997551918029785, "text": "Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con02b", "score": 0.6992668509483337, "text": "There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro05a", "score": 0.6987518668174744, "text": "Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01a", "score": 0.6972351670265198, "text": "We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species. We have always been superior to animals. Just as a lion can kill antelope and a frog can kill insects, so too human beings have struggled their way to the top of the food chain. Why then can we not exercise the power we have earned? Animals exercise their power and we should do the same. It is our natural obligation to do so. The reason we have always killed animals is because we need them. We need meat to be healthy and we need to test medicines on animals to protect our own race. We use animals to further our own race. This too is surely a natural obligation.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con05a", "score": 0.6970201730728149, "text": "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. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 1.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro04a", "score": 0.6928379535675049, "text": "Most animals can suffer more than some people It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities. We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-con02b", "score": 0.6921568512916565, "text": "If animal suffering is equal to human suffering then the benefits of exploiting animals in this way are only appropriate if it would also be appropriate to use a mentally disabled human in the same way.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro02b", "score": 0.690241813659668, "text": "We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro03a", "score": 0.6900180578231812, "text": "Animals are equal to human beings. It is true that animals and human beings are different. It is also true that men are different from women and children from adults. Equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are unable to have an abortion. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe all human beings have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support animal rights. Equality does not mean that beings all deserve the exact same treatment. It means rather that we consider equally the equal interests of animals and humans. If we deem amount A to be the maximum amount of suffering a person be allowed to endure, then that should apply equally to an animal, though humans and animals may suffer different amounts under different circumstances. The principle of equality advocates equal consideration, so it still allows for different treatment and different rights. Equality is a prescriptive rather than a descriptive concept. What’s important is that beings should ONLY be treated differently where there is a morally relevant difference between them. For example, we can justifiably deny dogs the right to vote because there is a relevant difference in intelligence between dogs and humans. However, there is no justification for battery-farming chickens who have a capacity to suffer. There is evidence that they experience fear, pain and discomfort. Although chickens may be less intelligent and unable to speak , these differences are not morally relevant to whether or not they should be placed in these conditions. We ought to consider animals equally to the way we consider humans. If we were to do so we would give animals rights. We ought therefore to give animals rights.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03b", "score": 0.7685800194740295, "text": "The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02a", "score": 0.706070065498352, "text": "There are problems with being vegetarian A vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment. [1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro05b", "score": 0.6702918410301208, "text": "Smokers may have a higher chance of harm from surgery due to complications arising from their habit, but this is not a phenomenon specific to them. Cardiovascular disease, or heart disease to most people, is the number one killer of men and women in the United States1. It is caused by the build-up of fatty deposits that clog the vessels - those at risk are often smokers, but can just as often be those who are overweight, have diabetes or simply high blood pressure. As such, it is not justified to single out smokers when those with unhealthy diets can just as easily cause complications in their surgeries. 1. Daily News, 13 Jul 11, Cardiovascular disease: Defend yourself by lowering the risks.Accessed 14 Jul 11.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04b", "score": 0.6684930920600891, "text": "Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02a", "score": 0.6669861674308777, "text": "Being vegetarian helps the environment Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1] The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2] As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6] With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat. [1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center [2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 . [3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009. [4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997. [5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003 [6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02b", "score": 0.6648673415184021, "text": "The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that \"There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores\". [2] [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010. [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01a", "score": 0.6630691885948181, "text": "Humans can choose their own nutrition plan Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-pro02b", "score": 0.6613370180130005, "text": "Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever. While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-con01b", "score": 0.6473816633224487, "text": "Health experts agree that banning trans fats would save thousands of lives specifically because the substance is dangerous even when consumed in very low quantities. They are simply a dangerous additive, which adds no extra value to food. 'Taste' considerations are simply a red herring, as switching to other fats would produce no meaningful change in taste, as has been demonstrated by several large food corporations who have made the shift without disappointing their customer base. The fact that other foodstuffs may be dangerous is an argument for better education or regulation regarding them, or -if merited -their own bans, but is not a case against banning trans fats. Trans-fats are significantly different to all the other unhealthy foods listed by side opposition, as trans fats are easily replaceable by less unhealthy substitutes, which things like sugar are not.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02b", "score": 0.6460861563682556, "text": "You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production. British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.” He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2] [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010 [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-pro01b", "score": 0.6441364288330078, "text": "The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-pro01b", "score": 0.6379543542861938, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-pro03b", "score": 0.6375442147254944, "text": "The American FDA considers the use of trans fats to be 'generally safe'.(1) The British Food Standards Agency says the UK's low average consumption of trans fats makes a complete ban unnecessary.(6) These organisations are already supposed to regulate foodstuffs and monitor trans fats, if they agreed that they needed to act surely they would. For individuals considered especially vulnerable to the effects of trans-fat consumption, such as the old or the poor, the government should consider education, not a ban. Moreover, the real issue here isn't about health, but about the right of a citizen of a free country to choose to eat whatever foods he wishes. The role of government is not to restrict the freedoms of its citizens but to protect individuals and to defend their right to act freely. Informed, adult individuals have every right to eat whatever fattening, caloric or artery-clogging meals they please. Government health boards have no right to restrict the foods law-abiding citizens choose to put into their own bodies.(10)", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04a", "score": 0.6358434557914734, "text": "Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1] Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows. [1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-con01a", "score": 0.6324048042297363, "text": "Trans fats are not uniquely unhealthy The issue with trans-fat is that there is no better substitute. The fact is that the substitutes are also as bad, if not worse, than trans-fat itself. By banning trans-fat, restaurants will have to adopt these substitute substances, thus undermining the work of the government. This process is a waste of our resources as the government will have to spend huge amount of money to bring about a ban on trans-fat without getting any positive outcome. The trans-fat ban would only have clear benefits if it were to cause a general reduction in the overconsumption of high-fat foods, but a restaurant ban on one ingredient will not achieve this. This will mean that money will be wasted as increased costs will be passed on to the consumer while there is no benefit.(8) Trans fats are not uniquely and excessively unhealthy. Sugar is unhealthy. Salt is unhealthy. Runny eggs, rare meat, processed flour, nearly anything consumed too frequently or excessively is potentially dangerous. We would not ban these foods because they are unhealthy so the same should apply to trans fats. The current obesity crisis within the US is not the result of regulatory failure and will not be solved by a ban on trans fats. Better choices, better parenting, exercise and personal restraint are the keys. None of these behavioural traits can be mandated by government.(9) Even if trans fats were eliminated from food products, overall a ban would do nothing to help individuals develop healthy lifestyles. While the ban would curtail consumption of onion rings (if they were cooked in trans fats), for example, it would remain perfectly legal to gorge oneself on Häagen-Dazs or chocolate, both unhealthy foods that contain no trans-fat.(10) The main alternatives to trans-fat is not even that much healthier. In most cases, food makers will move to saturated fat, which carries all of the same health risks, for example it has been linked to diabetes and cancer.(9) The ban is therefore unlikely to have a perceptible effect on public health. Trans-fats actually serve two useful purposes. Firstly, trans fats serve an important function of extending the shelf life of products.(1) This is necessary for both producers and consumers as it makes producing these foods cheaper and reduces waste. It also means that consumers are less likely to consume spoiled food and become sick as a result. Secondly, trans fats are tasty and offer enjoyment to consumers. Trans fats keep foods from turning rancid on store shelves; give croissants their flakiness, keep muffins moist and satisfy the sweet tooth. The enjoyment of such tasty foods has a qualitative value to one's emotions and happiness.(3) Therefore trans fats are not uniquely unhealthy and a ban would not improve general public health -it would simply remove a useful and tasty substance from the market. Thus a ban is unjustified.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-law-thgglcplgphw-con03b", "score": 0.6280940771102905, "text": "The burden of evidence lies on the side trying to prove its harm, not on the side asserting that it is not harmful, and so the lack of categorical proof of its harm is in itself an argument for legalizing its cultivation and chewing. If proof of health risks arise then they can be addressed, but until then the ban is inappropriate and should be lifted.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-science-cpecshmpj-con03b", "score": 0.6240758299827576, "text": "No research has shown health risks. The advice is only because we do not yet know the long term results. As studies continue for longer this final worry will also be ended.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-con02b", "score": 0.621167004108429, "text": "Calling for an \"education campaign\" to inform consumers of what they are eating may sound sufficient, but this is very often just not enough. No matter what the government does, people will simply miss the \"instructional\" information provided by the government and will continue to consume trans fats without full information regarding its negative effects. In such circumstances, it is the government's job to step in a take action through a ban or other measures. Moreover, when a harmful trend such as the use of trans-fats becomes endemic and entrenched, it becomes increasingly difficult for citizens to always be aware of the fact that a food has trans fats in them and make the \"choice\" to eat or not to eat them.(15) Producers include trans fats into foods without adjusting labelling, further affecting consumers’ ability to purchase foods that do not include trans-fats. The trans fats hidden in many processed foods are worse for a person's health than saturated fats. In 2005, CHOICE, an Australian watchdog tested more than 50 processed foods and found many contained trans fats at unacceptably high levels. After re-tests it was still clear that, while the fast-food chains had reduced their levels of trans fats, and some of the foods tested previously had eliminated trans fats altogether, others now contained even more than before. Foods such as pies, cakes and doughnuts may contain trans fats without the consumer even knowing about it.(16)", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b", "score": 0.6210489273071289, "text": "There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-pro02b", "score": 0.6160181760787964, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-economy-beghwprsci-con03b", "score": 0.6150960326194763, "text": "It is not the government's place to force lifestyles on people. There is plenty of information around on what constitutes a balanced and healthy diet; people should be left to make up their own minds about what they buy with their own money. In any case, loss leaders make very little difference to the overall price comparison between processed and fresh food. Fresh food like fruit, vegetables and raw meat is expensive because it will soon rot and so it incurs higher transport and storage costs than processed food with a long shelf life. If governments want to change the balance in costs, they would be better off putting a tax on the unhealthiest foods rather than interfering arbitrarily in the realm of the marketing.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04b", "score": 0.7799713611602783, "text": "Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009." } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-ahwcb-pro01b", "score": 0.6477129459381104, "text": "Some of the costs are largely illusionary. Yes we stop food that is tested positive from bovine TB from getting into the food chain but this ignores that the tests are not accurate so there is likely meat that is infected getting into the foodchain anyway. Bovine TB is mostly in parts of cattle that are not eaten and cooking kills the TB bacterium. At the same time almost all milk is pasteurised so again the bacterium is killed posing no risk to human health. [1] The main difficulty with the argument that a cull will prevent TB is that we do not know which way infections run. Do badgers infect cattle or the other way around. Currently the evidence suggests that it is cattle that infect badgers this is why there are areas with high badger populations without bovine TB problems such as the north of England. It is all but certain that any large jumps in infection over large distances are the result of cattle to cattle transmission. [2] Looking at the chart presented it is clear that the biggest jump from under 2000 to over 5000 infected herds occurs immediately after foot and mouth suggesting the increase was a result of cattle movements. [1] ‘expert reaction to TB test-positive cattle entering the food chain’, Science Media Centre, 1 July 2013, [2] Dawson, D.G., ‘Badgers and TB, where is the science?’, University of Birkbeck, March 2013, (6, 10, 11)", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03b", "score": 0.6448660492897034, "text": "The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03a", "score": 0.6356861591339111, "text": "Vegetarianism is healthier There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron. [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro04a", "score": 0.6252719163894653, "text": "Since this meat is often sold unlabeled, this affects everyone Meat from animals slaughtered without stunning can turn up anywhere. Some parts of each animal are not used in kosher food, and they are generally sold on the normal market. This means any supermarket product could turn out to have such meat in it. Halal food is even more common, and many places serve halal meat as standard. [1] So we cannot just consider the religious community: this meat reaches everyone. People with concerns about the way their food is produced would be distressed if they knew they were eating meat which had been inhumanely slaughtered. The fact that they don’t actually know is neither here nor there – we should bear in mind their ethical positions. Everyone is eating the meat, so everyone has a say. Banning the production of this meat would remove it from the food chain and help make sure people know what they’re eating. [1] Fagge, Nick, ‘Halal Britain: Schools and institutions serving up ritually slaughtered meat’, Daily Mail, 25 January 2011,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02a", "score": 0.6170334219932556, "text": "There are problems with being vegetarian A vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment. [1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02b", "score": 0.6041297912597656, "text": "The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that \"There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores\". [2] [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010. [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02a", "score": 0.6000751256942749, "text": "Being vegetarian helps the environment Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1] The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2] As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6] With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat. [1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center [2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 . [3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009. [4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997. [5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003 [6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01a", "score": 0.600060224533081, "text": "Humans can choose their own nutrition plan Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-pro01b", "score": 0.5976580381393433, "text": "Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] . States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur. [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con03b", "score": 0.5902509093284607, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b", "score": 0.5899083614349365, "text": "There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-con03b", "score": 0.5871063470840454, "text": "Stunning is only unreliable when done badly. All of the objections listed represent cases where best practice was not being followed. It is important to implement stunning properly, but there are plenty of stunning methods which, when carried out properly and carefully, have been shown to be fully effective. Religious slaughterhouses are not immune to failures either, with the most common reported problem being an insufficiently sharp knife. The same report cited by opposition condemns the religious slaughter of animals and says “when shechita is performed on chickens in Britain, only about half the birds have both their carotid arteries completely severed by the cut” allowing brain activity to continue for up to 349 seconds. [1] Requiring stunning will improve the base line of welfare we are working towards, and we can then start to worry about ensuring compliance [1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001, , p.19, 21", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-con02b", "score": 0.5859643816947937, "text": "Without accepting the premise that the two types of killing cause equal pain and it is only if the slaughter is done badly that there is a problem the slaughter is more likely to be done badly with religious slaughter. Training people to do religious slaughter well is harder than training them to do other kinds of slaughter. In particular, the latter is more mechanized, so as long as the equipment is properly maintained many problems can be avoided. Religious slaughter is much more prone to human error. It will be much easier to teach people best practice and improve animal welfare if we require them to use the simpler methods, where less training is required. This is a more efficient way of improving animal welfare than studying a myriad of different types of knife etc.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-pro01a", "score": 0.5850781202316284, "text": "These products are dangerous Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] . States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur. [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01b", "score": 0.5816823840141296, "text": "We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b", "score": 0.5807481408119202, "text": "Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-con03a", "score": 0.5802986025810242, "text": "Most stunning methods are not reliable The stunning methods in general use can and do go wrong. Electrical stunning requires the right size of charge, applied to the right place for the right amount of time. If done badly, the stun itself can cause pain, and can even fail completely. In one survey of Bristol abattoirs, not a single one was fully compliant with best-practice. Captive bolt stunning must also be done at a specific point on the animal’s head. A 1990 study found that in as many as 6.6% of cases, cattle had been insufficiently stunned, and 2.6% actually had to be shot again (one reported worst-case involved a cow being shot six times). Poultry slaughter often takes place on a mechanized production line, which causes serious concerns. Birds are dragged through an electrically charged water bath to stun them, but a 1993 study showed that 13.5% of birds were receiving shocks prior to being stunned – again, causing needless pain. Some birds lift their heads out of the bath, avoiding the stun completely. [1] Other, similar problems are associated with other stunning methods. Religious slaughter methods ensure that each animal is handled individually, so that it is kept calm, killed quickly and is properly dead. Because of the need to comply with religious law, the overseeing bodies put a large amount of effort into ensuring compliance with best-practice. Requiring them to stun animals actually causes more harm than good. [1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro05b", "score": 0.5790161490440369, "text": "Smokers may have a higher chance of harm from surgery due to complications arising from their habit, but this is not a phenomenon specific to them. Cardiovascular disease, or heart disease to most people, is the number one killer of men and women in the United States1. It is caused by the build-up of fatty deposits that clog the vessels - those at risk are often smokers, but can just as often be those who are overweight, have diabetes or simply high blood pressure. As such, it is not justified to single out smokers when those with unhealthy diets can just as easily cause complications in their surgeries. 1. Daily News, 13 Jul 11, Cardiovascular disease: Defend yourself by lowering the risks.Accessed 14 Jul 11.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-science-sghwbdgmo-pro02b", "score": 0.5787760615348816, "text": "The fears about GM food have been nothing more than a media spin. The media have created a story about nothing due to headlines such as 'Frankenfood'. Simply because people are scared they assert that there are not enough testing of the benefits of GM foods. The proposition is mainly falling into a media trap because at the moment all reasonable precautions are being taken for ensured safety. There is no reason why many different strains of GM crops cannot be produced and planted - where this is not happening at present, it should be. However, the need for many different strains is not an argument against some or all of those being GM. Adding or removing genes from natural varieties does not make the rest of their DNA identical. Furthermore, there is no concrete scientific evidence of what harm is done by the spreading of GM pollen. [1] All these effects are considered when a genetically modified crop is to be approved for agricultural use, if a product would cause any of the above mentioned effects, it would not be approved. [2] [1] Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa, Biotechnology FAQ, Would the spread of GMO traits into traditional maize be a serious problem ?, , accessed 09/07/2011 [2] Bionetonline.org, Is it safe to grow genetically modified foods ?, , accessed 09/02/2011", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro04b", "score": 0.5763064622879028, "text": "To successfully remove such meat from the food chain, any ban would have to extend to importing such meat. Under this model, Jews and Muslims would literally be forced to become vegetarian – a radical and discriminatory suggestion which significantly breaches their rights. Consumers may very well want to be better informed about their meat. But labeling systems have been proposed which would address this concern without a ban. It also needs to be said that many non-religious abattoirs are also inhumane. To be fully ethical, any such labeling system would have to label all the animals where the stun didn’t work, and should also take account of the way the animals were raised and transported. Banning just religious slaughter is not a consistent moral position, and shouldn’t be government policy.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02b", "score": 0.845258891582489, "text": "The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that \"There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores\". [2] [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010. [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03b", "score": 0.7338833212852478, "text": "The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03a", "score": 0.7058544158935547, "text": "Vegetarianism is healthier There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron. [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04b", "score": 0.6628873348236084, "text": "Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwilfepe-pro03b", "score": 0.6429818272590637, "text": "For every company that actually makes an effort to create a program of healthy products, there ten that use labels to promote a “functional food” gimmick. More and more products are being labeled with the “health food” and “functional food” labels. One strong example of that is the “contains added vitamins and minerals” label in the U.S., with foods being fortified with vitamins – so seemingly improved for the better. Yet the U.S. population’s vitamin deficiencies are at an all time low. An epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania also notes that these fortifications and the labels that come with them are mostly a tactic used to distract consumers from actual nutritional problems – those of excess. [1] [1] Narayan, A., Figuring Out Food Labels, published 5/2/2010, , accessed 9/17/2011", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b", "score": 0.6375761032104492, "text": "Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-pro01b", "score": 0.6338754892349243, "text": "The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01a", "score": 0.6332625150680542, "text": "Humans can choose their own nutrition plan Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02b", "score": 0.6331310868263245, "text": "You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production. British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.” He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2] [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010 [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-pro01b", "score": 0.6325608491897583, "text": "Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] . States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur. [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro03a", "score": 0.6268715262413025, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro02b", "score": 0.6233174204826355, "text": "Given all the responsibilities our society has transferred from parents onto schools and educators in the 21st century, is it really sensible to include caring for nutritional choices to this already bloated and unmanageable list? We need to ask ourselves, is it actually right that kids turn to schools and peers about lifestyle advice, when this is so clearly a domain of parents and families and so obviously a burden on an already taxed public school system.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-con04b", "score": 0.6230358481407166, "text": "If the school is providing unhealthy meals then guidelines can be tightened to ensure they improve. If the students are throwing away food then there can be greater supervision by teachers. A study by Harvard University has also shown that food waste, and the amount of healthy food eaten can be increased by having more time allocated to eating. [1] [1] Wanjek, Christopher, ‘Are Healthy School Lunch Programs a Waste?’, Livescience, 7 October 2015,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04a", "score": 0.6175417900085449, "text": "Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1] Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows. [1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01b", "score": 0.616191565990448, "text": "Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02a", "score": 0.6156136989593506, "text": "Being vegetarian helps the environment Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1] The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2] As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6] With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat. [1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center [2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 . [3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009. [4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997. [5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003 [6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-mchdhgwhwff-con03a", "score": 0.6155157089233398, "text": "Force feeding strategies may cause physical harm Force-feeding has negative consequences. If the patient is dangerously thin and is then force-fed, it can led to Hypophosphataemia (reduction of phosphates in the blood) which causes heart failure. Anorexics are characterised by self-denial and often do not come forward voluntarily. Indeed it according to Dr Sacker anorexia is often not even about food rather \"By stopping food from going into the body, what they really feel is they can be in control of their body.” [1] This desire is actively harmed by force feeding as a result they are even less likely to come forward voluntarily if they are faced with the possibility of force- feeding. [1] CBS, ‘A very thin line’, 02/11/2009, , accessed 07/22/2011", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01b", "score": 0.6135179996490479, "text": "We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body. We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough. When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition. What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-pro01b", "score": 0.6121907830238342, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-pro03b", "score": 0.6087136268615723, "text": "The American FDA considers the use of trans fats to be 'generally safe'.(1) The British Food Standards Agency says the UK's low average consumption of trans fats makes a complete ban unnecessary.(6) These organisations are already supposed to regulate foodstuffs and monitor trans fats, if they agreed that they needed to act surely they would. For individuals considered especially vulnerable to the effects of trans-fat consumption, such as the old or the poor, the government should consider education, not a ban. Moreover, the real issue here isn't about health, but about the right of a citizen of a free country to choose to eat whatever foods he wishes. The role of government is not to restrict the freedoms of its citizens but to protect individuals and to defend their right to act freely. Informed, adult individuals have every right to eat whatever fattening, caloric or artery-clogging meals they please. Government health boards have no right to restrict the foods law-abiding citizens choose to put into their own bodies.(10)", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro01b", "score": 0.6085347533226013, "text": "This will not be true equality. Some people naturally wake up earlier, yet many will still be feeling sleepy at 10:00. A school breakfast may have forced these students to be up even longer before their natural wake up time than would otherwise be the case.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con03b", "score": 0.7018886208534241, "text": "To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?" } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-ahwcb-con01b", "score": 0.6664212942123413, "text": "In this instance the question is one of balancing suffering. Yes culling will result in a certain amount of suffering from badgers but not culling and letting TB run rampant causes suffering in cattle. To humans cattle are much more valuable than badgers as we have several uses for their produce. It is clear that if there has to be suffering it should be badgers, not cattle that do so.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-iilepphbf-pro01a", "score": 0.6660162210464478, "text": "Universal human nature Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro01a", "score": 0.6647419929504395, "text": "The use of animals in sport demeans humans Other animals may not have the same level of sapience as humans, but they feel fear, stress, exhaustion and pain just as we do. It is immoral to derive pleasure either from the suffering or forced performance of another living being, especially when that being is under one’s power and control. It would of course be absurd to suggest that animals should have equality with humans on the level of having the right to vote or of criminal responsibility, but they should have equality with us on terms of equal consideration of interests, that is, pain and suffering should be equally significant whether it is a human or an animal that feels it. [1] [1] For further reading see any work by Peter Singer.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro02b", "score": 0.6625891923904419, "text": "In the case of foxes, most of the alternative ways of killing them are crueler - e.g. trapping, snaring, or shooting, which often have the end result of maiming the fox and leaving it to die slowly of starvation and infection. A fox killed by hounds dies very quickly. In the case of killing animals to eat - such as fish, or game birds such as pheasants and grouse - the justification is even more straightforward; it is the most natural activity in the world to hunt and eat. And given the controversy surrounding the welfare of animals in modern farms, it would seem preferable to eat an animal that had had a free and happy life in the wild than one that had been reared in a factory farm, as many examples of secret filming (Warning: may find disturbing) in abattoirs show far more cruelty than you see on your standard deer or rabbit hunt. In the case of fishing, many anglers who fish for sport throw their catches back in, so the fish come to no lasting harm.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro02b", "score": 0.6616967916488647, "text": "We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01a", "score": 0.6600768566131592, "text": "It is immoral to kill animals As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food. Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself. [1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008 [2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro03b", "score": 0.659406840801239, "text": "Behind the veil of ignorance, human beings may not in fact side with what gives them the statistical greatest chance of survival. As Rawls himself notes, people are naturally risk-averse, and thus will select the rules that protect them from the worst possible situations, even if that sacrifice would help many others. Most people find the prospect of being actively killed by the conscious action of another human being worse than simply dying in an accident, and would seek to protect themselves against that worse outcome.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01b", "score": 0.6584055423736572, "text": "Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.6547274589538574, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.6547274589538574, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro04b", "score": 0.654384970664978, "text": "By this argument, no human generation could ever decide that protecting a species is more trouble than its worth and so let it become extinct, as there would always be the theoretical possibility of a future generation that might regret this choice. Every choice we make as a generation constrains and widens the choices available to future generations. If we protect endangered species and therefore limit agricultural and housing land (to protect their environments) we deny future generations more plentiful food supplies and better housing. We may even deny the existence of more humans in the future by not having enough food to feed a population which could grow faster if the food supply was greater. We cannot allow the remote possibility of future regret to cause us to take actions which a great many people will 'regret' in the present.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01a", "score": 0.649389386177063, "text": "Animals don’t have human rights Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro01a", "score": 0.649164617061615, "text": "As humans we try to save as many people as possible There exists a basic right to life which, as humans, we try to follow. Killing others is outlawed because we generally believe that every person has the right to live their life and no one else has the right to take that life away. In the situation with the train there are two possible outcomes which both lead to life being cut short. Due to the fact that we place such value on life we have a duty to reduce the number of people who die. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and this is to kill the one and save the five.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con04b", "score": 0.6477601528167725, "text": "Side proposition are not suggesting that natural selection would not still occur, but that seriously debilitating genetic diseases would no longer lead to the death of many infants, or the poor quality of life. In 1973, we did not have the technology to prevent malaria which we have now. With the technology we have today we can manage and treat many more illnesses than previously thought possible.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro04a", "score": 0.6476919651031494, "text": "Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights. We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights. First of all, animals have an equal capacity to experience pain. While we are unable to know exactly what other humans or animals are experiencing, we can make inference from what we observe. According to Peter Singer: “Nearly all the signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...The behavioural signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on”. [1] In addition we know that animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in a circumstance in which we would feel pain—an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than basic impulses, emotions, and feelings. These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds.” Animals therefore have the capacity for physical and emotional suffering, and so should be granted rights. [1] Singer, Peter. \"All Animals are Equal.\" Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-con02b", "score": 0.6471632719039917, "text": "There is a lot more in humans’ lives than having children. There are numerous differences between humans and other animals. While it may be true that the purpose of animals’ lives is to produce offspring, it is not the case when we talk about humans. People, being much more complex creatures, can contribute to society in many other ways than by having kids (for instance by artistic or scientific activities). So, although our physiology and behaviour may point to reproduction as the main purpose of our lives, these indicators are simply misleading.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-con02a", "score": 0.6465630531311035, "text": "Animals can be used to enhance the quality of human life Activities involving the hunting or performance of animals are often large scale social activities. The Grand National for example has an audience of 153,000 paying spectators at the event [1] and a further 600 million in 140 countries watch it on television. [2] They can invoke themes of struggle and competition that serve to bring communities together in a shared experience. [1] Pwc, ‘Attendances rise at UK’s biggest annual sporting events’, 4 August 2011. [2] Aintree, ‘Broadcasting the Grand National’.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-science-euhwcface-pro03a", "score": 0.645388126373291, "text": "Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and the search for alien life is part of mankind's exploration of the Universe: Human history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known1. Mankind's place is among the stars, and what lies beyond the Earth will also fascinate the human imagination. Nothing is so exciting as the pursuit of other life, other beings with whom to share the knowledge of mankind and the wisdom of the cosmos. Governments should not try to slow Man's progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human. Truly, the quest to discover and contact life amongst the stars is a pursuit of truth and understanding. To not pursue such knowledge is to deny truth itself. 1 Dick, Steven. 2009. \"Why We Explore\". NASA. Available Why_We_/Why_We_05.html", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-assghbansb-pro01b", "score": 0.6448397636413574, "text": "Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8) It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con01b", "score": 0.6433247923851013, "text": "To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate. [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01b", "score": 0.7847356200218201, "text": "Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian." } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03b", "score": 0.7191022634506226, "text": "The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro01b", "score": 0.7099766731262207, "text": "First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow. People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals. Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration. In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con03b", "score": 0.7076213955879211, "text": "To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro02a", "score": 0.6907722353935242, "text": "Blood sports cannot be justified by reference to their role in pest control or conservation All sorts of hunting, shooting, and fishing boil down to slaughtering other animals for pleasure. If the prey is a pest (e.g. foxes), or needs culling (e.g. hares, deer), there are always more humane ways to kill it than hunting it to the point of terror and exhaustion with a pack of hounds- e.g. killing it with a rifle shot. If the prey is being killed for food it is entirely gratuitous. In modern society people do not need to kill food for themselves but can buy it from a source where animals have been killed humanely; indeed no-one needs to eat meat at all and for moral, health, and environmental reasons they should not (see vegetarianism debate). As for fishing, again there is absolutely no need to catch or eat fish; even when anglers throw their catch back in they have first put a hook through its palate.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01a", "score": 0.6842722296714783, "text": "We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species. We have always been superior to animals. Just as a lion can kill antelope and a frog can kill insects, so too human beings have struggled their way to the top of the food chain. Why then can we not exercise the power we have earned? Animals exercise their power and we should do the same. It is our natural obligation to do so. The reason we have always killed animals is because we need them. We need meat to be healthy and we need to test medicines on animals to protect our own race. We use animals to further our own race. This too is surely a natural obligation.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro01b", "score": 0.6783660054206848, "text": "This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them? We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’. Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1] [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02b", "score": 0.6749181151390076, "text": "The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that \"There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores\". [2] [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010. [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-religion-chwccaogalp-pro01b", "score": 0.6739931702613831, "text": "Infanticide is a part of nature, as is cannibalism. What separates humanity from the rest of the natural world is our ability to appreciate morality beyond ‘what is natural’. One of the moral rules that God has imparted to us is that the only moral sexual behaviour is between man and wife. Other moral systems obviously take a different view of sexual ethics, but they aren’t relevant how a Christian Church should organise itself.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con03a", "score": 0.6709582209587097, "text": "Survival of the fittest It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence as is shown by Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. [1] The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. The concept of survival of the fittest may seem outdated but it is still the defining order of nature. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. [1] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life., Literature.org", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02b", "score": 0.6706963777542114, "text": "You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production. British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.” He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2] [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010 [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01a", "score": 0.669098973274231, "text": "Animals don’t have human rights Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04b", "score": 0.668582022190094, "text": "Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro03b", "score": 0.6665412187576294, "text": "Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03a", "score": 0.662970781326294, "text": "Vegetarianism is healthier There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron. [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.6621791124343872, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.6621791124343872, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con04b", "score": 0.6614277362823486, "text": "This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01b", "score": 0.6548410058021545, "text": "Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro03b", "score": 0.6519877910614014, "text": "Superior human intellect and sentience only means that we should make sure we consider the moral ramifications of our actions, not that we should take any particular action as a result. It is entirely in keeping with this for us to conclude that human life and enjoyment are more important than animal life and species survival, and so for us to decide not to protect endangered species when this (as it by definition always will) infringes upon human benefits and enjoyment.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-international-apwhbaucmip-con01b", "score": 0.6518060564994812, "text": "While we know that so long as there has been recorded history there has been war, we do not know that war is a part of human nature. Indeed there is some evidence that it is not. Research by Abo Academy University has found that primitive societies – tribes that don’t rely on agriculture or domesticated animals – don’t have group conflicts; violence is almost exclusively between individuals. As these societies are a good analogue for society before what we term civilisation arose it is likely that war is a result of civilisation not human nature. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Primitive human society ‘not driven by war’’, 18 July 2013,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro02b", "score": 0.7469596862792969, "text": "What then is the interest of the animal? If releasing these animals into the wild would kill them then surely it is humane to put them down after the experiment. It must also be remembered that the interest of the animal is not the main and is outweighed by the benefits to humans. [5]" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.7062827348709106, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.7062827348709106, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7052720785140991, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7052720785140991, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con05b", "score": 0.7052447199821472, "text": "This logic assumes that one positive moral action can cancel out a negative moral action. That an animal is well treated before being involved in animal testing and its suffering during testing is kept to a minimum does not balance the very real suffering the animal experiences during the experiments themselves. Regulation would not be helpful in addressing this contradiction as the suffering during the experiments could never be eliminated as if we knew the effects the experiment will have on the animal the experiment would not be necessary in the first place.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.7047507762908936, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.7047507762908936, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.7045934200286865, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.7045934200286865, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04a", "score": 0.7036477327346802, "text": "Animal research is only used when it’s needed EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.703438401222229, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.703438401222229, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03b", "score": 0.7018964290618896, "text": "Most developed countries, including the United States and the member-states of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods would be just as effective. Further, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research; obtaining the training and expert advice required to comply with these laws is costly. As a result, academic institutions and medical or pharmaceutical businesses function under constant pressure to find viable alternatives to using animals in research. Researchers have a strong motive to use alternatives to animal models wherever possible. If we ban animal research even if research advances continue we will never know how much further and faster that research could have gone with the aid of experiments on animals. Animal research conducted today produces higher quality results than alternative research methodologies, and is thus it is likely necessary for it to remain in order for us to enjoy the rate of scientific advancement we have become used to in recent years. [1] Precisely because we never know where the next big breakthrough is going to come, we do not want to be narrowing research options. Instead, all options - computer models, tissue cultures, microdosing and animal experiments - should be explored, making it more likely that there will be a breakthrough. [1] Ator, N. A., “Conducting Behavioural Research”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 3.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con04b", "score": 0.6942593455314636, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con02b", "score": 0.6919116377830505, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro01b", "score": 0.6896635890007019, "text": "The evidence as to the amount of pain an animal feels is by no means clear. Many of the studies showing the animals suffer have been criticized for not carrying out the slaughter in the way prescribed by religious law. Moreover, other studies claim that cutting the throat in this way stops blood flow to the brain so rapidly that it has the same effect as a stun. Despite all the evidence that religious slaughter does cause pain, the opposition to this remains scientifically credible, and so we can’t base a government policy on one or the other.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con02a", "score": 0.6886152029037476, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro04a", "score": 0.6869881749153137, "text": "Most animals can suffer more than some people It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities. We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03a", "score": 0.6827241778373718, "text": "Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1] [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro05a", "score": 0.6737915873527527, "text": "Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7409588098526001, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at." } ]

[ { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03b", "score": 0.7030364871025085, "text": "Most developed countries, including the United States and the member-states of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods would be just as effective. Further, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research; obtaining the training and expert advice required to comply with these laws is costly. As a result, academic institutions and medical or pharmaceutical businesses function under constant pressure to find viable alternatives to using animals in research. Researchers have a strong motive to use alternatives to animal models wherever possible. If we ban animal research even if research advances continue we will never know how much further and faster that research could have gone with the aid of experiments on animals. Animal research conducted today produces higher quality results than alternative research methodologies, and is thus it is likely necessary for it to remain in order for us to enjoy the rate of scientific advancement we have become used to in recent years. [1] Precisely because we never know where the next big breakthrough is going to come, we do not want to be narrowing research options. Instead, all options - computer models, tissue cultures, microdosing and animal experiments - should be explored, making it more likely that there will be a breakthrough. [1] Ator, N. A., “Conducting Behavioural Research”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 3.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro02b", "score": 0.7018964886665344, "text": "The problem with this argument is that it prioritizes the enjoyment of some individuals over others with no real justification. The grey wolf, for example, went extinct in the Yellowstone region in the first place because humans considered it a pest and a threat to livestock and so hunted it to extinction. Clearly these people didn't enjoy the 'diversity' the grey wolf provided. We don't usually give something the force of law regarding animals just because some people enjoy it. For example, the UK has now banned fox hunting even though a great many people found it to be a source of pleasure and recreation. [1] If everyone desired the protection of all endangered species, there would be no need for this law, but the fact that a law is needed to restrain human action shows that not everyone 'enjoys' this biodiversity in the same way. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro02b", "score": 0.7017956376075745, "text": "Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1] [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con01b", "score": 0.7007154226303101, "text": "To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate. [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro01b", "score": 0.7002472877502441, "text": "Animals do not have such a right not to be harmed; even if they are similar to humans in terms of their feelings (that opposition does not concede) this right is impossible to argue for. The right of a human not to be harmed is a part of a quid pro quo that we will also not do harm to others. Animals are unable to engage in such a contract either to us or to other animals. Animals are not about to stop hunting other animals because the animal that is hunted feel’s pain when it is caught and it even if animal experimentation was to be ended it is unlikely that humanity would stop killing animals either for food, to prevent overpopulation or by accident all of which would have to be the case if animals feeling of pleasure and pain and resulting rights had to be taken into account.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro02b", "score": 0.6982064843177795, "text": "To worry about animal rights more than human rights is not sensible. When the two are compatible, this is a good thing, but in this case the ban would have the effect of forcing Jews and Muslims to choose between keeping their religion and eating meat. This is a more important concern than animal welfare: although eating meat is not an essential part of life, it is not reasonable to deny it to someone.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro04a", "score": 0.6972932815551758, "text": "Most animals can suffer more than some people It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities. We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro02b", "score": 0.6968963742256165, "text": "What then is the interest of the animal? If releasing these animals into the wild would kill them then surely it is humane to put them down after the experiment. It must also be remembered that the interest of the animal is not the main and is outweighed by the benefits to humans. [5]", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro02b", "score": 0.6968963742256165, "text": "What then is the interest of the animal? If releasing these animals into the wild would kill them then surely it is humane to put them down after the experiment. It must also be remembered that the interest of the animal is not the main and is outweighed by the benefits to humans. [5]", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-con01b", "score": 0.6958022117614746, "text": "In some countries, compliance rates have actually been high, proving that it is not a problem with the idea of having a ban but with the authorities themselves in different countries. In Scotland, for example, reports from 3 months after their smoking ban was introduced showed that about 99% of premises were following the law properly1. This shows that the opposition should not use the fact that a smoking ban might be difficult to enforce in some places in the initial stages of the law change as a reason not to introduce such a ban in the first place. Lots of laws are difficult to enforce, but still necessary in order to protect people. 1 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', The Scottish Government, 26 June 2006,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro04b", "score": 0.6954006552696228, "text": "To successfully remove such meat from the food chain, any ban would have to extend to importing such meat. Under this model, Jews and Muslims would literally be forced to become vegetarian – a radical and discriminatory suggestion which significantly breaches their rights. Consumers may very well want to be better informed about their meat. But labeling systems have been proposed which would address this concern without a ban. It also needs to be said that many non-religious abattoirs are also inhumane. To be fully ethical, any such labeling system would have to label all the animals where the stun didn’t work, and should also take account of the way the animals were raised and transported. Banning just religious slaughter is not a consistent moral position, and shouldn’t be government policy.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro04b", "score": 0.6935178637504578, "text": "The circus is where children first learn to love animals! The proposition is right to draw attention to issues of animal welfare but again, they do not need to take such an extremist approach. There is evidence that animals enjoy performing and can form close relationships with their trainers and with an audience. Closer scrutiny of circuses and better enforcement of animal welfare laws are desirable, but once those conditions are met the circus can be seen as a celebration of wild animals and the relationships they can form with animal-loving human beings. If the reality falls short of this ideal then reform is called for, not abolition. We need to strike a balance between human pleasure and animal welfare. The proposition's point of view is much too unbalanced. Putting the animal welfare case at its strongest, we should ban all sports in which animals are treated cruelly, or are at high risk of injury or death. None of the sports mentioned by the proposition here fall into that category. Anyone who works in horse- or dog-racing will tell you that it is in their interest to ensure that the animals are healthy and happy, or else they will not perform well. They will also tell you that most of these animals enjoy racing and enjoy winning. As for polo, horses are rarely injured; the risk of injury is acceptably low.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04a", "score": 0.693480372428894, "text": "Animal research is only used when it’s needed EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-law-ueegllghwhsl-con02b", "score": 0.6933579444885254, "text": "We criminalize behaviour when it is truly harmful. Especially when it is so harmful that it leads to someone losing her life. Eye rolling and gossip are not harmful enough to be criminal offences. Nor would they be under this law. What would become a criminal offence would be the sustained and prolonged torment of another person to the point of pushing her to committing suicide, whatever forms that torment takes, whether it’s gay slurs, or physical threats and insults. It has also long been established that there are limits to the freedom of speech or expression we enjoy, if that can result in the direct harm of others. For example, we don’t allow people to incite violence against others.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-law-tahglcphsld-con01b", "score": 0.6931718587875366, "text": "Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives. The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con02b", "score": 0.6916106939315796, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro03b", "score": 0.6913402676582336, "text": "Doing something democratically doesn’t make it right or fair. No matter how much you care about animal rights, you have no right to force other people to do the same. The fact that you disagree with them doesn’t make them wrong. We generally accept that the state may control what people do in order to protect society. This proposed ban goes beyond that remit, as religious slaughter of animals does not cause harm to other people. That being the case, it is unjust to stop them.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01b", "score": 0.6903127431869507, "text": "We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con03b", "score": 0.6901254653930664, "text": "When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15].", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con03b", "score": 0.6901254653930664, "text": "When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15].", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.7693054676055908, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing." } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b", "score": 0.7279964685440063, "text": "There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro04b", "score": 0.7244539856910706, "text": "Even if animals are able categorize images in photographs and learn sign language, they are still phenomenally less intelligent than human beings. They will never study philosophy or perform brain surgery or even invent a wheel. Furthermore, intelligence does not prove the ability to self-actualise. Mourning others does not prove that animals value their own lives. Perhaps it implies that animals enjoy company but whether they consider the value of their companion's life and their future potential is questionable. Without the ability to value one's own life, life itself ceases to be intrinsically valuable. The farming of animals does involve death but it is difficult to prove that death is intrinsically a harmful thing. Pain is certainly a harm for the living but animals are farmed are killed very quickly and they are stunned beforehand. Animals on farms do not know that they will be killed so there is no emotional harm caused by the anticipation of death. There is no evidence that the painless killing of animals should carry any moral weight.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01b", "score": 0.720991849899292, "text": "We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro04a", "score": 0.7200044393539429, "text": "Most animals can suffer more than some people It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities. We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro02a", "score": 0.709291934967041, "text": "We should treat animals well It is important to treat animals as kindly as we can. Not causing harm to others is among the basic human rights. Although these rights cannot be said to apply directly to animals, we should extend them a certain respect as living, sentient beings, and as a minimum we should avoid causing them unnecessary harm. [1] Moreover, taking animal welfare seriously will accustom us to considering the effects of our actions in other contexts, and help us be generally sensitive to cruelty. Inflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad thing. Many governments already have many policies aimed at preventing this. For example, in 2004 the UK passed a law banning hunting with dogs on the grounds that it is cruel. [2] The Council of Europe and through it the European Union already requires stunning, with an exception for religious practices. [3] Removing this exception is the best course for animal welfare. Killing animals for food may not be philosophically wrong – after all, many species do the same. But if we are going to do so, we should cause as little harm as possible in the process, and this requires using humane slaughter methods. [1] ‘Why Animal Rights?’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2013, [2] ‘Hunting and the law’, Gov.uk, 4 April 2013, [3] The Member States of the Council of Europe, ‘European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter’, Strasbourg, 10.V.1979,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con03b", "score": 0.7054182291030884, "text": "We clearly have direct duties to animals if we condemn the clubbing of baby seals and like activities. Furthermore, it is not enough simply to state what duties we do and don't have. There needs to be a reason why we do not have direct duties to animals. What distinguishes them from human beings that might answer this question? We would argue that there is nothing. Animals unlike other 'property' can suffer and feel pain and have an interest in living.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro01b", "score": 0.704835057258606, "text": "First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow. People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals. Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration. In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro03b", "score": 0.7039242386817932, "text": "“Specieism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.” [1] Conflating specieism with racism or sexism is fallacious because it fails to recognise that the former involves fundamental differences, whereas all people regardless of skin colour or gender are ‘human beings’. As animals are incapable of moral enquiry they can never acquire rights beyond those that humans choose to bestow on them. [1] C. Cohan (1986) The case of the use of animals in biomedical research, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 315, No 14.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro01b", "score": 0.7026687264442444, "text": "This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them? We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’. Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1] [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01a", "score": 0.7025360465049744, "text": "We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species. We have always been superior to animals. Just as a lion can kill antelope and a frog can kill insects, so too human beings have struggled their way to the top of the food chain. Why then can we not exercise the power we have earned? Animals exercise their power and we should do the same. It is our natural obligation to do so. The reason we have always killed animals is because we need them. We need meat to be healthy and we need to test medicines on animals to protect our own race. We use animals to further our own race. This too is surely a natural obligation.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro02b", "score": 0.7017063498497009, "text": "We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con04b", "score": 0.700707197189331, "text": "This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con05b", "score": 0.7005361914634705, "text": "Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con05b", "score": 0.7005361914634705, "text": "Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.700249969959259, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.700249969959259, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro01b", "score": 0.6973891258239746, "text": "The evidence as to the amount of pain an animal feels is by no means clear. Many of the studies showing the animals suffer have been criticized for not carrying out the slaughter in the way prescribed by religious law. Moreover, other studies claim that cutting the throat in this way stops blood flow to the brain so rapidly that it has the same effect as a stun. Despite all the evidence that religious slaughter does cause pain, the opposition to this remains scientifically credible, and so we can’t base a government policy on one or the other.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-environment-assghbansb-pro02a", "score": 0.6947203278541565, "text": "Harming animals for entertainment is immoral If a creature suffers then there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. All animals are sentient beings that experience joy, happiness, fear and pain, in the same way that human beings do. As Bentham previously noted, it does not matter that they cannot express this suffering in the same way as humans can (by speaking about it) or reason about their suffering in the same way -the important thing is that they can suffer in the first place. We can have no right whatsoever to make them suffer for our 'enjoyment'. If any torture inflicted to an animal deserves condemnation, bullfights are the worst kind of torture since they are performed solely in the name of entertainment. We must end the animals' torture and stop these shows of brutality and violence. It is too small a step from the intentional infliction of pain on an animal to the torture and killing of human beings.(5) Bullfights perpetuate the idea that injuring and killing an animal for amusement is acceptable, and that is not an idea which any state with any concern for animals, or for its human citizens, should wish to be prevalent. Part of the 'attraction' of bullfighting for crowds is witnessing death. Advocates of the practice make this into an argument for the practice. But, a desire to see death in front of one's own eye's amounts to bloodlust. Why should humans be accommodated in such a morbid pursuit? Eric Gallego, an animal rights protester, said in 2010: “Bullfighting is a bloody entertainment. We must stop this cruelty because we don’t want to be a barbaric society in Europe.”(6) This argument applies just as much to any other country in the world: why would we want to encourage people to enjoy pain and suffering, as we have laws which make causing pain and suffering illegal (both for humans and animals) in almost every other context? Bullfighting is therefore immoral, and encourages cruel and immoral behaviour in other areas, and so it should be banned.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con01a", "score": 0.6941367387771606, "text": "Animals' rights are of less moral worth than human rights Humans are complex beings with large well developed brains, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too express some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans. [1] Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good. [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Speciesism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro01a", "score": 0.6909217834472656, "text": "Animals are intrinsically worthy of rights because they are sentient Sentience is the property of being conscious. Sentience brings with it the ability to experience. There is a massive difference in the way that we treat sentient and non-sentient beings instinctively. We see nothing wrong with forming relationships with one’s pets but we tend to deem people with emotional relationships to objects mentally ill. Here we are talking about something more than sentimentality but rather the kind of relationship in which one is concerned with the other party’s emotional wellbeing. We even feel concerned about the wellbeing of sentient beings which whom we do not have a personal connection. For example we may feel upset when we see a dog run over on the road. This would be a very difficult reaction to how we might feel if we see an object crushed by a car. We feel moral outrage at the clubbing of seals. The instinctive way which we differentiate between these two categories relates to the type of value they have. Whilst objects have value because of how they affect us - e.g. they are useful or remind us of a good time or person – we believe that animals have intrinsic value. This means that a sentient being must never be treated as a means rather than an end in and of itself. Animals are sentient. Therefore, animals must not be treated as a means to an end but as intrinsically valuable.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.7771216034889221, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.7373473644256592, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.7373473644256592, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro02b", "score": 0.7344449758529663, "text": "Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1] [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro02a", "score": 0.7210193276405334, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con01b", "score": 0.7201650738716125, "text": "To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate. [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con03b", "score": 0.7190163135528564, "text": "When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15].", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con03b", "score": 0.7190163135528564, "text": "When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15].", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghhbampt-con01b", "score": 0.7184155583381653, "text": "This comes down to the ‘well it can’t hurt, can it’ approach to alternatives. There is simply no serious medic – or any other scientist for that matter who would suggest that it’s a good idea to ingest products that are of dubious origin and purport medical benefits without having been tested. In many cases these have been shown to be at least irrelevant and at worst actively harmful. Of course it is painful to deny treatment to a patient on the basis that the medication has yet to complete its trial stage but there is a reason for doing that in that it allows doctors to be 100 percent sure of a product before they’re prescribed.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con05b", "score": 0.7105442881584167, "text": "This logic assumes that one positive moral action can cancel out a negative moral action. That an animal is well treated before being involved in animal testing and its suffering during testing is kept to a minimum does not balance the very real suffering the animal experiences during the experiments themselves. Regulation would not be helpful in addressing this contradiction as the suffering during the experiments could never be eliminated as if we knew the effects the experiment will have on the animal the experiment would not be necessary in the first place.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-hgfhwbhc-pro01b", "score": 0.7055222392082214, "text": "Cloning is in this respect no different from any other new medical technology. Research is required on embryos in order to quantify and reduce the risk of the procedures. Embryo research is permitted in Britain until the fourteenth day of embryo development. Many other Western countries are also actively engaged in embryo research. The thousands of ‘spare’ embryos generated each year by IVF procedures and destroyed could be used to the good purpose of human cloning research. It should be noted that cloning has come a long way since dolly in 1997. In 2008 Japanese scientists managed to create clones from the bodies of mice which had been frozen for 16 years. [1] [1] BBC News, Scientists clone from frozen mice, , accessed 08/20/2011", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con05a", "score": 0.7015112638473511, "text": "Research animals are well treated Animals used in research generally don’t suffer. While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild. As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.6965771317481995, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.6965771317481995, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro04b", "score": 0.6947999000549316, "text": "We do not need to justify the moral value of severely cognitively disabled persons, although if we wanted to, we could invoke notions of kinship, and family as providing a justification for acting in an apparently specieist manner. [1] Rather, it is sufficient to highlight the point, that experimenting on humans of any cognitive function, carries with it certain negative externalities. Such persons are likely to have relatives who would be harmed by the knowledge that their loved ones are being used in medical experiments for example. Even in the case of such a person who lacks any relatives, broader society and disabled rights groups could be harmed by a policy that allows treating some disabled persons differently to the rest of our moral community. Such externalities would make experimenting on animals, rather than such persons, both preferable and morally consistent. [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.6898998618125916, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.6898998618125916, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghhbampt-con02b", "score": 0.6891231536865234, "text": "Absolutely nobody questions that many remedies can be drawn from nature- penicillin provides one example- but there is something of a jump that happens between chewing on a piece of bark and a regulated dose of a chemical. Let’s deal quickly with the cost of medications – the second pill may well ‘cost pennies’; the first one, by contrast, costs hundreds of millions of dollars in research. On the basis that there is probably more than one medicine in the world that procedure will need to be repeated. As for the idea that there are older or more traditional remedies and that these are still frequently used in much of the world, that is, indeed true. They are the same periods of history and parts of the planet were the bulk of humankind died – or continues to die – agonizing deaths from relatively commonplace diseases that modern medicine is able to cure with ‘a pill from a man in a white coat’. It is admittedly regrettable that more of the world isn’t covered by the protection science offers but that is scarcely the fault of science.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05a", "score": 0.6888939142227173, "text": "It would send out a consistent message Most countries have animal welfare laws to prevent animal cruelty but have laws like the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, [10] that stop animal testing being a crime. This makes means some people can do things to animals, but not others. If the government are serious about animal abuse, why allow anyone to do it?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01b", "score": 0.6863323450088501, "text": "We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro05a", "score": 0.6848821640014648, "text": "Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro04b", "score": 0.7852202653884888, "text": "The decision to test is not based upon the capacity to suffer. But it should be remembered that the individual being tested would not be the only one who suffers, for the intellectually disabled we must remember their families would suffer as well." } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01b", "score": 0.7447426915168762, "text": "We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro01b", "score": 0.7384830117225647, "text": "Animals do not have such a right not to be harmed; even if they are similar to humans in terms of their feelings (that opposition does not concede) this right is impossible to argue for. The right of a human not to be harmed is a part of a quid pro quo that we will also not do harm to others. Animals are unable to engage in such a contract either to us or to other animals. Animals are not about to stop hunting other animals because the animal that is hunted feel’s pain when it is caught and it even if animal experimentation was to be ended it is unlikely that humanity would stop killing animals either for food, to prevent overpopulation or by accident all of which would have to be the case if animals feeling of pleasure and pain and resulting rights had to be taken into account.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con03b", "score": 0.7372158765792847, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.73247230052948, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.73247230052948, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con02b", "score": 0.7306851148605347, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con02b", "score": 0.7306433916091919, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con02b", "score": 0.7306433916091919, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro04b", "score": 0.7285274863243103, "text": "Even if animals are able categorize images in photographs and learn sign language, they are still phenomenally less intelligent than human beings. They will never study philosophy or perform brain surgery or even invent a wheel. Furthermore, intelligence does not prove the ability to self-actualise. Mourning others does not prove that animals value their own lives. Perhaps it implies that animals enjoy company but whether they consider the value of their companion's life and their future potential is questionable. Without the ability to value one's own life, life itself ceases to be intrinsically valuable. The farming of animals does involve death but it is difficult to prove that death is intrinsically a harmful thing. Pain is certainly a harm for the living but animals are farmed are killed very quickly and they are stunned beforehand. Animals on farms do not know that they will be killed so there is no emotional harm caused by the anticipation of death. There is no evidence that the painless killing of animals should carry any moral weight.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con02b", "score": 0.7245512008666992, "text": "There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con04b", "score": 0.7241004705429077, "text": "This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01a", "score": 0.723374605178833, "text": "Animals don’t have human rights Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro01a", "score": 0.7200211882591248, "text": "Animals shouldn’t be harmed The difference between us and other animals is a matter of degree rather than type [2]. Their bodies resemble ours, as do their ways of conveying meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. We believe other people experience feelings like us because they are like us in appearance and behaviour. An animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If people have a right to not be harmed, we must ask ourselves what makes animals different? If animals feel what we feel, and suffer like us, to condemn one to testing because of them being of a different species is similar to racism or sexism.[3]", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-law-lgplhbssbco-con03b", "score": 0.7198600172996521, "text": "The fact of suffering is what makes it impossible to consider suicide a legitimate choice. Someone under the duress of intense pain and/or discomfort is not going to be able to make a fully voluntary and informed choice to end their life.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-religion-frghbbgi-pro02b", "score": 0.7196800112724304, "text": "Most suffering and pain can be accounted for by the free will that humans exercise; God made us free and we use that freedom for evil as well as for good. As for illness and disease, it is hard for us to know the mind of God, but it may be that these trials are a necessary part of a world in which free and spiritual human beings can evolve and develop.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro04a", "score": 0.713749885559082, "text": "Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights. We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights. First of all, animals have an equal capacity to experience pain. While we are unable to know exactly what other humans or animals are experiencing, we can make inference from what we observe. According to Peter Singer: “Nearly all the signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...The behavioural signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on”. [1] In addition we know that animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in a circumstance in which we would feel pain—an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than basic impulses, emotions, and feelings. These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds.” Animals therefore have the capacity for physical and emotional suffering, and so should be granted rights. [1] Singer, Peter. \"All Animals are Equal.\" Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7124044299125671, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7124044299125671, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con03b", "score": 0.712196946144104, "text": "When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15].", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con03b", "score": 0.712196946144104, "text": "When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15].", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con02b", "score": 0.7602090835571289, "text": "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." } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.7217817902565002, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.7217817902565002, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con04b", "score": 0.7041338086128235, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.6999439001083374, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.6999439001083374, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-pro01b", "score": 0.6926486492156982, "text": "It is not the case that this is a policy with no harms other than to the person with a terminal illness (see opposition arguments). Second, it seems unreasonable to suggest people are making a free and informed choice in this instance: no-one has sufficient information for taking the drug to represent anything but a gamble; this is why there is a need for tests.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04a", "score": 0.6924586296081543, "text": "Animal research is only used when it’s needed EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro04a", "score": 0.6892784237861633, "text": "Most animals can suffer more than some people It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities. We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-con03b", "score": 0.6882809996604919, "text": "There is no reason why, under this model, you could not retain suitable precautions to ensure that this doesn’t happen. For example, you could continue the obligation for companies to sell the drug at cost (they would, naturally, continue to be incentivised by the huge profits they expect to make when the drug is licensed). Further, you could impose financial sanctions on companies that refused to take appropriate action towards completing testing.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro02a", "score": 0.6881189346313477, "text": "Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved The point of animal research is that animals are harmed. Even if they don’t suffer in the experiment, almost all are killed afterwards. With 115 million animals used a year this is a big problem. Releasing medical research animals in to the wild would be dangerous for them, and they would not be usable as pets. [4]. The only solution is that they are wild from birth. It is obvious that it’s not in the interest of animals to be killed or harmed. Research should be banned in order to prevent the deaths of millions of animals.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro02b", "score": 0.6839377880096436, "text": "Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1] [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-pro03b", "score": 0.6838107705116272, "text": "First, note that the reason for the existence of the placebo arm is to determine if the drug is more effective than placebo, so in some cases the drug will not be, and nothing will have been lost! Second, for this point to stand, it has to be shown why the present generation should be prioritised above all future ones: the consequences of giving the present patients a slightly increased chance of survival is to negatively impact patients in the future in a myriad ways (see opposition arguments). Third, there are a number of reasons to doubt that this is, in fact in the present patient’s best interest: it is not the case that terminally ill people have ‘nothing to lose’ and can therefore be used as human guinea pigs (providing there is an, as yet unspecified, probability of survival). The large-scale provision of un-trialled drugs may well result in side-effects denigrating the quality of the patient’s remaining years. Finally, the practical consequence considered can be sidestepped through a) better supervision of trials and b) improved doctor-patient relationships (a particular problem during the AIDS crisis). Further, note that the case of AIDS is something of an anomalous one: AIDS patients were more numerous and politicised than any other group before or since, thus enabling this sort of trial-breaking behaviour.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-pro02b", "score": 0.6818444728851318, "text": "It is not cruel if it can be shown that this restriction is in the patient’s own interest. The status quo prevents patients from living out their last days on a stream of experimental drugs. We prevent drug companies from using them as risk-free testing (under your policy drug companies would presumably be able to shrug off any responsibility for adverse consequences by saying that it was the patient’s choice to try an experimental drug), and allow them instead to receive the appropriate support for someone at the end of their life, and come to terms with that. Further, it is important to remember that drugs at this stage are not necessarily miracle cures! If someone is refused access to a trial this is normally to reduce the risk of adverse consequences: it is wrong to give someone an experimental drug that could negatively impact the quality of their final days.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03a", "score": 0.6798160076141357, "text": "Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1] [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con05a", "score": 0.6779924631118774, "text": "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. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 1.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-con02a", "score": 0.6756582856178284, "text": "This gives people false hope If these drugs are made available, you risk giving many people false hope in the last days of their lives. People, particularly when in desperate situations, tend to overestimate a treatment’s efficacy. Given that these treatments are still undergoing the trial process, it is possible that they are ineffective, or have side-effects that outweigh any benefits. Thus, to allow such drugs and treatments to be handed out during the testing process, there is a great risk of giving people false hope. This is especially the case given the compromised role of the physician in this scenario: ordinarily, if a patient wants an experimental drug, they can have a discussion with their physician that stresses the ‘in trial’ nature of the drug, and thus the uncertainty of it working. Subsequent experiences (the inconveniences of trials; filling in forms and receiving expenses) reinforce the idea that these drugs were experimental, and that the bulk of the benefit from the trial accrues for future patients. Consequently, in that scenario it is easier for the physician to help the patient to come to terms with the end of life; to deal with this and to realise that any trial drugs give only a slim chance of improvement. In the scenario envisaged by this proposition, experimental drugs can be acquired as easily as licensed ones, and therefore there is no longer that clear distinction for the patient between ‘doing all you can’ in the ordinary sense, (trying every treatment that is known to be effective) and trying ‘one more (experimental) drug’. Therefore, the patient is less likely to be able to come to terms with their own condition, and therefore less likely to be able to deal with the emotional trauma inflicted not only upon them, but on close family and loved ones.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.6752674579620361, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.6752674579620361, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro02a", "score": 0.6742998957633972, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-con02b", "score": 0.6736873984336853, "text": "Doctors are trained in the presentation of news to their patients. This includes the delivery of bad news, and the dispelling of media-myths. Patients with terminal illnesses are often well-informed about their disease, and (in particular those with chronic conditions) often gain a good understanding of the possibilities of future treatments. The risk that they may all get carried away on a wave of false hope is, consequently, minimal. Patients in this circumstance are more than capable of reaching, in conjunction with their physician, an informed decision regarding experimental drugs, and make a choice accordingly. The moderate risk of someone making an error in no way outweighs the chance of giving someone some more time with their family. Countries that already allow access to treatments that have not completed trials do not just allow the doctor to simply proscribe the drug as with any other. Rather the doctor will need to apply for access to the drug.1 In addition the drugs company will also have to give its approval.2 As a result it is unlikely that the patient will consider this the same way as they do normal drugs. 1 ‘Special Access Programme – Drugs’, Health Canada, 15 August 2005, 2 ‘Compassionate Use of Unapproved Investigational Product’, Pfizer,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con05b", "score": 0.7760164737701416, "text": "Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment." } ]

[ { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro01b", "score": 0.7283747792243958, "text": "Animals do not have such a right not to be harmed; even if they are similar to humans in terms of their feelings (that opposition does not concede) this right is impossible to argue for. The right of a human not to be harmed is a part of a quid pro quo that we will also not do harm to others. Animals are unable to engage in such a contract either to us or to other animals. Animals are not about to stop hunting other animals because the animal that is hunted feel’s pain when it is caught and it even if animal experimentation was to be ended it is unlikely that humanity would stop killing animals either for food, to prevent overpopulation or by accident all of which would have to be the case if animals feeling of pleasure and pain and resulting rights had to be taken into account.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7261536717414856, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7261536717414856, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01b", "score": 0.7252534031867981, "text": "We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04a", "score": 0.722577691078186, "text": "Animal research is only used when it’s needed EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con03b", "score": 0.7217143177986145, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro04a", "score": 0.717900276184082, "text": "Some groups of people have less capacity for suffering than most animals It is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess interests. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments. We can take three possible stances toward such persons within this debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. This would be a morally inconsistent and specieist stance to adopt, and as such unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely disabled, and so this stance seems equally unsatisfactory. Finally we could maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting experimentation upon animals. [1] [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03a", "score": 0.7156264185905457, "text": "Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1] [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro05a", "score": 0.7153932452201843, "text": "Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con01a", "score": 0.714026927947998, "text": "Animals' rights are of less moral worth than human rights Humans are complex beings with large well developed brains, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too express some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans. [1] Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good. [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Speciesism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro04b", "score": 0.7140212059020996, "text": "Even if animals are able categorize images in photographs and learn sign language, they are still phenomenally less intelligent than human beings. They will never study philosophy or perform brain surgery or even invent a wheel. Furthermore, intelligence does not prove the ability to self-actualise. Mourning others does not prove that animals value their own lives. Perhaps it implies that animals enjoy company but whether they consider the value of their companion's life and their future potential is questionable. Without the ability to value one's own life, life itself ceases to be intrinsically valuable. The farming of animals does involve death but it is difficult to prove that death is intrinsically a harmful thing. Pain is certainly a harm for the living but animals are farmed are killed very quickly and they are stunned beforehand. Animals on farms do not know that they will be killed so there is no emotional harm caused by the anticipation of death. There is no evidence that the painless killing of animals should carry any moral weight.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro04b", "score": 0.7114475965499878, "text": "We do not need to justify the moral value of severely cognitively disabled persons, although if we wanted to, we could invoke notions of kinship, and family as providing a justification for acting in an apparently specieist manner. [1] Rather, it is sufficient to highlight the point, that experimenting on humans of any cognitive function, carries with it certain negative externalities. Such persons are likely to have relatives who would be harmed by the knowledge that their loved ones are being used in medical experiments for example. Even in the case of such a person who lacks any relatives, broader society and disabled rights groups could be harmed by a policy that allows treating some disabled persons differently to the rest of our moral community. Such externalities would make experimenting on animals, rather than such persons, both preferable and morally consistent. [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.7099705934524536, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.7099705934524536, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01a", "score": 0.7082191109657288, "text": "Animals don’t have human rights Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con02b", "score": 0.7072585821151733, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con02b", "score": 0.7072585821151733, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b", "score": 0.7069694995880127, "text": "There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro05a", "score": 0.705609142780304, "text": "Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro01b", "score": 0.7042778134346008, "text": "The evidence as to the amount of pain an animal feels is by no means clear. Many of the studies showing the animals suffer have been criticized for not carrying out the slaughter in the way prescribed by religious law. Moreover, other studies claim that cutting the throat in this way stops blood flow to the brain so rapidly that it has the same effect as a stun. Despite all the evidence that religious slaughter does cause pain, the opposition to this remains scientifically credible, and so we can’t base a government policy on one or the other.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.813042938709259, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort." } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.7452212572097778, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.7452212572097778, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03b", "score": 0.7416783571243286, "text": "Most developed countries, including the United States and the member-states of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods would be just as effective. Further, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research; obtaining the training and expert advice required to comply with these laws is costly. As a result, academic institutions and medical or pharmaceutical businesses function under constant pressure to find viable alternatives to using animals in research. Researchers have a strong motive to use alternatives to animal models wherever possible. If we ban animal research even if research advances continue we will never know how much further and faster that research could have gone with the aid of experiments on animals. Animal research conducted today produces higher quality results than alternative research methodologies, and is thus it is likely necessary for it to remain in order for us to enjoy the rate of scientific advancement we have become used to in recent years. [1] Precisely because we never know where the next big breakthrough is going to come, we do not want to be narrowing research options. Instead, all options - computer models, tissue cultures, microdosing and animal experiments - should be explored, making it more likely that there will be a breakthrough. [1] Ator, N. A., “Conducting Behavioural Research”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 3.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro03a", "score": 0.7403450012207031, "text": "It isn’t necessary We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful. The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7]", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con05b", "score": 0.7309355735778809, "text": "Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con05b", "score": 0.7309355735778809, "text": "Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con05a", "score": 0.7230157852172852, "text": "Research animals are well treated Animals used in research generally don’t suffer. While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild. As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con02b", "score": 0.7210513949394226, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con03b", "score": 0.7168135643005371, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con03a", "score": 0.7115611433982849, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con02b", "score": 0.7091529369354248, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con02b", "score": 0.7091529369354248, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03a", "score": 0.7057440280914307, "text": "Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1] [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro02a", "score": 0.704071581363678, "text": "Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved The point of animal research is that animals are harmed. Even if they don’t suffer in the experiment, almost all are killed afterwards. With 115 million animals used a year this is a big problem. Releasing medical research animals in to the wild would be dangerous for them, and they would not be usable as pets. [4]. The only solution is that they are wild from birth. It is obvious that it’s not in the interest of animals to be killed or harmed. Research should be banned in order to prevent the deaths of millions of animals.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con05b", "score": 0.7033006548881531, "text": "This logic assumes that one positive moral action can cancel out a negative moral action. That an animal is well treated before being involved in animal testing and its suffering during testing is kept to a minimum does not balance the very real suffering the animal experiences during the experiments themselves. Regulation would not be helpful in addressing this contradiction as the suffering during the experiments could never be eliminated as if we knew the effects the experiment will have on the animal the experiment would not be necessary in the first place.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro02a", "score": 0.7017626762390137, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro02b", "score": 0.6982489228248596, "text": "Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1] [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05a", "score": 0.6938409209251404, "text": "It would send out a consistent message Most countries have animal welfare laws to prevent animal cruelty but have laws like the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, [10] that stop animal testing being a crime. This makes means some people can do things to animals, but not others. If the government are serious about animal abuse, why allow anyone to do it?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con02a", "score": 0.6921326518058777, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con03a", "score": 0.6919360160827637, "text": "Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances Undoubtedly then, the most beneficial research to mankind is the development of truly novel drugs. Even according to the proposition this represents about a quarter of all new drugs released, which could be seen as significant given the great potential to relieve the suffering beyond our current capacity that such drugs promise. After the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial - tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trials. Novel compounds (as opposed to so-called \"me-too\" drugs, that make slight changes to an existing treatment) are the substances that hold the most promise for improving human lives and treating previously incurable conditions. However, their novelty is also the reason why it is difficult for scientists to predict whether they may cause harm to humans. Research into novel compounds would not be possible without either animal testing, or tremendous risk to human subjects, with inevitable suffering and death on the part of the trial volunteers on some occasions. It is difficult to believe that in such circumstances anyone would volunteer, and that even if they did, pharmaceutical companies would be willing to risk the potential legal consequences of administering a substance to them they knew relatively little about. In short, development of novel drugs requires animal experimentation, and would be impossible under the proposition's policy.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con03b", "score": 0.8052392601966858, "text": "When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15]." } ]

[ { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con03b", "score": 0.7648212909698486, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con02b", "score": 0.7580510973930359, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.7377211451530457, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.7377211451530457, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04a", "score": 0.7113634943962097, "text": "Animal research is only used when it’s needed EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con05b", "score": 0.7062936425209045, "text": "Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con05b", "score": 0.7062936425209045, "text": "Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03a", "score": 0.7056774497032166, "text": "Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1] [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con04b", "score": 0.6946113705635071, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghhbampt-con01b", "score": 0.6883702278137207, "text": "This comes down to the ‘well it can’t hurt, can it’ approach to alternatives. There is simply no serious medic – or any other scientist for that matter who would suggest that it’s a good idea to ingest products that are of dubious origin and purport medical benefits without having been tested. In many cases these have been shown to be at least irrelevant and at worst actively harmful. Of course it is painful to deny treatment to a patient on the basis that the medication has yet to complete its trial stage but there is a reason for doing that in that it allows doctors to be 100 percent sure of a product before they’re prescribed.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-health-dhgamvs-pro04b", "score": 0.6844364404678345, "text": "The problem with current testing is that, while they provide some control groups usually those with rare reactions are not included in trials (because it may represent even less than 1 % of the population in a country). So even though there is deliberate screening for rare reactions, it is very likely that such events do not even get detected. The policy is that if serious reactions are found when the vaccine is in widespread use, the vaccine may be withdrawn. But by then it has made already damage and endangered human lives. Further on, due to ethical concerns vaccine trials may deliberately exclude members of high risk groups and so prevent conclusive consequences for those groups. So while vaccines may be safe for the general population, they represent a high risk for parts of the population for which trials have not been done due to different reasons. [1] [1] Why it is important to monitor vaccine safety, Center for disease control and Prevention, , accessed 07/10/2011", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.6817096471786499, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.6817096471786499, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.6809992790222168, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.6809992790222168, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-education-egscphsrdt-pro03a", "score": 0.6789420247077942, "text": "No harm to non-drug users Random drug tests will pose no harm to students who do not use illegal drugs, as they have nothing to fear from this fact being certified. If anything it serves as a vindication of their law-abidance and good character. Random drug tests will only catch those who are actively taking drugs, as tests can be used which are unlikely to make a 'positive' reading from secondary exposure (for example, being near someone else smoking cannabis). Those actively taking drugs need help in getting off drugs far more urgently than they need their right to 'privacy', as addiction at a young age could have a significant negative impact upon the remainder of their time in education. Therefore, non-drug users have nothing to fear from testing. As a result random checks are in the best interests of drug users.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con02a", "score": 0.6752400398254395, "text": "People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy 23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone . [1] . While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered. New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case. [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-con02a", "score": 0.6693522334098816, "text": "This gives people false hope If these drugs are made available, you risk giving many people false hope in the last days of their lives. People, particularly when in desperate situations, tend to overestimate a treatment’s efficacy. Given that these treatments are still undergoing the trial process, it is possible that they are ineffective, or have side-effects that outweigh any benefits. Thus, to allow such drugs and treatments to be handed out during the testing process, there is a great risk of giving people false hope. This is especially the case given the compromised role of the physician in this scenario: ordinarily, if a patient wants an experimental drug, they can have a discussion with their physician that stresses the ‘in trial’ nature of the drug, and thus the uncertainty of it working. Subsequent experiences (the inconveniences of trials; filling in forms and receiving expenses) reinforce the idea that these drugs were experimental, and that the bulk of the benefit from the trial accrues for future patients. Consequently, in that scenario it is easier for the physician to help the patient to come to terms with the end of life; to deal with this and to realise that any trial drugs give only a slim chance of improvement. In the scenario envisaged by this proposition, experimental drugs can be acquired as easily as licensed ones, and therefore there is no longer that clear distinction for the patient between ‘doing all you can’ in the ordinary sense, (trying every treatment that is known to be effective) and trying ‘one more (experimental) drug’. Therefore, the patient is less likely to be able to come to terms with their own condition, and therefore less likely to be able to deal with the emotional trauma inflicted not only upon them, but on close family and loved ones.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-pro03b", "score": 0.6676101088523865, "text": "First, note that the reason for the existence of the placebo arm is to determine if the drug is more effective than placebo, so in some cases the drug will not be, and nothing will have been lost! Second, for this point to stand, it has to be shown why the present generation should be prioritised above all future ones: the consequences of giving the present patients a slightly increased chance of survival is to negatively impact patients in the future in a myriad ways (see opposition arguments). Third, there are a number of reasons to doubt that this is, in fact in the present patient’s best interest: it is not the case that terminally ill people have ‘nothing to lose’ and can therefore be used as human guinea pigs (providing there is an, as yet unspecified, probability of survival). The large-scale provision of un-trialled drugs may well result in side-effects denigrating the quality of the patient’s remaining years. Finally, the practical consequence considered can be sidestepped through a) better supervision of trials and b) improved doctor-patient relationships (a particular problem during the AIDS crisis). Further, note that the case of AIDS is something of an anomalous one: AIDS patients were more numerous and politicised than any other group before or since, thus enabling this sort of trial-breaking behaviour.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-education-egscphsrdt-pro02b", "score": 0.6645654439926147, "text": "None of these benefits apply if the peer pressure simply switches to harder drugs which are harder to test for or less likely to be tested for. Moreover, peer pressure can exist outside of schools, and amongst older teenagers who have the choice to vary their attendance of sixth forms, FE colleges or senior high schools. Random drug testing could lead to older children being pressured to cut classes for prolonged periods of time, in order to take drugs, in order to be thought of as cool. Teenagers are also notorious for believing that “nothing bad can happen to me”, even if that bad thing becomes more likely (such as being caught with a random drugs test). This is demonstrated by the fact that many teenagers already engage in illegal drug use despite the reasonably high chances that an adult will see them using drugs, smell smoke or notice the drug's effects on them in the status quo. [1] [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.7618677020072937, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro04a", "score": 0.7226923108100891, "text": "Most animals can suffer more than some people It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities. We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01a", "score": 0.7214028835296631, "text": "It is immoral to kill animals As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food. Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself. [1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008 [2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-international-glhrilpws-con02b", "score": 0.7211219072341919, "text": "Although there are some subjective elements of rights, there is generally a consensus amongst most people that fundamental human rights, such as being alive, are universally good. Although we should not impede sovereignty for subjective things, genocide, ethnic cleansing and other systematic abuses of human rights are things that are universal and thus should be protected for all people around the world.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro03a", "score": 0.720859944820404, "text": "Treating animals as property prevents them from being perceived as part of the moral community As long as animals are treated as property, their interests will always be subsidiary to the interests of their owners. To treat animals as property simply because they are not human is specieism [1] and no different to discrimination on race or gender. [2] For humans, not being a slave is the practical prerequisite of all other rights. So too must it be for animals. Making the treatment of animals more ‘humane’ is an inadequate solution because it does not change the fundamental problem of exploitation. [1] BBC Ethics guide, ‘The ethics of speciesism’ [2] Gary Francione, ‘The animal rights debate: abolition or regulation?’ p.22", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro04b", "score": 0.7182440757751465, "text": "We do not need to justify the moral value of severely cognitively disabled persons, although if we wanted to, we could invoke notions of kinship, and family as providing a justification for acting in an apparently specieist manner. [1] Rather, it is sufficient to highlight the point, that experimenting on humans of any cognitive function, carries with it certain negative externalities. Such persons are likely to have relatives who would be harmed by the knowledge that their loved ones are being used in medical experiments for example. Even in the case of such a person who lacks any relatives, broader society and disabled rights groups could be harmed by a policy that allows treating some disabled persons differently to the rest of our moral community. Such externalities would make experimenting on animals, rather than such persons, both preferable and morally consistent. [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con03a", "score": 0.717400074005127, "text": "We only have indirect duties to animals Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant argue that we only have indirect duties towards animals. This means that we may not treat animals in such a manner that our actions are in conflict with our duties towards human beings. A human has no duty towards a dog not to kick it but a human has a duty towards the dog's owner not to damage his property. Pigs and cows are not loved by any human being so we cause no harm when we kill and eat them. Though the farmer may have owned the cow before, the beef becomes our possession when we purchase it. Wild animals are not owned by any human being so we may do to them what we wish. Some people argue that cruelty towards animals can lead to cruelty towards humans but there is no evidence that people who work in slaughterhouses are more violent towards other people. In fact, there seems little connection at all between how people treat animals and humans. A slave driver may adore and pamper his dog but beat and kill his slaves. If we have no direct duties to animals how can we grant them legal protection in the form of rights? The law should only prevent us harming animals when that clearly harms other people. For example, by killing a dog we infringe another person's human right to property.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-iilepphbf-pro01b", "score": 0.7155894637107849, "text": "Not all 'human rights' are necessary for existence. The so-called 'right to free speech' and 'right to liberty' can both be removed from a person forcibly without ending their existence, and so cannot be justified on the basis of a 'universal drive to survive'.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01b", "score": 0.7136202454566956, "text": "The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident. By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered. When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right. Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others. Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty? If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con04a", "score": 0.7093178629875183, "text": "Animals have no interests or rationality Some philosophers argue that only beings that are able to make rational choices can have moral rights because the function of rights is to protect choice. Animals are not able to make rational choices because they can only follow instinct, they cannot follow logic. Some philosophers believe that the function of rights is to protect interests. An argument from R.G. Frey argues that animals do not have interests because they do not have language. In order to desire something one must believe that one does not currently have that something and therefore believe that the statement ‘I have x’ is false. One cannot have such a belief unless one knows how language connects to the world. Animals can’t talk so they certainly are unable to know what it is that the sentence ‘I have x’ means in the real world. Therefore animals cannot have desires. Without desires animals cannot have interests. If the function of rights is to protect interests then animal rights serve no purpose. [1] [1] Frey, R,G. \"Rights, Interests, Desires and Beliefs.\" Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-iilepphbf-con02b", "score": 0.7088598608970642, "text": "It is possible to establish a hierarchy of rights whereby only the most important are the 'fundamental' human rights. The fulfilment of the needs we all cannot live without, such as food, shelter and security of person, should be given the greatest priority, as they are all equally necessary for life, and need not be balanced against each other as they are all equally necessary.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con05a", "score": 0.7080098986625671, "text": "Research animals are well treated Animals used in research generally don’t suffer. While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild. As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-con02b", "score": 0.7066521644592285, "text": "If animal suffering is equal to human suffering then the benefits of exploiting animals in this way are only appropriate if it would also be appropriate to use a mentally disabled human in the same way.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7038054466247559, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7038054466247559, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro02a", "score": 0.7037678360939026, "text": "We should treat animals well It is important to treat animals as kindly as we can. Not causing harm to others is among the basic human rights. Although these rights cannot be said to apply directly to animals, we should extend them a certain respect as living, sentient beings, and as a minimum we should avoid causing them unnecessary harm. [1] Moreover, taking animal welfare seriously will accustom us to considering the effects of our actions in other contexts, and help us be generally sensitive to cruelty. Inflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad thing. Many governments already have many policies aimed at preventing this. For example, in 2004 the UK passed a law banning hunting with dogs on the grounds that it is cruel. [2] The Council of Europe and through it the European Union already requires stunning, with an exception for religious practices. [3] Removing this exception is the best course for animal welfare. Killing animals for food may not be philosophically wrong – after all, many species do the same. But if we are going to do so, we should cause as little harm as possible in the process, and this requires using humane slaughter methods. [1] ‘Why Animal Rights?’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2013, [2] ‘Hunting and the law’, Gov.uk, 4 April 2013, [3] The Member States of the Council of Europe, ‘European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter’, Strasbourg, 10.V.1979,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro05b", "score": 0.7036153078079224, "text": "We do not have to justify cock fighting and other acts of animal cruelty as morally permissible. These are different acts to animal research in an important respect. It is not the intention of the researchers to harm the animals, but rather to produce high quality research for the betterment of human lives. Whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible, with pain killers, anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. There are many exceptions in law which maintain moral consistency due to the intention behind the act. For example, killing someone for money would be murder and illegal, whilst an exception might be made if you were killing in war, or self-defence, as the intention behind the act is held to be both different and morally just.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro05a", "score": 0.702806830406189, "text": "Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro01b", "score": 0.6991049647331238, "text": "There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Arguments from pro-life groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated. [1] If they had been treated for depression as well as pain they may not have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral. [1] Herbert Hendin, M.D., Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients, and Assisted Suicide (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998): 34-35. (accessed 4/6/2011)", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-con02b", "score": 0.697303831577301, "text": "Being a human right does not prevent commoditization going alongside this. Everyone has a right to own property, as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, but it is accepted that property is also valuable in a commercial sense. Or more generally everyone has a right to shelter and this means that governments provide council housing and shelters for the homeless at the same time as houses often having very high prices. The human right is for a very basic level while those who wish can pay for more.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con02b", "score": 0.6971853375434875, "text": "Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1] [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.766622006893158, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04a", "score": 0.7255520224571228, "text": "Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves. Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers. [1] Forsyth, C. & Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162 [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con03a", "score": 0.707710325717926, "text": "Legalising the trade of horns, ivory, furs and pelts would be more effective Making it legal for hunters to kill these endangered animals, rather than protecting them, could prevent extinction. The protected status of endangered animals has made their pelts, horns and tusks more expensive as they are harder to obtain. [1] The current illegality of trading rhino horns has constrained supply in comparison to demand in Asia. This has driven the price of the horn to around £84,000. Softening protection for endangered animals could, in theory, reduce the price to a point where it is no longer profitable to hunt these endangered animals. [2] This would potentially increase supply by freeing up that seized by governments which is currently destroyed, and could potentially involve farming as South Africa is considering with Rhino horn. [3] [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’ [3] Molewa, E., ‘Statement on Rhino poaching intervention’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro04a", "score": 0.6943438053131104, "text": "Poaching is linked to terrorism Stronger protection of animals should be implemented to reduce the funding for terrorist groups. Certain terrorist organisations use the illegal ivory and horn trade as funding for their operations. Al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the Sudanese Janjaweed all use the illicit trade as a source of income, with the former using the trade for 40% of its expenditure. [1] This enables them to carry out attacks such as the 2013 Westgate siege in Kenya. [2] Tougher protection of endangered animals would reduce the ability of these groups to fund themselves. In turn, this would decrease their operational capability, increasing stability in Africa. [1] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [2] Tackett,C. ‘How elephant poaching helped fund Kenya terrorist attack’", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con01b", "score": 0.6893652677536011, "text": "There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con01b", "score": 0.6891627311706543, "text": "There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro04b", "score": 0.6769459247589111, "text": "Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security. [1] [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro04b", "score": 0.6767359375953674, "text": "Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security. [1] [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.6756008863449097, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.6753159761428833, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro05a", "score": 0.6683354377746582, "text": "The justice system does not currently work A major failing in current anti-poaching operations is that the poachers are rarely prosecuted. African legal systems rarely prioritise poaching as a serious crime, with offenders usually receiving trivial fines1. One of the major reasons for the Western black rhinoceros’ extinction in 2011 was the complete lack of sentencing for any of the poachers who were captured. [1] The system also fails to prosecute the brains behind many of the operations due to poor investigative methods. This creates an impression in the minds of the poachers that they can operate with impunity. [2] [1] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con03b", "score": 0.6544851064682007, "text": "There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction. [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con03b", "score": 0.6544586420059204, "text": "There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction. [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con02b", "score": 0.6463673710823059, "text": "Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1] [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con02b", "score": 0.646327018737793, "text": "Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1] [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-free-speech-debate-ifcidffe-con04a", "score": 0.6394942402839661, "text": "The inability to use advanced technologies merely forces non-democracies to utilize more unsavoury methods to achieve their aims If it is the aim of an undemocratic regime to use advanced surveillance technology to gather intelligence on, and ultimately crush, dissent it will find other means of doing so. Their calculus of survival is not changed, only their available methods. Their first port of call will be the more advanced non-democracies that might be able to supply comparable surveillance equipment. China’s military and surveillance technology is fast catching up to that of the West, and makes an appealing alternative source for equipment. [1] The only difference is that the Chinese have no compunction at all about how the technology is used, meaning worse outcomes for pro-democracy groups who run afoul of them. When this strategy fails regimes can turn to the tried and tested models of past decades, using physical force and other less technological modes of coercion to cow dissent. Again, this form of repression is quite effective, but it is also much more painful to those on the receiving end. Given the options, democracies supplying surveillance technology may be the best option for dissidents in undemocratic countries. [1] Walton, G. “China’s Golden Shield: Corporations and the Development of Surveillance Technology in the People’s Republic of China”. International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. 2001.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-international-apdwhbpa-con03a", "score": 0.6357762217521667, "text": "Mercenaries are still hired by NGOs Non-Governmental organisations struggle to operate in conflict zones, and still hire mercenaries to protect them. Extractive industries also require security for their installations and operations in unstable regions25. The massacre of 74 civilians at a Chinese oil field in Ethiopia in 2007 and the 2013 Amenas siege demonstrate the continued need for security, which mercenaries can provide. Charities have employed mercenaries in the past to ensure better security. In 2002, mercenaries were hired by the African Rainforest and Rivers Conservation Organisation to seek out elephant poachers who they could not pursue themselves26. 25) Avant,D. ‘Mercenaries’2004, pg.26 26) Astill,J. ‘Charities hire gunmen to stop elephant poachers’ 2002", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con01b", "score": 0.6293843388557434, "text": "These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro01a", "score": 0.6262254118919373, "text": "Natural habitats being are destroyed A tougher approach to the protection of animals is needed to prevent their natural habitats from being destroyed by locals. As humans expand their agricultural activity in Africa they are destroying the environments of endangered animals and pushing others towards being endangered. Due to an increase in large scale cotton plantations and food crops, the West African lion has seen a marked decrease in population; numbering less than 400 in early 2014 [1] . Tougher protection, such as fencing off areas from human activity, has been suggested and has seen success in South Africa [2] . [1] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’” [2] Morelle,R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-law-hrpthwuuavs-con01b", "score": 0.6258077621459961, "text": "Getting special forces or allies on the ground is not always an option. In countries like Somalia and Yemen where there have been conflicts between factions the authorities will not always cooperate and even if they do they may not control the territory where the strike team would need to operate. There will also be many times where it is simply too dangerous to try and snatch someone. If that person is a danger they need to be stopped in the quickest way possible; and that will be by the use of the UAV that is already far above monitoring the target.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-law-cplghwap-con03b", "score": 0.6250094175338745, "text": "Violence is already escalating and we need a robust response. Many communities are vulnerable to postcode gangs comprised of young people aged 14 and upwards who are armed and dangerous and making their areas unsafe to live in. Only a robust and proactive response from the police such as patrolling such territories with firearms so as to protect themselves and innocent civilians will address this problem.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.7898966073989868, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.7273224592208862, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.7272817492485046, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-international-alhrilphbp-pro01b", "score": 0.706262469291687, "text": "This fails for two reasons. Firstly, prosecutions are not always a deterrent to future crimes. Secondly that justice is not necessary in all cases to prevent recidivism – justice has not been needed in many cases, such as in Haiti after the 2004 coup, Haiti’s subsequent problems being caused by natural disasters.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-law-cplgpsyhwsas-con02a", "score": 0.7012062668800354, "text": "No system is perfect Of course, some ASBOs fail. But no aspect of the justice system has a 100% success rate, and by their nature ASBOs are more likely to be abused because (unlike prison) the offender remains in his own environment. Should more in breach of ASBOs be punished? Sure. That’s not an argument against ASBOs though, is it? Neither is the fact that not enough are handed down. Although the use of ASBOs around the country is still patchy, some authorities have made very effective use of them to improve life in many local communities.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "validation-law-hrilhbiccfg-pro01a", "score": 0.6951169371604919, "text": "The ICC is the best way to prosecute serious crimes because of its permanence; individual tribunals are not enough. The ICC is uniquely beneficial because of its intention to be a permanent force that will always hold people accountable, instead of slowly reacting to crimes after-the-fact. It is intended to be universal and apply to every situation without mandating the creation of a new tribunal every time something happens, and may be even more effective than tribunals at responding to crimes. Even though tribunals such as the ones for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda may have worked, they were \"necessarily limited in scope\" and cannot be applied on a large scale, which is what is needed.1 Additionally, those tribunals were relatively ineffective, as they took two years to set up, and relying on establishing new tribunals every single time wastes precious time. Doing so would also let smaller but still serious crimes slip under the radar, as they would not warrant the creation of a new tribunal, but may still count as a crime against humanity.2 1 Kirsch, Philippe. \"The International Criminal Court: Current Issues and Perspectives.\" Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 64 No. 1, Winter 2001, 3-11. 2 Marler, Melissa K. \"The International Criminal Court: Assessing the Jurisdictional Loopholes in the Rome Statute.\" Duke Law Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, December 1999, 825-853.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-international-alilhbassw-con01b", "score": 0.6918781399726868, "text": "Impunity has occurred in some cases, due to the ICC system not leading to prosecutions, such as in Sri Lanka. At any rate, the ICC is not needed – African courts can deal with individuals, not a foreign one.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-law-apslpsyhwbbc-pro01b", "score": 0.6916583776473999, "text": "What pretends to be an argument in support of the resolution is in fact an argument in favour of reforming the prison system. It is true that in an alarming number of prisons the rehabilitative objective of incarceration has been forgotten. In many other prisons, however, innovative rehabilitation programmes are flourishing. The prison system is not a monolith – it is a network of different institutions, each serving a specific purpose, each subject to different standards of management. Schemes such as the HOPE (Honest Opportunity Probation) drug offence sentencing programme in Hawaii [i] should be used as an example of best practice, communicated to other prisons and replicated in other jurisdictions. Doubtless, knowledge sharing, professional standards and levels of accountability could be improved in many prisons. However, this does not mean that a prison sentence will inevitably lead to an offender suffering harm. Moreover, if an increase in the prison population has failed to reduce rates of offending, an explanation could well be found in a poorly administered corpus of criminal law, rather than poorly run prisons. As a study conducted by The Economist points out, American law makers are fond of attaching criminal sanctions to otherwise innocuous misdemeanours in order to appear tough on crime. An increase in the number of activities being described as criminal can mask the success of prisons in reducing the number of individuals likely to commit truly harmful, truly criminal acts. If we cannot be certain that the prison system has failed, if we cannot be certain that the prison system is uniformly harmful to inmates, why should we hasten to replace it with an untested alternative such as “supervised” flogging? Finally, incarceration, apart from being used to punish criminals, also helps to protect the public, by physically preventing offenders from engaging in criminal activities. Dramatically reducing sentences or attempting to rehabilitate criminals within the community will not prevent them from carrying out further offences. Rehabilitation is not immediately effective; moreover, its usefulness is often reduced when the positive messages that it tries to communicate have to compete with poverty borne of long-term unemployment, or loyalty to a local gang. The proposition assumes that the pain associated with corporal punishment will be sufficient to discourage offenders from engaging in further criminal activities while they are being rehabilitated. Empirical proof of this deterrent effect is hard to come by. A large number of offenders live lives characterised by chronic brutality, often the result of parental abuse or long term involvement in gang violence, and they may come to regard state administered flogging as little more than an occupational inconvenience, one more aggressive act among many. [i] “A revival of flogging?”, The Economist, 25 April 2010,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-law-hrilhshsi-con01b", "score": 0.6914089322090149, "text": "Even though it does effectively create impunity, this is not a unique phenomenon. Decisions on who to prosecute will always happen, and some form of bias against prosecuting powerful people is to some extent inevitable. So in practice not everyone is equal before the law. The ICC specifically builds in a way of deferring prosecutions if needed in Article 16 of the Rome Statute. This shows that the ICC accepts the need to postpone cases, possibly indefinitely. The ICC therefore in practice accepts it cannot prosecute in every case where there may be a case to answer.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-law-hrilpgwhwr-con05b", "score": 0.6911581754684448, "text": "It is ludicrous to claim that the ICC will fail to deter atrocities when such an international institution has never before existed. Moreover, the ICC is not designed to be a prophylactic ; for the victims of these terrible crimes it is crucial that these offenders are apprehended, tried and punished. Retribution and protection of society are objectives not only for the domestic criminal justice system but also for the new international version. Therefore, even if the ICC failed to prevent the atrocities in the first place, a mechanism is now in place to punish those responsible. Justice is not sufficient where war crimes are concerned, but it is a start.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-international-alilhbukiw-pro03b", "score": 0.6846510767936707, "text": "In the five years since the violence occurred, very little action has occurred from the domestic forces; there have been only two murder convictions for the 1200 deaths. [1] Furthermore, these forces are working for the people they are meant to be investigating. The case of Kenyatta has seen accusations of witness intimidation on large scales, meaning objectivity in local courts is very unlikely to occur [2] . The result of the Waki commission was to hand over alleged perpetrators to the ICC directly, showing that Kenya felt the need to rely on this international framework [3] . [1] ‘Kenya: Prosecute Perpetrators of Post-Election Violence’, Human Rights Watch, 9 December 2011, [2] ‘Perceptions and Realities:Kenya and the International Criminal Court’, Human Rights Watch, 14 November 2013, [3] Wachira, Muchemi, ‘Annan did not ambush Kenya says Justice minister’, Daily Nation, 13 July 2009,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "validation-law-cpphwmpfcp-con01b", "score": 0.6825218200683594, "text": "The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-law-hrilhwpwc-con01b", "score": 0.6818770170211792, "text": "Proving the commission of crimes on this scale beyond reasonable doubt must take a great deal of time and expertise. The end is so important that the cost must be borne. The successes at Nuremburg and the ICTY convictions prove that it is possible to bring war criminals to justice. While the ICC has had limited success, it is a young institution and is likely to streamline its processes and achieve more convictions in the future.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-international-alhrilphbp-con03a", "score": 0.6814022660255432, "text": "Justice can be impossible The Rwandan genocide one of the largest the world has ever seen since the Second World War. A large number of victims – at least half a million – means a large number of perpetrators. There are 100,000 alleged perpetrators in Uganda. While an informal Gacaca system has been criticized by human rights groups for not being able to provide fair trials, a full system of fair trials would be impractical [1] . Rwanda is now relatively peaceful, with a functioning economy. [1] Hannum, p492", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-politics-eppghwgpi-con03b", "score": 0.67863929271698, "text": "The concept of retribution is a narrow and dubious foundation for justice. A modern, civilized legal system should not be geared around delivering payback on behalf of victims, but rather around advancing the best consequences for the future. For exactly this reason legal systems give several ways in which defendants can avoid punishment, even though they are technically guilty, if punishing them would have bad consequences; these include jury nullification and suspended sentences.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-law-hrilhwpwc-con04b", "score": 0.678098201751709, "text": "Justice is always aspirational. International law is a work-in-progress and while there is no question that a lot of work remains to be done, abandoning the effort will cause stagnation. While many failed prosecutions may come before International Courts, as commitment to international law strengthens so will the success-levels of prosecutions.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-law-hrilhwpwc-pro02a", "score": 0.6774975061416626, "text": "Justice needs to be seen to be done in order to provide a deterrent to others. An accepted tenet of most justice systems is the achievement of deterrence. Without the prosecution of war crime, its perpetrators have to consider no tangible cost to their actions. This applies to those who claim to have “just followed orders,” who now face a counter-motivation to refuse or defect. In the case of high-level war criminals it becomes effective when they realise they are losing a conflict. If they fear prosecution they are more likely to seek to negotiate rather than going on a final destruction spree. In the final days of the Nazi regime, Himmler stopped committing atrocities and attempted to negotiate peace because he realised his own vulnerability to prosecution. [i] [i] Allen, Martin, Himmler's Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-international-alhrilphbp-con03b", "score": 0.6737553477287292, "text": "Justice is not easy. However, it needs to be done – for its own ends, and for a lasting peace. In cases where there are a huge number of perpetrators then the obvious approach is to offer an amnesty to those who committed smaller crimes while prosecuting those who provoked or ordered the crimes.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-law-ilphbined-con01a", "score": 0.672895073890686, "text": "The ICC’s investigations have already deterred potential crimes. There is compelling evidence that the ICC’s past or current investigations have caused potential perpetrators as well as those already indicted, to abandon their plans. For example, as the ICC’s first Prosecutor noted, even before the Court had convicted Thomas Lubanga for the recruitment of child soldiers, its African investigations were enough to prompt responses in Columbia and Sri Lanka, resulting in children being released. [1] At the same time, there has been a notable decrease in crimes by those already under investigation, such as the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. [2] [1] ICC Prosecutor's Address to Council on Foreign Relations , p.9 [2] Bosco , p.176", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04a", "score": 0.67120361328125, "text": "Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves. Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers. [1] Forsyth, C. & Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162 [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-international-aglhrilhb-pro04b", "score": 0.671186089515686, "text": "Deterrence doesn’t work as people who commit these atrocities usually don’t believe they will be caught, or don’t care. Further, prosecutions can actually cause more offenses in the future, as supporters of those prosecuted seek revenge for the prosecution occurring. We have seen this in Sudan where President Bashir’s indictment by the ICC has done little to halt attacks on civilians in both Darfur and, more recently, South Kordofan [1]. [1] Jennifer, Christian and James, Bair, ‘ Why does the world allow Sudan’s Bashir to target civilians? ’, globalpost.com, 30 July 2012,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.7114624977111816, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’" } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro04b", "score": 0.6739825010299683, "text": "By this argument, no human generation could ever decide that protecting a species is more trouble than its worth and so let it become extinct, as there would always be the theoretical possibility of a future generation that might regret this choice. Every choice we make as a generation constrains and widens the choices available to future generations. If we protect endangered species and therefore limit agricultural and housing land (to protect their environments) we deny future generations more plentiful food supplies and better housing. We may even deny the existence of more humans in the future by not having enough food to feed a population which could grow faster if the food supply was greater. We cannot allow the remote possibility of future regret to cause us to take actions which a great many people will 'regret' in the present.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro03b", "score": 0.6705536842346191, "text": "Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro03b", "score": 0.6702806353569031, "text": "Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro03a", "score": 0.6645125150680542, "text": "Endangered animals are a source of pride for African countries Endangered animals warrant a tougher degree of protection in Africa as they have notable cultural significance. Some groups believe that African elephants have mystic powers attached to them and have coveted them for centuries. [1] African lions have been depicted on the coat of arms for states and institutions both past and present. [2] They are intrinsically linked with Africa’s past and its identity. The extinction of these animals, therefore, would have a negative cultural impact and should be prevented. [1] University of California, Los Angeles, ‘Elephant: The Animal and its Ivory in African Culture’ [2] Coleman, Q. ‘The importance of African lions’", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con01b", "score": 0.6627680063247681, "text": "These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.6625970602035522, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.6619275808334351, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "validation-environment-ceshbwpsbpf-con02b", "score": 0.6567285656929016, "text": "Experience teaches us that the natural environment responds to changes in human activity and rebalances itself. By contrast a shift in the entire climate, driven by human activity, would have devastating implications for all species. We know that migration routes can change over time and that, for example, bat colonies can move. However, a shift in climatic process would destroy migration patterns [i] and cause untold damage to wildlife populations. Dealing with the effects of climate change is not just a responsibility that humanity needs to take on for itself but for all species on the planet. The tiny impact of individual wind farms on local populations is as nothing compared to the catastrophic implications of a significant and mostly unpredictable shift in the climate of the globe. [i] Alasdair Fotheringham. “Is this the end of migration?” The independent. 18 April 2010.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro01b", "score": 0.6548160910606384, "text": "This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them? We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’. Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1] [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con01b", "score": 0.6509609222412109, "text": "There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con01b", "score": 0.6506685614585876, "text": "There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04a", "score": 0.6505395174026489, "text": "Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves. Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers. [1] Forsyth, C. & Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162 [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.6450855135917664, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.6449085474014282, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con03a", "score": 0.6413446664810181, "text": "Survival of the fittest It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence as is shown by Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. [1] The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. The concept of survival of the fittest may seem outdated but it is still the defining order of nature. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. [1] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life., Literature.org", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro02a", "score": 0.6405529379844666, "text": "Aesthetics An environment with a great diversity of plant and animal species in it can act as a source for art and entertainment, enriching the lives of humans. Thus the preservation of endangered species is an important part of ensuring this diversity continues to exist so people and enjoy and be inspired by the many varied kinds of life on this earth. A good example of this is the re-introduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park in the United States (where it had previously become extinct due to human action), which added to the biodiversity of the region and caused a greater influx of tourists into the park. [1] People enjoy being surrounded by different kinds of nature, and so protecting endangered species is an important part of protecting human enjoyment. [1] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-economy-epiasfihb-pro05b", "score": 0.6372604370117188, "text": "Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods. [1] COHRE, 2008.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro02a", "score": 0.6365149021148682, "text": "Environmental Damage Both licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] . [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ [2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-economy-epiasfihb-pro02a", "score": 0.6356671452522278, "text": "Forced evictions are a natural path of development. Forced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system. Secondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors. [1] Temple, 2008", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro02b", "score": 0.6286698579788208, "text": "The problem with this argument is that it prioritizes the enjoyment of some individuals over others with no real justification. The grey wolf, for example, went extinct in the Yellowstone region in the first place because humans considered it a pest and a threat to livestock and so hunted it to extinction. Clearly these people didn't enjoy the 'diversity' the grey wolf provided. We don't usually give something the force of law regarding animals just because some people enjoy it. For example, the UK has now banned fox hunting even though a great many people found it to be a source of pleasure and recreation. [1] If everyone desired the protection of all endangered species, there would be no need for this law, but the fact that a law is needed to restrain human action shows that not everyone 'enjoys' this biodiversity in the same way. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro03b", "score": 0.8025972843170166, "text": "Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.6838893890380859, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.6837710738182068, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro02a", "score": 0.6783486008644104, "text": "Aesthetics An environment with a great diversity of plant and animal species in it can act as a source for art and entertainment, enriching the lives of humans. Thus the preservation of endangered species is an important part of ensuring this diversity continues to exist so people and enjoy and be inspired by the many varied kinds of life on this earth. A good example of this is the re-introduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park in the United States (where it had previously become extinct due to human action), which added to the biodiversity of the region and caused a greater influx of tourists into the park. [1] People enjoy being surrounded by different kinds of nature, and so protecting endangered species is an important part of protecting human enjoyment. [1] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro01a", "score": 0.6642710566520691, "text": "Natural habitats being are destroyed A tougher approach to the protection of animals is needed to prevent their natural habitats from being destroyed by locals. As humans expand their agricultural activity in Africa they are destroying the environments of endangered animals and pushing others towards being endangered. Due to an increase in large scale cotton plantations and food crops, the West African lion has seen a marked decrease in population; numbering less than 400 in early 2014 [1] . Tougher protection, such as fencing off areas from human activity, has been suggested and has seen success in South Africa [2] . [1] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’” [2] Morelle,R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.6397807002067566, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.6393205523490906, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con02a", "score": 0.6383645534515381, "text": "Fewer human deaths Fewer large beasts will lead to fewer deaths in Africa. Some endangered animals are aggressive and will attack humans. Hippopotamuses kill in excess of three hundred humans a year in Africa, with other animals such as the elephant and lion also causing many fatalities. [1] Footage released in early 2014 of a bull elephant attacking a tourist’s car in Kruger National Park, South Africa demonstrated the continued threat these animals cause. [2] Tougher protection would result in higher numbers of these animals which increases the risk to human lives. [1] Animal Danger ‘Most Dangerous Animals’ [2] Withnall, A. ‘Rampaging bull elephant flips over British tourist car in Kruger Park’", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con01b", "score": 0.6229422688484192, "text": "There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con01b", "score": 0.622836709022522, "text": "There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-ssiahrgmhwc-con03b", "score": 0.6221538186073303, "text": "Cultural Imperialism has major advantages to it as well. Culture and identity has been used throughout history as a tool for fuelling the flames of conflict, leading to the mass genocides such as that of Rwanda [1] . This aspect of culture incites hatred against those who might otherwise not be targeted, such as homosexuals. [2] The desire to stamp out such attitudes does not represent a diminishment of African culture simply a change. Similar attitudes were held in the west until recently. African culture has similarly changed in the past; the comparatively recent introduction of Christianity to much of the continent (the exception being Ethiopia) was such a change. [1] RothKopf, D ‘In Praise of Cultural Imperialism’ in Foreign Policy, no. 107 (1997) pp.38-53 [2] Ibid", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-culture-tphwpac-pro03a", "score": 0.6219645142555237, "text": "The preservation of displaced cultures is important in preventing future oppression. Notions of cultural superiority virtually always influence displacement and abuse of indigenous cultures. For example, when the government of Botswana expelled the Kalahari Bushmen from their land in 2002, President Mogai defended his actions by describing the bushmen as \"stone age creatures.\"1 This cultural insensitivity, in addition to the incentive of material gains, led the Botswani government to violate the tribe's rights. By preserving indigenous culture, governments recognize the value of these groups and prevent future hostility. 1 John Simpson, \"Bushmen Fight for Homeland,\" BBC, 2005", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con01b", "score": 0.6193369030952454, "text": "These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro04a", "score": 0.6127569675445557, "text": "Poaching is linked to terrorism Stronger protection of animals should be implemented to reduce the funding for terrorist groups. Certain terrorist organisations use the illegal ivory and horn trade as funding for their operations. Al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the Sudanese Janjaweed all use the illicit trade as a source of income, with the former using the trade for 40% of its expenditure. [1] This enables them to carry out attacks such as the 2013 Westgate siege in Kenya. [2] Tougher protection of endangered animals would reduce the ability of these groups to fund themselves. In turn, this would decrease their operational capability, increasing stability in Africa. [1] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [2] Tackett,C. ‘How elephant poaching helped fund Kenya terrorist attack’", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04a", "score": 0.6098804473876953, "text": "Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves. Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers. [1] Forsyth, C. & Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162 [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-international-appghblsba-pro02b", "score": 0.6089648604393005, "text": "The Basotho people existed as a separate state for decades before colonization. There was a separate Basotho identity long before the instauration of the apartheid in SA. Their history and roots gives Lesotho an identity that is different from that of their only neighbors. That Lesotho never suffered under apartheid is in itself a big difference from South Africa where the legacy still looms large. Lesotho has taken measures to highlight their differences from South Africa; In 2013 Lesotho introduced national identification documents. [1] [1] Tefo, Tefo, ‘Lesotho finally introduces national ID’, Public Eye, 5 July 2013,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-education-aetuhwrcp-con02a", "score": 0.6067678332328796, "text": "The historical significance of artefacts extends beyond their culture of origin Artefacts have a historical and symbolic meaning that transcends their origins; over the years they acquire a connection with the place that they are housed. For example, the Egyptian obelisk that stands in the Piazza di San Pietro in Rome was brought to Italy in the reign of Caligula. [1] It is no longer merely an ‘Egyptian’ artefact - it has become a symbol of Roman dominance in the ancient world and the European Christian culture that succeeded it. During the Middle Ages it was believed that the ashes of Julius Caesar were contained in the gilt ball at the top [2] . Further, all artefacts are part of a world-wide collective history. Olduvai handaxes (from countries in Eastern Africa such as Tanzania) are held in the British Museum [3] - but the people who made them are our ancestors just as much as they are the ancestors of local people. Holding these in London encourages us to see the common ground we hold with people everywhere in the world, whereas keeping them only in their local country only highlights our differences and tribal identities. “Culture knows no political borders. It never has. It’s always been mongrel; it’s always been hybrid; and it’s always moved across borders or bears the imprint of earlier contact” [4] . [1] Saintpetersbasilica.org, ‘The Obelisk’. [2] Wikipedia, ‘List of obelisks in Rome’, And Wikipedia, ‘Saint Peter’s Sqaure’, (Both have useful links and pictures.) [3] The British Museum, ‘Highlights Olduvai Handaxe’. [4] Cuno, James, author of ‘Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over our Ancient Heritage’, quoted in Tiffany Jenkins, ‘Culture knows no political borders’, The Spectator July 2008.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-ippelhbcp-con02a", "score": 0.6054310202598572, "text": "African values Human rights are a concept that take on different conclusions and priorities when applied in different cultural contexts. Protecting the community as a whole, by removing dangerous offenders from circulation, and by a deterrence effect, capital punishment is a manifestation of a form of “African Values” that place more emphasis on the community over the individual than western legal tradition. Capital Punishment has traditionally used for the most serious crimes such as murder as well as some serious religious offenses which it was feared might bring serious consequences for the entire community. [1] [1] Balogun, Oladele Abiodun, ‘A Philosophical Defence of Punishment in Traditional African Legal Culture: The Yoruba Example’, The Journal of Pan African Studies, Vol.3, No.3, September 2009, , p.47", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con01a", "score": 0.605102002620697, "text": "African countries have little money to spare Africa has some of the least developed countries in the world, making extensive protection of endangered animals unviable. Many African countries are burdened by the more pressing issues of civil war, large debts, poverty, and economic underdevelopment. [1] These factors already draw significant amounts of money from limited budgets. Tanzania, for example, has revenue of $5.571 billion and an expenditure of $6.706 billion. [2] Increased expenditure on animal protection projects would only serve to worsen this budget deficit. [1] Simensen, J. ‘Africa: the causes of under-development and the challenges of globalisation’ [2] The World Factbook ‘Tanzania’", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con02b", "score": 0.6049930453300476, "text": "Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1] [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con02b", "score": 0.6048182845115662, "text": "Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1] [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro04b", "score": 0.7292681932449341, "text": "Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security. [1] [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.689566433429718, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.6894810795783997, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.6818036437034607, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.6814904808998108, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.6482619047164917, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.6478561758995056, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-international-apdwhbpa-con03a", "score": 0.6469475626945496, "text": "Mercenaries are still hired by NGOs Non-Governmental organisations struggle to operate in conflict zones, and still hire mercenaries to protect them. Extractive industries also require security for their installations and operations in unstable regions25. The massacre of 74 civilians at a Chinese oil field in Ethiopia in 2007 and the 2013 Amenas siege demonstrate the continued need for security, which mercenaries can provide. Charities have employed mercenaries in the past to ensure better security. In 2002, mercenaries were hired by the African Rainforest and Rivers Conservation Organisation to seek out elephant poachers who they could not pursue themselves26. 25) Avant,D. ‘Mercenaries’2004, pg.26 26) Astill,J. ‘Charities hire gunmen to stop elephant poachers’ 2002", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-international-ahwweac-con02b", "score": 0.6444393396377563, "text": "Al shabaab attacks have continued to be a huge threat to both the Ugandan and Kenyan governments with the recent attack on Westgate shopping center in Nairobi [1] and the Lugogo cricket ground in Kampala [2] despite the tight immigration policies towards Somalis. FDLR has also continued to carry out attacks in Rwanda regardless Rwanda’s efforts to prevent them [3]. Tighter immigration controls therefore has been shown not to provide solution to these threats. Instead uniting all these countries would give ground for the East African Military Command to handle such threats. [1] AFP, ‘Westgate mall, Alshabaab gunmen were suicide commandos’, telegraph.co.uk,12 Nov 2013, [2] BBC world news, ‘Somali militants behind Kampala world cup bombings’, bbc.co.uk, 12 July 2010, [3] Reuters, ‘Rwanda says FDLR cross from Congo attack wardens’, reuters.com, 2 Dec 2012,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-international-athwuhfto-pro01a", "score": 0.6430487036705017, "text": "Specialism of the United States in counter terrorism The United States has one of the most elite and experienced counter-terrorism forces in the world, Africa could only benefit from the help they offer. Branches of the US military which specialise in counter-terrorism, such as the US Navy SEALs and Delta Force, receive rigorous training and have gained experience from numerous operations. Many African states lack the ability to train and utilise such forces, which is why US help is welcome. US military advisers were sent to Uganda to help combat the Lord’s Resistance Army [1] (LRA) and assisted with ‘an impact disproportionate to its size’ [2] . Between 2011 and 2013, the LRA’s attacks were halved and the conflict’s death toll decreased by 67%. The experience that these forces provide is visibly valuable for Africa’s counter-terrorism activities. [1] Shanker,T., ‘Armed U.S. Advisers to Help Fight African Renegade Group’ [2] BBC, ‘US forces join jungle search for Kony’", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-international-athwuhfto-con01b", "score": 0.6400716304779053, "text": "The rise in terrorist activity in Africa since 2006 has reshaped this priority. Following the Kenyan example, the Nairobi mall massacre and the subsequent attacks have acted to change the prioritisation of terrorism in some countries. In early 2014, Kenya’s Defence Secretary Raychelle Omamo stated that there was going to be a greater focus on counter-terrorism in the future [1] , this event has shown many Africans that terrorism is an issue that requires serious attention. [1] Otieno,B., ‘Kenya: China to Help Kenya Safeguard Territory’", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-international-athwuhfto-con03b", "score": 0.6358903646469116, "text": "The US Congress has taken steps to reduce security assistance to states which have committed mass human rights abuse [1] . In October 2013, President Obama announced cutbacks in military aid to Egypt after a military coup and crackdown on protestors [2] . In addition to these penalties, there are also good governance programmes run by USAID in unison with counter-terrorism policies to ensure a healthier transition to democracy, reducing the risk of repression [3] . [1] Ploch,L., ‘Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S. Response’ pg.38 [2] Gordon,M.R., ‘In Crackdown Response, U.S. Temporarily Freezes Some Military Aid to Egypt’ [3] Ploch,L., ‘Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S. Response’ pg.55", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.6356348991394043, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.6351301670074463, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-international-athwuhfto-con02b", "score": 0.6322463750839233, "text": "Counter-terrorism helps ensure security, which is closely linked to development. Before it is possible to improve health care, education, poverty and other development factors, it is necessary to have a secure environment [1] . The action to broaden USAID’s development agenda is therefore taking a more practical approach towards ensuring that long term growth can occur in a stable environment. [1] Beswick,D. & Hammerstad,A., ‘African agency in changing security environment: sources, opportunities and challenges’ pg.476", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro03b", "score": 0.628257691860199, "text": "Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-law-tahglcphsld-pro05a", "score": 0.6280695199966431, "text": "Drugs currently fund terrorism and regional instability The Taliban gets most of its revenue from poppies, which provide the opium for heroin. They do this by intimidating local farmers who would otherwise sell their harvest at market. They then demand “protection money” as well, or else either another local warlord or the ‘protectors’ themselves would rob the farmer. Something like 22,700 people have died in Mexico since January 2007 from gangsters who want to protect their revenue and almost the entire continent of South America, from Brazil to Colombia, has had their governments destabilised by drug lords. [1] The hugely-costly but unsuccessful war on drugs could be ended, starving terrorists of the profits of drug production. As a result peace and development could be brought to unstable drug-producing states such as Colombia and Afghanistan. [1] Mexico under siege, The drug war on our doorstep, Los Angeles Times , 27 September 2011,", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro03b", "score": 0.6277673840522766, "text": "Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con03b", "score": 0.6239422559738159, "text": "There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction. [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con03b", "score": 0.6238171458244324, "text": "There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction. [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-politics-ogmepthbeuao-pro02a", "score": 0.6224197745323181, "text": "Withholding funds will prevent PNA terrorism and anti-Semitism. It is clear what Hamas, or any other terrorist organisation, has to do in order to convince western governments to continue funding the Palestinian National Authority with it in charge. It must formally give up terror, accept the existence of the state of Israel and drop any anti-Semitic ideology. Yasser Arafat’s PLO and Fatah Party made these commitments in the early 1990s, and this allowed them to become negotiating partners in the Oslo Peace process. [1] Hamas has to take the same steps if it wants to enjoy the same level of support from western donors which the previous Fatah government had. Until it makes these public changes, there would not be any funding. [1] Schlaim, Avi. “The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process.” International Relations of the Middle East. 2005.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con02b", "score": 0.7707676291465759, "text": "Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1] [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro01a", "score": 0.6903484463691711, "text": "Natural habitats being are destroyed A tougher approach to the protection of animals is needed to prevent their natural habitats from being destroyed by locals. As humans expand their agricultural activity in Africa they are destroying the environments of endangered animals and pushing others towards being endangered. Due to an increase in large scale cotton plantations and food crops, the West African lion has seen a marked decrease in population; numbering less than 400 in early 2014 [1] . Tougher protection, such as fencing off areas from human activity, has been suggested and has seen success in South Africa [2] . [1] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’” [2] Morelle,R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.6819560527801514, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.6819230318069458, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.6737849116325378, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.673453152179718, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-international-apwhbaucmip-pro02a", "score": 0.6611826419830322, "text": "Progress in ending conflict in Africa Conflict in Africa is slowly being ended. In 1992 there were 18 conflicts in Africa; by 2009 this had been halved to 9. [1] But a decline in the number of conflicts is not the only positive trend in African conflicts: there has also been a decline in the size of wars. They have changed from wars between two organised armies to being small scale insurgencies. In 1984 the conflicts were on average causing more than 20,000 battle deaths per year, but by 2008 only around 1,000. Even the number of incidents of genocide and mass killing has been going down from 9 in the 1980s to five in the 2000s. [2] Ending war might therefore be considered to be ambitious but it is not against the trend and not inconceivable. [1] Straus, 2012, pp.183-184 [2] Straus, 2012, pp.189-191", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro03b", "score": 0.6562983989715576, "text": "Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro03b", "score": 0.6561249494552612, "text": "Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con04b", "score": 0.6524009704589844, "text": "This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con01a", "score": 0.6518487930297852, "text": "Protecting endangered species can harm human communities Protecting endangered species can harm humans: Protecting endangered species by definition means restricting activity that humans would otherwise want to do, be it by turning woodland into farmland, turning meadows into housing developments, or by preventing us from eliminating 'pest' species which kill livestock or damage crops. For example, the reintroduction of the grey wolf into Yellowstone Park has increased once more the risk to livestock in the region and caused economic harms to ranchers there. [1] Some of these species may even pose a threat to human lives, which may have been why they were hunted to extinction in the first place. In any case, less agricultural land and less land for housing can only mean higher food and housing costs (due to their decreased supplies in the face of a rising human population) for people, which has a detrimental impact upon human life. [1] Bailey, Ronald. “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”. Reason.com. December 31, 2003.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.6414932012557983, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro01b", "score": 0.6411967277526855, "text": "This argument fails to take into account the costs of protecting endangered species and weigh them against the potential harms of them becoming extinct. In a world where only 5% of plant species have been surveyed for their potential medicinal value, [1] this means protecting the survival of the other 95% purely for the potential value that only a fraction of them may possess. All of this means denying development human development now, by not opening areas up for agriculture or not constructing housing. These are very real costs which impact upon peoples' lives, and may even outweigh those scientific and medical advances which may or may not be found in currently endangered species. [1] Kurpis, Lauren. “Why Save?” EndangeredSpecie.com. Copyright 1997-2002.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.6411116719245911, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con01b", "score": 0.6393159627914429, "text": "These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro03a", "score": 0.6382932662963867, "text": "Endangered animals are a source of pride for African countries Endangered animals warrant a tougher degree of protection in Africa as they have notable cultural significance. Some groups believe that African elephants have mystic powers attached to them and have coveted them for centuries. [1] African lions have been depicted on the coat of arms for states and institutions both past and present. [2] They are intrinsically linked with Africa’s past and its identity. The extinction of these animals, therefore, would have a negative cultural impact and should be prevented. [1] University of California, Los Angeles, ‘Elephant: The Animal and its Ivory in African Culture’ [2] Coleman, Q. ‘The importance of African lions’", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-international-apwhbaucmip-con02b", "score": 0.6373042464256287, "text": "Africa is not the most warlike continent in terms of the frequency or duration of conflicts. Asia had 1.88 wars per country from 1960 to 2008 compared to 1.65 per country in Africa. [1] Moreover many more of these armed conflicts are internal and are smaller. [1] Straus, 2012, p.186", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro01b", "score": 0.6323375701904297, "text": "This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them? We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’. Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1] [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro03b", "score": 0.6271401643753052, "text": "Superior human intellect and sentience only means that we should make sure we consider the moral ramifications of our actions, not that we should take any particular action as a result. It is entirely in keeping with this for us to conclude that human life and enjoyment are more important than animal life and species survival, and so for us to decide not to protect endangered species when this (as it by definition always will) infringes upon human benefits and enjoyment.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con03b", "score": 0.6243325471878052, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro01b", "score": 0.6228496432304382, "text": "First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow. People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals. Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration. In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.7786333560943604, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.7294929027557373, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.7294039726257324, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.725246787071228, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.7250648140907288, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro02a", "score": 0.7248004078865051, "text": "Poaching is becoming more advanced A stronger, militarised approach is needed as poaching is becoming far more advanced. Poachers now operate with high-calibre rifles, night vision scopes, silencers and use helicopters to hunt their prey. [1] These methods are used particularly against rhinoceroses in South Africa, whose horns have become extremely valuable on the Asian market for their supposed medical properties. [2] In response to this, South African rangers are being given specialised training and use their own aerial surveillance to track poachers down with success, [3] supporting the argument for a militarised response to protect endangered animals. [1] WWF, ‘African rhino poaching crisis’ [2] Zapwing, ‘The Rhino Poaching Crisis’ [3] ibid", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con03a", "score": 0.716262936592102, "text": "Legalising the trade of horns, ivory, furs and pelts would be more effective Making it legal for hunters to kill these endangered animals, rather than protecting them, could prevent extinction. The protected status of endangered animals has made their pelts, horns and tusks more expensive as they are harder to obtain. [1] The current illegality of trading rhino horns has constrained supply in comparison to demand in Asia. This has driven the price of the horn to around £84,000. Softening protection for endangered animals could, in theory, reduce the price to a point where it is no longer profitable to hunt these endangered animals. [2] This would potentially increase supply by freeing up that seized by governments which is currently destroyed, and could potentially involve farming as South Africa is considering with Rhino horn. [3] [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’ [3] Molewa, E., ‘Statement on Rhino poaching intervention’", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro04a", "score": 0.702792763710022, "text": "Poaching is linked to terrorism Stronger protection of animals should be implemented to reduce the funding for terrorist groups. Certain terrorist organisations use the illegal ivory and horn trade as funding for their operations. Al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the Sudanese Janjaweed all use the illicit trade as a source of income, with the former using the trade for 40% of its expenditure. [1] This enables them to carry out attacks such as the 2013 Westgate siege in Kenya. [2] Tougher protection of endangered animals would reduce the ability of these groups to fund themselves. In turn, this would decrease their operational capability, increasing stability in Africa. [1] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [2] Tackett,C. ‘How elephant poaching helped fund Kenya terrorist attack’", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro04b", "score": 0.6776562929153442, "text": "Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security. [1] [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro04b", "score": 0.6773656010627747, "text": "Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security. [1] [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con02b", "score": 0.6755391955375671, "text": "Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1] [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con02b", "score": 0.6752943396568298, "text": "Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1] [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro01b", "score": 0.6743978261947632, "text": "This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them? We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’. Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1] [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con03b", "score": 0.6738478541374207, "text": "There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction. [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con03b", "score": 0.6737117767333984, "text": "There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction. [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro05a", "score": 0.6715550422668457, "text": "The justice system does not currently work A major failing in current anti-poaching operations is that the poachers are rarely prosecuted. African legal systems rarely prioritise poaching as a serious crime, with offenders usually receiving trivial fines1. One of the major reasons for the Western black rhinoceros’ extinction in 2011 was the complete lack of sentencing for any of the poachers who were captured. [1] The system also fails to prosecute the brains behind many of the operations due to poor investigative methods. This creates an impression in the minds of the poachers that they can operate with impunity. [2] [1] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.6686581969261169, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.668445885181427, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro02b", "score": 0.6620616912841797, "text": "This proposition line does not lead to a situation where developing countries forgive their colonisers and forget the suffering of the past; rather, it will lead to a situation where they identify those colonial forces as the source of their suffering, but also as the power which tried to undermine their human integrity by paying them off. Such developing countries will always view reparations as ‘insufficient compensation’ [1] , because there is no lump sum on money which can atone for the acts and atrocities committed against human life. This motion is not only ineffective but will exacerbate the current situation by portraying the West as a place where money has a higher value than the human lives of developing countries; as such, there is no reason for former colonies to believe that their have gained any status other then an ‘opportunity’ for the West. [1] Accessed from on 12/09/11", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro03b", "score": 0.6610478162765503, "text": "Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro03b", "score": 0.6604678630828857, "text": "Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con03b", "score": 0.7763553261756897, "text": "There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction. [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.7169801592826843, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro05b", "score": 0.7168211936950684, "text": "Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04a", "score": 0.7160961627960205, "text": "Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves. Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers. [1] Forsyth, C. & Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162 [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.7134078741073608, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.7132026553153992, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro02a", "score": 0.7072137594223022, "text": "Poaching is becoming more advanced A stronger, militarised approach is needed as poaching is becoming far more advanced. Poachers now operate with high-calibre rifles, night vision scopes, silencers and use helicopters to hunt their prey. [1] These methods are used particularly against rhinoceroses in South Africa, whose horns have become extremely valuable on the Asian market for their supposed medical properties. [2] In response to this, South African rangers are being given specialised training and use their own aerial surveillance to track poachers down with success, [3] supporting the argument for a militarised response to protect endangered animals. [1] WWF, ‘African rhino poaching crisis’ [2] Zapwing, ‘The Rhino Poaching Crisis’ [3] ibid", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro04a", "score": 0.6959917545318604, "text": "Poaching is linked to terrorism Stronger protection of animals should be implemented to reduce the funding for terrorist groups. Certain terrorist organisations use the illegal ivory and horn trade as funding for their operations. Al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the Sudanese Janjaweed all use the illicit trade as a source of income, with the former using the trade for 40% of its expenditure. [1] This enables them to carry out attacks such as the 2013 Westgate siege in Kenya. [2] Tougher protection of endangered animals would reduce the ability of these groups to fund themselves. In turn, this would decrease their operational capability, increasing stability in Africa. [1] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [2] Tackett,C. ‘How elephant poaching helped fund Kenya terrorist attack’", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con01b", "score": 0.6664512157440186, "text": "There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con01b", "score": 0.6663870215415955, "text": "There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.6653286218643188, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro02b", "score": 0.66520094871521, "text": "Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro01b", "score": 0.6621829867362976, "text": "This argument fails to take into account the costs of protecting endangered species and weigh them against the potential harms of them becoming extinct. In a world where only 5% of plant species have been surveyed for their potential medicinal value, [1] this means protecting the survival of the other 95% purely for the potential value that only a fraction of them may possess. All of this means denying development human development now, by not opening areas up for agriculture or not constructing housing. These are very real costs which impact upon peoples' lives, and may even outweigh those scientific and medical advances which may or may not be found in currently endangered species. [1] Kurpis, Lauren. “Why Save?” EndangeredSpecie.com. Copyright 1997-2002.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con01b", "score": 0.6610309481620789, "text": "These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro05a", "score": 0.6541081666946411, "text": "The justice system does not currently work A major failing in current anti-poaching operations is that the poachers are rarely prosecuted. African legal systems rarely prioritise poaching as a serious crime, with offenders usually receiving trivial fines1. One of the major reasons for the Western black rhinoceros’ extinction in 2011 was the complete lack of sentencing for any of the poachers who were captured. [1] The system also fails to prosecute the brains behind many of the operations due to poor investigative methods. This creates an impression in the minds of the poachers that they can operate with impunity. [2] [1] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con02b", "score": 0.6383671760559082, "text": "This is argument for the reform of these laws, not against the laws themselves. Laws could also be introduced, for example, to require loggers to allow a certain percentage of their trees to reach the appropriate age for woodpecker nesting, or better review panels created to consider removing the 'endangered' label when it is no longer appropriate. These laws can shift as we see incentives shifting in order to ensure that good behaviour in incentivized overall.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.6361621022224426, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwcb-pro03b", "score": 0.6358500719070435, "text": "Clearly such actions would be against the law. It has been made clear that even if there were to be a cull the protections that currently exist for badgers would continue to exist as before any cull. For individuals to be taking the matter into their own hands if there is no cull would be illegal and should be punished as such.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.6358186602592468, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "validation-economy-beghwarirgg-pro03a", "score": 0.6352716684341431, "text": "Impossible to Stop. Governments might as well accept that allowing retailers to sell grey goods has benefits because government will never be able to completely prevent such imports. Government regulation may prevent most retailers from selling grey goods but it won't stop all. For example Tesco in the UK sold cut price Levi jeans for years, and fought Levi Strauss in the courts for four years to try and keep selling them.1 If even the biggest retailers are willing to sell grey goods unless stopped by the courts many smaller ones will be getting through the net. Moreover consumers will simply buy the goods elsewhere, particularly online. The government should instead legalise the import of grey goods so that it can make sure that these imports are of a high standard and do not break any other standards 1 BBC News, 'Tesco defeated in cheap jeans battle', 31 July 2002,", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro04b", "score": 0.6335974931716919, "text": "Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security. [1] [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con01b", "score": 0.6843088865280151, "text": "There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’" } ]

[ { "id": "training-international-aghwrpusvpa-pro03b", "score": 0.6457996368408203, "text": "Despite Africa’s demands for increased influence, they are not in a position of power and it is within their interest to maintain positive relations with the developed powers. They have numbers but despite their economic growth in the past decade Africa is still more dependent than any other region on foreign help. The budgets of Ghana and Uganda, for example, are more than 50 percent aid dependent. [1] Moreover, they need foreign troops in order to maintain order and fight rebel groups. In 2013, there were 15 peacekeeping missions in Africa playing a necessary role in maintaining order in countries such as the CAR. [2] [1] Ayodele, Thompson et al., “African Perspectives on Aid: Foreign Assistance Will Not Pull Africa Out of Poverty” Cato Institute, 14 September 2005 [2] “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-international-ghwfunb-con02a", "score": 0.644667387008667, "text": "The current global problems constantly require more funding. The UN is in a fiscal (budget) crisis that can only be alleviated by regular contributions from the US. Growth in funding has not met the demand for growth in programs—including demands placed on the UN by the US and its allies. During the Cold War, the UN was a largely impotent institution. With the Cold War over, and faith in multilateralism growing, the need to recruit and organize vast organisations to run many new programs has proven to be far more costly than the UN budget is able to handle. Today major problems occur in a global level, which cannot be solved without extra funding - Somalia famine, reproductive health in Africa, Pakistan floods, Myanmar cyclone and many others. Global issues are constantly expanding and they demand more attention. Expanded commitments also require expanded funding so the UN needs “robust financial support from the United States” to carry on its global-security, development, education, and health work, Mr. Ban told reporters on a day of meetings with congressional leaders. In order for the UN to continue fulfilling its duty and primary role it needs the relevant support and financial assistance.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-economy-eigsim-con01a", "score": 0.6446164846420288, "text": "Developing countries have high unemployment rates and need to invest in job creation Developing countries invest in education and job creation because they have high unemployment rates (6). They need to address the lack of opportunities in order to improve their economy and reduce migration. This is as much the case for those at graduate level as for those who have less of an education. Africa’s 668 universities produce almost 10 million graduates a year, but only half find work.(14) It should therefore be no surprise that many migrate overseas for opportunities.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.6435745358467102, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-con04b", "score": 0.643348217010498, "text": "If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro05b", "score": 0.6402811408042908, "text": "The developed world will no doubt be willing to provide expertise and some may even be willing to work pro-bono while doing work for poorer countries. The developed world should not be paying for such work. Providing money to pay for western workers in Africa both invites corruption and is really for the benefit of the developed countries by providing work for western firms. [1] Instead the focus has to be on the transfer of skills to Africans so that they can meet the challenges from climate change themselves. [1] Moyo, Dambisa, ‘Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 March 2009,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-pro04b", "score": 0.6388795375823975, "text": "Internet use is still very low in Africa, only 16% regularly access the internet. Some areas lag far more than others as well, highlighting regional disparity and the role that has on the economy. While East Africa benefits from large-scale mobile phone ownership, a money transfer system M-Pesa has transactions of $1 billion per month, other areas such as West Africa have failed to do the same [1] . This has led to a potential loss of business for the region’s population who require communications for their farms and businesses. [1] Felix, ‘Insight’, 2013", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-international-ghwfunb-pro02b", "score": 0.6386250257492065, "text": "This sounds rather like an ultimatum to the UN – if you don’t like what we give you and complain we won’t give you anything. The question here is that the UN really does need more money in order to give the necessary assistance to countries, which strive for basic things like food, water, protection - “We are here today on behalf of people the world has all too often forgotten: the weak, the disadvantaged, those suffering the effects of climate change, violence, disaster and disease,” Mr. Ban told those gathered in Geneva for the “programme kick-off” for the Appeal.“ [1] The whole concept of the organization is to provide help; however, of course, this help cannot come for free it has a certain cost. The UN general secretary should not constantly ask and appeal for funding, this is not his job, although it happens all too frequently. The UN protects the whole world and the fact that the US gives the most money for this protection should not be considered harmful to the American people. [1] “Ban Ki-moon urges early funding for $3.8 billion UN humanitarian appeal”", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-economy-epiaghwpto-pro01b", "score": 0.6373146772384644, "text": "The biggest problem African countries face is instability whether from rebellions, coups, international conflicts, or terrorist organisation. The inevitable result is violence. What the population needs is safety to enable social benefits like healthcare and education. Money to pay for an army can therefore be a good thing. A good well paid professional force is needed to ensure stability and prevent conflict. Nigeria for example would surely have split apart without a large army; violence from terrorist groups like Boko Haram is increasing creating Muslim-Christian tensions.(1) Without stability there can be no democracy; votes can’t be held, so financing for stability is a good thing. Egypt is a good example that shows a well-trained army can work for the benefit of democracy; it first stood aside while the people overthrew Egyptian dictator Mubarak and then stepped in when it was believed Morsi threatened democracy. (1) “Nigeria’s troubles ,Getting worse”, The Economist, Jul 14th 2012 (2) Siddique, Haroon, ‘Egypt army was ‘restoring democracy’, claims Kerry’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-con03b", "score": 0.637241542339325, "text": "In recent years there has been a large amount of aid provided to Africa for the express purpose of climate change adaption, demonstrating a growing awareness to this issue. The UNEP claimed that between 2010 and 2011 it provided several hundred million dollars each year, with an unknown amount coming from other development projects, directed towards climate change adaption [1] . While this does not cover future costs, it is a start. [1] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-international-astshbghacn-con01a", "score": 0.6369950175285339, "text": "Cost could be spent on other things Gabon’s government invested €370 million in the games. [1] Even though it is one of the more stable West African countries, there are still many people living in grinding poverty – nearly 20% of the population, according to the World Bank [2] . While infrastructure development is welcome, it is a better use of money to lift people out of poverty rather than for three weeks of football. It can also have other negative effects on the day to day lives of individuals, for example in South Africa when it hosted the world cup tolls were increase [3] . [1] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012, [2] World Bank, “World Development Indicators”, World Bank Databank, [3] Sands, Darren, “In South Africa, the African Cup of Nations is big business”, Black Enterprise, 2013,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-international-glhrilhbunh-con03b", "score": 0.635116457939148, "text": "The United Nations does have a problem raising sufficient money, troops and resources to meet its present needs for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. This is precisely because all such operations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the approach so beloved of the opposition for dealing with any challenge. Without a clear global commitment to the Responsibility to Protect, the UN will always be scrabbling scrambling around to meet its needs in dealing with individual crises. Once there is clear agreement on the kind of situation which will in future prompt intervention, the UN can begin to plan ahead to build up resources, create contingency funds, and seek pledges of military units from member states, to be activated swiftly as needed. This could most easily be done regionally through the regional security organizations such as NATO and the African Union that it was originally intended would provide this kind of security. If the member states of one organization lacked some necessary equipment such as transport capacity they could borrow them from neighboring organizations.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro04b", "score": 0.6344178915023804, "text": "Why should developed countries pay because Africa happens to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change? Western countries have nothing to do with Africa’s geography and climate change vulnerability.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-economy-fegippghp-pro01b", "score": 0.63434237241745, "text": "While aid appears unsuccessful for Africa, the approach itself should not be criticized on the basis of results in one continent. Western countries have simply provided African countries with generous payments allowing them to stabilize their economy. It many aspects of life, emphasis is not often attributed to what resources are available but how they are used. Though more guidance on how to invest the money may have been useful, Africa itself must take responsibility for how it has spent the money. The evil behind aid is allegedly overreliance: a country becomes dependent on receiving more and more aid. However, a focused approach to budget and organization of capital could certainly put aid to good use.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro01b", "score": 0.632716178894043, "text": "This argument fails to take into account the costs of protecting endangered species and weigh them against the potential harms of them becoming extinct. In a world where only 5% of plant species have been surveyed for their potential medicinal value, [1] this means protecting the survival of the other 95% purely for the potential value that only a fraction of them may possess. All of this means denying development human development now, by not opening areas up for agriculture or not constructing housing. These are very real costs which impact upon peoples' lives, and may even outweigh those scientific and medical advances which may or may not be found in currently endangered species. [1] Kurpis, Lauren. “Why Save?” EndangeredSpecie.com. Copyright 1997-2002.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-international-ghwfunb-pro01a", "score": 0.6319264769554138, "text": "There has been a serious inequality in the funding of the UN budget. The phrase “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” is appropriate here. It is noteworthy that Russia has a Security Council veto, but does not even appear in the top 15 nations contributing to the budget. The UN has become dependent on the USA and other industrialized nations to foot an enormous amount of the bill for UN operations. While the proportions of other states’ economies are markedly smaller, other nations sometimes reap far more of the rewards of UN existence than they contribute - “The United States is far and away the biggest single contributor to the U.N. system. In 2006, the total U.S. contributions came to at least $2.7 billion — and that excludes the private sector, which by most independent estimates, draws most of its $1.5 billion in U.N. contributions from U.S. sources.” [1] Should the US remain a consistent donor and allow itself to be asked for more and more as the UN budget becomes more bloated, or should it assert itself and say that, in real dollars, a line must be drawn? [1] Russel, George. “The U.N.: Even More Expensive Than It Looks” 06/11/2008", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-international-glhrilhbunh-con03a", "score": 0.6318750381469727, "text": "The UN does not have the necessary funds or expertise. The United Nations struggles to meet its current needs, in terms of funding for emergency relief, development work, health initiatives, etc. and also in terms of peacekeeping troops, military hardware and transport, etc. It is in no position to make sweeping promises about future commitments that might involve large-scale military interventions around the globe, perhaps sometimes in more than one place at the same time [1] . At the very best, such an extra burden would draw resources and funding away from the UN's vitally important current programs. At worst, intervention would be undertaken with too few troops, badly equipped and unable to fulfill their mandate. The United States intervention in Somalia failed miserably because it was at best half-baked—the UN would be lucky if not every one of their interventions suffered from the same problems [2] . This would only worsen the situation. Additionally, taking on these conflicts also includes nation building and government development post conflict which may be difficult for the UN to organize and commit to. [1] Schaefer, Brett, (2005) ‘The U.N. Summit Document: At What Cost?’, The Heritage Foundation, [2] Clarke, Walter; Herbst, Jeffrey (1996), “Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention”, Foreign Affairs Magazine,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-international-aghbfcpspr-pro04b", "score": 0.6314207911491394, "text": "Most of the Western world is currently undergoing a financial crisis [1] . However prosperous these former colonies might have been, in the modern world they simply do not have the money to provide reparations to these countries on any scale which might come close to closing the economic gap between them. America’s enormous debt almost caused a complete economic collapse in August [2] ; Britain was struggling under £2252.9 billion of debt as on July 2011 [3] . The proposition’s naive balancing argument fails to take into account the realities of the economy and debt in raising this motion – it would be impossible to achieve. [1] The Telegraph. ‘Double-dip fears across West as confidence crumbles’. Published on 30/09/2011. Accessed from on 12/09/11 [2] BBC. ‘IMF calls for US to raise debt ceiling and cut spending’. Published 25/07/2011. Accessed at on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from on 12/09/11", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-ssiahrgmhwc-pro03b", "score": 0.6304488778114319, "text": "The international community has an obligation to help poorer countries, and cannot simply walk away from it over an issue such as this. Exploitation, through imperialism and other means, has been a major feature of Western relations with Africa. From colonial policies to current trade agreements the West has exploited Africa [1] . The West now has an obligation to compensate Africa for the damage which exploitation has done to development. Aid is considered to be vital to ensuring national and international security to the world, removing donations could result in destabilisation as economic links between the government and people deteriorate [2] . [1] Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources, Stewart, H 10/05/13 [2] United Nations The 0.7% target: An in-depth look", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "validation-international-ghwipcsoc-con03b", "score": 0.6299999356269836, "text": "The cost of intervention is lower than the cost of inactivity. Sometimes, as in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, the situation will become so bad that US military intervention is necessary - this is hugely costly compared to funding preventative action through the United Nations. The role of failed states as reservoirs from which refugees, narcotics, terrorism, illegal diamonds, etc. are exported means that the USA already spends many billions of dollars a year in dealing with the mess they create. Finally, there is an opportunity cost of lost trade and investment which applies to the developing world and developed economies alike (e.g. the benefits to the US of trade with oil-rich Angola, Sudan and Congo).", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-pro02b", "score": 0.7104586362838745, "text": "Journalist Jeremy Shere describes the problems with most methods of nuclear storage: \"There have been a few other interesting ideas –such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country.” [1] The point with underground nuclear storage is that geological conditions are often very different between states and regions; this would often mean that in some states underground nuclear storage would be completely inappropriate because it could leak due to geological changes. Further, underground nuclear storage as mentioned in the first opposition counterargument, actively encourages a state to become reliant on nuclear power. [1] Shere, Jeremy. “What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?” Moment of Science. 23/03/2010" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con02a", "score": 0.6745937466621399, "text": "There Are Better Alternatives to Underground Nuclear Waste Storage France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. [1] It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. [2] As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation. [1] BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011, [2] Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-pro01a", "score": 0.6695045828819275, "text": "Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with. Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation. The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue. As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. [1] [1] “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con01b", "score": 0.6691959500312805, "text": "The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable. [1] As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being. [1] Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con01b", "score": 0.6632062792778015, "text": "The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable.1 As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being. Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con01a", "score": 0.6620818972587585, "text": "Underground Nuclear Storage is Expensive. Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible. Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently. This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety. [1] [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con02a", "score": 0.6530801057815552, "text": "Nuclear waste can be put to beneficial uses France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. 1 It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. 2 As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation. Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS. BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro03b", "score": 0.6395129561424255, "text": "Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. 1The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con04b", "score": 0.633785605430603, "text": "The nuclear industry has a shameful safety record and it is haunted by the constant risk of meltdown or explosion. \"No reactor in the world is inherently safe. All operational reactors have inherent safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. They are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack\"1. Chernobyl and Japan's Fukushima plant has shown the world what happens when cooling systems fail. The effects on the local people and the environment are devastating. It cannot be a coincidence that the rate of occurrence of certain types of cancer, such as leukaemia, is much higher in the population around nuclear plants. It is perfectly true that modern nuclear reactors are safer but they are not completely safe. It is not worth the risk. The dumping of nuclear waste also presents a host of problems. The Nuclear Inspectorate in the UK has been very critical of safety standards within the industry; it is too dominated by the profit motive to really care about safety and too shrouded in secrecy to be accountable. According to Agenda 2000: \"The problem of nuclear safety in some candidate countries causes serious concerns to the EU... and should be urgently and effectively addressed. It is imperative that solutions, including closure where required, be found to these issues in accordance with the Community nuclear acquis and a \"nuclear safety culture\" as established in the western world as soon as possible\"2. 1\"End the nuclear age.\" Greenpeace. October 2008 2 European Nuclear Threats Old and New, Nuclear Monitor, November 2003, pp.3-5,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro03a", "score": 0.6262392401695251, "text": "Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources In many senses nuclear energy is the cleanest of renewables. It does not produce emissions such as CO2 and greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the population and the environment. Roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in the United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other source; according to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars [1] . It is true that it does produce radioactive waste but since this is in solid form it can be dealt with relatively easily and stored away from centres of population. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently [2] ) [1] Max Schulz. \"Nuclear Power Is the Future\". Wilson Quarterly. September, 2006 [2] ‘Breeder reactor’, Wikipedia.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-politics-whwanw-pro03b", "score": 0.6144375205039978, "text": "The abolishment of nuclear weapons does not reduce the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. While nuclear weapons can be dismantled, the weapons-grade plutonium which forms their warheads cannot simply be destroyed. Instead, they must be stored in special facilities; in Russia, there are some three hundred sites were military nuclear material is stored (National Intelligence Council, 2002). It is producing this plutonium which is in fact the most difficult stage in building a weapon - by dismantling missiles, you are therefore not destroying their most dangerous part, and hence the risk of theft does not decrease. In fact, it may increase: missile silos in Russia are still the most heavily funded part of the military, whereas in recent years it has become clear that security at storage facilities is often inadequate. Moreover, it is far easier to steal a relatively small quantity of plutonium than an entire Intercontinental Ballistic Missile; there were three such incidents in Russia in the 1990s of weapons-grade uranium theft (National Intelligence Council, 2002). Ironically, the safest place for plutonium in present-day Russia may be on top of such a missile.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con04a", "score": 0.5950473546981812, "text": "Nuclear power is potentially extremely unsafe It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has a bad reputation for safety. This is undeserved. The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively for their entire lifetimes. The four historic nuclear disasters (1957 Windscale Fire, 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl, 2011 Fukushima, Japan) killed fewer people than the oil and coal industries have1. \"The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year\"2. Further, the two major nuclear accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, were both in old style reactors, made worse in the latter case by poor Soviet safety standards. The Chernobyl disaster took place at a time when our understanding of nuclear issues was much lesser than it is now, and was the result of poorly trained staff in the plant's control room. Power stations today are better staffed, better maintained and better understood, and because the effects of an attack upon them are acknowledged, they are better defended and monitored by the armed services. No system can be 100% safe, but solid design principles can minimize risk. Perhaps the best guarantee of safety standards in the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency with which the industry is presenting itself. Many of the problems in its early days were caused by excessive control due to the origin of nuclear energy from military applications. As the gap between the two separates so the nuclear industry becomes more accountable. The question is, is the slight risk of a nuclear accident a worse danger than the inevitable climate catastrophe that awaits us? 1 'Risks of Nuclear Power' by Bernard Cohen, University of Pittsburgh, 2Patrick Moore, a prominent environmentalist and founding member of Greenpeace, \"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case\", Washington Post, 4/16/06\"", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con03a", "score": 0.5855360627174377, "text": "Nuclear waste should be reused to create more electricity. There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source. [1] The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required. [2] [1] Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS, [2] Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con03b", "score": 0.5766040086746216, "text": "We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: \"There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed,\" states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1. This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on. 1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con03a", "score": 0.5760981440544128, "text": "The supply of uranium needed for nuclear power is not actually unlimited, renewable or sustainable The projected lifespan of uranium must be compared to that of oil, gas and coal which are irrefutably running out. Uranium supply is expected to last for over 200 years, which could be extended to 30,000 with modern technologies. There has not been sufficient research undertaken to explore new potential sites, new forms or ways of prolonging the life of that which we already have access to. For example, it has been claimed recently that there are potential alternatives to uranium which could be used in the nuclear process: \"There is also almost always thorium, a lightly radioactive metal, in the same ores, and it has to be disposed of.\" This disposal would create the same amount of energy as nuclear fission. The USA and Australia have potentially very big mines for rare earths and they are going to be producing Thorium as a waste product anyway, what better way to dispose of it than by creating energy?1 1Tim Worstall, You Don't Bring a Praseodymium Knife to a Gunfight, Foreign Policy, 29/9/10, See also:", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-international-apdwhwispo-pro03b", "score": 0.5743364095687866, "text": "Attacking chemical weapons stores prevents a threat in itself as it runs the risk of blowing up the weapons and therefore dispersing them into the air. [1] This risk would potentially be even higher with any biological weapons as they would not become harmless through dispersal as Chemical weapons would. Quite apart from the risks of setting off the arsenals when attacking them such attacks would be very unlikely to be successful. While Syria’s chemical weapons may be held in a few large centers this would seem to be unlikely given the history of attacks on unconventional weapons programs. Syria itself has had a nuclear weapons program destroyed as a result of an Israeli air attack in 2007. [2] This would have been a powerful lesson in the need to disperse these weapons to prevent their destruction from the air. [1] ‘Preventing Syrian Chemical Weapons Threat From Becoming Deadly Reality’, PBS Newshour, 5 December 2012, [2] Harel, Amos, ‘Five years on, new details emerge about Israeli strike on Syrian reactor’, Haaretz, 10 September 2012,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-cehwirtrnp-pro02b", "score": 0.5734416842460632, "text": "The nuclear industry around the world has always sought to improve the rights and protections of workers in uranium mines and to lessen the environmental impact of those mining activities [i] . Compared to the environmental impact of coal and oil withdrawal, uranium is relatively harmless. Compared to the space taken up by windfarms with their impact on the local environment and the devastation that can be caused by Hydroelectric, this is a low impact industry. [i] Press Release. “Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining”. World Nuclear Association. February 2011.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-pro03a", "score": 0.573064923286438, "text": "Nuclear energy in Europe is currently considered to be dangerous In the response to Fukushima accident European Commission carried out a series of stress tests on nuclear power plants in the EU to minimise the risk of such an accident occurring in the EU. The results were disturbing. According to the report European power plants are not well prepared for an emergency situation. Some of the power plants would have less than hour to restore safety systems in case of electric blackout. [1] Currently more than 100,000 citizens live in proximity (30 km) of 111 reactors. Should anything go wrong, many lives would be endangered. The problems could be resolved by dramatic investments into the safety measures. However, these investments would require approximately €25 bn [2] . This is a sum indebted European Union cannot afford. Therefore shutdown and substitution of these hazardous plants would be a much better idea. [1] European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the comprehensive risk and safety assessments (“stress tests”) of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities’, Europa.eu, 4 October 2012, [2] Paterson, Tony, ‘Europe’s ‘dangerous’ nuclear plants need €25bn safety refit’, The Independent, 18 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con03a", "score": 0.5717644691467285, "text": "Nuclear waste can be used in other forms of power generation There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source.1 The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required.2 Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS, Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011,", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con02b", "score": 0.5709598660469055, "text": "Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons1. Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism, in both the developed and developing world. If a 9/11-style bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple \"dirty bomb\" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people. Encouraging the spread of nuclear technology enables the spread of nuclear weapons. 1 'Reactor-grade and Weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear explosives', US Department of Energy Publication, January 1997,", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-pro03b", "score": 0.568743109703064, "text": "The essence of the argument may be correct, however, the basis is not. The stress tests were to great extent based on unrealistic threats like strong earthquake (which are extremely rare – almost non-existent in Europe away from the Mediterranean) or crash of big airplane. In these cases truly, lives could be endangered, however, the possibility of these cases ever occurring is nearly zero. Even if some investments in safety measures were needed (like in case of the safety systems in case of blackout) implementation of those would be substantially lower than phasing out nuclear reactors and building a replacement capacity of equal capacity from renewable sources.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-pro01b", "score": 0.7394242882728577, "text": "Underground nuclear storage is not the only way to store nuclear material. Economically speaking, it is more expensive, but likely much safer to store nuclear waste above ground in facilities that can be easily monitored and dealt with. Unlike in underground storage facilities, should something go wrong above ground, it can be responded to quickly and efficiently and it is likely that problems will be detected earlier as well. Further, widely implementing underground nuclear storage would also encourage states to be more cavalier with their nuclear energy policies. Specifically, whilst nuclear energy generation may result in zero carbon emissions, the mining and milling of uranium that initially starts the process is environmentally damaging. [1] [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con03a", "score": 0.7019583582878113, "text": "Nuclear waste should be reused to create more electricity. There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source. [1] The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required. [2] [1] Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS, [2] Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-pro02a", "score": 0.6982077360153198, "text": "Underground nuclear storage is safer than any available alternative Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example. Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly.1 As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders.2 Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions. “Fukushima is a triumph for nuclear power.” The Register. 20/02/2010 “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con02b", "score": 0.695084810256958, "text": "Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground. This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.1 “Nuclear Waste Faces uncertain future in Europe.” The Nuclear N Former. 2/11/2010", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con02b", "score": 0.6891326308250427, "text": "Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground. This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.7", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con01a", "score": 0.6844627261161804, "text": "Underground Nuclear Storage is Expensive. Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible. Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently. This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety. [1] [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con01a", "score": 0.6796464920043945, "text": "Underground nuclear storage is excessively expensive Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible. Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently. This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety.1 ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-con02a", "score": 0.675464928150177, "text": "Nuclear research is necessary for the future of green energy Historically a lot of the opposition to nuclear power has been about the waste they generate and that it will remain radioactive for tens of millennia. No one therefore wants nuclear waste in their neighbourhood making the pollution from coal and gas plants seem pale by comparison. Yet this is an objection that is increasingly outdated and what had been the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry is being turned into a strength. The EU has a chance to be a world leader in nuclear power generation. With the fourth generation of nuclear reactors which are much safer than current models and create almost no nuclear waste currently being designed. [1] Moreover an even more advanced nuclear plant, this one based upon fusion rather than fission is currently being built in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of southern France. It is an experimental reactor that will not produce any waste at all and could help revolutionise clean power. [2] Only if Europe continues investing in nuclear power will we be able to realise the dream of completely clean and completely safe nuclear power. This would then benefit the whole world by enabling such clean energy production elsewhere. [1] Swierk, ‘Visegrad 4 for 4th generation nuclear reactors’, National Centre for nuclear research, 21 July 2013, [2] Iter, ‘The Project’, 2013,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-pro02a", "score": 0.668403685092926, "text": "Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1] The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example. Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly. [1] As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders. [2] Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions. [1] “Europe eyes underground nuclear waste repositories.” Infowars Ireland. 20/02/2010 [2] “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet. [I1] I am not sure how to replace this section. “Leakage” of radioactive material into the air is a minimal danger. The contributor may be referring to the ejection of irradiated dust and other particulates that has occurred when nuclear power stations have suffered explosive containment failures, but this is not comparable to the types of containment failures that might happen in facilities used to store spent nuclear fuel rods and medical waste. One of the more substantial risks presented by underground storage is release of nuclear material into a water source.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con03a", "score": 0.6659628748893738, "text": "Nuclear waste can be used in other forms of power generation There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source.1 The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required.2 Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS, Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con03b", "score": 0.6627626419067383, "text": "We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: \"There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed,\" states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1. This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on. 1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "validation-politics-dhwdtnw-pro02b", "score": 0.6601639986038208, "text": "Countries can develop their nuclear-related technologies without the need to direct efforts to the construction of extremely dangerous, miniature nuclear weapons. Rather, if superior technology is desired, the resources exist in Western countries to do most research without even touching nuclear materials, being able to do much of the research by means of computer. Dominance in nuclear engineering does not require the creation of such weapons. It is better to direct research toward peaceful applications of nuclear technology.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con03a", "score": 0.6539983153343201, "text": "The supply of uranium needed for nuclear power is not actually unlimited, renewable or sustainable The projected lifespan of uranium must be compared to that of oil, gas and coal which are irrefutably running out. Uranium supply is expected to last for over 200 years, which could be extended to 30,000 with modern technologies. There has not been sufficient research undertaken to explore new potential sites, new forms or ways of prolonging the life of that which we already have access to. For example, it has been claimed recently that there are potential alternatives to uranium which could be used in the nuclear process: \"There is also almost always thorium, a lightly radioactive metal, in the same ores, and it has to be disposed of.\" This disposal would create the same amount of energy as nuclear fission. The USA and Australia have potentially very big mines for rare earths and they are going to be producing Thorium as a waste product anyway, what better way to dispose of it than by creating energy?1 1Tim Worstall, You Don't Bring a Praseodymium Knife to a Gunfight, Foreign Policy, 29/9/10, See also:", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "validation-politics-dhwdtnw-con01b", "score": 0.6535360217094421, "text": "Much of the technology of tactical nuclear weapons is still in the early stages of development. While many of the weapons, such as the RNEP, cannot yet be applied in the field, their eventual development could open the door to a broad range of strategic considerations. For that reason, it is imperative that work in this field continue, to guarantee that states can have the best defenses available to them and the greatest tactical flexibility in the event of conflict.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "validation-politics-dhwdtnw-pro01a", "score": 0.653384268283844, "text": "Countries need to design nuclear devices to adapt with changing defensive technology. There are a number of technological developments that have made the use of conventional weapons ineffective in combating certain threats. For example, some bunkers are buried so deeply underground that conventional bombs cannot penetrate them. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), currently in development in the United States, would be able to penetrate such bunkers, while leaving no more surface damage than a conventional bomb1. Deployment of a weapon such as the RNEP might prove necessary in order to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons in rogue states, as for example, Iran has built extremely tough bunkers for the purpose of nuclear testing and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Blocking the development of necessary tactical nuclear technologies actually raises the chances of these dangerous states obtaining nuclear weapons. Another instance of tactical nuclear devices proving useful is in the destruction of clandestine biological and chemical weapons factories. Were such facilities destroyed by conventional bombing, some of the materials being manufactured could easily leak into neighbouring population areas, leading to increased casualties. Clearly, in light of these defense innovations, tactical nuclear weapons are an essential addition to a nuclear power's arsenal. 1 Reynolds, Paul. 2003. \"Mini-Nukes on US Agenda\". BBC News.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro03b", "score": 0.6460621953010559, "text": "Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. 1The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro01b", "score": 0.6459622383117676, "text": "Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations. 1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs.\" Union of Concerned Scientists", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con03b", "score": 0.6457562446594238, "text": "Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was cancelled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con02b", "score": 0.6456952095031738, "text": "Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons1. Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism, in both the developed and developing world. If a 9/11-style bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple \"dirty bomb\" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people. Encouraging the spread of nuclear technology enables the spread of nuclear weapons. 1 'Reactor-grade and Weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear explosives', US Department of Energy Publication, January 1997,", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con03b", "score": 0.6437593102455139, "text": "Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was canceled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro02a", "score": 0.6405405402183533, "text": "Energy demands are increasing exponentially and nuclear power is the only renewable source capable of matching it Although EU countries are using energy more efficiently, demand for energy continues to rise, especially in the new eastern European member states. The demand for electricity is expected to rise by 8-9% by 2020 meaning a much more urgent need for generating capacity [1] . At the same time world energy consumption is projected to expand by 50% from 2005 to 2030 leading to high oil and gas prices [2] . The production of renewable energy is not growing at a fast enough pace to replace fossil fuels; wind, wave and solar simply cannot provide the quantities of energy required. It is possible – indeed, desirable - to combine nuclear power with other renewables, but nuclear energy is a crucial part of that mix as the only option capable of producing the quantity of energy required. Nuclear power is actually more efficient than any other power source: a gram of uranium 235 contains as much energy as four tons of coal [3] . [1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels. [2] International Energy Outlook 2008, Energy Information Administration, June 2008, Chapter 1. [3] Max Schulz. \"Nuclear Power Is the Future\". Wilson Quarterly. Fall, 2006", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con02b", "score": 0.731468915939331, "text": "Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground. This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.7" } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro01b", "score": 0.6901972889900208, "text": "Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations. 1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs.\" Union of Concerned Scientists", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-con02a", "score": 0.6796191334724426, "text": "Nuclear research is necessary for the future of green energy Historically a lot of the opposition to nuclear power has been about the waste they generate and that it will remain radioactive for tens of millennia. No one therefore wants nuclear waste in their neighbourhood making the pollution from coal and gas plants seem pale by comparison. Yet this is an objection that is increasingly outdated and what had been the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry is being turned into a strength. The EU has a chance to be a world leader in nuclear power generation. With the fourth generation of nuclear reactors which are much safer than current models and create almost no nuclear waste currently being designed. [1] Moreover an even more advanced nuclear plant, this one based upon fusion rather than fission is currently being built in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of southern France. It is an experimental reactor that will not produce any waste at all and could help revolutionise clean power. [2] Only if Europe continues investing in nuclear power will we be able to realise the dream of completely clean and completely safe nuclear power. This would then benefit the whole world by enabling such clean energy production elsewhere. [1] Swierk, ‘Visegrad 4 for 4th generation nuclear reactors’, National Centre for nuclear research, 21 July 2013, [2] Iter, ‘The Project’, 2013,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-pro02a", "score": 0.6739075183868408, "text": "Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1] The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example. Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly. [1] As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders. [2] Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions. [1] “Europe eyes underground nuclear waste repositories.” Infowars Ireland. 20/02/2010 [2] “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet. [I1] I am not sure how to replace this section. “Leakage” of radioactive material into the air is a minimal danger. The contributor may be referring to the ejection of irradiated dust and other particulates that has occurred when nuclear power stations have suffered explosive containment failures, but this is not comparable to the types of containment failures that might happen in facilities used to store spent nuclear fuel rods and medical waste. One of the more substantial risks presented by underground storage is release of nuclear material into a water source.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-cehwirtrnp-con03b", "score": 0.6714327335357666, "text": "It is interesting to note that the only places where nuclear energy has provided a dominant share of the national energy market are France, Russia, Canada (specifically Ontario) and now, increasingly China. All of which have heavily centralised energy markets. Indeed the correlation between bureaucracy, the possession or desire for a nuclear arsenal and the use of overpriced nuclear energy appears to go beyond coincidence.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-con02b", "score": 0.6705480813980103, "text": "Geothermal power plants have their own drawbacks as well. Prime sites are often far away from population centres which means that there are losses of electricity between the plant and the customers. Drilling into heated rock is a difficult process and once complete there must be constant management to ensure that the source is not overused [1] . [1] Siegel,R.P. ‘Geothermal Energy: Pros and Cons’, Triple Pundits 15 June 12", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con03a", "score": 0.6613023281097412, "text": "Nuclear waste can be used in other forms of power generation There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source.1 The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required.2 Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS, Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con01b", "score": 0.6597433090209961, "text": "For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive. Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great. 1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro01b", "score": 0.6545504331588745, "text": "It is not the best solution to Africa’s energy crisis. According to a report by the International Energy Agency as an immense dam requires a power grid. Such a grid does not exist and building such a grid is “not proving to be cost effective in more remote rural areas”. In such low density areas local sources of power are best. [1] DRC is only 34% urban and has a population density of only 30 people per km2 [2] so the best option would be local renewable power. [1] International Energy Agency, ‘Energy for All Financing access for the poor’, World Energy Outlook, 2011, p.21 [2] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con01a", "score": 0.6521755456924438, "text": "Nuclear power is very expensive For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive. Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great. 1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "validation-environment-ceshbwpsbpf-con01b", "score": 0.6508519053459167, "text": "Nobody disputes that any energy strategy will have to include a shift away from the way much of the developed world depends on energy. Clearly energy conservation must be part of the process, but so should micro-renewables. In both categories wind power is the best available option – cheap to build and easy for small scale energy users to use as an when they need it and when built in the right place is reliable, in the UK wind energy is generating 75-85% of the time. [i] Moreover any worries over reliability can be alleviated by building numerous wind farms over a wide area as the wind is always blowing somewhere. [ii] Battery capacity is easier to build on a smaller scale and surplus can be exchanged internationally relatively easily. All power supplies require backup [iii] . Power outages apply just as much in the supposedly stable world of fossil fuels; surplus capacity is built into any system. [i] RenewableUK, ‘Wind Energy’, 2010 [ii] Green, ‘Wind Power Unreliable? Build More Turbines’, New York Times, 20 January 2010 [iii] Wind Energy Myths. “Wind Powering America Fact Sheet”. May 2005.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-con01a", "score": 0.6506252288818359, "text": "Highly efficient when operating at high rates The nuclear power plants have huge energy outputs. That means we can produce energy faster at lower price, due to the high energy density of uranium (we can extract far more energy from it than from any other source). Thanks to this fact, there is no need to build many power plants, since a few nuclear plants can easily supply whole country, for example in Slovakia only 2 power plants supply more than half of electric energy. This is beneficial because residents object to having power generation nearby, building one nuclear plant affects many fewer people than the number of wind turbines that would be needed to generate the same amount of electricity. The nuclear power plant being built at Olkiluoto in Finland will produce 13TWh per year [1] equivalent to more than 3000 wind turbines. [2] This has the additional environmental benefit of requiring fewer materials for construction. [1] ‘Olkiluoto 3 – Finland’, Areva, accessed 18 November 2013, [2] ‘FAQ – Output’, National Wind Watch, , This gives 3.285GWh per year for a turbine which would be more like 4000, but it also states that the wind industry say their turbines work at a higher capacity than that accounted for in their calculation.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro02b", "score": 0.6460112929344177, "text": "Nuclear power is no better placed to deliver the amount of energy required. There is an unrealistic focus on nuclear power as a magical solution to climate change. Despite increasing demand the amount of electricity being generated by nuclear is projected to fall not rise. The share of nuclear energy will decrease from 30% to 25% in electricity generation by 2020. According to current projections, the nuclear generation capacity in the EU would fall by as much as 33 GWe by 2020; this fall would mostly have to be met by dirty power plants using gas, or particularly coal [1] . The focus on nuclear power diverts attention from other renewables. In reality going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Business Patricia Hewitt said in a Commons debate on a 2003 Energy White Paper: 'It would have been foolish to announce …. that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables' [2] . [1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels. [2] The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-pro02b", "score": 0.643871009349823, "text": "First of all, power plants operating on renewable resources are not as green as one might think. Hydroelectric and tidal power can harm water ecosystems, wind turbines can harm wildlife and solar plants need a large space to be built on and are only really efficient in deserts. Nuclear power stations are relatively green since they do not primary produce any “dirty gases.” The only problem is mining uranium and the nuclear waste, which is increasingly able to be recycled and potentially reused as fuel for more modern nuclear plants. Furthermore, gas stations are operating with non-renewable source of energy – natural gas. Therefore, when speaking about efficiency -nuclear power stations are generally more effective than gas power stations [1] [2] – it is better for environment to operate on few nuclear power stations rather than on many of gas power stations. Nuclear power stations are not flexible, but they can represent the base of needed energy, which does not fluctuate, and the rest of needed energy which varies in time may be supplied with power plants operating on renewable sources and few power plants operating on other non-renewable sources. [1] ‘Cooling power plants’, World Nuclear Association, September 2012, [2] Kirk T. 2007 Physics IB Study Guide, Oxford University Press, p.68", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro03a", "score": 0.6434950828552246, "text": "Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources In many senses nuclear energy is the cleanest of renewables. It does not produce emissions such as CO2 and greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the population and the environment. Roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in the United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other source; according to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars [1] . It is true that it does produce radioactive waste but since this is in solid form it can be dealt with relatively easily and stored away from centres of population. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently [2] ) [1] Max Schulz. \"Nuclear Power Is the Future\". Wilson Quarterly. September, 2006 [2] ‘Breeder reactor’, Wikipedia.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con03b", "score": 0.6366447806358337, "text": "Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was cancelled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con03b", "score": 0.6358525156974792, "text": "Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was canceled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-politics-whwanw-pro03b", "score": 0.625910758972168, "text": "The abolishment of nuclear weapons does not reduce the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. While nuclear weapons can be dismantled, the weapons-grade plutonium which forms their warheads cannot simply be destroyed. Instead, they must be stored in special facilities; in Russia, there are some three hundred sites were military nuclear material is stored (National Intelligence Council, 2002). It is producing this plutonium which is in fact the most difficult stage in building a weapon - by dismantling missiles, you are therefore not destroying their most dangerous part, and hence the risk of theft does not decrease. In fact, it may increase: missile silos in Russia are still the most heavily funded part of the military, whereas in recent years it has become clear that security at storage facilities is often inadequate. Moreover, it is far easier to steal a relatively small quantity of plutonium than an entire Intercontinental Ballistic Missile; there were three such incidents in Russia in the 1990s of weapons-grade uranium theft (National Intelligence Council, 2002). Ironically, the safest place for plutonium in present-day Russia may be on top of such a missile.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-environment-cehwirtrnp-pro03a", "score": 0.6251447200775146, "text": "It is simply unethical to invest in an industry that will leave the problems it creates to be dealt with for thousands of years into the future Were humankind to stop all nuclear energy use tomorrow we, as a species, would have to deal with the repercussions of nuclear power for four times longer than human civilization has so far existed. Polluting our own age is one thing but to bequeath such a heritage to generations as yet unimagined let alone unborn. To give this some context, in the case of just one isotope, plutonium 239 – the most poisonous substance known to mankind – had the Ancient Egyptians used this as an energy source to build the pyramids we would still be dealing with it today and it would still have 235,000 years to go.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-cehwirtrnp-con03a", "score": 0.6246629953384399, "text": "Nuclear power has a proven track record in France, Canada and Russia and an increasing role in new energy markets There are already stable markets for nuclear power around the world with plants providing a consistent share of energy to the consumer. Although there are now renewable suppliers providing some share of total demand it is rare for them to have established relationships with either suppliers or major industrial consumers. There are, however established models of how nuclear power can be blended into an integrated energy supply system.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-pro01b", "score": 0.6246006488800049, "text": "The main source, or fuel, for production of nuclear energy does not have to be uranium, thorium can be used. While the number of reactors may increase the consumption of uranium may well actually go down as the next generation of reactors will get more energy from the uranium they use. More specifically fourth generation reactors would reuse the uranium multiple times up to the point where they may be more than a hundred times more fuel efficient than current reactors. [1] Furthermore, uranium is not mined only in one specific country, but in variety of countries (Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia, Niger, United States). As we can see, these countries differ from each other in any way – political situation, regime, relationships with other countries etc. Therefore, even in the case of war with one or few countries from where uranium is obtained, the supply can be established from other sources, other countries. Therefore, there is a very little possibility of diplomatic pressure, since uranium can be obtained from variety of sources. Together with thorium, which can be obtained from countries like India, Turkey, Brazil, EU can be considered as independent from any one source of uranium or thorium. [1] Hansen, Dr. James, ‘4th Generation Nuclear Power’, OSS, 18 January 2009,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con03b", "score": 0.7796452641487122, "text": "Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was cancelled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors." } ]

[ { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-pro01a", "score": 0.7193747162818909, "text": "Storing nuclear waste underground is necessary - there are no better option available Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with. Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation. The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue. As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. 1 1. “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con02a", "score": 0.7189752459526062, "text": "Nuclear waste can be put to beneficial uses France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. 1 It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. 2 As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation. Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS. BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con02a", "score": 0.7173855900764465, "text": "There Are Better Alternatives to Underground Nuclear Waste Storage France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. [1] It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. [2] As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation. [1] BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011, [2] Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro03b", "score": 0.7080038785934448, "text": "Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. 1The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-pro01a", "score": 0.702627956867218, "text": "Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with. Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation. The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue. As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. [1] [1] “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro03a", "score": 0.7003106474876404, "text": "Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources In many senses nuclear energy is the cleanest of renewables. It does not produce emissions such as CO2 and greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the population and the environment. Roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in the United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other source; according to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars [1] . It is true that it does produce radioactive waste but since this is in solid form it can be dealt with relatively easily and stored away from centres of population. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently [2] ) [1] Max Schulz. \"Nuclear Power Is the Future\". Wilson Quarterly. September, 2006 [2] ‘Breeder reactor’, Wikipedia.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro01b", "score": 0.6976850032806396, "text": "Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations. 1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs.\" Union of Concerned Scientists", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-pro01b", "score": 0.696959912776947, "text": "Underground nuclear storage is not the only way to store nuclear material. Economically speaking, it is more expensive, but likely much safer to store nuclear waste above ground in facilities that can be easily monitored and dealt with. Unlike in underground storage facilities, should something go wrong above ground, it can be responded to quickly and efficiently and it is likely that problems will be detected earlier as well. Further, widely implementing underground nuclear storage would also encourage states to be more cavalier with their nuclear energy policies. Specifically, whilst nuclear energy generation may result in zero carbon emissions, the mining and milling of uranium that initially starts the process is environmentally damaging. [1] [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-pro01b", "score": 0.6962605118751526, "text": "Underground nuclear storage is not the only way to store nuclear material. Economically speaking, it is more expensive, but likely much safer to store nuclear waste above ground in facilities that can be easily monitored and dealt with. Unlike in underground storage facilities, should something go wrong above ground, it can be responded to quickly and efficiently and it is likely that problems will be detected earlier as well. Further, widely implementing underground nuclear storage would also encourage states to be more cavalier with their nuclear energy policies. Specifically, whilst nuclear energy generation may result in zero carbon emissions, the mining and milling of uranium that initially starts the process is environmentally damaging.1 ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con02b", "score": 0.6875738501548767, "text": "Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground. This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.7", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con02b", "score": 0.6849027872085571, "text": "Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground. This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.1 “Nuclear Waste Faces uncertain future in Europe.” The Nuclear N Former. 2/11/2010", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro02a", "score": 0.6840640902519226, "text": "Energy demands are increasing exponentially and nuclear power is the only renewable source capable of matching it Although EU countries are using energy more efficiently, demand for energy continues to rise, especially in the new eastern European member states. The demand for electricity is expected to rise by 8-9% by 2020 meaning a much more urgent need for generating capacity [1] . At the same time world energy consumption is projected to expand by 50% from 2005 to 2030 leading to high oil and gas prices [2] . The production of renewable energy is not growing at a fast enough pace to replace fossil fuels; wind, wave and solar simply cannot provide the quantities of energy required. It is possible – indeed, desirable - to combine nuclear power with other renewables, but nuclear energy is a crucial part of that mix as the only option capable of producing the quantity of energy required. Nuclear power is actually more efficient than any other power source: a gram of uranium 235 contains as much energy as four tons of coal [3] . [1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels. [2] International Energy Outlook 2008, Energy Information Administration, June 2008, Chapter 1. [3] Max Schulz. \"Nuclear Power Is the Future\". Wilson Quarterly. Fall, 2006", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-con02a", "score": 0.6815864443778992, "text": "Nuclear research is necessary for the future of green energy Historically a lot of the opposition to nuclear power has been about the waste they generate and that it will remain radioactive for tens of millennia. No one therefore wants nuclear waste in their neighbourhood making the pollution from coal and gas plants seem pale by comparison. Yet this is an objection that is increasingly outdated and what had been the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry is being turned into a strength. The EU has a chance to be a world leader in nuclear power generation. With the fourth generation of nuclear reactors which are much safer than current models and create almost no nuclear waste currently being designed. [1] Moreover an even more advanced nuclear plant, this one based upon fusion rather than fission is currently being built in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of southern France. It is an experimental reactor that will not produce any waste at all and could help revolutionise clean power. [2] Only if Europe continues investing in nuclear power will we be able to realise the dream of completely clean and completely safe nuclear power. This would then benefit the whole world by enabling such clean energy production elsewhere. [1] Swierk, ‘Visegrad 4 for 4th generation nuclear reactors’, National Centre for nuclear research, 21 July 2013, [2] Iter, ‘The Project’, 2013,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-con01a", "score": 0.6808098554611206, "text": "Highly efficient when operating at high rates The nuclear power plants have huge energy outputs. That means we can produce energy faster at lower price, due to the high energy density of uranium (we can extract far more energy from it than from any other source). Thanks to this fact, there is no need to build many power plants, since a few nuclear plants can easily supply whole country, for example in Slovakia only 2 power plants supply more than half of electric energy. This is beneficial because residents object to having power generation nearby, building one nuclear plant affects many fewer people than the number of wind turbines that would be needed to generate the same amount of electricity. The nuclear power plant being built at Olkiluoto in Finland will produce 13TWh per year [1] equivalent to more than 3000 wind turbines. [2] This has the additional environmental benefit of requiring fewer materials for construction. [1] ‘Olkiluoto 3 – Finland’, Areva, accessed 18 November 2013, [2] ‘FAQ – Output’, National Wind Watch, , This gives 3.285GWh per year for a turbine which would be more like 4000, but it also states that the wind industry say their turbines work at a higher capacity than that accounted for in their calculation.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-pro02b", "score": 0.6786967515945435, "text": "Journalist Jeremy Shere describes the problems with most methods of nuclear storage: \"There have been a few other interesting ideas –such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country.”1 The point with underground nuclear storage is that geological conditions are often very different between states and regions; this would often mean that in some states underground nuclear storage would be completely inappropriate because it could leak due to geological changes. Further, underground nuclear storage as mentioned in the first opposition counter-argument, actively encourages a state to become reliant on nuclear power. Shere, Jeremy. “What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?” Moment of Science. 23/03/2010", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con03a", "score": 0.6761777997016907, "text": "The supply of uranium needed for nuclear power is not actually unlimited, renewable or sustainable The projected lifespan of uranium must be compared to that of oil, gas and coal which are irrefutably running out. Uranium supply is expected to last for over 200 years, which could be extended to 30,000 with modern technologies. There has not been sufficient research undertaken to explore new potential sites, new forms or ways of prolonging the life of that which we already have access to. For example, it has been claimed recently that there are potential alternatives to uranium which could be used in the nuclear process: \"There is also almost always thorium, a lightly radioactive metal, in the same ores, and it has to be disposed of.\" This disposal would create the same amount of energy as nuclear fission. The USA and Australia have potentially very big mines for rare earths and they are going to be producing Thorium as a waste product anyway, what better way to dispose of it than by creating energy?1 1Tim Worstall, You Don't Bring a Praseodymium Knife to a Gunfight, Foreign Policy, 29/9/10, See also:", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con02b", "score": 0.6726788282394409, "text": "Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons1. Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism, in both the developed and developing world. If a 9/11-style bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple \"dirty bomb\" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people. Encouraging the spread of nuclear technology enables the spread of nuclear weapons. 1 'Reactor-grade and Weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear explosives', US Department of Energy Publication, January 1997,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-pro02b", "score": 0.6721803545951843, "text": "Journalist Jeremy Shere describes the problems with most methods of nuclear storage: \"There have been a few other interesting ideas –such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country.” [1] The point with underground nuclear storage is that geological conditions are often very different between states and regions; this would often mean that in some states underground nuclear storage would be completely inappropriate because it could leak due to geological changes. Further, underground nuclear storage as mentioned in the first opposition counterargument, actively encourages a state to become reliant on nuclear power. [1] Shere, Jeremy. “What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?” Moment of Science. 23/03/2010", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con03b", "score": 0.6609840989112854, "text": "Renewables always looked like being ‘too little, too late’ and that now appears to be the case. Carbon based energy sources remain, massively, the major players of global energy production and that looks set to continue to be the case. It is time to take a mature response to that reality and manage the problem rather than pretending that a magical solution is going to be produced in the form of technological breakthroughs in nuclear or other energy technologies.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con03b", "score": 0.655622661113739, "text": "We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: \"There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed,\" states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1. This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on. 1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con01b", "score": 0.7640557289123535, "text": "The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable. [1] As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being. [1] Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006" } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con01a", "score": 0.7036086320877075, "text": "Nuclear power is very expensive For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive. Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great. 1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-pro02a", "score": 0.6881721019744873, "text": "Underground nuclear storage is safer than any available alternative Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example. Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly.1 As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders.2 Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions. “Fukushima is a triumph for nuclear power.” The Register. 20/02/2010 “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-pro01a", "score": 0.6873125433921814, "text": "Storing nuclear waste underground is necessary - there are no better option available Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with. Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation. The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue. As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. 1 1. “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-pro01a", "score": 0.6839887499809265, "text": "Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with. Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation. The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue. As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. [1] [1] “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-con01b", "score": 0.6837224364280701, "text": "Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2] [1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, [2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro02b", "score": 0.6821615099906921, "text": "Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-politics-dhwrt-con01b", "score": 0.6802477240562439, "text": "A state of the art nuclear weapons system is always going to be costly and no one wants to cut corners for the risks that could create. Yet it is money well spent when compared to the damage which would be caused if Britain was attacked due to not having a nuclear deterrent.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con02b", "score": 0.6772830486297607, "text": "Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground. This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.7", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con02b", "score": 0.6747657656669617, "text": "Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground. This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.1 “Nuclear Waste Faces uncertain future in Europe.” The Nuclear N Former. 2/11/2010", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "validation-politics-dhwdtnw-con01a", "score": 0.673708438873291, "text": "Tactical nuclear weapons are very expensive to design and build, yet will likely have no new strategic value. Countries have spent many billions of dollars developing tactical nuclear weapons in recent decades in the hope of maintaining their positions as nuclear powers with access to a whole range of terrifying weapons. However, little real applicability exists for most of these weapons. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), being developed in the United States at enormous cost, is designed to burrow deep underground to destroy enemy bunkers, yet it is as yet unusable, since the weapon cannot as yet burrow even a tenth of the distance underground necessary to prevent considerable radioactive fallout in the area surrounding the blast site1. In fact, many scientists say the weapon is a chimera and will never be capable of doing what it is meant to without risking huge collateral damage. Furthermore, it is unlikely that many states would consider the use of nuclear weapons appropriate, regardless of size. This international taboo should be considered a positive step toward peace, and not be tampered with by overzealous governments seeking strategic advantage. Overall, tactical nuclear weapons will likely prove to be little more than expensive dust-gatherer in most cases. 1 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005. \"Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator\".", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-con01b", "score": 0.6705901622772217, "text": "For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive. Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great. 1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-con02b", "score": 0.6638096570968628, "text": "Geothermal power plants have their own drawbacks as well. Prime sites are often far away from population centres which means that there are losses of electricity between the plant and the customers. Drilling into heated rock is a difficult process and once complete there must be constant management to ensure that the source is not overused [1] . [1] Siegel,R.P. ‘Geothermal Energy: Pros and Cons’, Triple Pundits 15 June 12", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-pro02a", "score": 0.6610109806060791, "text": "Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1] The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example. Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly. [1] As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders. [2] Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions. [1] “Europe eyes underground nuclear waste repositories.” Infowars Ireland. 20/02/2010 [2] “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet. [I1] I am not sure how to replace this section. “Leakage” of radioactive material into the air is a minimal danger. The contributor may be referring to the ejection of irradiated dust and other particulates that has occurred when nuclear power stations have suffered explosive containment failures, but this is not comparable to the types of containment failures that might happen in facilities used to store spent nuclear fuel rods and medical waste. One of the more substantial risks presented by underground storage is release of nuclear material into a water source.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-science-dssghsdmd-con03a", "score": 0.659850001335144, "text": "The system is an incredibly expensive venture that may not even work Research and development of effective strategic defense systems has been ongoing since the Reagan administration, to little lasting benefit. The US government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the past two decades on developing missile defense technology, including nearly $60 billion in the past five years, and still it is incomplete and its effectiveness questionable. Many scientists have attested to the ineffectiveness of missile defense, as it currently stands. It is very difficult to hit a flying missile with another missile, and test-runs of the technology have been patchy at best (Sessler et. al., 2000). The dream of an effective missile defense shield that can successfully intercept enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles has yet to come to fruition. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad and to fold up the project entirely.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-cehwirtrnp-pro03a", "score": 0.6561960577964783, "text": "It is simply unethical to invest in an industry that will leave the problems it creates to be dealt with for thousands of years into the future Were humankind to stop all nuclear energy use tomorrow we, as a species, would have to deal with the repercussions of nuclear power for four times longer than human civilization has so far existed. Polluting our own age is one thing but to bequeath such a heritage to generations as yet unimagined let alone unborn. To give this some context, in the case of just one isotope, plutonium 239 – the most poisonous substance known to mankind – had the Ancient Egyptians used this as an energy source to build the pyramids we would still be dealing with it today and it would still have 235,000 years to go.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-education-uehwsnwu-con02a", "score": 0.6553367376327515, "text": "Nuclear waste can be put to beneficial uses France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. 1 It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. 2 As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation. Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS. BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011,", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro03b", "score": 0.6526818871498108, "text": "Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. 1The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-con03a", "score": 0.6485209465026855, "text": "Phasing nuclear out would be too expensive Any phase out of nuclear energy in the EU would be tremendously costly, to an extent indebted Europe cannot afford. First costs stem from closing of nuclear reactors. These would include safely disposing or sealing all radioactive materials involved in production, closing buildings, dismantling the generators etc. In the UK the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that 19 nuclear plants in the UK that are set for decommissioning will cost £70 billion. [1] Secondly, new generation of power plants would need to be built. Suitable places would need to be found, land bought and prepared for construction, power plants and electricity network constructed. These alone would cost sums counted in billions of euros regardless of whether these plants are renewable or not. Moreover, social costs would have to be included, since many highly specialised jobs in the nuclear power industry would be irrecoverably lost. The nuclear power industry in the UK alone employs 44,000 people. [2] [1] BBC News, ‘Nuclear clean-up ‘to cost £70bn’’, 30 March 2006, [2] Cogent, ‘Nuclear industry profile’, 2013,", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-politics-dhwrt-con01a", "score": 0.6459035277366638, "text": "The cost of replacing trident is prohibitive Britain is in the longest recession it has ever been in – longer even than the great depression of the 1930s – with the economy not having recovered to pre-recession levels four years after the start of the downturn. [1] This is obviously completely the wrong time to be wasting money on ruinously expensive new weapons systems. The cost of replacing trident is disputed with the Government saying it would be between £15 and £20 billion [2] but campaign group Greenpeace puts the total cost at £97billion once running costs over the missiles thirty year lifetime are included. [3] Both figures are incredibly costly for a system which we hope we won’t ever have to use and for which we have allies with similar systems. The money should instead be spent on helping to get the economy moving or services that benefit society such as health and education. [1] Oxlade, Andrew, ‘Economy watch: What caused the return to recession and how long will it last?’, This is Money.co.uk, 4 May 2012. [2] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Trident replacement’, 22 September 2010. [3] Greenpeace, ‘£97billion for Trident: five times government estimates’, 18 September 2009.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-pro03b", "score": 0.6423245072364807, "text": "The essence of the argument may be correct, however, the basis is not. The stress tests were to great extent based on unrealistic threats like strong earthquake (which are extremely rare – almost non-existent in Europe away from the Mediterranean) or crash of big airplane. In these cases truly, lives could be endangered, however, the possibility of these cases ever occurring is nearly zero. Even if some investments in safety measures were needed (like in case of the safety systems in case of blackout) implementation of those would be substantially lower than phasing out nuclear reactors and building a replacement capacity of equal capacity from renewable sources.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro02b", "score": 0.8227055072784424, "text": "Rising countries, such as India, China, and Brazil, are adopting more efficient technologies than are currently in use in much of the world. While the developing world is contributing to net GHG emission growth, their GHG per person is still far below that of a developed country. And, as a result of the adoption of newer technologies, it is unlikely that their GHG per person will ever equal that found in the developed world. If reductions can be made in the developed world, where it is a fact that the economic resources exist to do so, then net emissions can be stabilized even while emissions in the developing world continue to grow." } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro03b", "score": 0.7742458581924438, "text": "For most of the time they were emitting the west did not have any idea of the consequences. The developed world therefore cannot be held responsible for emissions before the 1980s. On the other hand knowledge of the effects has not prevented developing countries from immensely increasing their emissions. Clearly the developed world is still responsible for more emissions but they are also responsible for developing technologies to reduce emissions such as renewable power.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro03a", "score": 0.7270140647888184, "text": "Failure to reach global accord The Kyoto Protocol failed to reduce global GHG emissions and in the midst of an economic crisis, world leaders were unable to even agree to a replacement treaty when it expired. There is no meaningful global emissions reduction treaty ready for ratification and no reason to be optimistic that one is forthcoming. The developing world believes it has a legitimate right to expand economically without emissions caps because the rich world is responsible for the vast majority of emissions over the last 200 years and per capita emissions in developing countries are still far lower than in the developed world. As such, developing countries will only agree to a global accord that pays for their emissions reductions/abatement. However, the developed world is unwilling to transfer wealth in exchange for a right to emit, particularly at a time when so many have large budget deficits 1. Given that the growth of annual emissions is being driven by developing countries, many developed countries (like the US) believe that any treaty that does not include developing countries (particularly China) would be fruitless. 1. The Economist, 'A bad climate for development', 17th September 2009.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01b", "score": 0.707550048828125, "text": "The fossil fuels which account for the majority of GHG emissions are finite resources. As oil and coal becoming increasingly scarce, markets will naturally switch to more efficient or renewable resources thus stabilizing global GHG emissions. The growth of fuel efficient hybrid and fully electric automobiles are a good example of the market responding to higher fuel prices. (Also see New Technology)", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-international-ghbwg-pro03b", "score": 0.700363278388977, "text": "Although the problems of resource depletion and environmental deterioration are indeed serious global problems, it is unreasonably optimistic and idealistic to believe that a world government, in and of itself, would be an effective instrument toward the reduction of these problems. The world government would likely promulgate resource use and environmental protection policies that would be acceptable to some countries, but totally unacceptable to other countries. Another consideration is that in a fundamental sense, resource depletion and environmental deterioration are caused by rapid population growth. A world government might try to control population growth by such draconic means as the notorious “one child” policy in the People’s Republic of China. This would be totally unacceptable to a very large majority of the contemporary human population.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-con02b", "score": 0.6916546821594238, "text": "In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences. [1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, [2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro05b", "score": 0.6892894506454468, "text": "The developed world will no doubt be willing to provide expertise and some may even be willing to work pro-bono while doing work for poorer countries. The developed world should not be paying for such work. Providing money to pay for western workers in Africa both invites corruption and is really for the benefit of the developed countries by providing work for western firms. [1] Instead the focus has to be on the transfer of skills to Africans so that they can meet the challenges from climate change themselves. [1] Moyo, Dambisa, ‘Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 March 2009,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ecegthwspc-pro04a", "score": 0.6892178654670715, "text": "Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009).", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01a", "score": 0.6872347593307495, "text": "450 PPM The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm. 1. IPCC (2007). \"IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)\". Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press. 2 The Guardian, World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest. (31/1/11).", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ecegthwspc-pro04b", "score": 0.685077428817749, "text": "Rich communities have a disastrous effect on the environment as well. The question of whether development is possible without manipulating nature and the environment is again entirely separate from the question of subsidies. Ultimately, the problem is one of resources and the best distribution and management of those resources, particularly natural resources. Getting people to understand that forests, water and land are essential resources that need to be preserved is what should be done (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies have in fact often created more environmental problems by investing in poorly built infrastructure and housing, and by encouraging people to stay in areas that could otherwise not support them.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-con02a", "score": 0.6833953261375427, "text": "Responsibility is not the developed world’s alone First developing countries now produce a large share of emissions; China, India and other rising countries should also have to pay. They also at the same time have increasing financial resources. Second even if countries bear responsibility in proportion to emissions it does not follow developed countries should meet the costs of adaptation. People have always adapted to their climate as an essential part of survival [1] and the climate has always been changing even if at a slower rate so why should the developed world pay in this particular instance? That the west should cut its emissions so that it produces no more than the average per capita is equitable. It is however not equitable for one group to have to pay for the adaptation of others to their environment. [1] Clark, Duncan, ‘What is climate change adaptation?’, theguardian.com, 27 February 2012,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro03a", "score": 0.68109530210495, "text": "The developed world has the responsibility to help others The IPCC says that it is “extremely likely” that human activities are the cause of the temperature rise. [1] This means the biggest historical emitters have a responsibility to pay for the consequences. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much. [2] History matters as much of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades or hundreds of years. It is the responsibility of those who caused the problem to protect innocents from the fallout of their actions. [1] Harvey, Fiona, ‘IPCC climate report: human impact is 'unequivocal'’, theguardian.com, 27 September 2013, [2] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con03b", "score": 0.6803640723228455, "text": "Technological improvements will almost certainly be developed for those who can afford them (as most technology is). However, climate change will have the greatest effect on poor countries that cannot afford mitigation. Potentially, being able to protect the wealthy does not mean that we are not too late on global climate change.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-economy-epehwmrbals-pro05b", "score": 0.6785170435905457, "text": "This is similar to the debate of imposing uniform carbon emission caps on all nations. This would be unfair as the developing world would be at a disadvantage as it takes away one of the ways in which poorer countries compete effectively in the global market; through having lower prices as a result of those lower standards. That is why keeping lower standards that are more easily met is better than having an unachievable and unfair standard.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con02a", "score": 0.6756466627120972, "text": "Earth's Resiliency All the conclusions about the effects of rising atmospheric GHGs are based on computerized climate models. Even those that develop and use the models admit that the models are not nearly complex enough to be 100% accurate. Climate science is incredibly complicated and different models sometimes produce vastly different results 1.Increased carbon dioxide will increase plant life which may mitigate other damages of climate change and protect species currently considered threatened by climate change. Therefore, it is far too early to conclude that humanity is going to be destroyed. The earth's climate is continuously changing, with or without anthropogenic effects, and life has always found a way to continue. 1. Lemonick, Michael D., 'How much can we really trust climate models to tell us about the future?', 18th january 2011.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-economy-epehwmrbals-con02b", "score": 0.6738361120223999, "text": "Individualised standards can be dangerous. International standards could be set at a minimum level on which every country could add measures tailored to its needs as is the case with the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Countries tend to ignore the importance on long term development and concentrate on plans for relatively short term success. By neglecting important issues countries suffer because they wake up when the issue at hand is too large to handle. For example, China’s economy has grown tenfold since 1978 but at the cost of great environmental damage. China now hosts 16 of the 20 most polluted cities of the world. The country has also landed itself with over 70% of its natural water sources polluted and is now the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. [1] Encouraging greener development earlier would have helped prevent this problem. [1] Bajoria, Jayshree, and Zissis, Carin, ‘China’s Environmental Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2008,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro04a", "score": 0.6723783016204834, "text": "Consequences of increased GHGs Increased GHGs in the atmosphere have numerous significant consequences: -glaciers, ice sheets, and perma frost will continue to melt. This will increase water levels, release more GHGs (methane, which is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and CO2), and reflect less heat back into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change1. -the oceans (which are a natural carbon sink) are becoming increasingly acidic which will significantly damage ecosystems such as coral reefs. Additionally, changes in the chemistry of the ocean could affect the amount of CO2 it can absorb and process annually. -there will be increasing incidents of extreme weather such as hurricanes, floods, and record high/low temperatures. Extreme weather can destroy ecosystems that capture CO2 such as forests and peat bogs leading to less natural CO2 absorption. These events will accelerate climate change making it more difficult for humans to reduce GHG ppms to a sustainable level. Once average temperatures are above 2.5C, events will be triggered that will be irreversible and it will take 1000s of years of lower GHG emissions for the earth to return to normal 2. 1. Connor, Steve, 'Exclusive: The methane time bomb', The Independent, 23rd September 2008, 2. Wikipedia, \"Climate Change Feedback\". Retrieved 2011-08-08.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro02b", "score": 0.6693906784057617, "text": "Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] . [1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13 [2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013 [3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-economy-epegiahsc-con03a", "score": 0.6664178967475891, "text": "FTAA is bad for the environment. Free trade creates a \"race to the bottom\", whereby developing countries lower their labor and environmental standards in an effort to attract foreign investment. Developed countries, which may have higher standards, are then forced to lower them as well in order to make sure companies don’t relocate or outsource their jobs abroad [1] . [1] Hassoun, Nicole. “Free Trade and the Environment”. Environmental Ethics, Vol. 31.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con01b", "score": 0.6654334664344788, "text": "Carbon trading systems may have the effect of slowing the rise in CO2 emissions, and possibly even creating a fall. However this will not solve the problem as changes are already occurring and there may be no way to stop feedback that creates more emissions.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con04b", "score": 0.6645575761795044, "text": "Seeing the fight against Climate Change as some panacea for international inequality has always been a non-starter. The rich nations are simply not going to give up their competitive advantages in terms of production. However, a sensible global response to issues such as the migration likely to result from some of the outcomes of changing climates, might mitigate some of their worse excesses.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01b", "score": 0.6491400599479675, "text": "The fossil fuels which account for the majority of GHG emissions are finite resources. As oil and coal becoming increasingly scarce, markets will naturally switch to more efficient or renewable resources thus stabilizing global GHG emissions. The growth of fuel efficient hybrid and fully electric automobiles are a good example of the market responding to higher fuel prices. (Also see New Technology)" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro04b", "score": 0.6160308718681335, "text": "These consequences are often speculation. With such a large and complex system we have no way of knowing what the consequences of climate change. There may well be some tipping points that will accelerate climate change but we do not know when each of these will become a problem and there may also be tipping points that act in the other direction.(See Earth's Resiliency)", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-con02b", "score": 0.6157585382461548, "text": "In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences. [1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, [2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-pro01a", "score": 0.6149998903274536, "text": "Prioritising prevention hasn’t worked It is a demonstrable fact that efforts to reduce carbon emissions haven’t worked. Despite the conferences, the treaties and the pledges; global carbon emissions continue to rise – up 6.7% from 2009 to 2010. [i] The world’s largest economies continue to be the worst offenders and, with the BRIC economies joining their ranks, that look set to continue. If you’ve been trying something for over 20 years with no notable success, then it seems sensible to try something else. Added to which, many scientists, such as James Hansen, [ii] believe that a tipping point in the climate and broader ecosystem is imminent – with some suggesting that it has already been passed [iii] . We need to accept that Climate Change is not something that may happen in the future but something that is happening now. Extreme weather events are happening now, glaciers are melting now; the climate is shifting now, as is shown for example by the sea ice levels which in 2012 were at their lowest extent since we started monitoring it, the previous lowest extent was only set in 2007. [iv] Managing that reality to mitigate its impact on humanity and the rest of the ecosystem is the most responsible thing to do [v] . [i] Rogers, Simon, and Harvey, Fiona, ‘Global carbon emissions rise is far bigger than previous estimates’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012, [ii] Hansen, James, ‘Tipping point: Perspective of a climatologist. In State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans.’ E. Fearn, Ed. Wildlife Conservation Society/Island Press, pp. 6-15. [iii] Fred Guterl. “Searching for Clues to Calamity”, New York Times. 20 July 2012. [iv] Doyle, Alister, and Chestney, Nina ‘Arctic summer sea ice might thaw by 2015 – or linger for decades’, Reuters, 30 August 2012, [v] UNEP Progress Towards Meeting Internationally Agreed Goals. 2011.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con03a", "score": 0.6120135188102722, "text": "New Technology Humanity has revolutionized the world repeatedly through such monumental inventions as agriculture, steel, anti-biotics, and microchips. And as technology has improved, so too has the rate at which technology improves. It is predicted that there will be 32 times more change between 2000 and 2050 than there was between 1950 and 2000. In the midst of this, many great minds will be focussed on emissions abatement and climate control technologies. So, even if the most severe climate predictions do come to pass, it is unimaginable that humanity will not find a way to intervene. Even small changes will make a difference – more efficient coal power stations can emit a third less emissions than less efficient ones 1. Renewable energy will become more competitive and scalable and technology develops we may even be able to remove carbon from the atmosphere so undoing the damage. 1 1. Bradsher, Keith. “China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants.”, New York Times Published: May 10, 2009.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con03b", "score": 0.6112298369407654, "text": "Renewables always looked like being ‘too little, too late’ and that now appears to be the case. Carbon based energy sources remain, massively, the major players of global energy production and that looks set to continue to be the case. It is time to take a mature response to that reality and manage the problem rather than pretending that a magical solution is going to be produced in the form of technological breakthroughs in nuclear or other energy technologies.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro01b", "score": 0.6088011264801025, "text": "Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams. [1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing, [2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions. [2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-cehwirtrnp-con02b", "score": 0.607382595539093, "text": "It is useful to deal with the idea that nuclear is a CO2 free fuel. When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to climate change emissions [i] . It is then possible to add in additional carbon footprints such as the emissions caused by building and staffing a large plant. It is also a question worth asking as to when climate change-related pollution became the only standard. There are plenty of other ways of polluting the environment and belching out irradiated gases into the ocean would seem to meet that standard. [i]", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro01a", "score": 0.6046152114868164, "text": "Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions Hydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. [1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower, [2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively. [1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010 [2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-pro03b", "score": 0.601714015007019, "text": "This argument is predicated on the idea that it is possible to build a model that would allow for adaptation. In the light of some of the challenges currently posed by Climate Change that seems improbable. Without a clearer idea of what adaptation would look like or what it could even potentially achieve, making it a priority against something that can be shown to work seems reckless in the extreme.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-con03b", "score": 0.5984589457511902, "text": "In recent years there has been a large amount of aid provided to Africa for the express purpose of climate change adaption, demonstrating a growing awareness to this issue. The UNEP claimed that between 2010 and 2011 it provided several hundred million dollars each year, with an unknown amount coming from other development projects, directed towards climate change adaption [1] . While this does not cover future costs, it is a start. [1] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-international-ipeegiahw-con01b", "score": 0.5971367955207825, "text": "Sustainable development does not mean stopping development. The SDGs emphasise how a new perspective is required for future development. There is no evidence to suggest an open-sky agreement would increase environmental degradation, nor is there to say that if an open-sky agreement is not implemented we will develop in a more sustainable way. The introduction of open-skies will mean an introduction of better planes – more fuel-efficient and eco-friendly designs as a result of competition on quality and safety. Advancements have been made over time to improve the environmental performance of aeroplanes. Today’s planes are 75% quieter, with carbon-monoxide levels declining by 50%, and increasingly more fuel-efficient [1] . An open-skies agreement enables new ideas and designs to be integrated, encouraging the implementation of sustainable models. Sustainable development is about how we understand, appreciate, and implement future objectives. An open sky agreement is not necessarily unsustainable. [1] See further readings: IATA, 2014.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-con01b", "score": 0.5955142378807068, "text": "Hydroelectric dams can mitigate methane emissions. Dams can capture the methane released from their reservoir and even use it to their benefit: an experimental project in Brazil showed that hydroelectric dams can capture the methane and burn it to produce even more energy, whilst at the same time preventing the methane from being released. [1] [1] BBC News, Earthquake risk from dams, 2002", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-international-iighbopcc-pro01b", "score": 0.5947681665420532, "text": "Each government has put in targets that they believe are realistic and that they are willing to try to reach. The countries involved are therefore much more likely to want to meet the target than if they had been imposed on them by a binding international treaty. Europe has found that binding refugee quotas are almost impossible to agree and equally difficult to implement. [1] Instead it has generally been accepted that only voluntary systems will work when it comes to taking in the majority of refugees with Hungary willing to take legal action to prevent mandatory quotas. [2] The same is the case on greenhouse gas emissions. [1] Euractive, ‘Commission ready to drop mandatory quotas for refugees’, 17 September 2015, [2] BBC News, ‘Migrant crisis: Hungary challenges EU quota plan in court’, 3 December 2015,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-international-iwiaghbss-pro04b", "score": 0.5930631160736084, "text": "The suggestion that the polluter pays is in relation to the cleaning up of pollution and reduction of emissions not helping those who are affected by the consequences. Accepting an obligation to help everyone affected by climate change would mean developed nations taking on an immense burden in terms of rebuilding lost homes and livelihoods. No government would make such a commitment to any but its own citizens.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro01a", "score": 0.5929501056671143, "text": "Climate change is already costing lives Lives are already being lost to climate change; a report by Climate Vulnerability Monitor estimates that already almost 5million are lost per year to climate change, even without the distorting numbers from pollution there are 400,000 deaths per year. [1] While attributing individual events to climate change is difficult research by climate scientists suggests that the lack long rains in Somalia in early 2011 is between 24 and 99% the result of greenhouse gasses. This famine has killed between 50 and 100 thousand people. [2] With lives being lost the urgency of funding adaptation to reduce these loses is clear. [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, , p.17 [2] Straziuso, Jason, ‘Global warming may have fueled Somali drought’, Phys.org, 15 May 2013,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro01b", "score": 0.5927131772041321, "text": "Yes there are almost certainly some casualties already to climate change but almost certainly considerably less than either of these numbers; there have always been casualties due to ‘Heat & Cold Illnesses’ (35000) but are all these attributable to climate change? Probably not. There were extreme weather events even before climate change. Even if there are such deaths this does not amount to meaning the developed world should fund adaptation; just like not every outbreak of violence in Africa should be considered the responsibility of the developed world not every natural disaster is.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-con04b", "score": 0.5922836065292358, "text": "Many places today have not even done the minimum and need funding to help them do so. There can be no denying that some defences can make a big difference; in 1900 Galveston was hit by a hurricane which killed up to 12000 people, 15 years later after the building of a sea wall only 53 people died in a similar hurricane. [1] In many cases this kind of adaptation is simply sensible policy to prevent disasters that should be carried out regardless of climate change. [1] Morris, Julian, ‘The Terrible Toll of Typhoon Haiyan Doesn't Excuse Bad Policy’, reason.com, 15 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-international-ipeegiahw-con01a", "score": 0.5889190435409546, "text": "Environmental Impact Development is shifting from just GDP growth towards promoting a sustainable approach to growth. The UN has created the Sustainable Development Goals for development post-2015, which emphasise developmental policy and practice today has to meet the needs of the present without jeopardising future populations. Therefore how can a new Open Skies agreement be justified on environmental or sustainability grounds? Encouraging more air traffic will act to increase the human burden on the environment. Key concerns are noise and atmospheric pollution, deforestation, and the use of space. Flights produce around 628,000,000 tonnes of CO2 annually adding to climate change (Clean Sky, 2014). With numbers rising the pressures will too.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-con03a", "score": 0.5887680053710938, "text": "There are other more urgent things to be spending money on Money should be spent where it can make most difference. The cost of many methods of adapting to climate change is high compared to the gain. The developed world should focus aid on areas that can do most good rather than on adaptation. Even those who argue that climate change will be very costly and deadly implicitly agree that there are more worthwhile things. In Climate Vulnerability Monitor’s estimates of deaths the vast majority, 3.1million, are due to indoor smoke. [1] This however is something that is not solved through adaptation to climate change but through mitigation; by providing $25 cooking stoves. [2] [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, , p.17 [2] Aroon, P.J., ‘Secretary Clinton is promoting cookstoves to save the world. Seriously’, ForeignPolicy.com, 22 September 2010,", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro03b", "score": 0.5868528485298157, "text": "Despite the failure of the Copenhagen Protocol, local, regional, national, and international organizations are all still working on solutions for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol was a failure by virtue of its design (too many credits would have gone to former Soviet countries whose GHG reductions were entirely attributable to economic collapse, which would have resulted in a cash transfer but no real reductions). Discussions continue on how best each country can reduce their GHG emissions while remaining economically competitive. The EU ETS trading scheme is an example of just such an endeavour. (See Carbon Trading Schemes)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro03b", "score": 0.7498693466186523, "text": "Despite the failure of the Copenhagen Protocol, local, regional, national, and international organizations are all still working on solutions for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol was a failure by virtue of its design (too many credits would have gone to former Soviet countries whose GHG reductions were entirely attributable to economic collapse, which would have resulted in a cash transfer but no real reductions). Discussions continue on how best each country can reduce their GHG emissions while remaining economically competitive. The EU ETS trading scheme is an example of just such an endeavour. (See Carbon Trading Schemes)" } ]

[ { "id": "test-international-iighbopcc-pro03b", "score": 0.6851913928985596, "text": "Voluntary measures have got much further than previous attempts to get a binding agreement – at least there is going to be a good working agreement to build on in future this time. The changes that could mean countries ultimately targeting 2C or even 1.5C are technological; if solar becomes the cheapest form of electricity generation, if electric cars become competitive with petrol, and biofuels taken up for aviation fuel. [1] [1] Mathiesen, Karl, ‘Should we be aiming to keep global warming to 1.5C, not 2C?’, The Guardian,. 2 December 2015,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-con02a", "score": 0.6835674047470093, "text": "Responsibility is not the developed world’s alone First developing countries now produce a large share of emissions; China, India and other rising countries should also have to pay. They also at the same time have increasing financial resources. Second even if countries bear responsibility in proportion to emissions it does not follow developed countries should meet the costs of adaptation. People have always adapted to their climate as an essential part of survival [1] and the climate has always been changing even if at a slower rate so why should the developed world pay in this particular instance? That the west should cut its emissions so that it produces no more than the average per capita is equitable. It is however not equitable for one group to have to pay for the adaptation of others to their environment. [1] Clark, Duncan, ‘What is climate change adaptation?’, theguardian.com, 27 February 2012,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-international-iwiaghbss-pro04b", "score": 0.6808649301528931, "text": "The suggestion that the polluter pays is in relation to the cleaning up of pollution and reduction of emissions not helping those who are affected by the consequences. Accepting an obligation to help everyone affected by climate change would mean developed nations taking on an immense burden in terms of rebuilding lost homes and livelihoods. No government would make such a commitment to any but its own citizens.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con04b", "score": 0.6784273982048035, "text": "Seeing the fight against Climate Change as some panacea for international inequality has always been a non-starter. The rich nations are simply not going to give up their competitive advantages in terms of production. However, a sensible global response to issues such as the migration likely to result from some of the outcomes of changing climates, might mitigate some of their worse excesses.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con03b", "score": 0.6768561005592346, "text": "Technological improvements will almost certainly be developed for those who can afford them (as most technology is). However, climate change will have the greatest effect on poor countries that cannot afford mitigation. Potentially, being able to protect the wealthy does not mean that we are not too late on global climate change.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro05b", "score": 0.6764571666717529, "text": "The developed world will no doubt be willing to provide expertise and some may even be willing to work pro-bono while doing work for poorer countries. The developed world should not be paying for such work. Providing money to pay for western workers in Africa both invites corruption and is really for the benefit of the developed countries by providing work for western firms. [1] Instead the focus has to be on the transfer of skills to Africans so that they can meet the challenges from climate change themselves. [1] Moyo, Dambisa, ‘Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 March 2009,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-international-iighbopcc-con01b", "score": 0.6671477556228638, "text": "Sovereignty is often taken to mean that states can do what they like without interference. This is not the kind of mentality that will help solve climate change or ensure that this deal sticks. Unfortunately climate change is a global issue where what happens in one country affects everyone else just as much as the miscreant. The atmosphere is a global commons, currently free for everyone to use, and more often abuse. As such the principles of sovereignty and non-interference can have no place.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01b", "score": 0.6655608415603638, "text": "The fossil fuels which account for the majority of GHG emissions are finite resources. As oil and coal becoming increasingly scarce, markets will naturally switch to more efficient or renewable resources thus stabilizing global GHG emissions. The growth of fuel efficient hybrid and fully electric automobiles are a good example of the market responding to higher fuel prices. (Also see New Technology)", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-pro01b", "score": 0.6621921062469482, "text": "It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-con02b", "score": 0.6614570617675781, "text": "In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences. [1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, [2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-economy-epehwmrbals-con02b", "score": 0.6607844233512878, "text": "Individualised standards can be dangerous. International standards could be set at a minimum level on which every country could add measures tailored to its needs as is the case with the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Countries tend to ignore the importance on long term development and concentrate on plans for relatively short term success. By neglecting important issues countries suffer because they wake up when the issue at hand is too large to handle. For example, China’s economy has grown tenfold since 1978 but at the cost of great environmental damage. China now hosts 16 of the 20 most polluted cities of the world. The country has also landed itself with over 70% of its natural water sources polluted and is now the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. [1] Encouraging greener development earlier would have helped prevent this problem. [1] Bajoria, Jayshree, and Zissis, Carin, ‘China’s Environmental Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2008,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-international-iighbopcc-con02a", "score": 0.6596036553382874, "text": "Only a non-binding agreement would get the targets necessary Fully binding treaties with mechanisms for compliance are the gold standard for agreements between nations. But because they are onerous they are the most difficult kind of treaties to get agreed to start with. If the aim were such an agreement it would unfortunately never happen. This has been demonstrated by the years of successive failures in crafting climate agreements. COP 15 is the most notable; expectations were immensely high for a binding international treaty but there was a failure to deliver, largely because governments did not want a binding international solution which is what was being negotiated at Copenhagen. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal?’, 22 December 2009,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-international-iighbopcc-pro01b", "score": 0.6538415551185608, "text": "Each government has put in targets that they believe are realistic and that they are willing to try to reach. The countries involved are therefore much more likely to want to meet the target than if they had been imposed on them by a binding international treaty. Europe has found that binding refugee quotas are almost impossible to agree and equally difficult to implement. [1] Instead it has generally been accepted that only voluntary systems will work when it comes to taking in the majority of refugees with Hungary willing to take legal action to prevent mandatory quotas. [2] The same is the case on greenhouse gas emissions. [1] Euractive, ‘Commission ready to drop mandatory quotas for refugees’, 17 September 2015, [2] BBC News, ‘Migrant crisis: Hungary challenges EU quota plan in court’, 3 December 2015,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-pro01a", "score": 0.6526978611946106, "text": "Prioritising prevention hasn’t worked It is a demonstrable fact that efforts to reduce carbon emissions haven’t worked. Despite the conferences, the treaties and the pledges; global carbon emissions continue to rise – up 6.7% from 2009 to 2010. [i] The world’s largest economies continue to be the worst offenders and, with the BRIC economies joining their ranks, that look set to continue. If you’ve been trying something for over 20 years with no notable success, then it seems sensible to try something else. Added to which, many scientists, such as James Hansen, [ii] believe that a tipping point in the climate and broader ecosystem is imminent – with some suggesting that it has already been passed [iii] . We need to accept that Climate Change is not something that may happen in the future but something that is happening now. Extreme weather events are happening now, glaciers are melting now; the climate is shifting now, as is shown for example by the sea ice levels which in 2012 were at their lowest extent since we started monitoring it, the previous lowest extent was only set in 2007. [iv] Managing that reality to mitigate its impact on humanity and the rest of the ecosystem is the most responsible thing to do [v] . [i] Rogers, Simon, and Harvey, Fiona, ‘Global carbon emissions rise is far bigger than previous estimates’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012, [ii] Hansen, James, ‘Tipping point: Perspective of a climatologist. In State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans.’ E. Fearn, Ed. Wildlife Conservation Society/Island Press, pp. 6-15. [iii] Fred Guterl. “Searching for Clues to Calamity”, New York Times. 20 July 2012. [iv] Doyle, Alister, and Chestney, Nina ‘Arctic summer sea ice might thaw by 2015 – or linger for decades’, Reuters, 30 August 2012, [v] UNEP Progress Towards Meeting Internationally Agreed Goals. 2011.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-economy-epegiahsc-pro01b", "score": 0.6526429057121277, "text": "Free trade does not benefit everyone equally. Rich corporations from developed countries are not interested in growth in developing nations; they are interested in making profits. They just view developing nations as sources for cheap labour and materials, that can be harnessed more easily, due to low levels of environmental and labour regulation. For example, the so-called Maquiladoras in Mexico, which were put in place by NAFTA were rife with labour and environmental violations [1] . Therefore, free trade agreements between rich and poor countries can trap developing nations in the economic cycle as raw material providers, thus preventing them from developing their own national industries. [1] Human Rights Watch. ”Mexico’s Maquiladoras. Abuses Against Women Workers.” 16 August 1996.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01a", "score": 0.651416003704071, "text": "450 PPM The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm. 1. IPCC (2007). \"IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)\". Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press. 2 The Guardian, World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest. (31/1/11).", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-international-iighbopcc-pro01a", "score": 0.6502789855003357, "text": "The hard part is the cutting of emissions The problem with a non-binding agreement, even one where the targets have been submitted by the governments themselves is exactly that it is non-binding. If governments are not bound to cut emissions then there is a good chance that many of them wont. [1] The British government, which has binding targets, has been on course to miss its 2025 targets with reductions of only 23% against targets of 31% due to a decision to reduce subsidies for housing insulation. [2] If countries which have set targets for themselves in the past are missing them what hope do we have for these voluntary targets? [1] Taylor, Lenore, ‘Paris climate talks: the real test is whether countries will keep their word’, The Guardian, 30 November 2015, [2] Harvey, Fiona, ‘UK on track to miss carbon targets, climate change advisers warn’, The Guardian, 15 July 2014,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-economy-epegiahsc-con03b", "score": 0.6486039161682129, "text": "A multinational trade agreement could equally raise environmental standards across the region. Under the status quo, nothing stops companies from moving to countries that have low environmental standards and few regulations. But if governments agreed, the US could push for higher standards across the entire continent. That way, it would ensure its business environment remained competitive in the American region.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-international-ipeegiahw-con01b", "score": 0.6482930183410645, "text": "Sustainable development does not mean stopping development. The SDGs emphasise how a new perspective is required for future development. There is no evidence to suggest an open-sky agreement would increase environmental degradation, nor is there to say that if an open-sky agreement is not implemented we will develop in a more sustainable way. The introduction of open-skies will mean an introduction of better planes – more fuel-efficient and eco-friendly designs as a result of competition on quality and safety. Advancements have been made over time to improve the environmental performance of aeroplanes. Today’s planes are 75% quieter, with carbon-monoxide levels declining by 50%, and increasingly more fuel-efficient [1] . An open-skies agreement enables new ideas and designs to be integrated, encouraging the implementation of sustainable models. Sustainable development is about how we understand, appreciate, and implement future objectives. An open sky agreement is not necessarily unsustainable. [1] See further readings: IATA, 2014.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con04a", "score": 0.6482868790626526, "text": "Adaptation is likely to hurt poorer nations Pollution is a global problem, with the greenhouse gas emissions of richer nations impacting on their poorer neighbours. Adaptation would most likely take place on a predominantly national basis, allowing those with the resources – built on their historical use of carbon energy – to find ways to adapt to some of the problems caused by Climate Change, while poorer nations are left without the capacity to do so. Only a global focus on combating the basic causes of climate change will tackle the problem in a fair and equitable way, as richer nations cut back on their carbon-enriched lifestyles while developments in technologies offer benefits to the world as a whole rather than those who are already carbon rich as a result of geological or historical accident [i] . [i] See the Jamaica Declaration 1994.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro04b", "score": 0.7174407839775085, "text": "These consequences are often speculation. With such a large and complex system we have no way of knowing what the consequences of climate change. There may well be some tipping points that will accelerate climate change but we do not know when each of these will become a problem and there may also be tipping points that act in the other direction.(See Earth's Resiliency)" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01a", "score": 0.6739833354949951, "text": "450 PPM The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm. 1. IPCC (2007). \"IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)\". Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press. 2 The Guardian, World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest. (31/1/11).", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro02a", "score": 0.6726614832878113, "text": "Developing world Developing countries such as China and India are growing rapidly and causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation. It took developed countries 100s of years to create a standard of living high enough for an environmental movement to develop. It is more likely than not that developing countries will continue to increase their annual emissions for decades, greatly eclipsing any potential reductions in the developed world. According to Joseph Romm, former US assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, \"China's growth in emissions could erode all other countries' efforts to stabilize the world's temperature\" 1. As a result, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, causing greater climate change. 1. Romm, Joseph, 'How Copenhagen can succeed where Kyoto failed', Foreign Policy, June 18, 2009.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-con01a", "score": 0.6719326972961426, "text": "Hydroelectric dams increase methane emissions Hydroelectric dams emit a lot of methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. This happens when the plants and vegetation submerged in the reservoir start to rot under water: they then produce methane which bubbles up and is released into the atmosphere. On balance, some dams produce more greenhouse gasses than conventional power plants running on fossil fuel. [1] [1] New Scientist, ‘Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed’, 2005", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro03b", "score": 0.6640218496322632, "text": "GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia. [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro02b", "score": 0.6602751016616821, "text": "Rising countries, such as India, China, and Brazil, are adopting more efficient technologies than are currently in use in much of the world. While the developing world is contributing to net GHG emission growth, their GHG per person is still far below that of a developed country. And, as a result of the adoption of newer technologies, it is unlikely that their GHG per person will ever equal that found in the developed world. If reductions can be made in the developed world, where it is a fact that the economic resources exist to do so, then net emissions can be stabilized even while emissions in the developing world continue to grow.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01b", "score": 0.6540857553482056, "text": "The fossil fuels which account for the majority of GHG emissions are finite resources. As oil and coal becoming increasingly scarce, markets will naturally switch to more efficient or renewable resources thus stabilizing global GHG emissions. The growth of fuel efficient hybrid and fully electric automobiles are a good example of the market responding to higher fuel prices. (Also see New Technology)", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro03a", "score": 0.6531591415405273, "text": "Environmental Benefits of the GERD GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia. [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-environment-cehwirtrnp-con02b", "score": 0.652559757232666, "text": "It is useful to deal with the idea that nuclear is a CO2 free fuel. When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to climate change emissions [i] . It is then possible to add in additional carbon footprints such as the emissions caused by building and staffing a large plant. It is also a question worth asking as to when climate change-related pollution became the only standard. There are plenty of other ways of polluting the environment and belching out irradiated gases into the ocean would seem to meet that standard. [i]", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con02b", "score": 0.6469753980636597, "text": "While climate models may be imperfect they are the best tool presently available to predict the future. Most predict dire consequences if GHGs continue to rise through the 21st century, which is what seems most likely.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con01a", "score": 0.645285964012146, "text": "Some of the required adaptations are impossible In some Climate Change scenarios – for example, a diminution of global oxygen output as a result of the effect of desalination resulting from melting polar caps or enforcing reduced consumption of resources through their more equitable distribution – are either impossible in biological or practical terms [i] . As a result, the only available option is reducing the carbon footprint of humanity as a species. Overwhelmingly, scientists agree that this is the only solution. Adaptation is, in reality, an attempt to hide from ‘an inconvenient truth’. Nobody likes being told that there is simply no way around the problem but that is the reality. Some adaptations will, no doubt, happen naturally as people adjust but the focus of governments should remain on prevention. [i] Stephen Leahy. “Climate Change Threatens Crucial Marine Algae”, Inter Press Service. 8 May 2012.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro03b", "score": 0.6448786854743958, "text": "Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. 1The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "validation-environment-ceshbwpsbpf-con02b", "score": 0.6435229182243347, "text": "Experience teaches us that the natural environment responds to changes in human activity and rebalances itself. By contrast a shift in the entire climate, driven by human activity, would have devastating implications for all species. We know that migration routes can change over time and that, for example, bat colonies can move. However, a shift in climatic process would destroy migration patterns [i] and cause untold damage to wildlife populations. Dealing with the effects of climate change is not just a responsibility that humanity needs to take on for itself but for all species on the planet. The tiny impact of individual wind farms on local populations is as nothing compared to the catastrophic implications of a significant and mostly unpredictable shift in the climate of the globe. [i] Alasdair Fotheringham. “Is this the end of migration?” The independent. 18 April 2010.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con02a", "score": 0.6364994645118713, "text": "A dam would damage the environment Dams due to their generation of renewable electricity are usually seen as environmentally friendly but such mega projects are rarely without consequences. The Grand Inga would lower the oxygen content of the lower course of the river which would mean a loss of species. This would not only affect the river as the Congo’s delta is a submerged area of 300,000km2 far out into the Atlantic. This system is not yet understood but the plume transmits sediment and organic matter into the Atlantic ocean encouraging plankton offshore contributing to the Atlantic’s ability to be a carbon sink. [1] [1] Showers, Kate, ‘Will Africa’s Mega Dam Have Mega Impacts?’, International Rivers, 5 March 2012,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-con01b", "score": 0.633944571018219, "text": "Hydroelectric dams can mitigate methane emissions. Dams can capture the methane released from their reservoir and even use it to their benefit: an experimental project in Brazil showed that hydroelectric dams can capture the methane and burn it to produce even more energy, whilst at the same time preventing the methane from being released. [1] [1] BBC News, Earthquake risk from dams, 2002", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro01b", "score": 0.6338858604431152, "text": "Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams. [1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing, [2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions. [2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con03b", "score": 0.6318325996398926, "text": "Technological improvements will almost certainly be developed for those who can afford them (as most technology is). However, climate change will have the greatest effect on poor countries that cannot afford mitigation. Potentially, being able to protect the wealthy does not mean that we are not too late on global climate change.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ecegthwspc-pro04a", "score": 0.623282253742218, "text": "Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009).", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro01a", "score": 0.62233966588974, "text": "Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions Hydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. [1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower, [2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively. [1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010 [2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro01b", "score": 0.621004581451416, "text": "Yes there are almost certainly some casualties already to climate change but almost certainly considerably less than either of these numbers; there have always been casualties due to ‘Heat & Cold Illnesses’ (35000) but are all these attributable to climate change? Probably not. There were extreme weather events even before climate change. Even if there are such deaths this does not amount to meaning the developed world should fund adaptation; just like not every outbreak of violence in Africa should be considered the responsibility of the developed world not every natural disaster is.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con03a", "score": 0.6201280355453491, "text": "New Technology Humanity has revolutionized the world repeatedly through such monumental inventions as agriculture, steel, anti-biotics, and microchips. And as technology has improved, so too has the rate at which technology improves. It is predicted that there will be 32 times more change between 2000 and 2050 than there was between 1950 and 2000. In the midst of this, many great minds will be focussed on emissions abatement and climate control technologies. So, even if the most severe climate predictions do come to pass, it is unimaginable that humanity will not find a way to intervene. Even small changes will make a difference – more efficient coal power stations can emit a third less emissions than less efficient ones 1. Renewable energy will become more competitive and scalable and technology develops we may even be able to remove carbon from the atmosphere so undoing the damage. 1 1. Bradsher, Keith. “China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants.”, New York Times Published: May 10, 2009.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con02b", "score": 0.7539124488830566, "text": "While climate models may be imperfect they are the best tool presently available to predict the future. Most predict dire consequences if GHGs continue to rise through the 21st century, which is what seems most likely." } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con03b", "score": 0.7068280577659607, "text": "Technological improvements will almost certainly be developed for those who can afford them (as most technology is). However, climate change will have the greatest effect on poor countries that cannot afford mitigation. Potentially, being able to protect the wealthy does not mean that we are not too late on global climate change.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-pro03b", "score": 0.703616201877594, "text": "This argument is predicated on the idea that it is possible to build a model that would allow for adaptation. In the light of some of the challenges currently posed by Climate Change that seems improbable. Without a clearer idea of what adaptation would look like or what it could even potentially achieve, making it a priority against something that can be shown to work seems reckless in the extreme.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "validation-environment-ceshbwpsbpf-con02b", "score": 0.70353102684021, "text": "Experience teaches us that the natural environment responds to changes in human activity and rebalances itself. By contrast a shift in the entire climate, driven by human activity, would have devastating implications for all species. We know that migration routes can change over time and that, for example, bat colonies can move. However, a shift in climatic process would destroy migration patterns [i] and cause untold damage to wildlife populations. Dealing with the effects of climate change is not just a responsibility that humanity needs to take on for itself but for all species on the planet. The tiny impact of individual wind farms on local populations is as nothing compared to the catastrophic implications of a significant and mostly unpredictable shift in the climate of the globe. [i] Alasdair Fotheringham. “Is this the end of migration?” The independent. 18 April 2010.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con01a", "score": 0.7010582685470581, "text": "Some of the required adaptations are impossible In some Climate Change scenarios – for example, a diminution of global oxygen output as a result of the effect of desalination resulting from melting polar caps or enforcing reduced consumption of resources through their more equitable distribution – are either impossible in biological or practical terms [i] . As a result, the only available option is reducing the carbon footprint of humanity as a species. Overwhelmingly, scientists agree that this is the only solution. Adaptation is, in reality, an attempt to hide from ‘an inconvenient truth’. Nobody likes being told that there is simply no way around the problem but that is the reality. Some adaptations will, no doubt, happen naturally as people adjust but the focus of governments should remain on prevention. [i] Stephen Leahy. “Climate Change Threatens Crucial Marine Algae”, Inter Press Service. 8 May 2012.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro04a", "score": 0.7008202075958252, "text": "Consequences of increased GHGs Increased GHGs in the atmosphere have numerous significant consequences: -glaciers, ice sheets, and perma frost will continue to melt. This will increase water levels, release more GHGs (methane, which is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and CO2), and reflect less heat back into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change1. -the oceans (which are a natural carbon sink) are becoming increasingly acidic which will significantly damage ecosystems such as coral reefs. Additionally, changes in the chemistry of the ocean could affect the amount of CO2 it can absorb and process annually. -there will be increasing incidents of extreme weather such as hurricanes, floods, and record high/low temperatures. Extreme weather can destroy ecosystems that capture CO2 such as forests and peat bogs leading to less natural CO2 absorption. These events will accelerate climate change making it more difficult for humans to reduce GHG ppms to a sustainable level. Once average temperatures are above 2.5C, events will be triggered that will be irreversible and it will take 1000s of years of lower GHG emissions for the earth to return to normal 2. 1. Connor, Steve, 'Exclusive: The methane time bomb', The Independent, 23rd September 2008, 2. Wikipedia, \"Climate Change Feedback\". Retrieved 2011-08-08.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro02b", "score": 0.6912268996238708, "text": "Rising countries, such as India, China, and Brazil, are adopting more efficient technologies than are currently in use in much of the world. While the developing world is contributing to net GHG emission growth, their GHG per person is still far below that of a developed country. And, as a result of the adoption of newer technologies, it is unlikely that their GHG per person will ever equal that found in the developed world. If reductions can be made in the developed world, where it is a fact that the economic resources exist to do so, then net emissions can be stabilized even while emissions in the developing world continue to grow.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con02b", "score": 0.6820018887519836, "text": "The mono-focus on prevention has, effectively, blinded the world’s governments to the real issue – that climate change is happening and will continue to happen. That is a process that will require great adaptation on behalf of everyone. As with any significant change, it needs to be managed. Economies and societies have been dramatically altered in the face of significant changes such as warfare. It’s time to face up to that reality.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con01b", "score": 0.6807112097740173, "text": "Carbon trading systems may have the effect of slowing the rise in CO2 emissions, and possibly even creating a fall. However this will not solve the problem as changes are already occurring and there may be no way to stop feedback that creates more emissions.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-pro02b", "score": 0.6802935600280762, "text": "Climate Change, by dint of the complexity of the model, is virtually impossible to plan for. Developing an adaptation regime would simply create an ever-changing model while removing necessary intellectual and economic resources from the prevention regime that is already in place. This would not only mean transferring research resources there is also government and regulatory activity as well as industrial compliance structures and other outlays.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro02a", "score": 0.6751970052719116, "text": "Developing world Developing countries such as China and India are growing rapidly and causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation. It took developed countries 100s of years to create a standard of living high enough for an environmental movement to develop. It is more likely than not that developing countries will continue to increase their annual emissions for decades, greatly eclipsing any potential reductions in the developed world. According to Joseph Romm, former US assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, \"China's growth in emissions could erode all other countries' efforts to stabilize the world's temperature\" 1. As a result, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, causing greater climate change. 1. Romm, Joseph, 'How Copenhagen can succeed where Kyoto failed', Foreign Policy, June 18, 2009.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro01b", "score": 0.6685311794281006, "text": "Yes there are almost certainly some casualties already to climate change but almost certainly considerably less than either of these numbers; there have always been casualties due to ‘Heat & Cold Illnesses’ (35000) but are all these attributable to climate change? Probably not. There were extreme weather events even before climate change. Even if there are such deaths this does not amount to meaning the developed world should fund adaptation; just like not every outbreak of violence in Africa should be considered the responsibility of the developed world not every natural disaster is.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro01a", "score": 0.666908860206604, "text": "Climate change is already costing lives Lives are already being lost to climate change; a report by Climate Vulnerability Monitor estimates that already almost 5million are lost per year to climate change, even without the distorting numbers from pollution there are 400,000 deaths per year. [1] While attributing individual events to climate change is difficult research by climate scientists suggests that the lack long rains in Somalia in early 2011 is between 24 and 99% the result of greenhouse gasses. This famine has killed between 50 and 100 thousand people. [2] With lives being lost the urgency of funding adaptation to reduce these loses is clear. [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, , p.17 [2] Straziuso, Jason, ‘Global warming may have fueled Somali drought’, Phys.org, 15 May 2013,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-science-uhbmsf-pro04b", "score": 0.6625527143478394, "text": "The probability of any cosmic collision or other destructive event is extremely low and not worth thinking about. In any event, manned space flight would not be viable for the purpose of saving humanity from a dying Earth for many years, if ever. Governments and people should focus their attention on developing this planet, rather than worrying too much about finding new ones to inhabit.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-science-euhwcface-con01b", "score": 0.6619709134101868, "text": "It seems unlikely that humans would not be able to survive a great change of circumstance. The human mind is quite resilient, and while the change in how people viewed themselves and the Universe would likely change substantially, it might well be for the better. In fact, discovery of extraterrestrials might help free people from the shackles of dogmatic religious belief, which has caused untold suffering to many through the ages.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-con03b", "score": 0.6590163707733154, "text": "In recent years there has been a large amount of aid provided to Africa for the express purpose of climate change adaption, demonstrating a growing awareness to this issue. The UNEP claimed that between 2010 and 2011 it provided several hundred million dollars each year, with an unknown amount coming from other development projects, directed towards climate change adaption [1] . While this does not cover future costs, it is a start. [1] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01b", "score": 0.6585584282875061, "text": "The fossil fuels which account for the majority of GHG emissions are finite resources. As oil and coal becoming increasingly scarce, markets will naturally switch to more efficient or renewable resources thus stabilizing global GHG emissions. The growth of fuel efficient hybrid and fully electric automobiles are a good example of the market responding to higher fuel prices. (Also see New Technology)", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con01b", "score": 0.654889702796936, "text": "Opposition concedes that adaptations will happen as individuals respond to climate change, it is only fair and sensible that governments should make sure those changes happen in a managed fashion. To take one, small example; the increasing unwillingness of insurers to accept the risks of flooding for homes and businesses in some parts of the world requires a governmental response; many of those who bought homes that may be affected by flooding bought that property before they would have known about climate change.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro03b", "score": 0.6536704301834106, "text": "Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. 1The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-con04b", "score": 0.6527235507965088, "text": "Many places today have not even done the minimum and need funding to help them do so. There can be no denying that some defences can make a big difference; in 1900 Galveston was hit by a hurricane which killed up to 12000 people, 15 years later after the building of a sea wall only 53 people died in a similar hurricane. [1] In many cases this kind of adaptation is simply sensible policy to prevent disasters that should be carried out regardless of climate change. [1] Morris, Julian, ‘The Terrible Toll of Typhoon Haiyan Doesn't Excuse Bad Policy’, reason.com, 15 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01a", "score": 0.6507713794708252, "text": "450 PPM The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm. 1. IPCC (2007). \"IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)\". Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press. 2 The Guardian, World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest. (31/1/11).", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con03b", "score": 0.7590247392654419, "text": "Technological improvements will almost certainly be developed for those who can afford them (as most technology is). However, climate change will have the greatest effect on poor countries that cannot afford mitigation. Potentially, being able to protect the wealthy does not mean that we are not too late on global climate change." } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con02b", "score": 0.694709837436676, "text": "While climate models may be imperfect they are the best tool presently available to predict the future. Most predict dire consequences if GHGs continue to rise through the 21st century, which is what seems most likely.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-pro02a", "score": 0.6871069073677063, "text": "The shifts required will take decades to plan and implement, they are already urgent Transforming entire sectors of the economy and the resulting shifts in patterns of migration, training, employment and resourcing will be both complex and complicated and require a massive logistical effort. Waiting until the world’s grain baskets are already dustbowls or Manhattan is underwater is simply unrealistic. Instead, nations individually and collectively need to plan and begin to implement the necessary changes now. Even the process of achieving political agreement on some of the likely changes could take decades. 2050 has been widely seen as the date when the ravages of Climate Change will be all too obvious; 30 years is no time at all in diplomatic and industrial terms [i] . The financial costs of inaction on Climate Change have been estimated at $74tn, however that pails into insignificance with the broader human costs [ii] . Against that the World Bank has estimated that the costs of adaptation at a wildly varying but still relatively modest $4bn - $109bn a year [iii] . [i] BBC Website. Temperatures could rise by 3C by 2050, models suggest. 25 March 2012. [ii] Friends of the Earth. “Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction” 2006. [iii] The World Bank. “The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change”.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "validation-environment-ceshbwpsbpf-con02b", "score": 0.6869621872901917, "text": "Experience teaches us that the natural environment responds to changes in human activity and rebalances itself. By contrast a shift in the entire climate, driven by human activity, would have devastating implications for all species. We know that migration routes can change over time and that, for example, bat colonies can move. However, a shift in climatic process would destroy migration patterns [i] and cause untold damage to wildlife populations. Dealing with the effects of climate change is not just a responsibility that humanity needs to take on for itself but for all species on the planet. The tiny impact of individual wind farms on local populations is as nothing compared to the catastrophic implications of a significant and mostly unpredictable shift in the climate of the globe. [i] Alasdair Fotheringham. “Is this the end of migration?” The independent. 18 April 2010.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con01a", "score": 0.6798498630523682, "text": "Some of the required adaptations are impossible In some Climate Change scenarios – for example, a diminution of global oxygen output as a result of the effect of desalination resulting from melting polar caps or enforcing reduced consumption of resources through their more equitable distribution – are either impossible in biological or practical terms [i] . As a result, the only available option is reducing the carbon footprint of humanity as a species. Overwhelmingly, scientists agree that this is the only solution. Adaptation is, in reality, an attempt to hide from ‘an inconvenient truth’. Nobody likes being told that there is simply no way around the problem but that is the reality. Some adaptations will, no doubt, happen naturally as people adjust but the focus of governments should remain on prevention. [i] Stephen Leahy. “Climate Change Threatens Crucial Marine Algae”, Inter Press Service. 8 May 2012.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-ogecephwgn-pro03b", "score": 0.6779430508613586, "text": "Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. 1The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro04b", "score": 0.6688037514686584, "text": "These consequences are often speculation. With such a large and complex system we have no way of knowing what the consequences of climate change. There may well be some tipping points that will accelerate climate change but we do not know when each of these will become a problem and there may also be tipping points that act in the other direction.(See Earth's Resiliency)", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro03b", "score": 0.6672178506851196, "text": "For most of the time they were emitting the west did not have any idea of the consequences. The developed world therefore cannot be held responsible for emissions before the 1980s. On the other hand knowledge of the effects has not prevented developing countries from immensely increasing their emissions. Clearly the developed world is still responsible for more emissions but they are also responsible for developing technologies to reduce emissions such as renewable power.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "validation-environment-ceshbwpsbpf-con03b", "score": 0.6667969226837158, "text": "Both tidal and geo-thermal are untried technologies and have significant environmental implications in their own right. It also seems highly unlikely that deploying nuclear as a ‘bridge’ technology would be anything like that, certainly the history of energy production does not suggest that industries are likely to plan for their own extinction in favour of more environmentally sensitive technologies. This is especially true of nuclear power; it simply is not a short-term technology as the reprocessing and containment schedules are enormous. A decision to use nuclear even for a matter of decades would have implications that would run for longer than the history of human civilization to date. Wind, by contrast, is a developed technology that has no implications for future generations.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-science-uhbmsf-con02b", "score": 0.6621608734130859, "text": "While the technology is still in its infancy there is still much lending itself to the value of interstellar travel. The Earth cannot sustain life forever, and the risk of a catastrophic event such as a giant asteroid impact is always real. [1] Developing technology that can sustain humans aboard spacecraft for several generations as well terra-form potential new homes are of the utmost importance to lasting human survival. Many things in the realm of science fiction today can be made reality given the will and resources. It is essential that humanity dedicate itself to the cause of manned space exploration, for the sake of its will to explore, as well as its will to survive. [1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?”. Scientific American. 2005.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con04b", "score": 0.6607109904289246, "text": "Seeing the fight against Climate Change as some panacea for international inequality has always been a non-starter. The rich nations are simply not going to give up their competitive advantages in terms of production. However, a sensible global response to issues such as the migration likely to result from some of the outcomes of changing climates, might mitigate some of their worse excesses.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-science-euhwcface-con01b", "score": 0.6606916785240173, "text": "It seems unlikely that humans would not be able to survive a great change of circumstance. The human mind is quite resilient, and while the change in how people viewed themselves and the Universe would likely change substantially, it might well be for the better. In fact, discovery of extraterrestrials might help free people from the shackles of dogmatic religious belief, which has caused untold suffering to many through the ages.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con02b", "score": 0.6601442694664001, "text": "The mono-focus on prevention has, effectively, blinded the world’s governments to the real issue – that climate change is happening and will continue to happen. That is a process that will require great adaptation on behalf of everyone. As with any significant change, it needs to be managed. Economies and societies have been dramatically altered in the face of significant changes such as warfare. It’s time to face up to that reality.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con03b", "score": 0.6590879559516907, "text": "Renewables always looked like being ‘too little, too late’ and that now appears to be the case. Carbon based energy sources remain, massively, the major players of global energy production and that looks set to continue to be the case. It is time to take a mature response to that reality and manage the problem rather than pretending that a magical solution is going to be produced in the form of technological breakthroughs in nuclear or other energy technologies.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-pro02b", "score": 0.6585566401481628, "text": "Climate Change, by dint of the complexity of the model, is virtually impossible to plan for. Developing an adaptation regime would simply create an ever-changing model while removing necessary intellectual and economic resources from the prevention regime that is already in place. This would not only mean transferring research resources there is also government and regulatory activity as well as industrial compliance structures and other outlays.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-pro01b", "score": 0.6558927297592163, "text": "It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-raceeghg-con02b", "score": 0.6537038683891296, "text": "History does show that renewable technology tends to develop when it is economically efficient. Alternatives to fossil fuels will be found when fossil fuels are too expensive to buy, and therefore people are willing to buy what is initially an inferior product. It is only then after general adoption, that the inferior product will improve to the point at which it is equal to the product it is replacing. The fact is that as long as there are large scale supplies of fossil fuels available, and those supplies are plentiful enough to be affordable, consumers will be unwilling to accept the inferior performance they will get from electric cars, or the inferior comfort of smaller vehicles. The EU, with a far superior public transportation system is a bad comparison with the United States, as it is likely that the price at which Americans would accept the same sort of compromises is much higher, and no amount of environmental concern or preaching about alternative energy will generate the political capital to force them to if they don’t have to. Furthermore, what the opposition ignores in this argument is that it is often the poor who will suffer the most from artificially high fuel prices. Raising prices will increasingly make driving a luxury good, limiting the mobility of low income workers. This will both reduce their standard of living (i.e. ability to take vacations) and reduce their options for work and therefore for advancement.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-con03b", "score": 0.6534642577171326, "text": "In recent years there has been a large amount of aid provided to Africa for the express purpose of climate change adaption, demonstrating a growing awareness to this issue. The UNEP claimed that between 2010 and 2011 it provided several hundred million dollars each year, with an unknown amount coming from other development projects, directed towards climate change adaption [1] . While this does not cover future costs, it is a start. [1] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-science-sghwbdgmo-con01b", "score": 0.6524055004119873, "text": "Genetic modification is unnatural. There is a fundamental difference between modification via selective breeding and genetic engineering techniques. The former occurs over thousands of years and so the genes are changed much more gradually. Genetic modification will supposedly deliver much but we have not had the time to assess the long-term consequences. [1] A recent study by the Soil Association actually proves that many of the promises companies gave were false. GM crops did not increase yield. Another example is a frost-resistant cotton plant that ended up not ripening. [2] GMOs do not reliably produce the benefits desired because we do not know the long term effects of utilizing them. Given the risks, we should seek to ban them. [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001, , accessed 09/02/2011 [2] University of Alberta, Genetic Ethics Lecture, published Fall 2008, , accessed 09/02/2011", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephwcear-pro01b", "score": 0.652129590511322, "text": "This is oil and gas that we already know about and already have the expertise to exploit. The technology that we don’t yet have will only be developed if there is a demand for them – if the demand is now the technology will be developed. There is little point in us leaving this particular fuel to future generations when we are the first generation that has the technology to exploit such deposits. Future generations may improve on the technology and make it safer but the fundamental capability, the breakthroughs that make it possible have already happened. Future generations on the other hand will have their own breakthroughs in terms of new forms of power and new discoveries of fuels. They are then much less likely to need these resources than we do now.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-science-euhwcface-con02b", "score": 0.6517015695571899, "text": "Just because efforts to contact extraterrestrials to date have proven unsuccessful does not mean they are not out there. In fact, as communications technology develops over time, humans' ability to project messages and to receive them will increase manifold. Extraterrestrial transmissions could well be beaming toward Earth, but humans might simply lack the capacity to receive them. There could be an interplanetary conversation happening right now, and no one would even know (Sagan, 1973). Only by pushing the boundaries of science and of human imagination can such technological improvements arise. The paradigm of exploration must be maintained with the scouring for life amongst the heavens.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-con01b", "score": 0.6981707215309143, "text": "Carbon trading systems may have the effect of slowing the rise in CO2 emissions, and possibly even creating a fall. However this will not solve the problem as changes are already occurring and there may be no way to stop feedback that creates more emissions." } ]

[ { "id": "training-international-ehbsansaje-pro03b", "score": 0.6538791656494141, "text": "While it is true that trading freely with the EU requires acceptance of many of its rules, neither country has given up control over those areas they consider key policy areas. These are the areas that Norway and Switzerland most important such as agriculture, fishing (highly important for Norway) and foreign affairs. The Swiss in particular have done well out of bilateral deals with the EU – would their concerns in areas such as banking and farming be listened to as carefully once they were inside the club? How much are the concerns of smaller states taken seriously in the EU today?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-economy-ecegiehbe-con01b", "score": 0.6510369777679443, "text": "While it might be true that some of these benefits are a consequence of the political union, all of these can be maintained in other forms. This is particularly evident by the fact that non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Iceland participate in these schemes, without becoming members of the political bloc. By disassembling the political union, countries can furthermore opt to participate in some agreements, while not participating in others, thus maximising everyone’s benefit.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro02b", "score": 0.6473000049591064, "text": "Rising countries, such as India, China, and Brazil, are adopting more efficient technologies than are currently in use in much of the world. While the developing world is contributing to net GHG emission growth, their GHG per person is still far below that of a developed country. And, as a result of the adoption of newer technologies, it is unlikely that their GHG per person will ever equal that found in the developed world. If reductions can be made in the developed world, where it is a fact that the economic resources exist to do so, then net emissions can be stabilized even while emissions in the developing world continue to grow.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-economy-epehwmrbals-pro05b", "score": 0.6465170979499817, "text": "This is similar to the debate of imposing uniform carbon emission caps on all nations. This would be unfair as the developing world would be at a disadvantage as it takes away one of the ways in which poorer countries compete effectively in the global market; through having lower prices as a result of those lower standards. That is why keeping lower standards that are more easily met is better than having an unachievable and unfair standard.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01a", "score": 0.6434583067893982, "text": "450 PPM The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm. 1. IPCC (2007). \"IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)\". Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press. 2 The Guardian, World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest. (31/1/11).", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro01b", "score": 0.6429377198219299, "text": "The fossil fuels which account for the majority of GHG emissions are finite resources. As oil and coal becoming increasingly scarce, markets will naturally switch to more efficient or renewable resources thus stabilizing global GHG emissions. The growth of fuel efficient hybrid and fully electric automobiles are a good example of the market responding to higher fuel prices. (Also see New Technology)", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-international-ehbsansaje-pro03a", "score": 0.636755645275116, "text": "Norway and Switzerland already implement many EU policies Both Norway [1] and Switzerland [2] have agreements with the EU allow them the access to its enormous market that they need to survive economically, but at the same time they have to abide by EU rules that they have no influence over making. Norway in particular, as an EEA member must accept all EU single-market, employment, environment and competition rules. Switzerland meanwhile is under pressure as the European Union wants changes to EU law to be adopted automatically by the Swiss. [3] Both contribute to the EU budget as European Free Trade Area members contribute to operational and administrative expenditure. [4] Norway contributes 340million Euros per year. [5] If they joined the EU, they would at least be given a say in the regulations they have to implement, and as their presence would strengthen the relatively more free-market camp led by the UK, Ireland and Denmark, they are likely to be happier with the rules that then result. [1] The European Community and Iceland, The Principality of Liechtenstein, Then Kingdom of Norway, ‘Agreement on the European Economic Area’, 1994 [2] European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation, ‘EC Switzerland Free Trade Agreement’ 1972 [3] Pop, Valentina, ‘EU looking to reset relations with Switzerland’, 2010 [4] Efta.int, ‘EEA EFTA Budget’, 2011 [5] Norway Mission to the EU, ’10 Basic facts about the European Economic Area’", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-economy-bepiehbesa-con02b", "score": 0.6333726644515991, "text": "We can see from continuous decline of farms in Europe that the CAP has been ineffective in creating enough incentive for people to stay in villages and farms. And it is doubtful if even the reform of CAP can change this situation. In the last 40 years CAP was reformed in one way or another however the declining trend has still continued. It is reasonable to assume that leaving the agricultural sector without state interventions (which are basically CAP) will eventually result in some sort of stable equilibrium emerging with farmers who can make money from farming, or other activities remaining without subsidy.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-echbcatspct-pro01a", "score": 0.6330860257148743, "text": "Cap and Trade is Better at reducing carbon emissions than a carbon tax. A cap-and-trade system provides companies with credits if they are able to reduce their emissions below an established level. They can then sell these credits for a profit. So, if a company takes action to reduce its carbon emissions below the designated level, than it can make a profit. This is a powerful market incentive that is more likely to cause companies to invest money in finding ways to reduce their carbon emissions. A carbon tax, conversely, only provides the incentive of cutting costs, and does not offer this important profit motive. With cap-and-trade emissions are much more likely to be meaningfully reduced, specifically because the cap is static and as such nations can choose to raise and lower it as they wish. Within this mechanism, market prices would simply reflect the availability of credits. As such, nations can guarantee a reduction in carbon emissions just by reducing the number of credits in the market. Finally, because cap and trade affects all companies and minimises cost to them, it provides all companies with an incentive to work toward green technology. Under the status quo, where subsidies and research grants are paid to businesses researching emissions reduction technology, the government has to decide which companies are “best” at solving the ecological damage that industry causes. Other companies feel they don’t have to contribute because they are simply being taxed instead. We do not know where the next development in green technology will come from. As such a smaller impetus for everyone is likely to be better than a large impetus for a small number of companies who might not, in any event, be able to develop workable solutions to emissions problems. [1] [1] Mankiw, Gregory, “Carbon Tax Problem,” 11/04/07", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-international-ehbfe-pro05b", "score": 0.6330296993255615, "text": "The assumptions about the multinational corporations are not actually proved. National governments close deals with such corporations if both sides have interest in it. Even if we assume such a thing existed nowadays – in a federal Europe the same problem would occur only not with countries, rather with regions. That is because every region would want the company to create more business in its area so we will end up with the assumed status quo today. The EU today is already strong enough in regards to implementing environmental policies and restrictions – the carbon tax, the cap and trade system. Dealing with the international issue of global warming is not a point of a federal Europe or the EU, but a completely different matter.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-economy-ehbusbmwtwm-pro03a", "score": 0.6313216686248779, "text": "Workfare schemes benefit society Society also benefits from the work done by those on workfare schemes: These might include environmental improvement in local communities, service to assist the elderly and disabled, and work for charities or local authorities. In many cases the labour they provide would not have been available in any other way, so the addition they make to everyone's quality of life is a welcome bonus to the scheme. Furthermore, a 2011 study in Denmark found a 'strong and significant crime reducing effect of the workfare policy.'1 1: Fallesen, P., Geerdsen, L., Imai, S., & Tranaes, T. (2011, March 1). The Effect of Workfare Policy on Crime. Retrieved July 19, 2011", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-echbcatspct-pro02a", "score": 0.6294688582420349, "text": "Cap and Trade is More Economical Than a Carbon Tax \"The efficiency [of a cap-and-trade system] comes with the \"trade\" part. Let's say you have two power plants, each emitting 100 tons of carbon per hour. The first can reduce its emissions by 20 tons at a cost of $5 per ton, and the second can reduce its emissions by only 10 tons, at a cost of $30 per ton. Clearly the efficient thing to do is to make the former reduction rather than the latter, with the owner of the second plant paying the owner of the first plant to offset the first owner's extra costs [by buying carbon credits and the \"right\" to pollute from the first plant].\" [1] This technique allows effective emissions reductions to occur at the lowest cost. Hence as this is less disruptive to business they are more likely to be on board and not try to get around a cap and trade system using accounting methods in the same way that they might with a tax. A cap-and-trade system is more flexible in the global economy. Nations that adopt a cap-and-trade system can later link that system into other cap-and-trade systems around the world. It would not be as easy for a carbon tax to achieve this. This is important in today's global economy, where multinational companies exist across borders. As such cap-and-trade is the most viable solution that if implemented could lead to a long term solution and agreement between countries regarding reductions in emissions. [2] [1] Nast Conde, “Why a Cap-And Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax.” Portfolio.com 19/04/2007 [2] Nast Conde, “Why a Cap-And Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax.” Portfolio.com 19/04/2007", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-economy-epechbuwbbe-pro03b", "score": 0.6288989186286926, "text": "Most of the claimed £350 million per week either is accounted for by the British rebate, £4.8billion in 2015 [1] – which never actually leaves the UK – or is money the EU spends in the UK. The £120 million remainder is however buys access to the EU’s market. Norway pays €340 million per year – about £63 million per week if it had a comparable population to the UK – to get access to the EU market but does not have any chance to influence that market. [2] [1] 94.4million per week, HM Treasury, ‘European Union Finances 2015: statement on the 2015 EU Budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement’, gov.uk, December 2015, [2] Solberg, Erna, ‘The ‘Norwegian model’ would be a poor alternative to EU membership for the UK’, LSE, 19th April 2013,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-echbcatspct-con01b", "score": 0.6279102563858032, "text": "The basic problem is that a carbon tax would be seen as a new tax. New taxes are typically unpopular. This makes it hard for politicians to support a carbon tax, as they are beholden to their constituents, and their likely desires to avoid such a tax. This in itself makes it unlikely a Carbon Tax would ever be implemented. Further, a carbon tax would require complicated enforcement mechanisms. These mechanisms would impose an administrative burden on the state more severe than that created by a cap-and-trade system. In a carbon tax, emitters would pay a tax for every tonne of carbon emitted. This requires that the government know precisely how much carbon is being emitted by energy producers. This is not easy to determine, and requires that a government put in place monitoring mechanisms. Deploying these mechanisms universally would be very complicated, expensive, and require much administration. Then, ensuring that all these monitoring devices operate properly and that all energy producers comply with the tax would also involve a substantial administrative overhead. This would be equally as complicated as a cap-and-trade system, which requires much the same administration, but also encourages other companies to keep tabs on their competitors and their emissions. Credit trading spreads the administrative costs of carbon taxation over a number of companies, all of whom will be acting to protect their carbon credit investments and the stability of the market they are traded on.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-echbcatspct-pro02b", "score": 0.627034604549408, "text": "The costs of establishing and administering a cap-and-trade system could be substantial. It demands that a cap be set, monitored, and enforced. This is a highly complicated process, given the size of the energy market, and would demand substantial administrative oversight. Further, should the monitoring not be perfect, given the size and power of the firms involved, it is likely that they will be able to find loopholes in order to deal with the problem. A carbon tax is predictable, as are most simple tax systems. A cap-and-trade system, on the other hand, is subject to market fluctuations, speculation, and volatility. This could have a bad effect on energy prices. Specifically, if the market becomes subject to speculative attack, it would be likely that energy companies would have to offset the risks in the market by raising energy prices. Further, such market volatility could lead to certain energy companies being unduly punished for changes in the market that they simply could not have predicted. [1] [1] “Carbon Markets Create a Muddle.” Financial Times. 26/04/2007", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con02b", "score": 0.6242216229438782, "text": "The mono-focus on prevention has, effectively, blinded the world’s governments to the real issue – that climate change is happening and will continue to happen. That is a process that will require great adaptation on behalf of everyone. As with any significant change, it needs to be managed. Economies and societies have been dramatically altered in the face of significant changes such as warfare. It’s time to face up to that reality.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-echbcatspct-con01a", "score": 0.6220815777778625, "text": "Cap and Trade is Less Feasible Than a Carbon Tax Carbon taxes are useful owing to the transparency behind them. It helps companies working for green causes gain a strong reputation and support among the public because they are seen to be paying for their pollution. A cap and trade system is significantly more difficult to understand and as such this means that there will likely be less public will behind the system and thus a lesser incentive for transparency. A cap-and-trade system demands that the government determine the emissions baselines for companies, the allocation of carbon credits, and the monitoring and enforcement of all of the above. This is a major administrative burden. A carbon tax would be simpler and require less oversight, and would cost domestic tax payers less. The complexity of a cap-and-trade system would make it easier for companies to cheat. This is largely because the enforcement of this system would be difficult and open to manipulation by skilled lawyers, accountants and consultancy firms. Further, Governments have the incentive to establish conditions favourable to the performance of their own national companies. They can do so by, for example, offering more carbon credits than they should to the companies of their country. The EU's emissions trading system is the primary example of this occurring. [1] [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-international-iighbopcc-con02b", "score": 0.6207050085067749, "text": "There is little reason why countries can’t voluntarily come up with their quotas and then be bound to them by treaty. Being willing to be bound by a treaty would show that the targets submitted are really the targets that countries are setting for themselves rather than a public relations exercise.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-echbcatspct-con03a", "score": 0.6204416751861572, "text": "Cap and Trade will Harm Energy Consumers Carbon trading would harm smaller and start-up business to a significant extent. It is easier for wealthy companies to reduce their carbon consumption as they have a greater level of wealth and thus a greater ability to do so. As such under a market mechanism they would have more credits. Poorer businesses would have to buy carbon credits from the richer ones, compromising competitiveness; in addition, small business parks and areas attractive to start-ups would potentially become sinkholes for pollution under the proposition. The resolution could undermine the efficiency and profitability of small but agile engineering and manufacturing firms, such as the mittelstand businesses that have recently flourished in Germany. The volatility of cap and trade markets means that firms would have to insure against the markets turning against them. In practical terms, this means that following the implementation of a cap and trade scheme firms would have to significantly increase fuel prices in order to hedge against the possibility of the market turning against them and harming their company. As such even if cap and trade is a more “efficient” system it still harms consumers significantly.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-con04b", "score": 0.6193295121192932, "text": "Seeing the fight against Climate Change as some panacea for international inequality has always been a non-starter. The rich nations are simply not going to give up their competitive advantages in terms of production. However, a sensible global response to issues such as the migration likely to result from some of the outcomes of changing climates, might mitigate some of their worse excesses.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro02b", "score": 0.7912270426750183, "text": "While it is clear that such an immense project will have an impact we have little idea what that impact might be. Will the builders be local? Will the suppliers be local? It is likely that the benefit will go elsewhere just as the electricity will go to South Africa rather than providing electricity to the poverty stricken Congolese. [1] [1] Palitza, Kristin, ‘$80bn Grand Inga hydropower dam to lock out Africa’s poor’, Africa Review, 16 November 2011, www.africareview.com/Business---Finance/80-billion-dollar-Grand-Inga-dam-to-lock-out-Africa-poor/-/979184/1274126/-/kkicv7/-/index.html" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con04b", "score": 0.7345958352088928, "text": "The difficulty of constructing something should not be considered a good argument not to do it. As one of the poorest countries in the world construction will surely have significant support from developed donors and international institutions. Moreover with the energy cooperation treaty between DRC and South Africa there is a guaranteed partner to help in financing and eventually buying the electricity.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro03b", "score": 0.7206941246986389, "text": "In the short to medium term during the decades the dam is being built investment will surely be concentrated in one place in this vast country; in the west where the dam is, not the east where the conflicts are. Later there is little guarantee that the government will spend the proceeds wisely to develop the country rather than it disappearing through corruption. And this assumes the money flows in from the export of electricity. To enable such exports 3000km of high voltage cable will need to be laid which would be vulnerable to being cut by rebel groups seeking to hurt the government through its wallet. [1] [1] ‘Explained: The $80 billion Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 21 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con01a", "score": 0.7139169573783875, "text": "Such a big project is beyond DRC’s capacity The Grand Inga dam project is huge while it means huge potential benefits it just makes it more difficult for the country to manage. Transparency international ranks DRC as 160th out of 176 in terms of corruption [1] so it is no surprise that projects in the country are plagued by it. [2] Such a big project would inevitably mean billions siphoned off. Even if it is built will the DRC be able to maintain it? This seems unlikely. The Inga I and II dams only operate at half their potential due to silting up and a lack of maintenance. [3] [1] ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2012’, Transparency International, 2012, [2] Bosshard, Peter, ‘Grand Inga -- The World Bank's Latest Silver Bullet for Africa’, Huffington Post, 21 April 2013, [3] Vasagar, Jeevan, ‘Could a $50bn plan to tame this mighty river bring electricity to all of Africa?’, The Guardian, 25 February 2005,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro02b", "score": 0.7066284418106079, "text": "Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-international-astshbghacn-pro02b", "score": 0.6931500434875488, "text": "This infrastructure still costs money, whatever event it is around: a state could launch an infrastructure drive without a football tournament that would be much more focused on the real needs of the people. Foreign investment can have significant costs, such as preferential access to natural resources. The work can often wind up being done by foreign contractors so that it creates no local jobs, as happened when Angola hosted the tournament [1] . In the case of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise China does not just get the benefit of the name; the finance provided was a loan, and the construction was done by the Shanghai Construction Group meaning much of the benefit went to China. [2] [1] Capstick, Alex, “Angola uses football to showcase economy”, BBC News, 2010, [2] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro02a", "score": 0.6925605535507202, "text": "Economic benefits of the dam for Ethiopia The dam will produce significant economic potential for Ethiopia. In 2013, Ethiopia had to import 125,000 metric tonnes of coal to fuel its power stations. Over 50% of the country’s imports are orientated towards meeting its fuel demands [1] . If Ethiopia can replace these imports with its own energy then it can make significant savings. The diverted money could be contributed towards development, which would be assisted by greater accessibility to electricity. In addition to this, 12,000 jobs will be created [2] and Ethiopia will become an energy exporter. The excess energy from powering Africa will be enough to supply the surrounding region, making energy a viable export market for Ethiopia to tap in to [3] . In combination with the greater access electricity dependent to income-generating activities, these factors give Ethiopia hope of a positive economic future. [1] Tekle,T. ‘Ethiopia imports $1 billion in fuel from Sudan via Djibouti’ in Sudan Tribune 30 March 2013 [2] Joy,O. ‘Earth, Wind, and Water: Ethiopia bids to be Africa’s powerhouse’ CNN 8 November 2013 [3] Ibid", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro01b", "score": 0.6870137453079224, "text": "It is not the best solution to Africa’s energy crisis. According to a report by the International Energy Agency as an immense dam requires a power grid. Such a grid does not exist and building such a grid is “not proving to be cost effective in more remote rural areas”. In such low density areas local sources of power are best. [1] DRC is only 34% urban and has a population density of only 30 people per km2 [2] so the best option would be local renewable power. [1] International Energy Agency, ‘Energy for All Financing access for the poor’, World Energy Outlook, 2011, p.21 [2] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-international-ahwweac-pro01a", "score": 0.6869189143180847, "text": "Economic Development will be boosted in the entire region. Widening the East African Community, will help enlarge the common market, increase production and improve regional trade as people will be able to freely do business across more than five countries. Prior to Rwanda and Burundi’s membership to the bloc in 2004, Kenya’s exports and imports to the EAC were Kshs 64 billion and Kshs 3 billion respectively this however increased after the two countries joined creating a single market of 133.5 million people. In 2009 Kenya’s exports had risen to Kshs 90.5 billion and imports to Kshs 12.5 billion [1]. Ethiopia, DRC and South Sudan are all mineral rich countries and are big potential markets for East Africa. Welcoming them to the community is predicted to double the production, imports and exports among member states [2] due to policies policies like the EAC trade facilitation, customs union and competition policy and law [2]. [1] Mary, Odongo,’Institute of Economic Affairs; Towards an East African Community common market’, ieakenya.or.ke, 30 Jan 2011, [2] Ernest & Young, ‘The East Africa boom’, ey.com, [3] East African Community Customs, ‘market size, access and trade policy’, eu.int,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con03a", "score": 0.6834797859191895, "text": "Dams displace communities Dams result in the filling of a large reservoir behind the dam because it has raised the level of the water in the case of the Grand Inga it would create a reservoir 15km long. This is not particularly big but the construction would also displace communities. The previous Inga dams also displaced people. Inga I and II were built 30 and 40 years ago, yet the displaced are still in a shabby prefabricated town called Camp Kinshasa awaiting compensation. [1] Are they likely to do better this time around? [1] Sanyanga, Ruto, ‘Will Congo Benefit from Grand Inga Dam’, International Policy Digest, 29 June 2013,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-economy-egiahbwaka-con03a", "score": 0.6802253723144531, "text": "Africa's greatest needs are for infrastructure and education Africa’s greatest needs for development are infrastructure and education. Neither of these needs implies that women are about to become key to the African economy. Africa is severely deficient in infrastructure; Sub Saharan Africa generates the same amount of electricity as Spain, a country with one seventeenth the population. The World Bank suggests “if all African countries were to catch up with Mauritius in infrastructure, per capita economic growth in the region could increase by 2.2 percentage points. Catching up with Korea’s level would increase economic growth per capita by up to 2.6 percent per year.” [1] There are numerous projects to alleviate this deficit such as immense projects like the Grand Inga Dam in the Democratic Republic of Congo which could power not just the country but its neighbours too. [2] However if construction is the key to the future then this implies men are going to continue to have more impact as the construction industry is traditionally dominated by men. Africa has been making strides in education for women. Yet there still remains a gap. To take a few examples the youth female literacy rates in Angola 66%, Central African Republic 59%, Ghana 83% and Sierra Leone 52% is still lower than youth male literacy rates or 80%, 72%, 88%, and 70%. [3] And the gap often increases with further education. To take Senegal as an example there are actually more girls than boys enrolled in primary education, a ratio of 1.06 but for secondary this drops to 0.77 and to 0.6 for tertiary. The situation is the same in other countries; Mauritania 1.06, 0.86, 0.42, Mozambique, 0.95, 0.96, 0.63, and Ghana 0.98, 0.92, 0.63. [4] With women not breaking through to the highest level in education it is unlikely that they will be the main driver of the economy in the future. Their influence may increase as a result of increasing education at lower levels but without equality at the highest level they are unlikely to become key to their countries economic future as the highest skilled jobs and the roles of directing the economy will still be carried out primarily by men. [1] ‘Fact Sheet: Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa’, The World Bank, [2] See the Debatabase debate ‘ This House would build the Grand Inga Dam’ [3] UNESCO Institute for Statistics, ‘Literacy rate, youth male (% of males ages 15-24)’, data.worldbank.org, 2009-2013, [4] Schwab Klaus et al., The Global Gender Gap Report 2013, World Economic Forum, 2013, , pp.328, 276, 288, 208 (in order of mentioning, examples taken pretty much at random – though there are one or two where the ratios actually don’t change much such as Mauritius, but that is against the trend)", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-international-aghbuidrch-con02b", "score": 0.6773133873939514, "text": "The recorded economy of the DRC and its real GDP are showing signs of growth. The UN Panel of Experts has finally provided detailed information about the involvement of a range of African, European and North American businesses in illegal or illicit exploitation of natural resources in the DRC. Sanctions have been implemented to help stop these practices. [1] With the support of the UN, measures have been implemented intended to increase the control of the ministry of finance over state expenditure, and new statutes have strengthened the independence of the Central Bank. [1] ‘Resolution 2136 (2014)’, United Nations Security Council, 30 January 2014,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con04a", "score": 0.6734908819198608, "text": "The cost is too high The Grand Inga is ‘pie in the sky’ as the cost is too immense. At more than $50-100 billion it is more than twice the GDP of the whole country. [1] Even the much smaller Inga III project has been plagued by funding problems with Westcor pulling out of the project in 2009. [2] This much smaller project still does not have all the financial backing it needs having failed to get firm commitments of investment from anyone except the South Africans. [3] If private companies won’t take the risk on a much smaller project they won’t on the Grand Inga. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013, [2] ‘Westcor Drops Grand Inga III Project’, Alternative Energy Africa, 14 August 2009, [3] ‘DRC still looking for Inga III funding’, ESI-Africa.com, 13 September 2013,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-international-astshbghacn-pro04b", "score": 0.6661037802696228, "text": "The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2] [1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012, [2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro01a", "score": 0.6652520895004272, "text": "The dam would power Africa Only 29% of Sub Saharan Africa’s population has access to electricity. [1] This has immense consequences not just for the economy as production and investment is constrained but also on society. The world bank says lack of electricity affects human rights “People cannot access modern hospital services without electricity, or feel relief from sweltering heat. Food cannot be refrigerated and businesses cannot function. Children cannot go to school… The list of deprivation goes on.” [2] Conveniently it is suggested that the “Grand Inga will thus provide more than half of the continent with renewable energy at a low price,” [3] providing electricity to half a billion people so eliminating much of this electricity gap. [4] [1] World Bank Energy, ‘Addressing the Electricity Access Gap’, World Bank, June 2010, p.89 [2] The World Bank, ‘Energy – The Facts’, worldbank.org, 2013, [3] SAinfo reporter, ‘SA-DRC pact paves way for Grand Inga’, SouthAfrica.info, 20 May 2013, [4] Pearce, Fred, ‘Will Huge New Hydro Projects Bring Power to Africa’s People?’, Yale Environment 360, 30 May 2013,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro01b", "score": 0.6650281548500061, "text": "While in theory the 6,000 MW dam can power all of Ethiopia, the reality is quite different. Areas of Ethiopia, such as Ogaden and Eritrea-Ethiopian border, are relatively unstable; making it hard to build a sufficient power grid in these regions. In Ogaden, instability in the past led to the withdrawal from the oil fields [1] , and this conflict-zone will most likely make the completion of a national grid a problem. The hurdles to producing the means to provide energy to these areas means that there probably will not be universal access to the GERD’s electricity. [1] Wikipedia ‘Ethiopia: Exports’ date accessed 10 December 2013", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-economy-epsosghbsas-pro02a", "score": 0.6648886203765869, "text": "Economic benefits While hosting a major sporting event is relatively expensive (although Cape Town and Johannesburg already have a number of appropriate venues for some of the events already), hosting major sporting events creates major economic benefits. London got a £10bn economic boost from hosting the 2012 Olympics [1] . This may be higher – many of these benefits are difficult to calculate; how much of a tourism boost is a result of a successful games? Barcelona however just like London had a large boost of tourism following the 1992 Barcelona Games [2] . It raises awareness of the city, and the country, and what it offers as a tourist destination. [1] Flanders, Stephanie, ‘London 2012 Olympics ‘have boosted UK economy by £9.9bn’’, BBC News, 19 July 2013, [2] Davenport, Coral, ‘A post-Olympic hurdle for Greece: the whopping bill’, CSMonitor, 1 September 2004,", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro01a", "score": 0.6565219163894653, "text": "The dam is predicted to provide energy for all of Ethiopia When the dam is in full effect, it should be able to provide the entirety of Ethiopia’s population with electricity. The United Nations Foundation placed access to energy as a high priority for developing countries, it enables access to key services and enables more income-generating activities [1] . If Ethiopia discontinued the project, then they would deprive their citizens of economic and health security. Using energy from a dam will have its own benefits. The energy will be renewable source and will provide energy security for this developing state, thus justifying the project. [1] The United Nations Foundation ‘What We do: Achieving Universal Energy Access’ data accessed 10 December 2013", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con02a", "score": 0.6549943089485168, "text": "A dam would damage the environment Dams due to their generation of renewable electricity are usually seen as environmentally friendly but such mega projects are rarely without consequences. The Grand Inga would lower the oxygen content of the lower course of the river which would mean a loss of species. This would not only affect the river as the Congo’s delta is a submerged area of 300,000km2 far out into the Atlantic. This system is not yet understood but the plume transmits sediment and organic matter into the Atlantic ocean encouraging plankton offshore contributing to the Atlantic’s ability to be a carbon sink. [1] [1] Showers, Kate, ‘Will Africa’s Mega Dam Have Mega Impacts?’, International Rivers, 5 March 2012,", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro04a", "score": 0.6541171669960022, "text": "A dam could make the Congo more usable While the Congo is mostly navigable it is only usable internally. The rapids cut the middle Congo off from the sea. The building of the dams could be combined with canalisation and locks to enable international goods to be easily transported to and from the interior. This would help integrate central Africa economically into the global economy making the region much more attractive for investment.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro02b", "score": 0.6529749035835266, "text": "Despite Ethiopia’s economic dreams, demand risk may mean a shortfall in profits. Internally, supply may exceed demand once the GERD is complete. The unaffordability of energy has led to low demands for electricity in the past. The possible reductions in subsidies to repay loans for building the dam will increase prices, which will then lower demand further [1] . Exporting the energy may not work either. To export power Ethiopia needs neighbours with developed transmission lines and a willingness to buy the electricity. The weak economic position of countries like Sudan [2] and poor relations with others suggest that international buyers won’t be too forthcoming. [1] Wikipedia ‘Dams and Hydropower in Ethiopia’ date accessed 12/12/13 [2] World Bank ‘Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 26.44 Million’ 20 November 2007 p.20", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro01b", "score": 0.6534916758537292, "text": "It is not the best solution to Africa’s energy crisis. According to a report by the International Energy Agency as an immense dam requires a power grid. Such a grid does not exist and building such a grid is “not proving to be cost effective in more remote rural areas”. In such low density areas local sources of power are best. [1] DRC is only 34% urban and has a population density of only 30 people per km2 [2] so the best option would be local renewable power. [1] International Energy Agency, ‘Energy for All Financing access for the poor’, World Energy Outlook, 2011, p.21 [2] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013," } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con02a", "score": 0.6167240738868713, "text": "A dam would damage the environment Dams due to their generation of renewable electricity are usually seen as environmentally friendly but such mega projects are rarely without consequences. The Grand Inga would lower the oxygen content of the lower course of the river which would mean a loss of species. This would not only affect the river as the Congo’s delta is a submerged area of 300,000km2 far out into the Atlantic. This system is not yet understood but the plume transmits sediment and organic matter into the Atlantic ocean encouraging plankton offshore contributing to the Atlantic’s ability to be a carbon sink. [1] [1] Showers, Kate, ‘Will Africa’s Mega Dam Have Mega Impacts?’, International Rivers, 5 March 2012,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro03b", "score": 0.603801429271698, "text": "In the short to medium term during the decades the dam is being built investment will surely be concentrated in one place in this vast country; in the west where the dam is, not the east where the conflicts are. Later there is little guarantee that the government will spend the proceeds wisely to develop the country rather than it disappearing through corruption. And this assumes the money flows in from the export of electricity. To enable such exports 3000km of high voltage cable will need to be laid which would be vulnerable to being cut by rebel groups seeking to hurt the government through its wallet. [1] [1] ‘Explained: The $80 billion Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 21 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro02b", "score": 0.6031017303466797, "text": "Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro03b", "score": 0.6025149822235107, "text": "GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia. [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con01a", "score": 0.6021057963371277, "text": "Such a big project is beyond DRC’s capacity The Grand Inga dam project is huge while it means huge potential benefits it just makes it more difficult for the country to manage. Transparency international ranks DRC as 160th out of 176 in terms of corruption [1] so it is no surprise that projects in the country are plagued by it. [2] Such a big project would inevitably mean billions siphoned off. Even if it is built will the DRC be able to maintain it? This seems unlikely. The Inga I and II dams only operate at half their potential due to silting up and a lack of maintenance. [3] [1] ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2012’, Transparency International, 2012, [2] Bosshard, Peter, ‘Grand Inga -- The World Bank's Latest Silver Bullet for Africa’, Huffington Post, 21 April 2013, [3] Vasagar, Jeevan, ‘Could a $50bn plan to tame this mighty river bring electricity to all of Africa?’, The Guardian, 25 February 2005,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-pro04a", "score": 0.5995148420333862, "text": "Greater Access to Technology Proponents of this view claim that the traditional image of ‘Dark Africa’ is becoming outdated in the light of greater access to technology. Due to poor infrastructure, mobile communications have had a transformative impact on African life. In the past decade there has been a notable increase in mobile phone ownership, with the trend set to continue. There are over 600 million mobile phone users in Africa, which is more than in North America and Europe [1] . Mobile phones allow the use of services such as agro-info and mobile banking to further their businesses. It is thought that by 2017, 30% of households will have a television in their house. Household technologies becoming more available have gone hand in hand with the development of more sophisticated farming and industrial techniques. A recent Pan-African project designed at improving legume technology and enrich low-nitrogen soils has made it possible for farmers to increase their yields and has reached 250,000 smallholder farmers so far [2] . [1] The Economist, ‘The hopeful continent’, 2011 [2] Abuje, ‘Putting biological nitrogen fixation to work for smallholder farmers’, 2011", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-international-siacphbnt-con02b", "score": 0.5984430313110352, "text": "The technological revolution across Africa is broad, ranging from mobile technology to internet connectivity. The availability of mobiles has broadened who can use technology - being more inclusive to multiple socio-economic groups. Internet.org [1] has been established to resolve issues, making connectivity affordable. The initiative, which involves a collaborative partnership between Facebook and technological organisations, has a vision of ensuring access to the internet for the two-thirds who remain unconnected. Connectivity is a fundamental necessity to living in our ‘knowledge economy’. Their mission has centred on three aspects: affordability, improving efficiency, and innovative partnerships to expand the number of people connected. Intervention has therefore focused on removing barriers to accessing information by connecting people. Furthermore in Kenya, mobile phones have been made accessible to a wider audience through the removal of the general sales tax in 2009. [1] See further readings: Internet.org, 2013.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-con03b", "score": 0.5982140898704529, "text": "Hydroelectric dams don’t destroy communities, governments do. Building dams only violates human rights if the governments building them do so. That’s why we never heard of large-scale human rights violations when the Hoover Dam in the United States was built. Moreover, responsible dam builders in the International Hydropower Association have taken steps to ensure they build dams with the utmost respect for human rights, through the guidelines mentioned above.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-pro04b", "score": 0.5944483876228333, "text": "Internet use is still very low in Africa, only 16% regularly access the internet. Some areas lag far more than others as well, highlighting regional disparity and the role that has on the economy. While East Africa benefits from large-scale mobile phone ownership, a money transfer system M-Pesa has transactions of $1 billion per month, other areas such as West Africa have failed to do the same [1] . This has led to a potential loss of business for the region’s population who require communications for their farms and businesses. [1] Felix, ‘Insight’, 2013", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con03a", "score": 0.5934751033782959, "text": "Dams displace communities Dams result in the filling of a large reservoir behind the dam because it has raised the level of the water in the case of the Grand Inga it would create a reservoir 15km long. This is not particularly big but the construction would also displace communities. The previous Inga dams also displaced people. Inga I and II were built 30 and 40 years ago, yet the displaced are still in a shabby prefabricated town called Camp Kinshasa awaiting compensation. [1] Are they likely to do better this time around? [1] Sanyanga, Ruto, ‘Will Congo Benefit from Grand Inga Dam’, International Policy Digest, 29 June 2013,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-digital-freedoms-aihbied-con02a", "score": 0.592941403388977, "text": "The digital divide leaves the same people in places of influence and power. The internet doesn’t necessarily put power in the hands of the vulnerable; in many places it strengthens the influence of the traditional elite. In low-income countries the cost of broadband is 900% of average monthly income1. Most people simply cannot afford to have internet access. Internet penetration is not up to par in low income, developing, and traditionally non-democratic countries. For example, Africa has 15% of the world’s population and only 5% of its internet users. There are only about 100 million internet users on the continent, which accounts for only 11% of its population2. As the lower income members of society remain unable to afford internet access, the power that the internet boasts remains with those who can afford it. The traditional elites are the ones that maintain the ability to access the internet, and they can use it for their own purposes and to strengthen their position and power – i.e. the internet may actually increase inequalities on the ground, against democracy. The internet could play a positive role in society, but until it is affordable, the oppressed who long for democracy will not have the tools to advocate for it. 1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010 2. Internet World Stats. “Internet Usage in Africa\", 2011", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-economy-egiahbwaka-con03b", "score": 0.5902021527290344, "text": "Neither education not infrastructure can discount the possibility of women being key to the economic future. Yes infrastructure is needed before many businesses can reach their full potential. But the same limits are on men and women. The lack of infrastructure does not necessarily mean that men will be the ones who benefit. Nor can we be certain that Africa will develop through building infrastructure in the manner than China has. Some infrastructure may become unnecessary; for example there is now no need to build extensive systems of landlines as a result of the use of mobile phones. Other technologies in the future may make other large scale infrastructure projects less necessary – for example community based renewable energy. Similarly education is not destiny; those who do not go to university may well contribute as much as those who do. Moreover this education gap simply shows that when it is closed the impact from women will be all the greater.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-economy-egiahbwaka-con01b", "score": 0.5865841507911682, "text": "While Africa has huge reserves of natural resources they are not its economic future. Mining employs few people and provides little value added to the economy. Also not every African country has natural resources to exploit while all have people, including the currently underutilised women, who could with better education bring about a manufacturing or services economy. Such an economy would be much more sustainable rather than relying on resource booms that have in the past turned to bust.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro01a", "score": 0.5862444639205933, "text": "Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions Hydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. [1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower, [2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively. [1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010 [2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con02b", "score": 0.585143506526947, "text": "Hydroelectric power is clean so would be beneficial in the fight against global warming. Providing such power would reduce the need to other forms of electricity and would help end the problem of cooking fires which not only damage the environment but cause 1.9million lives to be lost globally every year as a result of smoke inhalation. [1] Because the dam will be ‘run of the river’ there won’t be many of the usual problems associated with dams; fish will still be able to move up and down the river and much of the sediment will still be transported over the rapids. [1] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘How Hillary Clinton’s clean stoves will help African women’, theguardian.com, 21 September 2010,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro04a", "score": 0.584726095199585, "text": "A dam could make the Congo more usable While the Congo is mostly navigable it is only usable internally. The rapids cut the middle Congo off from the sea. The building of the dams could be combined with canalisation and locks to enable international goods to be easily transported to and from the interior. This would help integrate central Africa economically into the global economy making the region much more attractive for investment.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro01b", "score": 0.5846220850944519, "text": "Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams. [1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing, [2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions. [2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-aiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.5830634236335754, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-international-iiahwagit-pro01b", "score": 0.5825287699699402, "text": "Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-international-appghblsba-con03b", "score": 0.5806177258491516, "text": "The population in Lesotho might be suffering from poverty but this is not their fault but rather the result of the bad governance. Lesotho is investing 12% of its GDP in education and 85% of its population over 15 is literate. [1] This can provide an knowledgeable, smart workforce for SA which can help develop both countries. On the other hand, South Africa is also dependent on one resource from Lesotho and this is water. Over the past 25 years, a mutual, bilateral agreement has been made between the two sovereign states so that the Lesotho Highlands Water Project can provide SA with clean water. [2] Moreover, the textile industry in Lesotho is competitive and profitable. The industry still contributes close to 20 percent of Lesotho's annual gross domestic product, and is its largest employer. [3] Lesotho would clearly not just be a burden. [1] The World Factbook, 2014, [2] Ashton, Glenn, ‘A Case for Closer Integration between South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland?’, The South African Civil Society Information Service, [3] ‘LESOTHO: Textile industry gets a lifeline’, IRIN, 24 November 2011,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro03b", "score": 0.7251805663108826, "text": "In the short to medium term during the decades the dam is being built investment will surely be concentrated in one place in this vast country; in the west where the dam is, not the east where the conflicts are. Later there is little guarantee that the government will spend the proceeds wisely to develop the country rather than it disappearing through corruption. And this assumes the money flows in from the export of electricity. To enable such exports 3000km of high voltage cable will need to be laid which would be vulnerable to being cut by rebel groups seeking to hurt the government through its wallet. [1] [1] ‘Explained: The $80 billion Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 21 November 2013," } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con04a", "score": 0.6678994297981262, "text": "The cost is too high The Grand Inga is ‘pie in the sky’ as the cost is too immense. At more than $50-100 billion it is more than twice the GDP of the whole country. [1] Even the much smaller Inga III project has been plagued by funding problems with Westcor pulling out of the project in 2009. [2] This much smaller project still does not have all the financial backing it needs having failed to get firm commitments of investment from anyone except the South Africans. [3] If private companies won’t take the risk on a much smaller project they won’t on the Grand Inga. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013, [2] ‘Westcor Drops Grand Inga III Project’, Alternative Energy Africa, 14 August 2009, [3] ‘DRC still looking for Inga III funding’, ESI-Africa.com, 13 September 2013,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro01b", "score": 0.6668161749839783, "text": "While in theory the 6,000 MW dam can power all of Ethiopia, the reality is quite different. Areas of Ethiopia, such as Ogaden and Eritrea-Ethiopian border, are relatively unstable; making it hard to build a sufficient power grid in these regions. In Ogaden, instability in the past led to the withdrawal from the oil fields [1] , and this conflict-zone will most likely make the completion of a national grid a problem. The hurdles to producing the means to provide energy to these areas means that there probably will not be universal access to the GERD’s electricity. [1] Wikipedia ‘Ethiopia: Exports’ date accessed 10 December 2013", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro02b", "score": 0.6646305322647095, "text": "Despite Ethiopia’s economic dreams, demand risk may mean a shortfall in profits. Internally, supply may exceed demand once the GERD is complete. The unaffordability of energy has led to low demands for electricity in the past. The possible reductions in subsidies to repay loans for building the dam will increase prices, which will then lower demand further [1] . Exporting the energy may not work either. To export power Ethiopia needs neighbours with developed transmission lines and a willingness to buy the electricity. The weak economic position of countries like Sudan [2] and poor relations with others suggest that international buyers won’t be too forthcoming. [1] Wikipedia ‘Dams and Hydropower in Ethiopia’ date accessed 12/12/13 [2] World Bank ‘Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 26.44 Million’ 20 November 2007 p.20", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-international-ahwweac-pro01a", "score": 0.6565062403678894, "text": "Economic Development will be boosted in the entire region. Widening the East African Community, will help enlarge the common market, increase production and improve regional trade as people will be able to freely do business across more than five countries. Prior to Rwanda and Burundi’s membership to the bloc in 2004, Kenya’s exports and imports to the EAC were Kshs 64 billion and Kshs 3 billion respectively this however increased after the two countries joined creating a single market of 133.5 million people. In 2009 Kenya’s exports had risen to Kshs 90.5 billion and imports to Kshs 12.5 billion [1]. Ethiopia, DRC and South Sudan are all mineral rich countries and are big potential markets for East Africa. Welcoming them to the community is predicted to double the production, imports and exports among member states [2] due to policies policies like the EAC trade facilitation, customs union and competition policy and law [2]. [1] Mary, Odongo,’Institute of Economic Affairs; Towards an East African Community common market’, ieakenya.or.ke, 30 Jan 2011, [2] Ernest & Young, ‘The East Africa boom’, ey.com, [3] East African Community Customs, ‘market size, access and trade policy’, eu.int,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro02a", "score": 0.650587260723114, "text": "Economic benefits of the dam for Ethiopia The dam will produce significant economic potential for Ethiopia. In 2013, Ethiopia had to import 125,000 metric tonnes of coal to fuel its power stations. Over 50% of the country’s imports are orientated towards meeting its fuel demands [1] . If Ethiopia can replace these imports with its own energy then it can make significant savings. The diverted money could be contributed towards development, which would be assisted by greater accessibility to electricity. In addition to this, 12,000 jobs will be created [2] and Ethiopia will become an energy exporter. The excess energy from powering Africa will be enough to supply the surrounding region, making energy a viable export market for Ethiopia to tap in to [3] . In combination with the greater access electricity dependent to income-generating activities, these factors give Ethiopia hope of a positive economic future. [1] Tekle,T. ‘Ethiopia imports $1 billion in fuel from Sudan via Djibouti’ in Sudan Tribune 30 March 2013 [2] Joy,O. ‘Earth, Wind, and Water: Ethiopia bids to be Africa’s powerhouse’ CNN 8 November 2013 [3] Ibid", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-international-aghbuidrch-con02b", "score": 0.6468682885169983, "text": "The recorded economy of the DRC and its real GDP are showing signs of growth. The UN Panel of Experts has finally provided detailed information about the involvement of a range of African, European and North American businesses in illegal or illicit exploitation of natural resources in the DRC. Sanctions have been implemented to help stop these practices. [1] With the support of the UN, measures have been implemented intended to increase the control of the ministry of finance over state expenditure, and new statutes have strengthened the independence of the Central Bank. [1] ‘Resolution 2136 (2014)’, United Nations Security Council, 30 January 2014,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-international-aghbuidrch-pro02a", "score": 0.6465736031532288, "text": "There has been disarmament and demobilisation In a war-torn society MONUSCO helps with disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR). DDR is of crucial importance for the future stability of the DRC. They have used the latest technology and decades of UN experience with visible success. Thousands of ex-combatants have already been returned to their homes and reintegrated into the lives of their communities. By March 2011 almost 210,000 ex-combatants had been through the demobilisation process – out of an estimated total of 300-330,000. [1] And almost 32,000 of 39,000 child soldiers had been reunited with their parents. [2] [1] ‘Democratic Republic of Congo: Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) and reform of the army’, Amnesty International, 25 January 2007, [2] ‘Demobilization and Reintegration in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’, The World Bank, 11 March 2013,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-politics-dtwhbnhsa-pro04b", "score": 0.6464377045631409, "text": "There are still immense problems with infrastructure in Afghanistan, more roads and railways are needed if large scale investment by China and others is to be made a success. There is little point in huge investment in mines if the product of those mines then can’t be transported out of the country to the markets as a result of either poor infrastructure or security concerns. There are also cases where infrastructure built by the US military has been allowed to deteriorate when handed over to Afghan control; there have been problems maintaining almost half the infrastructure projects built by the US in Laghman province. [1] [1] Boak, Josh, ‘U.S.-funded infrastructure deteriorates once under Afghan control, report says’, Washington Post, 4 January 2011", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-international-aghbuidrch-con03b", "score": 0.6441038250923157, "text": "While a factional, corrupt government that can’t control its territory is an impediment to peace it is not the United Nations main responsibility. MONUSCO has done what it can in coordination with other United Nations agencies, donors and non-governmental organizations, providing assistance for the reform of security forces, and the re-establishment of a State based on the rule of law. It has more than 2,000 civilian staff helping to build institutions. In the years after the Lushaka agreement revenue collection doubled from 6.5% in 2001 to 13.2% of GDP in 2006 showing that the government bureaucracy is being put back on its feet even before the conflict is completely ended. [1] It also shows the government does still have control. As a result international investment has started to flow in and life is better for the large majority of Congolese, especially in the calmer western areas. [1] Harsch, Ernest, ‘Building a state for the Congolese people’, Africa Renewal, January 2008,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con03b", "score": 0.639049232006073, "text": "Yes they are. Big international donors like the World Bank who are supporting the project will ensure that there is compensation for those displaced and that they get good accommodation. In a budget of up to $80billion the cost of compensation and relocation is tiny.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro04a", "score": 0.6386924982070923, "text": "A dam could make the Congo more usable While the Congo is mostly navigable it is only usable internally. The rapids cut the middle Congo off from the sea. The building of the dams could be combined with canalisation and locks to enable international goods to be easily transported to and from the interior. This would help integrate central Africa economically into the global economy making the region much more attractive for investment.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-international-astshbghacn-pro02b", "score": 0.6381465792655945, "text": "This infrastructure still costs money, whatever event it is around: a state could launch an infrastructure drive without a football tournament that would be much more focused on the real needs of the people. Foreign investment can have significant costs, such as preferential access to natural resources. The work can often wind up being done by foreign contractors so that it creates no local jobs, as happened when Angola hosted the tournament [1] . In the case of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise China does not just get the benefit of the name; the finance provided was a loan, and the construction was done by the Shanghai Construction Group meaning much of the benefit went to China. [2] [1] Capstick, Alex, “Angola uses football to showcase economy”, BBC News, 2010, [2] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro02b", "score": 0.6371063590049744, "text": "Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-international-ahwweac-pro01b", "score": 0.6350287795066833, "text": "Widening the bloc will also widen the burden of satisfying all member states which will affect economic development. The discovery of oil in Uganda has prompted concerns about how it will be extracted as a result of a green light to foreign companies to do the job [1], and Rwanda’s natural gas remain untouched due to a lack of skilled labour despite the EAC freedom of movement policies. Why then bring a bigger burden of un-extracted mineral resources that cannot be handled by EAC? And the fact that Kenya has been able to profit from such integration has not done much to lift Burundi from extreme poverty Or prevent Tanzania’s slow growth [2]. When all members are looking to export natural resources there are few benefits to the bloc, the members find themselves competing in export markets. [1] Oil review, ‘Uganda to sign oil drilling agreement with international oil firms’, oilreviewafrica.com, 15 April 2013, [2] IMF, ‘Truly integrated market would bring benefits to East Africa’, imf.org, 15 March 2012,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-international-ahwweac-pro02b", "score": 0.6344214081764221, "text": "The EAC is not yet ready to fully support its missions. The East African Community military command have not helped in prevention of terrorist attacks in Kenya nor has it been able to stop the prolonged insecurities and conflicts in Burundi, besides it still needs improvement. The unity between Kenya and Uganda did not stop conflicts arising over ownership of Migingo islands on lake Victoria; membership would not mean that South Sudan and Sudan suddenly have similar interests or ameliorate their conflict. Rwanda and Uganda have been recently accused of supporting insecurity in Eastern Congo (1), and the peace keeping missions in Somalia and Darfur are both AU and UN initiatives not the EAC. In practice the bloc is not yet ready to embark on such wider missions. (1) Louis, Charbonneau, and Michelle, Nicholls ‘Rwanda, Uganda arming Congo rebels- UN panel’, reuters.com, 17/10/2012", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-international-alhrhbushdmd-con02b", "score": 0.6338638067245483, "text": "It is unclear whether the Northern government has any desire to go back to war with the South even if an excuse existed. The Foreign Minister denied any such interest in December of 2011, [1] and the fact is that Sudan ended the war because it was costing far more to wage than could possible have been recovered. Furthermore, after 20 years government forces were losing, and it is hard to see how they would do better with a war on two fronts. Secondly, even if it would destabilize the Peace Agreement, that means in effect that the international community is allowing the South Sudanese to be used as hostages for their “good behaviour” regarding Darfur. If so, that seems less like a triumph of Diplomacy and more like a bad deal. It would incentivise dictators like Mugabe to attempt to make similar deals, say offering to compensate white farmers in exchange for the West ignoring his treatment of black opponents. [1] ‘Sudan’s FM rules out return to war with South Sudan’, Sudan Tribune, 14 December 2011,", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro01a", "score": 0.6323513388633728, "text": "The dam would power Africa Only 29% of Sub Saharan Africa’s population has access to electricity. [1] This has immense consequences not just for the economy as production and investment is constrained but also on society. The world bank says lack of electricity affects human rights “People cannot access modern hospital services without electricity, or feel relief from sweltering heat. Food cannot be refrigerated and businesses cannot function. Children cannot go to school… The list of deprivation goes on.” [2] Conveniently it is suggested that the “Grand Inga will thus provide more than half of the continent with renewable energy at a low price,” [3] providing electricity to half a billion people so eliminating much of this electricity gap. [4] [1] World Bank Energy, ‘Addressing the Electricity Access Gap’, World Bank, June 2010, p.89 [2] The World Bank, ‘Energy – The Facts’, worldbank.org, 2013, [3] SAinfo reporter, ‘SA-DRC pact paves way for Grand Inga’, SouthAfrica.info, 20 May 2013, [4] Pearce, Fred, ‘Will Huge New Hydro Projects Bring Power to Africa’s People?’, Yale Environment 360, 30 May 2013,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con01b", "score": 0.6278488636016846, "text": "The World Bank would be taking a lead role in the project and it proclaims “The World Bank has a zero-tolerance policy on corruption, and we have some of the toughest fiduciary standards of any development agency, including a 24/7 fraud and corruption hotline with appropriate whistle-blower protection.” All documentation would be in the public domain and online so ensuring complete transparency. [1] [1] Maake, Moyagabo, ‘Concern over SA’s billions in DRC Inga project’, Business Day Live, 24 March 2013,", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-international-aghbuidrch-pro02b", "score": 0.6257156729698181, "text": "Not all rebels have disarmed; the FDLR group has said it will disarm but has not done so. [1] The disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme faces coordination and financial problems. There is a security threat from volatile border regions that might reverse the whole DDR effort as militias and military units struggle for control over resources and terrorise the local population. MONUSCO can't protect the repatriated civilians, which may mean any demobilisation is only temporary. If violence flares then so will guns be taken up once more. [1] Mvano, Chrispin, ‘U.N. Congo peacekeepers question Rwandan rebel disarmament claim’, Reuters, 4 February 2014,", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-pro01b", "score": 0.624707043170929, "text": "Whilst there has been significant economic growth in many African countries, the majority of people are not seeing the benefits. Despite some success stories, such as Folorunsho Alakija becoming richer than Oprah [1] , most Africans have not benefitted from economic growth. Afrobarometer conducted a survey of 34 African countries between 2011 and 2013 [2] . They found that 53% found their economic situation to be either ‘fairly’ or ‘very bad’. Only one third of respondents believed that their national economy had improved in the past year. Statistics like these demonstrate that most are seeing no improvement in their lives despite current levels of national economic growth. The finite nature of many of the resources being sold by Africa means that the current levels of trade cannot be maintained forever, calling Africa’s future economic growth in to question. [1] Gesinde, ‘How Alakija’s wealth grew’, 2013 [2] Hoffmeyr, ‘Africa Rising?’, 2013", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro04b", "score": 0.6732368469238281, "text": "There is currently not enough traffic to justify such a large addition to the project. If it were worthwhile then it could be done without the need for building an immense dam." } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro03a", "score": 0.6387910842895508, "text": "Will enable the rebuilding of DRC DR Congo has been one of the most war ravaged countries in the world over the last two decades. The Grand Inga provides a project that can potentially benefit everyone in the country by providing cheap electricity and an economic boost. It will also provide large export earnings; to take an comparatively local example Ethiopia earns $1.5million per month exporting 60MW to Djibouti at 7 cents per KwH [1] comparable to prices in South Africa [2] so if Congo were to be exporting 500 times that (at 30,000 MW only 3/4ths of the capacity) it would be earning $9billion per year. This then will provide more money to invest and to ameliorate problems. The project can therefore be a project for the nation to rally around helping create and keep stability after the surrender of the rebel group M23 in October 2013. [1] Woldegebriel, E.G., ‘Ethiopia plans to power East Africa with hydro’, trust.org, 29 January 2013, [2] Burkhardt, Paul, ‘Eskom to Raise S. Africa Power Price 8% Annually for 5 Years’, Bloomberg, 28 February 2013,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro01b", "score": 0.6297845840454102, "text": "While in theory the 6,000 MW dam can power all of Ethiopia, the reality is quite different. Areas of Ethiopia, such as Ogaden and Eritrea-Ethiopian border, are relatively unstable; making it hard to build a sufficient power grid in these regions. In Ogaden, instability in the past led to the withdrawal from the oil fields [1] , and this conflict-zone will most likely make the completion of a national grid a problem. The hurdles to producing the means to provide energy to these areas means that there probably will not be universal access to the GERD’s electricity. [1] Wikipedia ‘Ethiopia: Exports’ date accessed 10 December 2013", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-economy-fegippghp-con02b", "score": 0.6268338561058044, "text": "Yes, trade might require infrastructure, but Asian countries required it just as much, maybe more than the African ones do. As Moyo argues in “Dead Aid” all of this is to be achieved not by clinging to aid, but by creating a stable enough atmosphere with favorable terms for FDI. The Chinese have already invested billions of dollars in Africa and are likely to invest much more. That way, the African countries get both trade and infrastructure, without being at the mercy of developed nations.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-international-aghbuidrch-con02b", "score": 0.6253818869590759, "text": "The recorded economy of the DRC and its real GDP are showing signs of growth. The UN Panel of Experts has finally provided detailed information about the involvement of a range of African, European and North American businesses in illegal or illicit exploitation of natural resources in the DRC. Sanctions have been implemented to help stop these practices. [1] With the support of the UN, measures have been implemented intended to increase the control of the ministry of finance over state expenditure, and new statutes have strengthened the independence of the Central Bank. [1] ‘Resolution 2136 (2014)’, United Nations Security Council, 30 January 2014,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro03a", "score": 0.6181417107582092, "text": "Hydroelectric dams can be used to provide flood control and irrigation The large water reservoirs created by hydroelectric dams can provide facilities for water sports and can become tourist attractions themselves. The reservoirs can be used for irrigation to help farmers and can be a means for flood control. A prime example of this is the Tennessee Valley Authority, an organisation responsible for flood control, electricity generation, economic development and even fertilizer generation in the Tennessee Valley in the U.S., spanning parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. [1] [1] Tennessee Valley Authority, homepage.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-international-astshbghacn-pro02b", "score": 0.6175175309181213, "text": "This infrastructure still costs money, whatever event it is around: a state could launch an infrastructure drive without a football tournament that would be much more focused on the real needs of the people. Foreign investment can have significant costs, such as preferential access to natural resources. The work can often wind up being done by foreign contractors so that it creates no local jobs, as happened when Angola hosted the tournament [1] . In the case of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise China does not just get the benefit of the name; the finance provided was a loan, and the construction was done by the Shanghai Construction Group meaning much of the benefit went to China. [2] [1] Capstick, Alex, “Angola uses football to showcase economy”, BBC News, 2010, [2] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-politics-dtwhbnhsa-pro04b", "score": 0.6166494488716125, "text": "There are still immense problems with infrastructure in Afghanistan, more roads and railways are needed if large scale investment by China and others is to be made a success. There is little point in huge investment in mines if the product of those mines then can’t be transported out of the country to the markets as a result of either poor infrastructure or security concerns. There are also cases where infrastructure built by the US military has been allowed to deteriorate when handed over to Afghan control; there have been problems maintaining almost half the infrastructure projects built by the US in Laghman province. [1] [1] Boak, Josh, ‘U.S.-funded infrastructure deteriorates once under Afghan control, report says’, Washington Post, 4 January 2011", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro01b", "score": 0.6158779859542847, "text": "Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams. [1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing, [2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions. [2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "validation-international-ahbiataucs-con03b", "score": 0.6155266165733337, "text": "Africa also has advantages that Europe did not have; there is no cold war dividing the continent into opposing armed camps, there are now many successful examples of developing world countries industrialising to draw on, and organisations like the EU that have forged on ahead have shown up some of the potential problems for Africa to avoid. Kofi Annan has also noted that Europe too started integration with a devastated continent \"That, Excellencies, should be our aim - to rebuild, as Europe did, after a series of devastating wars, uniting across old divisions to build a continent characterized by peace, cooperation, economic progress and the rule of law.\" [1] Moreover some of Africa’s disadvantages could potentially be turned into advantages if integration is managed correctly. Africa’s lack of industrialisation for example means that member states can choose to specialise in complementary areas as they industrialise. [1] Annan, Kofi, ‘Call for Leadership in Africa’, Business Day, 10 July 2001.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con03a", "score": 0.6130096316337585, "text": "Dams displace communities Dams result in the filling of a large reservoir behind the dam because it has raised the level of the water in the case of the Grand Inga it would create a reservoir 15km long. This is not particularly big but the construction would also displace communities. The previous Inga dams also displaced people. Inga I and II were built 30 and 40 years ago, yet the displaced are still in a shabby prefabricated town called Camp Kinshasa awaiting compensation. [1] Are they likely to do better this time around? [1] Sanyanga, Ruto, ‘Will Congo Benefit from Grand Inga Dam’, International Policy Digest, 29 June 2013,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-economy-egiahbwaka-con01b", "score": 0.6126643419265747, "text": "While Africa has huge reserves of natural resources they are not its economic future. Mining employs few people and provides little value added to the economy. Also not every African country has natural resources to exploit while all have people, including the currently underutilised women, who could with better education bring about a manufacturing or services economy. Such an economy would be much more sustainable rather than relying on resource booms that have in the past turned to bust.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con01a", "score": 0.612421452999115, "text": "Such a big project is beyond DRC’s capacity The Grand Inga dam project is huge while it means huge potential benefits it just makes it more difficult for the country to manage. Transparency international ranks DRC as 160th out of 176 in terms of corruption [1] so it is no surprise that projects in the country are plagued by it. [2] Such a big project would inevitably mean billions siphoned off. Even if it is built will the DRC be able to maintain it? This seems unlikely. The Inga I and II dams only operate at half their potential due to silting up and a lack of maintenance. [3] [1] ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2012’, Transparency International, 2012, [2] Bosshard, Peter, ‘Grand Inga -- The World Bank's Latest Silver Bullet for Africa’, Huffington Post, 21 April 2013, [3] Vasagar, Jeevan, ‘Could a $50bn plan to tame this mighty river bring electricity to all of Africa?’, The Guardian, 25 February 2005,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-international-amehwrabre-con02b", "score": 0.6118385195732117, "text": "In addition to meeting the demands of some independence movements, there could be a decrease in the number of such organisations due to reduced prospects. If it is unlikely to get a whole province then they may be less inclined to attempt to secede. [1] There have been conflicts in Kivu, DR Congo, but the Banyamulenge the main group involved only makes up around 4% of the population [2] – would they desire to split from Congo if they were not likely to take the whole province? [1] Ratner, 1996, p.591 [2] Wikipedia", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro03b", "score": 0.6117759943008423, "text": "GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia. [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-con03b", "score": 0.6116517782211304, "text": "A contender to Natural Flow Theory is the Doctrine of Reasonable Use. This theory states that water can be used as long as it does not cause unreasonable damage to the flow. While there will be some loss of water to evaporation in GERD reservoir, it is predicted to be minimal compared to other dams in the region [1] . The threat from the irrigation projects can also be mitigated by developing more efficient techniques, which is a high priority of the Nile Basin Initiative [2] . [1] Water Technology ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project’ Data accessed 12/12/13 [2] ‘Nile Water: Downstream versus upstream countries’ 27 May 2010", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-economy-fegippghp-con01b", "score": 0.6114516854286194, "text": "All countries have something to trade. Many of the world’s poorest countries have a lot of natural resources so they can take part in trade. Even if a country does not have sufficient natural resources it still has people. In order to be able to take part in the globalized manufacturing industry it need only be willing to accept lower wages than its rivals. Alternatively if it is landlocked and has not opportunity to trade in manufactures it can invest in education in order to become a services hub. All states have a comparative advantage somewhere, they just need to find it.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-international-amehwrabre-con04b", "score": 0.6077395677566528, "text": "Solving the conflicts and preventing violence is the first step to real African unity and cooperation. Redrawing the borders is a radical solution that has yet to be tried as it will makes stronger and reduce the threat of secession movements it should make African leaders more willing the work with neighbours.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-politics-ghbfsabun-con01b", "score": 0.606620192527771, "text": "The comparative situation is that of a resource rich region being surrounded by aggressive neighbours which desire its resources. Weak states are usually incapable of defending their borders and thus fall victim to invasion and occupation (such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo).1 Long term control by a federal state is preferable to repeated violence and conflict as outside forces move in and out of the region. Moreover, being part of a federal state ensures that there is only one party attempting to control the region rather than multiple competing governments which are likely to bring long term violence. Finally, there is the other side to the opposition's case. By being part of a federal state, there is international pressure for members of that resource rich federal unit to have something in return and for their state to adequately look after them. 1 Consultancy Africa Intelligence, 2010, 'Security Situation in the DRC: A case of a weak state leaning on the UN,'", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-con01b", "score": 0.6033640503883362, "text": "Hydroelectric dams can mitigate methane emissions. Dams can capture the methane released from their reservoir and even use it to their benefit: an experimental project in Brazil showed that hydroelectric dams can capture the methane and burn it to produce even more energy, whilst at the same time preventing the methane from being released. [1] [1] BBC News, Earthquake risk from dams, 2002", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-society-iasihbmubf-pro05b", "score": 0.6032059788703918, "text": "The border fence is a waste of money. It and the associated measures was given a budget of $1.2billion [i] and it is not likely to be a comprehensive fix. If the fence just covers current high crossing areas then these areas will simply move to more inhospitable areas or migrants will find other ways around – such as travelling through the gulf of Mexico by boat as occurs between in the Mediterranean for migrants travelling from North Africa to Europe. [i] Weisman, Jonathan. \"With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill.\"", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con02b", "score": 0.7026832103729248, "text": "Hydroelectric power is clean so would be beneficial in the fight against global warming. Providing such power would reduce the need to other forms of electricity and would help end the problem of cooking fires which not only damage the environment but cause 1.9million lives to be lost globally every year as a result of smoke inhalation. [1] Because the dam will be ‘run of the river’ there won’t be many of the usual problems associated with dams; fish will still be able to move up and down the river and much of the sediment will still be transported over the rapids. [1] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘How Hillary Clinton’s clean stoves will help African women’, theguardian.com, 21 September 2010," } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro01a", "score": 0.6636422276496887, "text": "Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions Hydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. [1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower, [2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively. [1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010 [2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-raceeghg-con01b", "score": 0.6621662378311157, "text": "Almost any form of producing and transporting oil risks an environmental disaster if things go wrong, as was demonstrated in the summer of 2010 by the major British Petroleum spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Historically however land-based Pipelines have been far safer than Oil Freighters or off-shore platforms because of the ease of access, which means that spills can usually be responded to rapidly. The real damage with the BP Spill was due to its isolated location in deep water and the consequent difficulty of reaching it. Furthermore, fears of the carbon emissions are flawed because they are based on the assumption that if the Pipeline is not approved the Tar Sands will not be developed. But this is not the case. The Canadian Government has already shown interested in an alternative Chinese proposal which would see a Pipeline built to deliver the oil to the Pacific, and eventually to the Chinese market. [1] If the oil is going to be burned one way or another, it is best for the United States to do it, because the United States enjoys higher fuel efficiency standards and generally cleaner vehicles. [1] Yahoo news, 2012,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-environment-cehwirtrnp-pro02b", "score": 0.66211998462677, "text": "The nuclear industry around the world has always sought to improve the rights and protections of workers in uranium mines and to lessen the environmental impact of those mining activities [i] . Compared to the environmental impact of coal and oil withdrawal, uranium is relatively harmless. Compared to the space taken up by windfarms with their impact on the local environment and the devastation that can be caused by Hydroelectric, this is a low impact industry. [i] Press Release. “Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining”. World Nuclear Association. February 2011.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-con03b", "score": 0.6571095585823059, "text": "A contender to Natural Flow Theory is the Doctrine of Reasonable Use. This theory states that water can be used as long as it does not cause unreasonable damage to the flow. While there will be some loss of water to evaporation in GERD reservoir, it is predicted to be minimal compared to other dams in the region [1] . The threat from the irrigation projects can also be mitigated by developing more efficient techniques, which is a high priority of the Nile Basin Initiative [2] . [1] Water Technology ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project’ Data accessed 12/12/13 [2] ‘Nile Water: Downstream versus upstream countries’ 27 May 2010", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ecegthwspc-pro04a", "score": 0.6563330888748169, "text": "Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009).", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro02a", "score": 0.655887246131897, "text": "An immense boost to DRC’s economy The Grand Inga dam would be an immense boost to the DRC’s economy. It would mean a huge amount of investment coming into the country as almost all the $80 billion construction cost would be coming from outside the country which would mean thousands of workers employed and spending money in the DRC as well as boosting local suppliers. Once the project is complete the dam will provide cheap electricity so making industry more competitive and providing electricity to homes. Even the initial stages through Inga III are expected to provide electricity for 25,000 households in Kinshasa. [1] [1] ‘Movement on the Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 20 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro02a", "score": 0.6551672220230103, "text": "Environmental Damage Both licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] . [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ [2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro02b", "score": 0.6546310782432556, "text": "Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro03b", "score": 0.6538156867027283, "text": "As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2] [1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002 [2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-con01a", "score": 0.6529414653778076, "text": "Hydroelectric dams increase methane emissions Hydroelectric dams emit a lot of methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. This happens when the plants and vegetation submerged in the reservoir start to rot under water: they then produce methane which bubbles up and is released into the atmosphere. On balance, some dams produce more greenhouse gasses than conventional power plants running on fossil fuel. [1] [1] New Scientist, ‘Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed’, 2005", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con01a", "score": 0.6524866819381714, "text": "Such a big project is beyond DRC’s capacity The Grand Inga dam project is huge while it means huge potential benefits it just makes it more difficult for the country to manage. Transparency international ranks DRC as 160th out of 176 in terms of corruption [1] so it is no surprise that projects in the country are plagued by it. [2] Such a big project would inevitably mean billions siphoned off. Even if it is built will the DRC be able to maintain it? This seems unlikely. The Inga I and II dams only operate at half their potential due to silting up and a lack of maintenance. [3] [1] ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2012’, Transparency International, 2012, [2] Bosshard, Peter, ‘Grand Inga -- The World Bank's Latest Silver Bullet for Africa’, Huffington Post, 21 April 2013, [3] Vasagar, Jeevan, ‘Could a $50bn plan to tame this mighty river bring electricity to all of Africa?’, The Guardian, 25 February 2005,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-raceeghg-con01a", "score": 0.6479473114013672, "text": "Environmental risks There are serious environmental factors that should be fully examined before any decision is made to approve the Pipeline project. For one thing, the Pipeline will mostly extract Oil from Tar Sands. Extracting oil from tar sands is much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution. One result of this process, the Canadian Environmental Ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions. [1] Former NASA Climatologist James Hansen has suggested that if the Pipeline is completed it is “Game Over for the Planet”. [2] Furthermore, the path of the proposed Pipeline will bring it close to the Ogallala Aquifer which provides 30% of the United States’ total irrigation supply and 82% of the drinking water to the 2.3 million people who live within the region it serves. Furthermore, within that region is just under 20% of all US agricultural production.[3] A major spill along the Pipeline would have the potential to render the entire Aquifer unusable. [1] Girling, Russell K., ‘The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly’, The Hill’s Congress Blog, 13 July 2011, [2] Mayer, Jane, ‘Taking it to the streets’, The New Yorker, 28 November 2011, [3] US Geological Survey, ‘High Plains Regional Ground-Water Study’,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "validation-environment-ceshbwpsbpf-con03b", "score": 0.6471622586250305, "text": "Both tidal and geo-thermal are untried technologies and have significant environmental implications in their own right. It also seems highly unlikely that deploying nuclear as a ‘bridge’ technology would be anything like that, certainly the history of energy production does not suggest that industries are likely to plan for their own extinction in favour of more environmentally sensitive technologies. This is especially true of nuclear power; it simply is not a short-term technology as the reprocessing and containment schedules are enormous. A decision to use nuclear even for a matter of decades would have implications that would run for longer than the history of human civilization to date. Wind, by contrast, is a developed technology that has no implications for future generations.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ecegthwspc-pro04b", "score": 0.6462415456771851, "text": "Rich communities have a disastrous effect on the environment as well. The question of whether development is possible without manipulating nature and the environment is again entirely separate from the question of subsidies. Ultimately, the problem is one of resources and the best distribution and management of those resources, particularly natural resources. Getting people to understand that forests, water and land are essential resources that need to be preserved is what should be done (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies have in fact often created more environmental problems by investing in poorly built infrastructure and housing, and by encouraging people to stay in areas that could otherwise not support them.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-con03b", "score": 0.6446632742881775, "text": "Hydroelectric dams don’t destroy communities, governments do. Building dams only violates human rights if the governments building them do so. That’s why we never heard of large-scale human rights violations when the Hoover Dam in the United States was built. Moreover, responsible dam builders in the International Hydropower Association have taken steps to ensure they build dams with the utmost respect for human rights, through the guidelines mentioned above.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro03b", "score": 0.643812358379364, "text": "In the short to medium term during the decades the dam is being built investment will surely be concentrated in one place in this vast country; in the west where the dam is, not the east where the conflicts are. Later there is little guarantee that the government will spend the proceeds wisely to develop the country rather than it disappearing through corruption. And this assumes the money flows in from the export of electricity. To enable such exports 3000km of high voltage cable will need to be laid which would be vulnerable to being cut by rebel groups seeking to hurt the government through its wallet. [1] [1] ‘Explained: The $80 billion Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 21 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro04b", "score": 0.6424524188041687, "text": "These consequences are often speculation. With such a large and complex system we have no way of knowing what the consequences of climate change. There may well be some tipping points that will accelerate climate change but we do not know when each of these will become a problem and there may also be tipping points that act in the other direction.(See Earth's Resiliency)", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-environment-cehwirtrnp-con02b", "score": 0.6408894062042236, "text": "It is useful to deal with the idea that nuclear is a CO2 free fuel. When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to climate change emissions [i] . It is then possible to add in additional carbon footprints such as the emissions caused by building and staffing a large plant. It is also a question worth asking as to when climate change-related pollution became the only standard. There are plenty of other ways of polluting the environment and belching out irradiated gases into the ocean would seem to meet that standard. [i]", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "validation-environment-ceshbwpsbpf-con02b", "score": 0.6403660774230957, "text": "Experience teaches us that the natural environment responds to changes in human activity and rebalances itself. By contrast a shift in the entire climate, driven by human activity, would have devastating implications for all species. We know that migration routes can change over time and that, for example, bat colonies can move. However, a shift in climatic process would destroy migration patterns [i] and cause untold damage to wildlife populations. Dealing with the effects of climate change is not just a responsibility that humanity needs to take on for itself but for all species on the planet. The tiny impact of individual wind farms on local populations is as nothing compared to the catastrophic implications of a significant and mostly unpredictable shift in the climate of the globe. [i] Alasdair Fotheringham. “Is this the end of migration?” The independent. 18 April 2010.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-pro03b", "score": 0.6369631290435791, "text": "Whilst rail systems can be environmentally friendly, the higher the speed of a system the more fuel said system consumes. Whilst high speed rail might be useful as a transport system, owing to its high speed nature it does not reduce carbon emissions to a significant extent. Further, high speed rail is of limited popularity and as such it will not get enough drivers off the road to have any significant contribution to the environment. [1] [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con04b", "score": 0.696563184261322, "text": "The difficulty of constructing something should not be considered a good argument not to do it. As one of the poorest countries in the world construction will surely have significant support from developed donors and international institutions. Moreover with the energy cooperation treaty between DRC and South Africa there is a guaranteed partner to help in financing and eventually buying the electricity." } ]

[ { "id": "test-economy-beghwbh-pro02b", "score": 0.6596651077270508, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-law-cpilhbishioe-con02a", "score": 0.6556155681610107, "text": "An ICC enforcement arm would be unduly expensive In a climate where the ICC’s budget is determined exclusively by contentious negotiation between states (at a time where the ICC itself has threatened to close down investigations due to a lack of funds [1] ), many of whom are undergoing austerity, an enforcement arm is not the best use of scarce funds when its role can be taken by the state parties. The ICC is already expensive enough – it cost over €100M in 2009. [1] Nzau Musau, “Kenya: ICC Threatens to Drop cases for Lack of Funds”, The Star (Kenya), 2013,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-economy-bepiehbesa-pro04b", "score": 0.6533368229866028, "text": "Even the larger companies can have difficulties in a market in which their consumers, the supermarkets, have so much power over prices. The result is often that supermarkets buy their produce at below the cost of production – as is happening with milk in the UK where it costs 30p per litre to produce but they are only being paid 25p per litre. [1] The costs of producing food in Europe even with mechanisation can be high because of the expensive workforce, and smaller farms on average than in the US. Therefore subsidies to larger companies are needed to keep even larger farmers in business. Often the larger companies involve smaller producers who produce the original, unique specialties and enjoy the stability of larger firm. It is hard to say that support of these companies is not useful. [1] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Milk prices row and how the system works’, 23 July 2012,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-international-astshbghacn-con01a", "score": 0.6523786783218384, "text": "Cost could be spent on other things Gabon’s government invested €370 million in the games. [1] Even though it is one of the more stable West African countries, there are still many people living in grinding poverty – nearly 20% of the population, according to the World Bank [2] . While infrastructure development is welcome, it is a better use of money to lift people out of poverty rather than for three weeks of football. It can also have other negative effects on the day to day lives of individuals, for example in South Africa when it hosted the world cup tolls were increase [3] . [1] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012, [2] World Bank, “World Development Indicators”, World Bank Databank, [3] Sands, Darren, “In South Africa, the African Cup of Nations is big business”, Black Enterprise, 2013,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-international-iwiaghbss-con01b", "score": 0.6521328687667847, "text": "The cost need not be borne by the state from which they Seychelles is given land; rather it could come from the funds that have been set up to help developing nations adapt to climate change such as the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund. [1] This would mean the money would be coming from developed countries that can easily afford the costs of helping rebuild the lives of 90,000 people not the country that provides the territory. [1] ‘Finance’, unfccc.inc, accessed 26/2/2014,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-free-speech-debate-bphwpborfs-con01b", "score": 0.6503964066505432, "text": "The suggestion that seven million dollars is an excessive expenditure on a resource for 836,000 is extortionate is simply nonsense. That’s a little over eight dollars a head, hardly likely to break the bank. To say that a government is not discouraging the use of something by making it harder to access is simply untrue. Of course if a resource is harder or more expensive to access, people will be discouraged from using it.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-economy-epsosghbsas-con02a", "score": 0.6479608416557312, "text": "Cost of hosting The Olympic games is an expensive thing to host. The 2012 games in London cost nearly £9bn [1] . This cost largely falls on the taxpayer. These large events are notoriously difficult to budget accurately, the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics having gone vastly over budget with suggestions that it could cost up to $50 billion [2] . It is too expensive to host for rich countries as it is – South Africa has a large problem with wealth inequality as it is, and is below the world average GDP per capita [3] . Although it is unlikely to reach such expense the $50 billion for the Sochi Olympics is twice the yearly South African health budget of ZAR 232.5bn. [4] South Africa would be better served using the money to combat HIV and poverty. [1] Gibson, Owen, ‘London 2012 Olympics will cost a total of £8.921bn, says minister’, The Guardian, 23 October 2012, [2] Kollmeyer, Barbara, ‘Russia’s in-perspective price tag for four-times-overbudget Sochi Olympics: 18 Oprahs’, Marketwatch, 27 November 2013, [3] The World Bank, ‘GDP per capital, PPP (current international $)’, date.worldbank.org, accessed 24 January 2014, [4] ‘Budget 2013’, PWC, 27 February 2013,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-con03b", "score": 0.6479141712188721, "text": "In recent years there has been a large amount of aid provided to Africa for the express purpose of climate change adaption, demonstrating a growing awareness to this issue. The UNEP claimed that between 2010 and 2011 it provided several hundred million dollars each year, with an unknown amount coming from other development projects, directed towards climate change adaption [1] . While this does not cover future costs, it is a start. [1] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro02b", "score": 0.6474998593330383, "text": "Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-pro02b", "score": 0.6447703242301941, "text": "While Africa may not have the resources now to pay for adaptation costs of $50billion or more after another fifty years of economic growth it may do. Africa could afford the current $7-15billion if it were considered necessary.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-science-cpesgguhwe-pro01b", "score": 0.6394116878509521, "text": "If only it were true. The typical shuttle mission to the International Space Station costs $500-700 million. Private individuals, space tourists, have managed it for just $20 million a head1. Therefore, there is little in the argument that the existing space infrastructure is driving costs down. Furthermore, whilst the ISS has been justified as a terminal for the shuttles, the shuttles themselves have been justified as means to reach the space shuttle; a circular argument that offers little hope to the space explorer. Moreover, despite over fifty years of investment, NASA specifically has maintained a shuttle program at the expense of new materials, new fuels and innovative concepts1. As such, the technology has not advanced significantly since the original missions to the Moon between 1969 and 1972. The infrastructure, in this case, appears to have been more of a hindrance and intellectual barrier to development and cost-cutting than an aid. 1 Kaku, M. (2009, July 16) The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-crasbmurcc-pro01b", "score": 0.6384251713752747, "text": "It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con03b", "score": 0.6367233395576477, "text": "Yes they are. Big international donors like the World Bank who are supporting the project will ensure that there is compensation for those displaced and that they get good accommodation. In a budget of up to $80billion the cost of compensation and relocation is tiny.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con01a", "score": 0.6346685290336609, "text": "Underground Nuclear Storage is Expensive. Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible. Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently. This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety. [1] [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-economy-epsosghbsas-con02b", "score": 0.6345667243003845, "text": "Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built. While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-international-ghwfunb-con01b", "score": 0.6344374418258667, "text": "In times of big environmental crises or military conflicts it is true that more funding is necessary. However this funding must come on a voluntary ad hoc basis, rather than from the regular budget of the UN. Because otherwise this would mean even a bigger financial burden on developed countries and especially on the US. The UN determines how much more money it needs in a certain operation in extreme unexpected situations. As the general secretary Ban Ki-moon appealed for more financing to tackle Haiti's cholera epidemic – “Mr. Ban told a conference at the UN headquarters in New York that Haiti was in desperate need of more medical supplies and personnel…He appealed for he international community to dig deep to help stem the cholera epidemic in Haiti\" 1. Inflation is an economic matter and in most of the cases it is taken into consideration when determining the UN budget. However in hard financial times – as they are since the financial crises (2008) and the complicated problems the US has with its public debt (2011) increasing the budget is simply unrealistic. 1. “UN appeals for more money to aid Haiti’s cholera epidemic” 3/12/2010", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-environment-ehwsnwu-con01b", "score": 0.6341053247451782, "text": "The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable. [1] As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being. [1] Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-international-agphwen-con04a", "score": 0.6333765387535095, "text": "The cost of expansion is prohibitive The costs of NATO expansion are prohibitive at a time when the Western European members are scaling back their defence budgets and the reducing the size of their conventional forces. The Clinton administration estimated the costs of the initial expansion to be $27 to $35 to 2010, but this is mostly the costs restructuring and of making forces interoperable rather than the costs of protecting the new members. [1] The cost of stationing forces in Eastern Europe would be considerably higher and if NATO ever had to defend these countries the cost would be higher still. Given the fragile economies of the new republics, the existing NATO States will be obliged to absorb the expense of expansion. Even a decade after expansion the new members have mostly not succeeded in reaching the 2% of GDP the alliance targets and their combined defence budgets are only a third of Russia’s. [2] The proper question is whether the taxpayers of the US and Western European States wish to pay to protect citizens of distant republics from phantom threats. [1] ‘Administration Releases NATO Expansion Cost Report’, Arms Control Association, March 1997, [2] The Economist, ‘Scars, scares and scarcity’, 12 May 2011,", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-international-astshbghacn-pro01b", "score": 0.6311665177345276, "text": "Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries. The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-international-agphwen-con04b", "score": 0.6308327317237854, "text": "The expense of NATO expansion is marginal when compared to the defence budgets of the major NATO States. The US defence expenditure alone for the fiscal year 2012 is $553 billion. [1] Further, the correct equation is not between the expense of stationing troops in these new States and the current saving from non-deployment. The balance is between the expense of forward deployment or other military investment and the prohibitive cost in dollars and lives from a conflict between NATO and Russia, or a conflagration in any of the Eastern republics. NATO expansion is nothing more than a cost-effective insurance policy against a very real risk. [1] Department of Defence, US budget, gpoaccess,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con03b", "score": 0.6215852499008179, "text": "Yes they are. Big international donors like the World Bank who are supporting the project will ensure that there is compensation for those displaced and that they get good accommodation. In a budget of up to $80billion the cost of compensation and relocation is tiny." } ]

[ { "id": "training-economy-epiasfihb-pro04b", "score": 0.5889770984649658, "text": "The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples. On another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure. Furthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build. [1] See further readings.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro03b", "score": 0.5857504606246948, "text": "GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia. [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro03b", "score": 0.5850368738174438, "text": "As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2] [1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002 [2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro01a", "score": 0.5850164294242859, "text": "The dam is predicted to provide energy for all of Ethiopia When the dam is in full effect, it should be able to provide the entirety of Ethiopia’s population with electricity. The United Nations Foundation placed access to energy as a high priority for developing countries, it enables access to key services and enables more income-generating activities [1] . If Ethiopia discontinued the project, then they would deprive their citizens of economic and health security. Using energy from a dam will have its own benefits. The energy will be renewable source and will provide energy security for this developing state, thus justifying the project. [1] The United Nations Foundation ‘What We do: Achieving Universal Energy Access’ data accessed 10 December 2013", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-con01b", "score": 0.5832417011260986, "text": "Hydroelectric dams can mitigate methane emissions. Dams can capture the methane released from their reservoir and even use it to their benefit: an experimental project in Brazil showed that hydroelectric dams can capture the methane and burn it to produce even more energy, whilst at the same time preventing the methane from being released. [1] [1] BBC News, Earthquake risk from dams, 2002", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephwcear-con02b", "score": 0.5802035331726074, "text": "To start with, let’s not believe the line that local communities see this as an unadulterated good – they have very real concerns about the impact on their qualities of life. [1] It’s also untrue that workers elsewhere in the world see this as purely beneficial; many of these workers live with the toxic results of drilling and refining oils and they have expressed their concerns about the health effects. [2] Yes there is increased infrastructure but much of it is not of the sort that benefits communities, like oil pipelines. The one group for whom there is unalloyed joy at this prospect is a small one that comprises the owners and executives of oil companies. If opposition wants to make the case that some people want to keep the money flowing, fine. But at least be honest about who those people are. [1] Macalister, Terry, ‘Arctic resource wealth poses dilemma for indigenous communities’, The Guardian, 4 July 2011. [2] Sturgis, Sue, ‘Pollution from oil refinery accidents on the rise in Louisiana.’, Southernstudies.org, 3 December 2012,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-economy-epsihbdns-pro02b", "score": 0.5801252722740173, "text": "People who move to the cities have chosen to move from their families and dear ones, because they want to create a new and better life for themselves. Armed with great motivation, they enter the cities and are often prepared to undertake work that others do not want to do, hoping to climb the social ladder later on. Interestingly it is often the case that those in slums have a higher rate of employment than those not living in slums. In Uganda for example only 9% of young men are neither in school or employment compared to 16% for those not living in slums. [1] This benefits the development of the city and it is only with this extra workforce that the city can fully develop, thus most big cities have at some point had slums, such as London’s East End in the 19th Century. It might take time, but for the long-term benefits of the cities, rural-urban migration should be promoted. An example of this slow kind of development is the progress that is seen today in Kibera outside of Nairobi where small parts of the shanty-towns are gradually converted into lower middle-class communities. [1] Mboup, Gora, “Measurement/indicators of youth employment”, Expert Group Meeting on Strategies for Creating Urban Youth Employment Solutions for Urban Youth in Africa, June 2004, www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/presentation/urban_mboup.ppt", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-society-epsihbdns-pro02b", "score": 0.5801252722740173, "text": "People who move to the cities have chosen to move from their families and dear ones, because they want to create a new and better life for themselves. Armed with great motivation, they enter the cities and are often prepared to undertake work that others do not want to do, hoping to climb the social ladder later on. Interestingly it is often the case that those in slums have a higher rate of employment than those not living in slums. In Uganda for example only 9% of young men are neither in school or employment compared to 16% for those not living in slums. [1] This benefits the development of the city and it is only with this extra workforce that the city can fully develop, thus most big cities have at some point had slums, such as London’s East End in the 19th Century. It might take time, but for the long-term benefits of the cities, rural-urban migration should be promoted. An example of this slow kind of development is the progress that is seen today in Kibera outside of Nairobi where small parts of the shanty-towns are gradually converted into lower middle-class communities. [1] Mboup, Gora, “Measurement/indicators of youth employment”, Expert Group Meeting on Strategies for Creating Urban Youth Employment Solutions for Urban Youth in Africa, June 2004, www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/presentation/urban_mboup.ppt", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro04b", "score": 0.5782855153083801, "text": "There is currently not enough traffic to justify such a large addition to the project. If it were worthwhile then it could be done without the need for building an immense dam.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro03a", "score": 0.5779704451560974, "text": "Hydroelectric dams can be used to provide flood control and irrigation The large water reservoirs created by hydroelectric dams can provide facilities for water sports and can become tourist attractions themselves. The reservoirs can be used for irrigation to help farmers and can be a means for flood control. A prime example of this is the Tennessee Valley Authority, an organisation responsible for flood control, electricity generation, economic development and even fertilizer generation in the Tennessee Valley in the U.S., spanning parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. [1] [1] Tennessee Valley Authority, homepage.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-con03b", "score": 0.5773706436157227, "text": "A contender to Natural Flow Theory is the Doctrine of Reasonable Use. This theory states that water can be used as long as it does not cause unreasonable damage to the flow. While there will be some loss of water to evaporation in GERD reservoir, it is predicted to be minimal compared to other dams in the region [1] . The threat from the irrigation projects can also be mitigated by developing more efficient techniques, which is a high priority of the Nile Basin Initiative [2] . [1] Water Technology ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project’ Data accessed 12/12/13 [2] ‘Nile Water: Downstream versus upstream countries’ 27 May 2010", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ecegthwspc-pro04b", "score": 0.5767723917961121, "text": "Rich communities have a disastrous effect on the environment as well. The question of whether development is possible without manipulating nature and the environment is again entirely separate from the question of subsidies. Ultimately, the problem is one of resources and the best distribution and management of those resources, particularly natural resources. Getting people to understand that forests, water and land are essential resources that need to be preserved is what should be done (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies have in fact often created more environmental problems by investing in poorly built infrastructure and housing, and by encouraging people to stay in areas that could otherwise not support them.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro03a", "score": 0.5766026973724365, "text": "Environmental Benefits of the GERD GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia. [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-economy-epiasfihb-pro05b", "score": 0.5765764117240906, "text": "Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods. [1] COHRE, 2008.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-economy-epsihbdns-con03b", "score": 0.5759051442146301, "text": "This kind of argument underestimates the capacity of human potential. People in rural communities devote all their efforts and their creativity towards getting to the cities because they believe it is the best for them and their families. If they do not have this option, they can devote that energy to their community and make it grow to compete with the cities. It is then the duty of the government that imposes this restriction to support such commitments by giving them the right conditions to improve their situation by investing in rural areas as much as urban ones.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-society-epsihbdns-con03b", "score": 0.5759051442146301, "text": "This kind of argument underestimates the capacity of human potential. People in rural communities devote all their efforts and their creativity towards getting to the cities because they believe it is the best for them and their families. If they do not have this option, they can devote that energy to their community and make it grow to compete with the cities. It is then the duty of the government that imposes this restriction to support such commitments by giving them the right conditions to improve their situation by investing in rural areas as much as urban ones.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-economy-epiasfihb-con05b", "score": 0.5738773345947266, "text": "Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively. Take the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this. [1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ecegthwspc-con01b", "score": 0.5703587532043457, "text": "Rather than criticising the inefficiencies of current subsides we should put efforts into improving subsidies so they work efficiently. This is clearly a very complex issue and would involve taking each poor community as individual with different needs. One specific example of where this has been efficient is subsidising housing in poor communities, such as the Gautreaux program in Chicago. This project involved the CHA (Chicago Housing Authority) handing out 7,500 housing vouchers out to residents of deprived communities (thus providing a housing subsidy to those residents). The project was widely considered a success and was supported by the government until its completion in 1998. Longitudinal studies suggested that participants where ‘pleased to be living in safer neighbourhoods with quality schools and greater job opportunities’, which all occurred as a result of the Gautreaux project (Fisher, Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program, 2005). This project shows that subsidies can be successful if we look and attend to at the particular needs of each poor communities.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-con02b", "score": 0.5703107714653015, "text": "Geothermal power plants have their own drawbacks as well. Prime sites are often far away from population centres which means that there are losses of electricity between the plant and the customers. Drilling into heated rock is a difficult process and once complete there must be constant management to ensure that the source is not overused [1] . [1] Siegel,R.P. ‘Geothermal Energy: Pros and Cons’, Triple Pundits 15 June 12", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ecegthwspc-pro01a", "score": 0.5699478387832642, "text": "Subsidies are the most efficient way for a state to redistribute wealth within its borders. Poor communities, often concentrated in rural areas or around large cities, carry a large risk for social instability, whether through epidemic illnesses, crime, drug abuse or political and social revolts. Even the most developed countries find it difficult to deal with these communities without paying proper attention to their development. The suburbs of Paris have recently been in the attention of the press for the violent riots led mainly by poor, unemployed, young men from immigrant families who felt abandoned by their own government (BBC News, ‘Timeline: French Riots’, 2005). France is by no means the only country dealing with such problems, and in order to avoid such high-risk behaviour, the state should be encouraged to create new subsidy schemes that address these communities in particular. For example, employment could be subsidised by paying companies to create new jobs in such deprived areas.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con01b", "score": 0.724585235118866, "text": "The World Bank would be taking a lead role in the project and it proclaims “The World Bank has a zero-tolerance policy on corruption, and we have some of the toughest fiduciary standards of any development agency, including a 24/7 fraud and corruption hotline with appropriate whistle-blower protection.” All documentation would be in the public domain and online so ensuring complete transparency. [1] [1] Maake, Moyagabo, ‘Concern over SA’s billions in DRC Inga project’, Business Day Live, 24 March 2013," } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-eegwiahbe-pro01b", "score": 0.6563206911087036, "text": "While in theory the 6,000 MW dam can power all of Ethiopia, the reality is quite different. Areas of Ethiopia, such as Ogaden and Eritrea-Ethiopian border, are relatively unstable; making it hard to build a sufficient power grid in these regions. In Ogaden, instability in the past led to the withdrawal from the oil fields [1] , and this conflict-zone will most likely make the completion of a national grid a problem. The hurdles to producing the means to provide energy to these areas means that there probably will not be universal access to the GERD’s electricity. [1] Wikipedia ‘Ethiopia: Exports’ date accessed 10 December 2013", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con02a", "score": 0.652860164642334, "text": "A dam would damage the environment Dams due to their generation of renewable electricity are usually seen as environmentally friendly but such mega projects are rarely without consequences. The Grand Inga would lower the oxygen content of the lower course of the river which would mean a loss of species. This would not only affect the river as the Congo’s delta is a submerged area of 300,000km2 far out into the Atlantic. This system is not yet understood but the plume transmits sediment and organic matter into the Atlantic ocean encouraging plankton offshore contributing to the Atlantic’s ability to be a carbon sink. [1] [1] Showers, Kate, ‘Will Africa’s Mega Dam Have Mega Impacts?’, International Rivers, 5 March 2012,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con03a", "score": 0.6493861675262451, "text": "Dams displace communities Dams result in the filling of a large reservoir behind the dam because it has raised the level of the water in the case of the Grand Inga it would create a reservoir 15km long. This is not particularly big but the construction would also displace communities. The previous Inga dams also displaced people. Inga I and II were built 30 and 40 years ago, yet the displaced are still in a shabby prefabricated town called Camp Kinshasa awaiting compensation. [1] Are they likely to do better this time around? [1] Sanyanga, Ruto, ‘Will Congo Benefit from Grand Inga Dam’, International Policy Digest, 29 June 2013,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro01b", "score": 0.646233320236206, "text": "It is not the best solution to Africa’s energy crisis. According to a report by the International Energy Agency as an immense dam requires a power grid. Such a grid does not exist and building such a grid is “not proving to be cost effective in more remote rural areas”. In such low density areas local sources of power are best. [1] DRC is only 34% urban and has a population density of only 30 people per km2 [2] so the best option would be local renewable power. [1] International Energy Agency, ‘Energy for All Financing access for the poor’, World Energy Outlook, 2011, p.21 [2] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro04b", "score": 0.6455361247062683, "text": "There is currently not enough traffic to justify such a large addition to the project. If it were worthwhile then it could be done without the need for building an immense dam.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-cegwhwbhd-pro02b", "score": 0.6447895169258118, "text": "Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro01b", "score": 0.6431231498718262, "text": "Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success. [1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013 [2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con03b", "score": 0.6361554265022278, "text": "Yes they are. Big international donors like the World Bank who are supporting the project will ensure that there is compensation for those displaced and that they get good accommodation. In a budget of up to $80billion the cost of compensation and relocation is tiny.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-international-aghbuidrch-con02b", "score": 0.635160505771637, "text": "The recorded economy of the DRC and its real GDP are showing signs of growth. The UN Panel of Experts has finally provided detailed information about the involvement of a range of African, European and North American businesses in illegal or illicit exploitation of natural resources in the DRC. Sanctions have been implemented to help stop these practices. [1] With the support of the UN, measures have been implemented intended to increase the control of the ministry of finance over state expenditure, and new statutes have strengthened the independence of the Central Bank. [1] ‘Resolution 2136 (2014)’, United Nations Security Council, 30 January 2014,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-politics-dtwhbnhsa-pro04b", "score": 0.6302890181541443, "text": "There are still immense problems with infrastructure in Afghanistan, more roads and railways are needed if large scale investment by China and others is to be made a success. There is little point in huge investment in mines if the product of those mines then can’t be transported out of the country to the markets as a result of either poor infrastructure or security concerns. There are also cases where infrastructure built by the US military has been allowed to deteriorate when handed over to Afghan control; there have been problems maintaining almost half the infrastructure projects built by the US in Laghman province. [1] [1] Boak, Josh, ‘U.S.-funded infrastructure deteriorates once under Afghan control, report says’, Washington Post, 4 January 2011", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-international-aghbuidrch-con03b", "score": 0.6280881762504578, "text": "While a factional, corrupt government that can’t control its territory is an impediment to peace it is not the United Nations main responsibility. MONUSCO has done what it can in coordination with other United Nations agencies, donors and non-governmental organizations, providing assistance for the reform of security forces, and the re-establishment of a State based on the rule of law. It has more than 2,000 civilian staff helping to build institutions. In the years after the Lushaka agreement revenue collection doubled from 6.5% in 2001 to 13.2% of GDP in 2006 showing that the government bureaucracy is being put back on its feet even before the conflict is completely ended. [1] It also shows the government does still have control. As a result international investment has started to flow in and life is better for the large majority of Congolese, especially in the calmer western areas. [1] Harsch, Ernest, ‘Building a state for the Congolese people’, Africa Renewal, January 2008,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-international-astshbghacn-pro02b", "score": 0.6229463219642639, "text": "This infrastructure still costs money, whatever event it is around: a state could launch an infrastructure drive without a football tournament that would be much more focused on the real needs of the people. Foreign investment can have significant costs, such as preferential access to natural resources. The work can often wind up being done by foreign contractors so that it creates no local jobs, as happened when Angola hosted the tournament [1] . In the case of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise China does not just get the benefit of the name; the finance provided was a loan, and the construction was done by the Shanghai Construction Group meaning much of the benefit went to China. [2] [1] Capstick, Alex, “Angola uses football to showcase economy”, BBC News, 2010, [2] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro03b", "score": 0.6216232776641846, "text": "Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal. [1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007 [2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-international-astshbghacn-con01a", "score": 0.620721161365509, "text": "Cost could be spent on other things Gabon’s government invested €370 million in the games. [1] Even though it is one of the more stable West African countries, there are still many people living in grinding poverty – nearly 20% of the population, according to the World Bank [2] . While infrastructure development is welcome, it is a better use of money to lift people out of poverty rather than for three weeks of football. It can also have other negative effects on the day to day lives of individuals, for example in South Africa when it hosted the world cup tolls were increase [3] . [1] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012, [2] World Bank, “World Development Indicators”, World Bank Databank, [3] Sands, Darren, “In South Africa, the African Cup of Nations is big business”, Black Enterprise, 2013,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-international-appgovrsus-pro03b", "score": 0.6137118339538574, "text": "Everyone is for transparency when it is taxpayers’ money that is being spent however transparency does not make it a worthwhile investment. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General says that “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.” [1] This means huge amounts of money is not helping development as it is meant to. Obama’s transparency initiatives will no doubt help show what the US is spending and where but will it tell us who else benefits? Moreover the administration’s record on aid transparency is very patchy; some budgets like the Millennium Challenge Corporation, created by the Republicans during the Bush Administration, are very transparent while big departments like State and Treasury are just the opposite. [2] [1] ‘At high-level discussion, UN officials highlight costs of corruption on societies’, UN News Centre, 9 July 2012. [2] ‘2011 Pilot Aid Transparency Index’, Publish What You Fund, 2012.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-pro04a", "score": 0.6131688356399536, "text": "A dam could make the Congo more usable While the Congo is mostly navigable it is only usable internally. The rapids cut the middle Congo off from the sea. The building of the dams could be combined with canalisation and locks to enable international goods to be easily transported to and from the interior. This would help integrate central Africa economically into the global economy making the region much more attractive for investment.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-economy-bepighbdb-pro01b", "score": 0.6104452610015869, "text": "This makes the assumption that dictators are rational, wise and seek to encourage development, rather than operate as kleptocrats. This is why dictatorship usually does not benefit development; the very concentration of power means when they make poor decisions the effect on the country is much greater. There is a similar result with corruption, a lack of checks and balances mean that decisions can be taken and implemented quickly but this same lack also means there is little to prevent corruption. Corruption is often rife in non-democratic societies. For example, in Cuba the healthcare system is largely reliant on bribery and is often under-resourced. One US diplomatic cable points out “[i]n one Cuban hospital, patients had to bring their own light bulbs. In another, the staff used \"a primitive manual vacuum\" on a woman who had miscarried. In others, Cuban patients pay bribes to obtain better treatment.” [1] [1] ‘Wikileaks cables highlight Cuba’s health care issues’, McClatchyDC, 29 December 2010,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-economy-epiaghwpto-pro04a", "score": 0.6083782911300659, "text": "Preventing Corruption Having oil does not just provide the money to undermine, or prevent democracy taking hold; it also provides an immense source for corruption. Oil revenues provide a revenue stream that is not dependent on the people but simply upon the global market and oil production. In a country with no checks and balances, accountability or transparency the money will inevitably go to the elite. This is how Equatorial Guinea can be rich while having most of the population in poverty. Dictator Obiang himself is worth an estimated $700million or the equivalent of about 4% of GDP.(1) A trust fund can ensure that money from oil goes to the poorest not the richest. It is managed outside the country and away from political pressure. If the government is corrupt and uses the national budget to its own ends the trust fund can provide the dividends as investment in individual development projects to ensure the money is used where it is most needed. All the time it can be transparent to show when and where the government is trying to influence it or get backhanders. (1) ‘The Richest World Leaders Are Even Richer Than You Thought’, Huffington Post, 29 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-economy-fegippghp-con03b", "score": 0.608265221118927, "text": "Aid money is often misspent, even when handled honestly. By imposing solutions from outside, it favors big projects, \"grand gestures\" and centralization - all of which may be inappropriate, only benefit a small number of people, and suffer from intended consequences. By contrast, the profits of trade trickle down to the whole population, giving people the power to spend additional income as they choose, for example by reinvesting it in worthwhile local industries and enterprises.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-cephbesane-con01b", "score": 0.6078817844390869, "text": "Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2] [1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, [2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02b", "score": 0.7552193999290466, "text": "There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b", "score": 0.7065393924713135, "text": "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con04b", "score": 0.7023530006408691, "text": "In practice, it is both viable and beneficial, in certain cases, to prioritize non-smokers for healthcare. Where there is more chance of a transplant being successful in a non-smoker for example. It is true that people can knowingly damage their health in other ways, such as drug taking or alcohol abuse and it may well be viable to limit access to healthcare in these cases also. This does not mean that every factor in a patient's life must be scrutinized in order to decide where they are placed on a doctor's waiting list. In public policy, the line must be drawn somewhere. Prioritizing non-smokers can mean that more people can be helped with same amount of resources and, where this is the case, it should be practiced.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02a", "score": 0.700020968914032, "text": "This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ. Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act. To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress. Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con01b", "score": 0.6991432309150696, "text": "The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them. The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs. The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily. Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right. Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b", "score": 0.6973028182983398, "text": "The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04b", "score": 0.6960412859916687, "text": "In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.692371129989624, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03a", "score": 0.6835282444953918, "text": "Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive. For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro05b", "score": 0.67897629737854, "text": "It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con06b", "score": 0.6747041940689087, "text": "Firstly, it may well be the case that we are indeed morally obligated to donate all of our disposable to charity; the longer one considers how many people could be saved with the money one spends on a flat screen television, the less acceptable the purchase becomes. However, there are also meaningful distinctions between the thought experiment and donation to charity. In the thought experiment, there is no one else who can possibly come to the aid of the five. This is distinct from the complexities of a global economy where there are other possible moral saviors and the path to saving lives is far less clear.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02b", "score": 0.6733328700065613, "text": "Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro03b", "score": 0.6691710948944092, "text": "The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04b", "score": 0.6690508127212524, "text": "Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro04b", "score": 0.6687577366828918, "text": "Assessing the value of a life on the basis of family members and how much the person is worth to everyone else creates a perverse priority on those with large families and many connections. To do so makes an injunction: position yourself so that you’re important and well-connected, and suddenly you get priority when we are deciding who to save.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con02b", "score": 0.6621906161308289, "text": "That is exactly right: we cannot know who will be most valuable to the world, and to think otherwise is “playing god.” However, this is a point for side proposition; given that we don’t know who the really valuable people are, we ought to save the greater number because it statistically increases the chances that they will be saved. The only time this would not be true is if the average person had a net negative effect on the world, but if this were the case it would commit us to the implausible position that we ought to act in a manner so that the fewest people survive, which is absurd.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02a", "score": 0.6604924201965332, "text": "We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro05a", "score": 0.6574553847312927, "text": "As smokers have a higher chance of harm from surgery due to complications arising from their habit, it is more efficient to prioritize non-smokers Failure to quit smoking before surgical procedures increases cardiac and pulmonary complications, impairs tissue healing, and is associated with more infections and other complications at the surgical site. For example, in a study of wound and other complications after hip or knee surgery, no smoker who quit beforehand developed a wound infection compared with 26% of ongoing smokers and 27% of those who only reduced tobacco use. Overall complications were reduced to 10% in those who quit smoking compared with 44% in those who continued1. This means that surgery costs more on average for smokers and is also less likely to be effective. Treating more smokers means devoting more resources for lower results. Therefore, prioritizing non-smokers, at least in certain areas of healthcare, would be beneficial to society as a whole. 1http Peters, M.J. (2007) Should smokers be refused surgery? British Medical Journal,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04a", "score": 0.6536064147949219, "text": "People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro03a", "score": 0.652495801448822, "text": "Organ donors are more deserving of organs Reciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive. In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place. However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality. This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them. And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity. Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people. The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society. For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro04b", "score": 0.6513684988021851, "text": "This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings. As to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs. [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro01b", "score": 0.7791420817375183, "text": "The controversial part of this plan is how the status of “donor” is determined. Each standard that could be used has massive, and sometimes monstrous, negative ramifications. If the requirement is that recipients be donors for a certain number of years beforehand, then people who have been donors for a substantial but still inadequate time are being perversely punished simply for not having been doing their civic duty long enough (see also “past decision they cannot now undo” point below). If the standard is simply that they must have been a donor for any amount of time, however small, prior to needing the organ, this perversely encourages patients to hide their need for an organ long enough for them to register as donors and then collect their organ; any attempt to solve this would require doctors to report on their patients’ need for organs, eroding patient privacy and turning the doctor-patient relationship adversarial. The last of the proposed standards, that the recipient only need to sign up to be a donor in the future, causes all the alleged benefits of this to policy evaporate; the average person will not sign up to become a donor, as they know that they can always sign up later in the event that they need an organ. This plan only gets any benefit whatsoever if healthy people are signing up to be donors as a cautionary measure, rather than a small group of sick and likely elderly people who only sign up when they need organs. In addition to reducing the pool of donors, such a standard which calls for people to be donors from the time of their need onwards would require a massive breach of body rights to enforce. In order to make it binding (and prevent people from de-registering as donors once they no longer need organs), the state would have to say that they can no longer withdraw their consent to be donors, which amounts to the state laying claim to their organs." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02a", "score": 0.7305631041526794, "text": "This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ. Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act. To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress. Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02b", "score": 0.72383713722229, "text": "There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro03a", "score": 0.7166258096694946, "text": "Organ donors are more deserving of organs Reciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive. In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place. However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality. This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them. And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity. Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people. The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society. For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04b", "score": 0.7081772685050964, "text": "In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro03b", "score": 0.7038102149963379, "text": "The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03a", "score": 0.6972527503967285, "text": "Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive. For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04a", "score": 0.6915498971939087, "text": "People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.6866589784622192, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.6801223754882812, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04b", "score": 0.6794083118438721, "text": "If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04b", "score": 0.6770346164703369, "text": "Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b", "score": 0.6701177954673767, "text": "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-law-lgsghwlp-pro02b", "score": 0.6653498411178589, "text": "Market mechanisms are inappropriate for the exchange of some goods, such as children, medically needed bodily substances or organs, and sex. These are precious goods, and we should not allow citizens to alienate these goods for payment. Instead, the terms of alienation should protect the critical interests of all involved. While sexual relationships serve legitimate needs, it does not follow that we should be able to purchase them. Having children serves legitimate needs, but we do not think that people should be able to buy children. Buying sex robs the provider of dignity and the right to sexual autonomy. Moreover, people are not entitled to some goods simply because they have money. If we allow money to determine who can have children, donated organs, or sexual intimacy, then this will lead to unfair distributions. Market mechanisms may eclipse other forms of exchange, and deprive those without significant wealth of the means to happiness.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con05b", "score": 0.6653401851654053, "text": "Goods provided by the state, like healthcare, are often, and necessarily, subject to certain provisions. For example, in order to get unemployment benefits, a person must prove that they are regularly looking for a job and a means to get themselves off benefits. Denying access to healthcare for smokers does not mean denying them healthcare access forever; they can regain unlimited access if they stop smoking. Therefore, prioritizing non-smokers for healthcare in certain cases is not impeding upon smokers' basic liberties but a recognition that those who care about their own health enough to not smoke should be prioritized.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeghwrar-pro01b", "score": 0.6651041507720947, "text": "This creates freedom of choice for the donor, but at the same time takes it away from the recipient. Recipients, whether governments or NGOs, will no longer have the money to spend. They will no longer be able to target that funding towards those areas that need it most instead the money will bypass them.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro05b", "score": 0.6645117402076721, "text": "It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b", "score": 0.6640740036964417, "text": "The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro04a", "score": 0.6616870760917664, "text": "We should preserve the person with greater quality of life We have to be able to measure quality of life relatively. There might be many cases where a relative is terminally ill, yet not dead yet. This person, with a survival prospect of maybe half a year of suffering and medication, might have a perfectly functional organ. [1] It is very rational, both for this person and for society as a whole to allow him or her to undergo euthanasia at an early stage to save the other person. [2] Furthermore, a person might sacrifice his or her life to provide an organ for a specific individual, yet their other organs can still be used to save others, of whom the donor might not have been aware. It is sad that a person has to die, but as this is the only option [3] , it is a good thing that several people might live when one sacrifices their life. [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301. [2] Wilkinson, Dominc and Julian Savalescu. “SHOULD WE ALLOW ORGAN DONATION EUTHANASIA? ALTERNATIVES FOR MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION.” Bioethics 26.1 (2012): 32-48. [3] ibid", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02a", "score": 0.652094304561615, "text": "The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed. [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04a", "score": 0.6475713849067688, "text": "People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro03b", "score": 0.8209700584411621, "text": "The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04b", "score": 0.7280189990997314, "text": "Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro01a", "score": 0.7171986103057861, "text": "A Practical Solution There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented. The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors. Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled. For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them. The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied. What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable). Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02b", "score": 0.7105293869972229, "text": "This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con01b", "score": 0.7034438252449036, "text": "The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them. The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs. The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily. Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right. Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03a", "score": 0.6941533088684082, "text": "Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive. For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.6904824376106262, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.6863113045692444, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04b", "score": 0.6851027607917786, "text": "In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02b", "score": 0.6824542880058289, "text": "There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02a", "score": 0.6820864677429199, "text": "The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed. [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro02b", "score": 0.6753994822502136, "text": "To weigh up human lives in this calculated manner inherently strips them of dignity and reduces them to mere numbers. This “aggregative” ethical standpoint, in which a loss of utility to one person can be compensated for by gains in utility to other people, fails to respect “the separateness of persons” [1] . We are all different people, and we do not all share in the alleged benefits to maximizing total utility. For this reason, our moral intuitions reject out-of-hand many variants on “killing one to save five”; for instance, we would think it abhorrent to abduct a random person and harvest their organs in order to save five dying people, even in the absence of side effects like people now being afraid of having their organs taken. Also, see “different lives weigh differently” argument below. [1] Richardson, Henry S., ‘John Rawls (1921-2002)’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 18 November 2005,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04b", "score": 0.6732929348945618, "text": "If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro02b", "score": 0.6725412011146545, "text": "To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04a", "score": 0.671021044254303, "text": "People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro03b", "score": 0.6680675745010376, "text": "Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b", "score": 0.6654576659202576, "text": "The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-law-lgsghwlp-pro02b", "score": 0.6649890542030334, "text": "Market mechanisms are inappropriate for the exchange of some goods, such as children, medically needed bodily substances or organs, and sex. These are precious goods, and we should not allow citizens to alienate these goods for payment. Instead, the terms of alienation should protect the critical interests of all involved. While sexual relationships serve legitimate needs, it does not follow that we should be able to purchase them. Having children serves legitimate needs, but we do not think that people should be able to buy children. Buying sex robs the provider of dignity and the right to sexual autonomy. Moreover, people are not entitled to some goods simply because they have money. If we allow money to determine who can have children, donated organs, or sexual intimacy, then this will lead to unfair distributions. Market mechanisms may eclipse other forms of exchange, and deprive those without significant wealth of the means to happiness.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con06b", "score": 0.6632721424102783, "text": "Firstly, it may well be the case that we are indeed morally obligated to donate all of our disposable to charity; the longer one considers how many people could be saved with the money one spends on a flat screen television, the less acceptable the purchase becomes. However, there are also meaningful distinctions between the thought experiment and donation to charity. In the thought experiment, there is no one else who can possibly come to the aid of the five. This is distinct from the complexities of a global economy where there are other possible moral saviors and the path to saving lives is far less clear.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02b", "score": 0.6582803726196289, "text": "Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-law-hrilthbtsbs-con02a", "score": 0.6559084057807922, "text": "With no hope of reciprocity, adherence to the Geneva Conventions would undermine the fight against terrorism There is no moral duty to respect the dignity of terrorists. States should do whatever possible to protect their own citizens. The Geneva Convention is about reciprocity: it is in the interest of our own citizens to treat enemy combatants in a humane manner so that if our soldiers are caught they will receive similar treatment. There can be no guarantee of reciprocity from ‘terrorists’ as a whole, or even specific terrorist groups given the cellular nature of the organisations and the disparate nature of the command structures. Furthermore, terrorists specifically use poor treatment of hostages as a tool in their campaign. Given this, it is in the interests of our own citizens to use whatever means possible to fight terrorism; compliance with the Geneva Convention undermines this.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04b", "score": 0.8168808221817017, "text": "Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.7600442171096802, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03a", "score": 0.7542523145675659, "text": "Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive. For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b", "score": 0.7403085231781006, "text": "The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04a", "score": 0.7393566966056824, "text": "People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.7364902496337891, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02a", "score": 0.7361235618591309, "text": "Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor The greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives. A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}. Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible. The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.)", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con01b", "score": 0.7337096929550171, "text": "The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them. The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs. The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily. Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right. Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02b", "score": 0.7309132218360901, "text": "Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro01b", "score": 0.7294824719429016, "text": "The controversial part of this plan is how the status of “donor” is determined. Each standard that could be used has massive, and sometimes monstrous, negative ramifications. If the requirement is that recipients be donors for a certain number of years beforehand, then people who have been donors for a substantial but still inadequate time are being perversely punished simply for not having been doing their civic duty long enough (see also “past decision they cannot now undo” point below). If the standard is simply that they must have been a donor for any amount of time, however small, prior to needing the organ, this perversely encourages patients to hide their need for an organ long enough for them to register as donors and then collect their organ; any attempt to solve this would require doctors to report on their patients’ need for organs, eroding patient privacy and turning the doctor-patient relationship adversarial. The last of the proposed standards, that the recipient only need to sign up to be a donor in the future, causes all the alleged benefits of this to policy evaporate; the average person will not sign up to become a donor, as they know that they can always sign up later in the event that they need an organ. This plan only gets any benefit whatsoever if healthy people are signing up to be donors as a cautionary measure, rather than a small group of sick and likely elderly people who only sign up when they need organs. In addition to reducing the pool of donors, such a standard which calls for people to be donors from the time of their need onwards would require a massive breach of body rights to enforce. In order to make it binding (and prevent people from de-registering as donors once they no longer need organs), the state would have to say that they can no longer withdraw their consent to be donors, which amounts to the state laying claim to their organs.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro04a", "score": 0.7279145121574402, "text": "We should preserve the person with greater quality of life We have to be able to measure quality of life relatively. There might be many cases where a relative is terminally ill, yet not dead yet. This person, with a survival prospect of maybe half a year of suffering and medication, might have a perfectly functional organ. [1] It is very rational, both for this person and for society as a whole to allow him or her to undergo euthanasia at an early stage to save the other person. [2] Furthermore, a person might sacrifice his or her life to provide an organ for a specific individual, yet their other organs can still be used to save others, of whom the donor might not have been aware. It is sad that a person has to die, but as this is the only option [3] , it is a good thing that several people might live when one sacrifices their life. [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301. [2] Wilkinson, Dominc and Julian Savalescu. “SHOULD WE ALLOW ORGAN DONATION EUTHANASIA? ALTERNATIVES FOR MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION.” Bioethics 26.1 (2012): 32-48. [3] ibid", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04b", "score": 0.7256826758384705, "text": "In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b", "score": 0.7201433181762695, "text": "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02b", "score": 0.7173168659210205, "text": "There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01a", "score": 0.7123117446899414, "text": "The human right to life compels us to save as many as possible We have good reasons to value keeping people alive: it allows people the opportunity to enjoy their time on Earth and effect changes to everyone’s benefit, even if that simply means being around for our loved ones. Most people would even go so far as to say that, by virtue of being conscious creatures, human beings deserve to live. That is to say, they have a right not to suffer an untimely death. This is the reason that we normally abhor killing: it cuts short human life. However, in this thought experiment, the inescapable reality is that someone’s right to life will be violated. Either the one or the five will die, and all the horrible results attached to the cessation of a human life will inevitably befall one of the groups. In light of this fact, our moral obligation is to reduce the number of people whose right to life is violated and maximize the number for whom that right is actualized. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and that is to kill the one and save the five.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02b", "score": 0.7074093818664551, "text": "This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con06a", "score": 0.7058197259902954, "text": "Utilitarianism is demanding If we choose to save the five people just because we have the power to do so then we also have to consider all the other lives that are in our power to save. It is in our power to donate all of our excess money to charity to save lives and so we must also do this. Actions like this are worthy of praise but no one would suggest that we have a duty to do them.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con01a", "score": 0.70506352186203, "text": "Self-preservation is our primary moral duty Many people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01a", "score": 0.7019537091255188, "text": "It is a natural thing to do We are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer. [1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less. They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost. [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro05b", "score": 0.7010746598243713, "text": "It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01b", "score": 0.7006254196166992, "text": "The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident. By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered. When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right. Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others. Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty? If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02b", "score": 0.7798305749893188, "text": "This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro01a", "score": 0.7297840118408203, "text": "A Practical Solution There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented. The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors. Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled. For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them. The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied. What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable). Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con01b", "score": 0.7289873957633972, "text": "The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them. The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs. The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily. Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right. Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b", "score": 0.7287080883979797, "text": "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.7279347777366638, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con03b", "score": 0.7263540625572205, "text": "This risk can be mitigated by making it clear that the elderly, disabled, and others who may feel a burden are genuinely wanted as a part of society but that the right to die is there if they feel it is too much. Any right to die being allowed is not going to be as simple as going to the doctors and getting an injection. In any system there would be checks and balances put in place. There would probably be some form of application process, checks to see if there is any coercion and that it is what the individual really wants as well as probably some form of cooling off period after which the checks would probably be redone before they finally have their chance to exercise their right to die.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04b", "score": 0.7178369164466858, "text": "In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro03b", "score": 0.7166628241539001, "text": "The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04b", "score": 0.7134262323379517, "text": "Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b", "score": 0.7130203247070312, "text": "The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro03b", "score": 0.7068774700164795, "text": "Society routinely accepts that the state has a role in balancing the desires of some with the threats those pose to others. For every reasoned, unpressured decision that can be presented by prop, we can offer a situation in which the decision to die was coerced, or at least was not devoid of financial of self-serving interests on the part of others. The only way to prevent those negative outcomes is to deny the palatable ones through a complete moratorium. Such actions may not become routine yet even one death through compulsion is too many. However it is equally likely that once a right to die becomes established it comes to be seen as normal that someone who is particularly ill or frail will exercise the right to die. Once this is normalised then it becomes easier and easier for the boundary to slowly slip as it is an arbitrary line, either those exercising the right slowly become less and less ill or frail. Alternatively there is a slide into coercion as it becomes normal it begins to be seen as expected that the right will be exercised. [i] [i] Young, Robert, \"Voluntary Euthanasia\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.7058597207069397, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-pro01b", "score": 0.7046753764152527, "text": "It is not the case that this is a policy with no harms other than to the person with a terminal illness (see opposition arguments). Second, it seems unreasonable to suggest people are making a free and informed choice in this instance: no-one has sufficient information for taking the drug to represent anything but a gamble; this is why there is a need for tests.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03a", "score": 0.7032918930053711, "text": "Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive. For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02a", "score": 0.6998637914657593, "text": "Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor The greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives. A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}. Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible. The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.)", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04b", "score": 0.6930015683174133, "text": "If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02b", "score": 0.6929964423179626, "text": "There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04a", "score": 0.6893523931503296, "text": "People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con04b", "score": 0.6886420249938965, "text": "In practice, it is both viable and beneficial, in certain cases, to prioritize non-smokers for healthcare. Where there is more chance of a transplant being successful in a non-smoker for example. It is true that people can knowingly damage their health in other ways, such as drug taking or alcohol abuse and it may well be viable to limit access to healthcare in these cases also. This does not mean that every factor in a patient's life must be scrutinized in order to decide where they are placed on a doctor's waiting list. In public policy, the line must be drawn somewhere. Prioritizing non-smokers can mean that more people can be helped with same amount of resources and, where this is the case, it should be practiced.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro03b", "score": 0.6855843663215637, "text": "Demanding that family take part in such a decision can be an unbearable burden: many may resent a loved one’s decision to die, and would be either emotionally scared or estranged by the prospect of being in any way involved with their death. Assisted suicide also introduces a new danger, that the terminally ill may be pressured into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to support them through their illness. Even the most well regulated system would have no real way to ensure that this did not happen.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeghwrar-pro01b", "score": 0.6847792863845825, "text": "This creates freedom of choice for the donor, but at the same time takes it away from the recipient. Recipients, whether governments or NGOs, will no longer have the money to spend. They will no longer be able to target that funding towards those areas that need it most instead the money will bypass them.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04b", "score": 0.8154689073562622, "text": "In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03a", "score": 0.7657294273376465, "text": "Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive. For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04b", "score": 0.7642418146133423, "text": "Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.7460271120071411, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02b", "score": 0.7446457743644714, "text": "This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04a", "score": 0.7399686574935913, "text": "People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b", "score": 0.713357150554657, "text": "The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04b", "score": 0.7121089100837708, "text": "If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.7098084688186646, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con01b", "score": 0.7035830020904541, "text": "The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them. The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs. The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily. Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right. Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro01b", "score": 0.7005114555358887, "text": "The controversial part of this plan is how the status of “donor” is determined. Each standard that could be used has massive, and sometimes monstrous, negative ramifications. If the requirement is that recipients be donors for a certain number of years beforehand, then people who have been donors for a substantial but still inadequate time are being perversely punished simply for not having been doing their civic duty long enough (see also “past decision they cannot now undo” point below). If the standard is simply that they must have been a donor for any amount of time, however small, prior to needing the organ, this perversely encourages patients to hide their need for an organ long enough for them to register as donors and then collect their organ; any attempt to solve this would require doctors to report on their patients’ need for organs, eroding patient privacy and turning the doctor-patient relationship adversarial. The last of the proposed standards, that the recipient only need to sign up to be a donor in the future, causes all the alleged benefits of this to policy evaporate; the average person will not sign up to become a donor, as they know that they can always sign up later in the event that they need an organ. This plan only gets any benefit whatsoever if healthy people are signing up to be donors as a cautionary measure, rather than a small group of sick and likely elderly people who only sign up when they need organs. In addition to reducing the pool of donors, such a standard which calls for people to be donors from the time of their need onwards would require a massive breach of body rights to enforce. In order to make it binding (and prevent people from de-registering as donors once they no longer need organs), the state would have to say that they can no longer withdraw their consent to be donors, which amounts to the state laying claim to their organs.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02b", "score": 0.700292706489563, "text": "There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-hgfhwbhc-pro02b", "score": 0.6932846307754517, "text": "This argument assumes that we know God’s intentions. Evidently, there is no biblical statement on the ethics of human cloning. Who is to say that it is not God’s will that we clone ourselves? Hindu thought potentially embraces IVF and other assisted reproduction technology (ART). [1] Moreover, every time that a doctor performs life-saving surgery or administers drugs he is changing the destiny of the patient and could be thus seen as usurping the role of God. Furthermore, we should be very wary of banning something without being able to say why it is wrong. That way lie all sorts irrational superstition, repression, fundamentalism and extremism. [1] Tierney, John, ‘Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion’, The New York Times, 20 November 2007,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro01a", "score": 0.6919369697570801, "text": "A Practical Solution There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented. The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors. Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled. For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them. The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied. What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable). Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02a", "score": 0.6901007890701294, "text": "This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ. Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act. To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress. Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b", "score": 0.6867114305496216, "text": "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro04b", "score": 0.6827747225761414, "text": "To successfully remove such meat from the food chain, any ban would have to extend to importing such meat. Under this model, Jews and Muslims would literally be forced to become vegetarian – a radical and discriminatory suggestion which significantly breaches their rights. Consumers may very well want to be better informed about their meat. But labeling systems have been proposed which would address this concern without a ban. It also needs to be said that many non-religious abattoirs are also inhumane. To be fully ethical, any such labeling system would have to label all the animals where the stun didn’t work, and should also take account of the way the animals were raised and transported. Banning just religious slaughter is not a consistent moral position, and shouldn’t be government policy.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-pro01b", "score": 0.6800930500030518, "text": "Proposition have made a lovely argument, except for one small detail, nobody is suggesting prayer or ritual as a replacement for medical attention. The issue here, as defined by proposition, is whether JW parents should be able to reject blood transfusions on behalf of their child. No more than that; no witchcraft wards or miracle cures. This is just a consideration of whether, given the time for discussion and consideration, the religious views of parents and, usually, their child should be able to say that perspectives other than a strictly medical one should be considered in addressing a complex human situation.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-con01b", "score": 0.6750712394714355, "text": "We frequently set limits not on religious beliefs but on their practices. The two determinant used there are the possible harm to others and whether the person being harmed can be deemed ‘capable’ in a legal sense. There can be no doubt that the decision to refuse available medical treatment causes harm, that is beyond dispute. The issue then is whether the person harmed, the child, can be considered capable. Legally they cannot, they cannot enter into a contract, they cannot marry or vote, legally they are not allowed to make many decisions because they are not full members of society until they are adults. It is worth noting that if the child is not deemed competent to make a decision regarding their own healthcare, it is difficult to see how their determination of their own religious choices can be assumed as authoritative. So the child cannot make the decision and the parents actions would cause harm to the child. In the light of this, the only remaining opinion is that of the doctor.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-con03b", "score": 0.6745922565460205, "text": "Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own life, it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction' [1] . If we accept the proposition that only God can give and take away life then medicine should not be used at all. If only God has the power to give life then medicines and surgeries to prolong people's life should also be considered wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest that medicine can be used to prolong life but it cannot be used to end someone's life. [1] David Hume, Of Suicide, cited in Applied Ethics ed. Peter Singer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) p.23", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-free-speech-debate-nvhbfemir-pro03b", "score": 0.6742744445800781, "text": "The fact that religious thought tends to be subverted to defend the status quo is hardly a compelling argument as the same can be said for almost all forms of thought. There is a natural backlash from vested interests against any innovation and religion should not be blamed for having this same tendency. We should however not rule out the need to take a moral approach to some things for example; using stem cells might have huge medical benefits but it still needs to be considered whether it is morally right.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.8120861053466797, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point)." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.7709440588951111, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04a", "score": 0.7651710510253906, "text": "People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro03b", "score": 0.76494300365448, "text": "Society routinely accepts that the state has a role in balancing the desires of some with the threats those pose to others. For every reasoned, unpressured decision that can be presented by prop, we can offer a situation in which the decision to die was coerced, or at least was not devoid of financial of self-serving interests on the part of others. The only way to prevent those negative outcomes is to deny the palatable ones through a complete moratorium. Such actions may not become routine yet even one death through compulsion is too many. However it is equally likely that once a right to die becomes established it comes to be seen as normal that someone who is particularly ill or frail will exercise the right to die. Once this is normalised then it becomes easier and easier for the boundary to slowly slip as it is an arbitrary line, either those exercising the right slowly become less and less ill or frail. Alternatively there is a slide into coercion as it becomes normal it begins to be seen as expected that the right will be exercised. [i] [i] Young, Robert, \"Voluntary Euthanasia\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04b", "score": 0.756912112236023, "text": "In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04a", "score": 0.7549799084663391, "text": "People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro03b", "score": 0.7532457113265991, "text": "The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro01b", "score": 0.7528091073036194, "text": "The controversial part of this plan is how the status of “donor” is determined. Each standard that could be used has massive, and sometimes monstrous, negative ramifications. If the requirement is that recipients be donors for a certain number of years beforehand, then people who have been donors for a substantial but still inadequate time are being perversely punished simply for not having been doing their civic duty long enough (see also “past decision they cannot now undo” point below). If the standard is simply that they must have been a donor for any amount of time, however small, prior to needing the organ, this perversely encourages patients to hide their need for an organ long enough for them to register as donors and then collect their organ; any attempt to solve this would require doctors to report on their patients’ need for organs, eroding patient privacy and turning the doctor-patient relationship adversarial. The last of the proposed standards, that the recipient only need to sign up to be a donor in the future, causes all the alleged benefits of this to policy evaporate; the average person will not sign up to become a donor, as they know that they can always sign up later in the event that they need an organ. This plan only gets any benefit whatsoever if healthy people are signing up to be donors as a cautionary measure, rather than a small group of sick and likely elderly people who only sign up when they need organs. In addition to reducing the pool of donors, such a standard which calls for people to be donors from the time of their need onwards would require a massive breach of body rights to enforce. In order to make it binding (and prevent people from de-registering as donors once they no longer need organs), the state would have to say that they can no longer withdraw their consent to be donors, which amounts to the state laying claim to their organs.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04b", "score": 0.7524823546409607, "text": "If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02b", "score": 0.7495287656784058, "text": "There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con01b", "score": 0.7275053858757019, "text": "The logical extent of opposition’s argument is a strongly libertarian society that does not legislate on almost any issue because it fears taking away people’s ability to choose. It is important to note that when someone causes a death through ignorant driving they have resulted in the dehumanisation of a person through the removal of their ability to choose. However, more so, the resulting society where people are free to do what they want ignores the fact that often people lack full information to make their decisions in an informed way. It also fails to understand that as time goes on people often regret decisions that they once made. As such, people are often happy to and do make the choice to give up some of their freedoms and allow the state to make those decisions for them. Given then that people consent to having the “humanity” taken away from them, it seems legitimate that the state can make decisions that they might not immediately agree with, under the assumption that the state, as a composite of a large number of different people has a level of oversight that the individual doesn’t. The state has the advantage of being able to take a step back and have a broader perspective. Individuals will make decisions that impact them in a positive way but this does not mean that those decisions will not have a negative wider impact on society. The state uses this broader perspective under the mandate to protect society as a whole looking at what is best for the group not the individual.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro01b", "score": 0.7219200730323792, "text": "A democracy is based on the principle of respecting basic human rights, such as free choice. This principle is directly violated by compulsory voting. With many civil rights there is a choice to choose to engage in the activity or not. Voting has carries that option, citizens of a democracy have the choice to either vote or not, despite being encouraged to vote. It does not matter why a person chooses to vote or not, it is the fact of principle that they have the right to choose. Compulsory voting goes against such ideas of the freedom of choice, and on that grounds should not be compulsory. The proposition speaks of those who died for the right to vote, and respecting their sacrifice by voting. Unfortunately the proposition misconstrued the point of their sacrifice- to give us the freedom of choice. That right of choice must be upheld, as it is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Compulsory voting would be infringing upon that.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b", "score": 0.7217732667922974, "text": "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con03b", "score": 0.7203589677810669, "text": "This risk can be mitigated by making it clear that the elderly, disabled, and others who may feel a burden are genuinely wanted as a part of society but that the right to die is there if they feel it is too much. Any right to die being allowed is not going to be as simple as going to the doctors and getting an injection. In any system there would be checks and balances put in place. There would probably be some form of application process, checks to see if there is any coercion and that it is what the individual really wants as well as probably some form of cooling off period after which the checks would probably be redone before they finally have their chance to exercise their right to die.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro05b", "score": 0.7198579907417297, "text": "It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02b", "score": 0.7148813009262085, "text": "Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-education-eghhwmvc-con01a", "score": 0.7096201181411743, "text": "Compulsory vaccination violates the individuals’ right to bodily integrity In most countries and declarations, one of the most basic human rights is the one to bodily integrity. It sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your body without consent. The NHS (National Health Service) explains: “You must give your consent (permission) before you receive any type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding to donate your organs after your death. If you refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected.” This comes from the principle, that if a person has the capacity to consent to treatment and is making an informed decision (based on pros and cons of the treatment), the decision must be respected. The NHS explains further on: “If you have enough capacity and make a voluntary and informed decision to refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected. This applies even if your decision would result in your death, or the death of your unborn child.” [1] In the case of vaccination this principle should be also applied. Even though we recognize that children are not able to fully comprehend the consequences a refusal would have, the parents should be there to decide on behalf of children over such decisions. The state has no right to stick a needle into a child just because they see fit doing so. It might be contested that in case of life endangering illnesses, the state should override the individuals’ rights. But rejection of vaccinations is not life endangering. So it is the judgment of the individual that is important and should not under any case be violated, just because someone might get an illness that in today’s modern world is easily curable. [1] National Health Service (NHS), Do I have a right to refuse treatment ?, , accessed 29/05/2011", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02a", "score": 0.7039945125579834, "text": "This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ. Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act. To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress. Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con01a", "score": 0.702927827835083, "text": "It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others. In terms of moral absolutes, killing people is wrong sets the bar fairly low. Pretty much all societies have accepted this as a line that cannot be crossed without the explicit and specific agreement of the state which only happens in very rare circumstances such as in times of war. There is a simple reason for a blanket ban. It allows for no caveats, no misunderstandings, no fudging of the issue, and no shades of grey. Again, the reason for this approach is equally simple; anything other than such a clear cut approach will inevitably be abused [i] . As things stand guilt in the case of murder is determined entirely on the basis that it is proven that someone took another life. Their reasons for doing so may be reflected in sentencing but the court is not required to consider whether someone was justified in killing another. It is in the nature of a court case that it happens after the event and nobody other than the murderer and the deceased know what actually took place between them. If we take shaken baby syndrome cases as an example the parent still loves the child, they have acted in the madness of a moment out of frustration. It’s still murder. Supporting a dying relative can be no less frustrating but killing them would still be murder, even where that comes after a prolonged period of coercion to fill in forms and achieve the appearance of consent. It would, however, be very hard to prove. At least with a baby we can assume consent was not given, that would not be the case here. [i] Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman. ‘Second Thoughts’ Grow on Assisted Suicide. The Wall Street Journal. 5 August 2012.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro01b", "score": 0.702479362487793, "text": "It is the mark of a civilised society that we accept the inconvenience of laws in some circumstances because we also require their protection in others. To take a trivial example we take away the choice for people to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else. Here the protection offered by a full moratorium on killing requires that we accept all of its implications. The challenge is to use medical science to make it a moot point. Proposition has therefore made a powerful argument in favour of better painkillers and more research into mentally debilitating illnesses. Many of those developments have come about as a result of the very human attributes prop is so keen to cite. Realising that they have an opportunity of future free of pain and illness, humans have found ways of delivering it. It is precisely because death can now be managed that the process of self-imposed triage prop suggests is increasingly unnecessary; a fact to be applauded, not discarded", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02a", "score": 0.701735258102417, "text": "The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed. [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-con01b", "score": 0.7254651188850403, "text": "The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them. The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs. The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily. Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right. Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro03a", "score": 0.6889230608940125, "text": "The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself It is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-education-eghhwmvc-con01a", "score": 0.6859905123710632, "text": "Compulsory vaccination violates the individuals’ right to bodily integrity In most countries and declarations, one of the most basic human rights is the one to bodily integrity. It sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your body without consent. The NHS (National Health Service) explains: “You must give your consent (permission) before you receive any type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding to donate your organs after your death. If you refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected.” This comes from the principle, that if a person has the capacity to consent to treatment and is making an informed decision (based on pros and cons of the treatment), the decision must be respected. The NHS explains further on: “If you have enough capacity and make a voluntary and informed decision to refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected. This applies even if your decision would result in your death, or the death of your unborn child.” [1] In the case of vaccination this principle should be also applied. Even though we recognize that children are not able to fully comprehend the consequences a refusal would have, the parents should be there to decide on behalf of children over such decisions. The state has no right to stick a needle into a child just because they see fit doing so. It might be contested that in case of life endangering illnesses, the state should override the individuals’ rights. But rejection of vaccinations is not life endangering. So it is the judgment of the individual that is important and should not under any case be violated, just because someone might get an illness that in today’s modern world is easily curable. [1] National Health Service (NHS), Do I have a right to refuse treatment ?, , accessed 29/05/2011", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-economy-epsihbdns-con01b", "score": 0.6840829849243164, "text": "Freedom of movement is not an intrinsic human right, but rather a right that can and should be given by the state where it is possible. For example the state puts people into prisons; this infringes their freedom of movement. This is partially as punishment, but the core rationale for this is to protect the people outside of the prison from potentially dangerous people. [1] But for that, there would be significantly cheaper and more efficient ways of punishing criminals. The people whose freedom of movement is restricted are a threat to people living in the cities and to the economy of the nation as a whole. In the better interest of the nation and to protect innocent people whose lives will be damaged by unrestricted migration, these people must accept restricted freedom of movement. [1] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation ’", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-society-epsihbdns-con01b", "score": 0.6840829849243164, "text": "Freedom of movement is not an intrinsic human right, but rather a right that can and should be given by the state where it is possible. For example the state puts people into prisons; this infringes their freedom of movement. This is partially as punishment, but the core rationale for this is to protect the people outside of the prison from potentially dangerous people. [1] But for that, there would be significantly cheaper and more efficient ways of punishing criminals. The people whose freedom of movement is restricted are a threat to people living in the cities and to the economy of the nation as a whole. In the better interest of the nation and to protect innocent people whose lives will be damaged by unrestricted migration, these people must accept restricted freedom of movement. [1] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation ’", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-economy-epsihbdns-con01a", "score": 0.6822726130485535, "text": "Freedom of movement is an intrinsic human right Every human being is born with certain rights. These are protected by various charters and are considered inseparable from the human being. The reason for this is a belief that these rights create the fundamental and necessary conditions to lead a human life. Freedom of movement is one of these and has been recognised as such in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] If a family finds themselves faced with starvation, the only chance they have of survival might be to move to another place where they might live another day. It is inhuman to condemn individuals to death and suffering for the benefit of some nebulous collective theory. While we might pass some of our freedoms to the state, we have a moral right to the freedoms that help us stay alive – in this context freedom of movement is one of those. [1] General Assembly, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, 10 December 1948,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-education-ughbuesbf-pro03b", "score": 0.6797205209732056, "text": "There is no fundamental right to a university education; it is a service, and people should pay for it, not freeload on the taxpayer. Rights exist to provide people with the necessities of life. Some people may never have the “opportunity”, ie. wealth, to visit Hawai’i, yet that is not unfair and the state should not be expected to fund every citizen’s tropical vacation. Yet even in the presence of fees, access to scholarships and loans make it possible for people from disadvantaged economic backgrounds to find their way into university. In this way the state can provide equality of opportunity while the wealthier pay.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-law-lghwpcctcc-pro01a", "score": 0.6795221567153931, "text": "People should have a right of access to justice. Given that people are already allowed to watch court proceedings from the public gallery – including the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the UK [1] , and the Supreme Court in the US [2] – there is little reason why this should not be extended to give better access across the nation to anybody who wants to watch. Those with full-time jobs or who live far away from the courts are currently unfairly limited in this respect, and those who do wish to attend well-publicised trials often have to arrive hours in advance to get a seat. Individuals should not have to give up so much time and money just to be able to watch a democratic proceeding, which is a cornerstone of democratic nations. Given that many closed trials such as the trial of the Guantánamo Bay terrorism suspects [3] have still led to intense media coverage, we would be better off showing the courts to be transparent and just instead of vainly trying to hide everything behind closed doors. [1] , accessed 05/08/11 [2] , accessed 05/08/11 [3] , accessed 19/08/11.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-iilepphbf-con03b", "score": 0.6776750683784485, "text": "The labelling of a right as 'fundamental' ensures it is protected against opportunistic or populist attacks which may not fully consider the long term. As long as we limit our definition of 'fundamental rights' to those things needed and desired by all humans universally, we should avoid enshrining 'rights' which are only needed in some times and places.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-digital-freedoms-gtdfais-con01a", "score": 0.6773878335952759, "text": "The right to internet access as a fundamental right. Internet access is a “facilitative right”, in that it facilitates access to the exercise of many other rights: like freedom of expression, information, and assembly. It is a “gateway right”. Possessing a right is only as valuable as your capacity to exercise it. A government cannot claim to protect freedom of speech or expression, and freedom of information, if it is taking away from its citizens the tools to access them. And that is exactly what the disruption of internet service does. Internet access needs to be a protected right so that all other rights which flow from it. [1] The Internet is a tool of communication so it is important not just to individuals but also to communities. The internet becomes an outlet that can help to preserve groups’ culture or language [2] and so as an enabler of this groups’ culture access to the internet may also be seen as a group right – one which would be being infringed when the state cuts off access to large numbers of individuals. [1] BBC, 2010. “Internet Access is ‘a Fundamental Right’\". [2] Jones, Peter, 2008. \"Group Rights\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-pro05a", "score": 0.67526775598526, "text": "The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks. It would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-con02a", "score": 0.6746658086776733, "text": "Internet access is a commodity not a human right. If a human right is inherent and inalienable then if something is to be a human right it has to be freely available for all rather than being much more available to those who are rich. The internet however is a commodity. We are charged for access to it and can be cut off for not paying our bills. We are charged more to be able to download more, in effect to have greater access to this human right. There has never been any suggestion that the equally great media advances of TV and telephones are technologies worthy of being considered a human right. As with the internet these increased the ability to express opinions to a wide audience, they helped democratise news and making it much more international. They meant that human rights violations could be much more easily told to the world in much the same way the internet does.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro01a", "score": 0.6741458177566528, "text": "Every human being has a right to life Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. [1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. [2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death. [1] Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005, (accessed 4/6/2011) [2] Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008, (accessed 6/6/2011)", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro01b", "score": 0.6711502075195312, "text": "Denying, or even reducing, access to healthcare for smokers is impractical, and therefore an unrealistic policy goal. First, the extent to which care is denied is questionable. Does the proposition model include denying palliative care? If it does, this literally means leaving people to suffer agonising pain in emergencies while they try to locate private prescription painkillers, if they can afford them. Further, does it include denying emergency procedures such as resuscitation in the case of a heart attack? If it does, where are patients supposed to go? Private emergency rooms are few and far between, or non-existent, in many countries – never mind private ambulances. Second, in order to encourage smokers to stop smoking, the process needs to involve reactivating access to healthcare if smokers quit. But any cut-off point at which the right is re-activated will necessarily be arbitrary. Some studies have suggested that, for instance, teenagers do irreparable damage to their respiratory systems even if they stop smoking young. If all citizens make an informed decision to smoke, as the proposition argues, isn’t it the case that teenagers make an informed decision to do inordinate damage to their bodies? If it is, then why should there be an absolute cut-off point at which one reassumes healthcare rights? Should there be a relative scale? Wouldn’t this be impossible to construct on a scientific basis?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-culture-ahrtsdlgra-con02b", "score": 0.6703534126281738, "text": "Freedom of speech is evidently not an absolute right: it is not something that we consider to be inviolable and able to ‘trump’ all other rights. Note, for instance, that many countries have restrictions on freedom of speech preventing hate speech and other transgressions. We can, therefore, limit freedom of speech in instances where the benefits outweigh the harm: the benefit in this instance being the prevention of harm to individuals as a result of the art.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro01a", "score": 0.6701232194900513, "text": "The right to privacy is not absolute and is sacrificed in standing for public office A right such as that to privacy is not absolute. Rights are general statements of principle that are then caveated and curtailed in the interests of society. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role is a special one in society. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead. Leadership includes leading by example as well as simply directing policy. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. But confidence can only be developed through increased scrutiny and transparency. This means understanding the private life of the politician, since it so often informs their public life. Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is the only way true representativeness may be achieved.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro01b", "score": 0.6688523292541504, "text": "It is the mark of a civilised society that we accept the inconvenience of laws in some circumstances because we also require their protection in others. To take a trivial example we take away the choice for people to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else. Here the protection offered by a full moratorium on killing requires that we accept all of its implications. The challenge is to use medical science to make it a moot point. Proposition has therefore made a powerful argument in favour of better painkillers and more research into mentally debilitating illnesses. Many of those developments have come about as a result of the very human attributes prop is so keen to cite. Realising that they have an opportunity of future free of pain and illness, humans have found ways of delivering it. It is precisely because death can now be managed that the process of self-imposed triage prop suggests is increasingly unnecessary; a fact to be applauded, not discarded", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro01b", "score": 0.6668994426727295, "text": "People suffer unfortunate deaths on a daily basis. The fact that people die in accidents does not necessarily mean that their right to life has been violated. Therefore, if one lets the train run its course five people will suffer an unfortunate accident. The real violation of rights in this situation is the action of changing the course of the train. The single person on the track is in no immediate danger. However, by changing the course of the train one is actively participating in the removal of that person’s life. If we believe that a person has the right not to be murdered then pulling the lever is a violation of that right.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-con04b", "score": 0.6642325520515442, "text": "Human rights are as much aspirational as they are fact. When the universal declaration of human rights came out the majority of people in the world did not have “the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” [1] Having the internet as a human right will increase access as it makes it more difficult for governments to deny access and increases the priority to provide access. [2] [1] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, Article 21. [2] Wagner, Adam, ‘Is internet access a human right?’, Guardian Legal Network, 11 January 2012.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro01b", "score": 0.6640650629997253, "text": "Even if one concedes that such rights are not entirely sacrosanct, it is important to recognise that rights should apply universally and should still be defended. The right to privacy is also important, and must include politicians who, while fulfilling an important societal role, are not so special as to merit significant curtailment of rights. So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them in a legislative framework, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people, leaving no room for any nebulous additional right of citizens over politicians. They are elected to do a job not for their life.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-international-glhrilpws-con02b", "score": 0.6640176177024841, "text": "Although there are some subjective elements of rights, there is generally a consensus amongst most people that fundamental human rights, such as being alive, are universally good. Although we should not impede sovereignty for subjective things, genocide, ethnic cleansing and other systematic abuses of human rights are things that are universal and thus should be protected for all people around the world.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro02b", "score": 0.7708047032356262, "text": "This is misleading - in partial-birth abortion, as the term suggests, the foetus is not fully born when it is killed: the purpose of collapsing the skull is to allow the foetus’ head to pass more easily through the birth canal. At no point in the process is a live foetus entirely outside the womb, so legal personhood is never an issue." } ]

[ { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con03b", "score": 0.7202507853507996, "text": "Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they: a) are not lives, are not human until fairly late b) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro01b", "score": 0.719217836856842, "text": "Nobody would choose to have a partial-birth abortion over a much simpler abortion in the first trimester. Partial-birth abortions are either medically or psychologically necessary. If a young mother either does not find out she is pregnant or is too scared to tell anyone, if a woman is raped and decides at any stage that she does not want the baby, if a woman is threatening suicide if she is forced to carry a baby to term, we should not make her suffer further by forbidding her from ending the pregnancy. For all sorts of reasons, many women do not seek any kind of medical help until late in their pregnancy - this should not mean they forfeit their right to an abortion. In any case, if abortion is allowed at all, and given that the foetus is not recognised in law as a human being, it should be nobody’s business but the mother’s whether and at what stage she chooses to have an abortion.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-pro03b", "score": 0.716667652130127, "text": "Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable. That life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1) 1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, , accessed 05/24/2011", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con03a", "score": 0.7117946147918701, "text": "Legalizing abortion defies the principle of life affirmation Every life presents an inherent value to society. Every individual has the potential to contribute in one way or another, and taking the child's life before it has even had a chance to experience and contribute to the world undermines that potential. Even more, the underlying philosophical claim behind abortion is that not every life is equally valued and if a life is 'unwanted' or 'accidental' it is not worth enough to live. That kind of thinking goes directly against the life-affirming policies and philosophies of most countries, and peoples themselves.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con01b", "score": 0.7037014961242676, "text": "Allowing partial-birth abortion is utterly inconsistent with the growing, and legally recognised, respect for foetal rights in the United States. If a man can sue the mother of his child for taking drugs during pregnancy which discolour their child’s teeth, if pregnant women can be banned from the smoking sections of restaurants, what sense does it make to allow exactly the same foetuses to have their skulls deliberately crushed?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro03a", "score": 0.6982737183570862, "text": "Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption Tragically, some babies are unwanted, but this does not mean that we should kill them. There are plenty of other options, notably adoption. If anything, the case for adoption is more compelling in the third trimester, because the pregnancy is nearer to its natural end and there is less time, only about ten weeks, for the mother to have to put up with it. [1] Unwanted pregnancy and adoption may be psychologically harmful, but in many cases so is abortion, particularly at a late stage of pregnancy when the mother can see that the dead foetus is recognisably a baby - the guilt feelings associated with feeling that one is responsible for murdering a child can be unbearable. [1] Bupa, ‘Stages of pregnancy’, April 2010,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con02b", "score": 0.6900972723960876, "text": "In 2006 already Baroness Ruth Deech, the former chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK explained, that it is far more ethical to choose an embryo before implantation, than getting pregnant, deciding there’s something wrong with the baby and then aborting it. Mainly it is the duty to impose the right restrictions that would enable a distinction on what is necessary for a normal lifestyle and where to draw the line for genetic predispositions (so for example to not abort or not implant babies with genes for obesity). Also it is in the human nature to abort fetuses from the uterus if they are not healthy, it is a help to the natural process. Because during every cycle of a sexually active female fertilized eggs if not found to be healthy enough to survive get aborted naturally (1). 1. Head to head: Genetic screening, 05/10/2006, , accessed 05/23/2011", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-con03a", "score": 0.6883827447891235, "text": "The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives. Dr. Mark Hughes, who helped pioneer the procedure, intended it to be used to prevent disease and 'your gender is not a disease, last time I checked. There's no suffering. There's no illness. And I don't think doctors have any business being there' 1.Furthermore, In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. These new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer a specific gender. 1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News:", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro03b", "score": 0.6877646446228027, "text": "Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1%1 of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion. 1 L.B Finner et al", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con02a", "score": 0.683458149433136, "text": "Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general Partial-birth abortions form a tiny proportion of all abortions, but from a medical and psychological point of view they ought to be the least controversial. The reason for this focus is that late-term abortions are the most obviously distasteful, because late-term foetuses look more like babies than embryos or foetuses at an earlier developmental stage. Late-term abortions therefore make for the best pro-life campaigning material. By attempting to focus the debate here, campaigners are aiming to conflate all abortions with late-term abortions, and to increase opposition to all abortion on that basis.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro02b", "score": 0.6819173693656921, "text": "Excluding cases of rape, the woman exercises any right to choose in causing conception initially. Afterward, even if a woman has a right to her body and to \"choice\", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro02a", "score": 0.6688345074653625, "text": "Women have a right to choose Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con01a", "score": 0.6672368049621582, "text": "Genetic screening may lead the marginalisation of those living with genetic disorders Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable. That life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1) 1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, , accessed 05/24/2011", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01b", "score": 0.6584460139274597, "text": "The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident. By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered. When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right. Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others. Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty? If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con02b", "score": 0.6562709212303162, "text": "The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro01a", "score": 0.6537902355194092, "text": "The foetus feels pain Partial-birth abortion is disgusting. Like all abortions, it involves the killing of an unborn child, but unlike first trimester abortions there is no doubt that the foetus can feel pain by the third trimester. [1] The procedure involves sticking a pair of scissors into a baby’s brain, enlarging the hole, sucking the brain out with a catheter and then crushing the skull. It is entirely unacceptable to do this to a living human being. Psychological damage to the mother as a result of rape or teenage pregnancy or depression is in the end less significant than the physical damage - death - caused to the child. [1] Lee, Susan J., et al., ‘Fetal Pain, A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 294 (8), 2005,", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01b", "score": 0.6537072062492371, "text": "Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con03a", "score": 0.6523012518882751, "text": "Intuitively, it is possible to understand that participating in a decision to kill is a priori wrong While simply consulting our moral intuitions case-by-case is not always reliable (indeed many people have contradictory moral intuitions), certain moral intuitions are needed in order to morally theorize. If a moral theory was impeccably well thought out, but prescribed actions completely at odds with our moral intuitions (such as advocating indiscriminate assault and robbery), then we would rightly dismiss it out of hand. When it comes to killing, our intuition prohibiting it is foundational and widely held.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro04b", "score": 0.6495341062545776, "text": "What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the grounds that he deems that life as not worth living? This arrogant and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would be regarded as the watershed between life and termination? All civilized countries roundly condemn the practice of eugenics.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro03b", "score": 0.6492981314659119, "text": "Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro01b", "score": 0.7374362349510193, "text": "Nobody would choose to have a partial-birth abortion over a much simpler abortion in the first trimester. Partial-birth abortions are either medically or psychologically necessary. If a young mother either does not find out she is pregnant or is too scared to tell anyone, if a woman is raped and decides at any stage that she does not want the baby, if a woman is threatening suicide if she is forced to carry a baby to term, we should not make her suffer further by forbidding her from ending the pregnancy. For all sorts of reasons, many women do not seek any kind of medical help until late in their pregnancy - this should not mean they forfeit their right to an abortion. In any case, if abortion is allowed at all, and given that the foetus is not recognised in law as a human being, it should be nobody’s business but the mother’s whether and at what stage she chooses to have an abortion." } ]

[ { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con04a", "score": 0.6899725198745728, "text": "A fetus is a life from conception, therefore abortion is murder It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the ability to feel and think and be conscious of its own existence. The unborn child will have every ability, and every opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him or her the opportunity. The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once, when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which to hide: In the UK, the restriction was moved from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990, due to scientific discoveries.1 Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are \"conceived\" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder. Ronald Reagan was quoted in the New York Times on September 22, 1980 saying: \"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.\" in the 1980 presidential debate.2 1 THE TELEGRAPH", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro03a", "score": 0.688061535358429, "text": "Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption Tragically, some babies are unwanted, but this does not mean that we should kill them. There are plenty of other options, notably adoption. If anything, the case for adoption is more compelling in the third trimester, because the pregnancy is nearer to its natural end and there is less time, only about ten weeks, for the mother to have to put up with it. [1] Unwanted pregnancy and adoption may be psychologically harmful, but in many cases so is abortion, particularly at a late stage of pregnancy when the mother can see that the dead foetus is recognisably a baby - the guilt feelings associated with feeling that one is responsible for murdering a child can be unbearable. [1] Bupa, ‘Stages of pregnancy’, April 2010,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro01b", "score": 0.6763149499893188, "text": "The evidence as to the amount of pain an animal feels is by no means clear. Many of the studies showing the animals suffer have been criticized for not carrying out the slaughter in the way prescribed by religious law. Moreover, other studies claim that cutting the throat in this way stops blood flow to the brain so rapidly that it has the same effect as a stun. Despite all the evidence that religious slaughter does cause pain, the opposition to this remains scientifically credible, and so we can’t base a government policy on one or the other.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con03a", "score": 0.6623267531394958, "text": "Partial birth abortions are safer than any available alternative The D&X abortion procedure generates the minimum of risk for the mother. Banning it means that the only alternatives are premature labour induction for which mortality rates are 2.5 times higher and is emotionally very difficult due to the length of time it takes [1] (it is also likely to be unacceptable to the proposition) and hysterotomy (which results in removal of the womb). Finally as those who are having late partial birth abortions are likely to be suicidal, or at least will be very determined to get rid of their child they are the most likely to resort to back-street methods that cause damage to themselves. [1] The Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, ‘Abortion’,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro01b", "score": 0.6576200127601624, "text": "There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Arguments from pro-life groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated. [1] If they had been treated for depression as well as pain they may not have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral. [1] Herbert Hendin, M.D., Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients, and Assisted Suicide (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998): 34-35. (accessed 4/6/2011)", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con02a", "score": 0.654867947101593, "text": "Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general Partial-birth abortions form a tiny proportion of all abortions, but from a medical and psychological point of view they ought to be the least controversial. The reason for this focus is that late-term abortions are the most obviously distasteful, because late-term foetuses look more like babies than embryos or foetuses at an earlier developmental stage. Late-term abortions therefore make for the best pro-life campaigning material. By attempting to focus the debate here, campaigners are aiming to conflate all abortions with late-term abortions, and to increase opposition to all abortion on that basis.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro02a", "score": 0.6536316275596619, "text": "If personhood accrues at birth, then abortion after inducing birth is wrong If birth is the crucial dividing-line we use to decide when legal personhood begins, then we should not be allowed to induce birth and then deliberately kill a foetus during that process - this is different from early abortion in which birth is induced and the foetus dies naturally. Partial-birth abortion is murder, even on the pro-choice understanding of personhood.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-con03b", "score": 0.6506654620170593, "text": "It is possible to perform this operation at any time during a person’s life and there is no compelling need to perform it on extremely young children. Doing so violates the child’s right to be free from pain. Indeed the deliberate and unnecessary infliction of pain on a minor in any other circumstance would be considered abusive, it is clearly illogical not to consider it so in this instance. The only reason why circumcision is not considered abusive is that it is so commonplace. However, only a couple of generations ago (and to this day in many nations) so was the routine use of physical punishment in schools, which many now consider abusive and repugnant.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro01a", "score": 0.6480296850204468, "text": "Slaughter without stunning is painful for the animal Slaughter without stunning is painful for the animal. All slaughter methods which do not involve stunning work by bleeding the animal so that it suffers brain-death. This is normally done by cutting the neck. Depending on the species of animal, it can survive for anything between 20 seconds and 2 minutes after this. Although animals can’t tell us if they are in pain, the best metrics we have – brain activity, eye movement and making sounds – indicate that the animals are in pain during this period. [1] Rendering the animal unconscious stops it feeling pain immediately. When we have two methods of killing the animal available, it is inhumane to use the more painful one. It follows that we should require stunning. [1] Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, ‘Slaughter of animals without prior stunning’, FVE Position Paper, FVE/02/104, 2002,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-pro03b", "score": 0.6417034864425659, "text": "Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable. That life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1) 1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, , accessed 05/24/2011", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-law-lgplhbssbco-con03b", "score": 0.6369566321372986, "text": "The fact of suffering is what makes it impossible to consider suicide a legitimate choice. Someone under the duress of intense pain and/or discomfort is not going to be able to make a fully voluntary and informed choice to end their life.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro03b", "score": 0.6356552839279175, "text": "Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1%1 of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion. 1 L.B Finner et al", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro03b", "score": 0.6320637464523315, "text": "Arguing that adoption is a good option shows a fundamental lack of awareness of what is involved in carrying an unwanted foetus to term. Pregnancy can be stressful at the best of times; being forced to carry an unwanted child against your will is enormously traumatic, and can cause permanent psychological harm, as can the knowledge that your own unwanted child is growing up elsewhere and may one day return to find you. If a mother chooses to carry a foetus to term and then give it up for adoption, that’s fine, but nobody should force her to do so.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro02a", "score": 0.6315240263938904, "text": "Women have a right to choose Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro04b", "score": 0.6295018792152405, "text": "Even if animals are able categorize images in photographs and learn sign language, they are still phenomenally less intelligent than human beings. They will never study philosophy or perform brain surgery or even invent a wheel. Furthermore, intelligence does not prove the ability to self-actualise. Mourning others does not prove that animals value their own lives. Perhaps it implies that animals enjoy company but whether they consider the value of their companion's life and their future potential is questionable. Without the ability to value one's own life, life itself ceases to be intrinsically valuable. The farming of animals does involve death but it is difficult to prove that death is intrinsically a harmful thing. Pain is certainly a harm for the living but animals are farmed are killed very quickly and they are stunned beforehand. Animals on farms do not know that they will be killed so there is no emotional harm caused by the anticipation of death. There is no evidence that the painless killing of animals should carry any moral weight.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-pro02b", "score": 0.6291494965553284, "text": "The case given is quite different. The parents directly acted to cause harm to their child, inflicting a series of violent beatings over a sustained period. Such a course of action is already illegal and they were rightly convicted and punished. In this instance, a course of action is being avoided with the best interest of the child uppermost in the minds of the parents.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro02b", "score": 0.6272897124290466, "text": "Excluding cases of rape, the woman exercises any right to choose in causing conception initially. Afterward, even if a woman has a right to her body and to \"choice\", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-society-gfhbcimrst-pro04b", "score": 0.6263026595115662, "text": "We do not disagree that abortion is a generally undesirable thing. Even those who believe that abortion is ethical feel it would be preferable not to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. It may be very distressing for mothers if they have not made an autonomous choice to go through with the abortion but the proposition is wrong to assume that they have not. Cultural biases towards male children are often internalised by women. It makes sense that both mothers and fathers would be concerned about who will care for them in old age – not just men. Men and women from the same socio-economic and cultural background are also likely to have similar ethical views and therefore are unlikely to disagree on their ethical standpoint on abortion. Therefore, it is not the case that women suffer because they are forced or coerced into abortions. Furthermore, this is not a problem exclusive to gender selective abortion. Whilst there is a greater prevalence of abortions of female babies, there are a lot of abortions of male babies as well. Assuming that abortion does cause women a lot of distress, this harm will not be removed by encouraging parents to have girls because they will continue to abort male foetuses. The solution for this problem is to educate people about alternative methods of contraception so that unwanted pregnancies do not occur and also to empower women in their marital relationships by encouraging them to have their own income and so on. This can be better targeted by self-help women’s groups and the like.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con03b", "score": 0.6239295601844788, "text": "Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they: a) are not lives, are not human until fairly late b) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro04a", "score": 0.6235432028770447, "text": "There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus. Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1 1 PRO-Life Information", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro03b", "score": 0.7626652717590332, "text": "Arguing that adoption is a good option shows a fundamental lack of awareness of what is involved in carrying an unwanted foetus to term. Pregnancy can be stressful at the best of times; being forced to carry an unwanted child against your will is enormously traumatic, and can cause permanent psychological harm, as can the knowledge that your own unwanted child is growing up elsewhere and may one day return to find you. If a mother chooses to carry a foetus to term and then give it up for adoption, that’s fine, but nobody should force her to do so." } ]

[ { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con04b", "score": 0.7072080373764038, "text": "Are we really talking about a 'life?' At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own 'existence,' really commensurable with the killing of a 'person?' There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly 'human' life is. A foetus is not a life until it fulfils certain criteria. Before 24 weeks, a foetus does not feel pain, is not conscious of itself or its surroundings. Until a fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be called a life, any more than the acorn can be called a tree.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con01b", "score": 0.7053638100624084, "text": "Women do not \"want\" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to \"kill babies\" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con04a", "score": 0.6986993551254272, "text": "A fetus is a life from conception, therefore abortion is murder It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the ability to feel and think and be conscious of its own existence. The unborn child will have every ability, and every opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him or her the opportunity. The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once, when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which to hide: In the UK, the restriction was moved from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990, due to scientific discoveries.1 Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are \"conceived\" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder. Ronald Reagan was quoted in the New York Times on September 22, 1980 saying: \"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.\" in the 1980 presidential debate.2 1 THE TELEGRAPH", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro02a", "score": 0.6982739567756653, "text": "If personhood accrues at birth, then abortion after inducing birth is wrong If birth is the crucial dividing-line we use to decide when legal personhood begins, then we should not be allowed to induce birth and then deliberately kill a foetus during that process - this is different from early abortion in which birth is induced and the foetus dies naturally. Partial-birth abortion is murder, even on the pro-choice understanding of personhood.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro02a", "score": 0.6905800700187683, "text": "Women have a right to choose Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con02b", "score": 0.6888410449028015, "text": "In 2006 already Baroness Ruth Deech, the former chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK explained, that it is far more ethical to choose an embryo before implantation, than getting pregnant, deciding there’s something wrong with the baby and then aborting it. Mainly it is the duty to impose the right restrictions that would enable a distinction on what is necessary for a normal lifestyle and where to draw the line for genetic predispositions (so for example to not abort or not implant babies with genes for obesity). Also it is in the human nature to abort fetuses from the uterus if they are not healthy, it is a help to the natural process. Because during every cycle of a sexually active female fertilized eggs if not found to be healthy enough to survive get aborted naturally (1). 1. Head to head: Genetic screening, 05/10/2006, , accessed 05/23/2011", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro01a", "score": 0.6875633001327515, "text": "The foetus feels pain Partial-birth abortion is disgusting. Like all abortions, it involves the killing of an unborn child, but unlike first trimester abortions there is no doubt that the foetus can feel pain by the third trimester. [1] The procedure involves sticking a pair of scissors into a baby’s brain, enlarging the hole, sucking the brain out with a catheter and then crushing the skull. It is entirely unacceptable to do this to a living human being. Psychological damage to the mother as a result of rape or teenage pregnancy or depression is in the end less significant than the physical damage - death - caused to the child. [1] Lee, Susan J., et al., ‘Fetal Pain, A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 294 (8), 2005,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-pro03b", "score": 0.6870805025100708, "text": "Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable. That life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1) 1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, , accessed 05/24/2011", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con02a", "score": 0.6846068501472473, "text": "Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general Partial-birth abortions form a tiny proportion of all abortions, but from a medical and psychological point of view they ought to be the least controversial. The reason for this focus is that late-term abortions are the most obviously distasteful, because late-term foetuses look more like babies than embryos or foetuses at an earlier developmental stage. Late-term abortions therefore make for the best pro-life campaigning material. By attempting to focus the debate here, campaigners are aiming to conflate all abortions with late-term abortions, and to increase opposition to all abortion on that basis.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "validation-society-gfhbcimrst-pro04b", "score": 0.6831331253051758, "text": "We do not disagree that abortion is a generally undesirable thing. Even those who believe that abortion is ethical feel it would be preferable not to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. It may be very distressing for mothers if they have not made an autonomous choice to go through with the abortion but the proposition is wrong to assume that they have not. Cultural biases towards male children are often internalised by women. It makes sense that both mothers and fathers would be concerned about who will care for them in old age – not just men. Men and women from the same socio-economic and cultural background are also likely to have similar ethical views and therefore are unlikely to disagree on their ethical standpoint on abortion. Therefore, it is not the case that women suffer because they are forced or coerced into abortions. Furthermore, this is not a problem exclusive to gender selective abortion. Whilst there is a greater prevalence of abortions of female babies, there are a lot of abortions of male babies as well. Assuming that abortion does cause women a lot of distress, this harm will not be removed by encouraging parents to have girls because they will continue to abort male foetuses. The solution for this problem is to educate people about alternative methods of contraception so that unwanted pregnancies do not occur and also to empower women in their marital relationships by encouraging them to have their own income and so on. This can be better targeted by self-help women’s groups and the like.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con02b", "score": 0.6826084852218628, "text": "Although many people who are against partial-birth abortion are against abortion in general, there is no necessary link, as partial-birth abortion is a particularly horrifying form of abortion. This is for the reasons already explained: it involves a deliberate, murderous physical assault on a half-born baby, whom we know for certain will feel pain and suffer as a result. We accept that there is some legitimate medical debate about whether embryos and earlier foetuses feel pain; there is no such debate in this case, and this is why partial-birth abortion is uniquely horrific, and uniquely unjustifiable.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con02b", "score": 0.6800852417945862, "text": "The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro04a", "score": 0.6763333678245544, "text": "There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus. Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1 1 PRO-Life Information", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con03a", "score": 0.666519045829773, "text": "Partial birth abortions are safer than any available alternative The D&X abortion procedure generates the minimum of risk for the mother. Banning it means that the only alternatives are premature labour induction for which mortality rates are 2.5 times higher and is emotionally very difficult due to the length of time it takes [1] (it is also likely to be unacceptable to the proposition) and hysterotomy (which results in removal of the womb). Finally as those who are having late partial birth abortions are likely to be suicidal, or at least will be very determined to get rid of their child they are the most likely to resort to back-street methods that cause damage to themselves. [1] The Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, ‘Abortion’,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-con03a", "score": 0.6657888889312744, "text": "Any body of values that claims to respect the rights of the individual must recognise the right of a woman to choose Even the doctrines of the Church accepts that pregnancy is not, in and of itself, a virtue – there is no compulsion to maximise the number of pregnancies; there is simply a disagreement about how they should be avoided. The Church recommends that couples may minimise the chance without ever making it impossible through a chemical or physical barrier. In some parts of the world a pregnancy, even one that is not planned, is seen as a time for joy – a blessing for the family that will lead to a new and happy life bringing pleasure to both parents, their society and the child. That ideal is very far from the experience of much of the world where a child is another mouth to feed on impossibly little income. For all too much of the world, that life will be cruel, nasty and short. In slums, favellas and barren wastes that life is likely to be one marked more by dysentery or diarrhea, malnutrition and misery than by the sanitised, idealised image promoted in the West. That is, of course, not to say that children everywhere cannot be a cause for joy, of course they can. Indeed even within the poorest of situations, a new child can be the focus of great joy in an otherwise hard life. However, if that is to be the case, that child must be planned and prepared for. Overwhelmingly, the mother is likely to have paramount responsibility for the child; so that planning and preparation needs to be theirs. It is difficult to imagine the scenario that would reach the objective observer to reach the conclusion that the right group of individuals to reach that decision were a group of celibate men who had never met the parents and would take to role in the care or support of the child. Yet that, astonishingly, is what Proposition would like us to believe.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con03a", "score": 0.6632481217384338, "text": "We instinctively know killing is wrong While sometimes our feelings as to what is right and what is wrong are not accurate they are needed when thinking about morality. If a theory is well argued and thought out but goes against our feelings as to what is right and wrong then we will dismiss it. Most people have the feeling that killing is wrong and so to partake in any action that leads to the death of another is also wrong.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con01a", "score": 0.6612449288368225, "text": "It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others. In terms of moral absolutes, killing people is wrong sets the bar fairly low. Pretty much all societies have accepted this as a line that cannot be crossed without the explicit and specific agreement of the state which only happens in very rare circumstances such as in times of war. There is a simple reason for a blanket ban. It allows for no caveats, no misunderstandings, no fudging of the issue, and no shades of grey. Again, the reason for this approach is equally simple; anything other than such a clear cut approach will inevitably be abused [i] . As things stand guilt in the case of murder is determined entirely on the basis that it is proven that someone took another life. Their reasons for doing so may be reflected in sentencing but the court is not required to consider whether someone was justified in killing another. It is in the nature of a court case that it happens after the event and nobody other than the murderer and the deceased know what actually took place between them. If we take shaken baby syndrome cases as an example the parent still loves the child, they have acted in the madness of a moment out of frustration. It’s still murder. Supporting a dying relative can be no less frustrating but killing them would still be murder, even where that comes after a prolonged period of coercion to fill in forms and achieve the appearance of consent. It would, however, be very hard to prove. At least with a baby we can assume consent was not given, that would not be the case here. [i] Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman. ‘Second Thoughts’ Grow on Assisted Suicide. The Wall Street Journal. 5 August 2012.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro03b", "score": 0.6611570715904236, "text": "Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1%1 of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion. 1 L.B Finner et al", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro02b", "score": 0.6598535776138306, "text": "This is misleading - in partial-birth abortion, as the term suggests, the foetus is not fully born when it is killed: the purpose of collapsing the skull is to allow the foetus’ head to pass more easily through the birth canal. At no point in the process is a live foetus entirely outside the womb, so legal personhood is never an issue.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-society-gfhbhsbaa-pro03b", "score": 0.6554178595542908, "text": "States place many restrictions on adoptions. China, for example, does not permit adoptions by couples who are too old, have disabilities or are obese1. It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with being overweight, old, or disabled. But the Chinese authorities are trying to decrease the likelihood of the adopted child losing a parent before the age of 18, which for these kids can be especially traumatic. If the parents being gay can be shown to be inherently harmful or less desirable for a child than straight parents, then such a ban would not constitute discrimination. It would be a decision based on a relevant and valid criterion. 1 Belkin, Lisa. \"An End to Gay-Adoption Bans?\". New York Times. 28 July 2010 .(accessed 2 August 2011)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro04b", "score": 0.8217020630836487, "text": "These opinion polls are misleading, as they force respondents to choose between an outright ban and no control at all – it is impossible for them to register support for partial-birth abortion in cases where the mother’s physical or psychological health is in danger. A majority of Americans are still in favour of the right to abortion. More importantly, this should not be the business of the general public or of legislators. Nobody who would prefer not to have a partial-birth abortion will be made to have one. Most people who want it banned will never face a situation where it directly affects them in any case. We should leave decisions up to the people who are directly affected by them - not to outsiders, who are free to express their opinion but not to impose it on everyone else. This is a campaign promise George Bush should not keep." } ]

[ { "id": "test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-con01b", "score": 0.7198752760887146, "text": "Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support [i] . It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result [ii] . The values for the respect for the life of the mother, the value of life of the child, respect for the opinions of the majority, respect for democracy and placing the future of individuals and society above the outdated mythology of the Church would seem to be alive and well in the decision to pass this bill. [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘Culture Wars: After a decade of debate, the Philippines passes Reproductive Health Bill’, Time, 17 December 2012. [ii] Ibid.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-con01a", "score": 0.6915538907051086, "text": "This is a victory for democracy – a precious Filipino value - clear majorities in both houses and in the wider public support it Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support [i] . It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result [ii] . The values for the respect for the life of the mother, the value of life of the child, respect for the opinions of the majority, respect for democracy and placing the future of individuals and society above the outdated mythology of the Church would seem to be alive and well in the decision to pass this bill. [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘Culture Wars: After a decade of debate, the Philippines passes Reproductive Health Bill’, Time, 17 December 2012. [ii] Ibid.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con01b", "score": 0.6865384578704834, "text": "Allowing partial-birth abortion is utterly inconsistent with the growing, and legally recognised, respect for foetal rights in the United States. If a man can sue the mother of his child for taking drugs during pregnancy which discolour their child’s teeth, if pregnant women can be banned from the smoking sections of restaurants, what sense does it make to allow exactly the same foetuses to have their skulls deliberately crushed?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-international-ssiarcmhb-con01b", "score": 0.6837101578712463, "text": "The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The opposition makes no mention of the huge numbers of Catholics who actually support the Church's decision to forbid barrier contraception. There is by no means a clear majority either way. Even if there was a clear majority of Catholics in favour of barrier contraception, the Church is under no obligation to change its official stances or any part of the way it works based on the opinions of members of the Church. The Church is founded on the basis that it is doing God's bidding and changing its working based on the demand of the people would undermine that.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro01b", "score": 0.6697097420692444, "text": "Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle. Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here. As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-politics-pgglgvhciu-pro04b", "score": 0.6625053286552429, "text": "If none of the parties support a policy it is probably because it has no significant support among the people! Much of modern politics is reactive; policies are tested by focus groups and carefully crafted to appeal to as many potential voters as possible. People may tell pollsters that they favour a particular policy (such as the reinstatement of the death penalty in the example from the Proposition side), but that does not necessarily mean that there is a grounds well of support for changing the law.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con02b", "score": 0.6505366563796997, "text": "Although many people who are against partial-birth abortion are against abortion in general, there is no necessary link, as partial-birth abortion is a particularly horrifying form of abortion. This is for the reasons already explained: it involves a deliberate, murderous physical assault on a half-born baby, whom we know for certain will feel pain and suffer as a result. We accept that there is some legitimate medical debate about whether embryos and earlier foetuses feel pain; there is no such debate in this case, and this is why partial-birth abortion is uniquely horrific, and uniquely unjustifiable.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con02a", "score": 0.6490825414657593, "text": "Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general Partial-birth abortions form a tiny proportion of all abortions, but from a medical and psychological point of view they ought to be the least controversial. The reason for this focus is that late-term abortions are the most obviously distasteful, because late-term foetuses look more like babies than embryos or foetuses at an earlier developmental stage. Late-term abortions therefore make for the best pro-life campaigning material. By attempting to focus the debate here, campaigners are aiming to conflate all abortions with late-term abortions, and to increase opposition to all abortion on that basis.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-international-amehbuaisji-pro03b", "score": 0.6470637321472168, "text": "Just because there is widespread public support for a thing or measure does not mean that it should automatically be the case. The issue should be debated on its own merits, rather than resting on a potentially ill-informed public. Ratification of treaties is left to congress and the Knesset to ensure that their consequences are properly considered.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro01b", "score": 0.6467500925064087, "text": "Nobody would choose to have a partial-birth abortion over a much simpler abortion in the first trimester. Partial-birth abortions are either medically or psychologically necessary. If a young mother either does not find out she is pregnant or is too scared to tell anyone, if a woman is raped and decides at any stage that she does not want the baby, if a woman is threatening suicide if she is forced to carry a baby to term, we should not make her suffer further by forbidding her from ending the pregnancy. For all sorts of reasons, many women do not seek any kind of medical help until late in their pregnancy - this should not mean they forfeit their right to an abortion. In any case, if abortion is allowed at all, and given that the foetus is not recognised in law as a human being, it should be nobody’s business but the mother’s whether and at what stage she chooses to have an abortion.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-pro04b", "score": 0.6439733505249023, "text": "Popular support is not reason enough to deny people their constitutionally protected rights. The framers of the Constitution were wary of popular opinion, having a justifiable fear that the majority might try to circumscribe the rights of the minority. This is why there are so many check and balances within the Constitution and is exactly why the Supreme Court has defended citizens' right to expression irrespective of the will of the legislature or of the majority of people to enforce their views upon a minority. Popular opinion should not concern fundamental rights.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-society-gfhbhsbaa-pro02a", "score": 0.641964316368103, "text": "There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion. The overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society. 1 Carey, Benedict. \"Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue\". New York Times. 29 January 2005. (accessed 2 August 2011). 2 Wikipeida. \"LGBT adoption status around the world\" .(accessed 2 August 2011). 3 Foster Care 1999 Statistics. Adoption.com .(accessed 2 August 2011).", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-con01b", "score": 0.6401322484016418, "text": "In some countries, compliance rates have actually been high, proving that it is not a problem with the idea of having a ban but with the authorities themselves in different countries. In Scotland, for example, reports from 3 months after their smoking ban was introduced showed that about 99% of premises were following the law properly1. This shows that the opposition should not use the fact that a smoking ban might be difficult to enforce in some places in the initial stages of the law change as a reason not to introduce such a ban in the first place. Lots of laws are difficult to enforce, but still necessary in order to protect people. 1 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', The Scottish Government, 26 June 2006,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro01a", "score": 0.6362452507019043, "text": "There are practical problems with banning abortion Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman's right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their fetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The middle way of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. The demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk.1 Example: Polish women, living in a country with extremely restrictive abortion laws often go abroad to the Netherlands, Germany and Austria for abortions.2 Women who are not lucky enough to live in environments such as the EU may be forced to go to foreign countries and undergo underground, unsafe abortions. 1 WARSAW BUSINNES JOURNAL", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-con03a", "score": 0.6348270177841187, "text": "Parents have the right to use their best judgment, in the light of medical advice, as to what is in the best interest of their child There is compelling evidence that shortly after birth is the best time to perform this operation and that the rate of complications at this age is generally agreed to be between 0.2 and 0.4 percent. When performed later in life the risk of complications increases ten-fold to between two and four percent. In the light of this it is appropriate to recognize the rights of parents to approve a procedure that would be riskier if elected later in life on behalf of their child [i] . [i] Michael Benatar. \"How Not to Argue About Circumcision\". The American Journal of Bioethics. 2003", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-international-ahwdsac-pro05b", "score": 0.6321555376052856, "text": "The people who care most about the Cuban question thoroughly oppose dropping sanctions. The Mid-Western Republicans who voted to drop the travel ban are no less blinkered than the Cuban Americans who vote to keep it. Opinion on sanctions wavers; the separation of powers is specifically in place to allow the White House to maintain a stable policy on issues of national security rather than responding to every change in public opinion. It would not be right for the United States to change its foreign policy when the population is apathetic and has very little opinion on an issue.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-politics-pgglgvhciu-con04a", "score": 0.6309084892272949, "text": "Referendums are very artificial. The results are often strongly influenced by factors unrelated to the proposal on the ballot, such as; the timing of the referendum (controlled by the government); the point in the electoral cycle; media coverage of the issues, which may be biased or irresponsible; and the amount of money spent on advertising by each side. For example, in the 2005 referendum held by France on the European Union Constitution, the Yes lobby was supported by the majority of the political establishment and almost all the media, and outspent the No campaign by a significant margin. Opponents argued that the referendum was not conducted on a level playing field. [1] [1] Wyatt, Caroline. “French media in referendum ‘bias’ row”. BBC News, 21st May 2005.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-society-gfhbhsbaa-con03b", "score": 0.6302652359008789, "text": "Even if it were true, that the ideal environment for a child is a mother and father, which studies show it isn't, that still wouldn't justify a flat-out ban. Most governments still allow single people to apply for adoption, and even single gay people1. That is because there won't be an 'ideal' family available for every child who needs a home. So other options should be considered. After all, a child is better off with 'non-ideal' parents than with no parents at all. With adoptions, there is generally great demand for babies and toddlers, but older children are generally unwanted2 and end up in foster care until they're 18. Proposition fails to tell us what studies they are referring to which does leave the question open whether these studies have taken into account other factors such as whether or not the biological parents were drug users. The heritage left by the biological parents needs to be remembered. 1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011) 2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-society-iasihbmubf-pro04b", "score": 0.6255297064781189, "text": "Just because something is a law does not mean that it is justified or morally correct. There have been many bad and unjustified laws on the books of the legal codes of many countries. Any means of carrying out the ends of a just law that will have terrible impacts are themselves also unjustified. When there are hundreds of people who have died in attempts to cross deserts or dangerous terrain to go around the fence in order to find gainful employment, that is a good indication that a policy is failing.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-international-ehbesefe-con04b", "score": 0.6250476241111755, "text": "Previous enlargements were unpopular as well with support in the low 40s percentage points in 2001 however this rapidly increased to above 50% as enlargement approached before falling back, possibly as a result of media attention towards the possible negative consequences such as immigration. [1] Therefore basing policy on public opinion years, possibly decades before a country would actually be joining the EU is not helpful as opinion is fickle and could easily change in the intervening period. Moreover public opinion is likely to be based upon prejudices, for example with Turkey opposition is based on it being a Muslim country but this ignores that Turkey is in fact secular with an Islamic culture in a similar way to France being a secular state with a Christian culture. [1] Antonia M. Ruiz-Jiménez, José I. Torreblanca, ‘Is there a trade-off between deepening and widening? What do Europeans think?’, European Policy Institutes Network, Working Paper No.17 April 2008, p.3", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con02b", "score": 0.8159733414649963, "text": "Although many people who are against partial-birth abortion are against abortion in general, there is no necessary link, as partial-birth abortion is a particularly horrifying form of abortion. This is for the reasons already explained: it involves a deliberate, murderous physical assault on a half-born baby, whom we know for certain will feel pain and suffer as a result. We accept that there is some legitimate medical debate about whether embryos and earlier foetuses feel pain; there is no such debate in this case, and this is why partial-birth abortion is uniquely horrific, and uniquely unjustifiable." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro01b", "score": 0.7485179901123047, "text": "Nobody would choose to have a partial-birth abortion over a much simpler abortion in the first trimester. Partial-birth abortions are either medically or psychologically necessary. If a young mother either does not find out she is pregnant or is too scared to tell anyone, if a woman is raped and decides at any stage that she does not want the baby, if a woman is threatening suicide if she is forced to carry a baby to term, we should not make her suffer further by forbidding her from ending the pregnancy. For all sorts of reasons, many women do not seek any kind of medical help until late in their pregnancy - this should not mean they forfeit their right to an abortion. In any case, if abortion is allowed at all, and given that the foetus is not recognised in law as a human being, it should be nobody’s business but the mother’s whether and at what stage she chooses to have an abortion.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con01b", "score": 0.7277026176452637, "text": "Allowing partial-birth abortion is utterly inconsistent with the growing, and legally recognised, respect for foetal rights in the United States. If a man can sue the mother of his child for taking drugs during pregnancy which discolour their child’s teeth, if pregnant women can be banned from the smoking sections of restaurants, what sense does it make to allow exactly the same foetuses to have their skulls deliberately crushed?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro02b", "score": 0.7232730388641357, "text": "This is misleading - in partial-birth abortion, as the term suggests, the foetus is not fully born when it is killed: the purpose of collapsing the skull is to allow the foetus’ head to pass more easily through the birth canal. At no point in the process is a live foetus entirely outside the womb, so legal personhood is never an issue.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro04b", "score": 0.7055750489234924, "text": "These opinion polls are misleading, as they force respondents to choose between an outright ban and no control at all – it is impossible for them to register support for partial-birth abortion in cases where the mother’s physical or psychological health is in danger. A majority of Americans are still in favour of the right to abortion. More importantly, this should not be the business of the general public or of legislators. Nobody who would prefer not to have a partial-birth abortion will be made to have one. Most people who want it banned will never face a situation where it directly affects them in any case. We should leave decisions up to the people who are directly affected by them - not to outsiders, who are free to express their opinion but not to impose it on everyone else. This is a campaign promise George Bush should not keep.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con03a", "score": 0.6942370533943176, "text": "Partial birth abortions are safer than any available alternative The D&X abortion procedure generates the minimum of risk for the mother. Banning it means that the only alternatives are premature labour induction for which mortality rates are 2.5 times higher and is emotionally very difficult due to the length of time it takes [1] (it is also likely to be unacceptable to the proposition) and hysterotomy (which results in removal of the womb). Finally as those who are having late partial birth abortions are likely to be suicidal, or at least will be very determined to get rid of their child they are the most likely to resort to back-street methods that cause damage to themselves. [1] The Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, ‘Abortion’,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con01b", "score": 0.6918191909790039, "text": "Women do not \"want\" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to \"kill babies\" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro03a", "score": 0.6840085983276367, "text": "Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption Tragically, some babies are unwanted, but this does not mean that we should kill them. There are plenty of other options, notably adoption. If anything, the case for adoption is more compelling in the third trimester, because the pregnancy is nearer to its natural end and there is less time, only about ten weeks, for the mother to have to put up with it. [1] Unwanted pregnancy and adoption may be psychologically harmful, but in many cases so is abortion, particularly at a late stage of pregnancy when the mother can see that the dead foetus is recognisably a baby - the guilt feelings associated with feeling that one is responsible for murdering a child can be unbearable. [1] Bupa, ‘Stages of pregnancy’, April 2010,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro02a", "score": 0.6832373738288879, "text": "If personhood accrues at birth, then abortion after inducing birth is wrong If birth is the crucial dividing-line we use to decide when legal personhood begins, then we should not be allowed to induce birth and then deliberately kill a foetus during that process - this is different from early abortion in which birth is induced and the foetus dies naturally. Partial-birth abortion is murder, even on the pro-choice understanding of personhood.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con02b", "score": 0.6633325815200806, "text": "The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro01a", "score": 0.6541262865066528, "text": "The foetus feels pain Partial-birth abortion is disgusting. Like all abortions, it involves the killing of an unborn child, but unlike first trimester abortions there is no doubt that the foetus can feel pain by the third trimester. [1] The procedure involves sticking a pair of scissors into a baby’s brain, enlarging the hole, sucking the brain out with a catheter and then crushing the skull. It is entirely unacceptable to do this to a living human being. Psychological damage to the mother as a result of rape or teenage pregnancy or depression is in the end less significant than the physical damage - death - caused to the child. [1] Lee, Susan J., et al., ‘Fetal Pain, A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 294 (8), 2005,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro04a", "score": 0.6497498750686646, "text": "Banning partial birth abortions is in line with popular and accepted moral standards here is a vast amount of support in the United States for a ban on partial-birth abortion. Opinion polls have shown a consistent increase in support for a ban: as high as 70% in favour to 25% against in January 2003. [1] Furthermore, in 1997 the House of Representatives voted 295-136, and the Senate 64-36, in favour of a ban. For President Clinton to veto it was undemocratic; [2] for President Bush not to pass it would have been to break a campaign promise. [1] Gallup, ‘Abortion’, 30 November 2011, [2] Craig, Larry E., ‘Clinton Claims on Partial-Birth Abortion Still Not True -- Not Even 'Legally Accurate'’, United States Senate Republican Policy Committee, 15 September 1998,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-con03a", "score": 0.649662435054779, "text": "The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives. Dr. Mark Hughes, who helped pioneer the procedure, intended it to be used to prevent disease and 'your gender is not a disease, last time I checked. There's no suffering. There's no illness. And I don't think doctors have any business being there' 1.Furthermore, In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. These new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer a specific gender. 1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News:", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-con01b", "score": 0.649115264415741, "text": "Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support [i] . It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result [ii] . The values for the respect for the life of the mother, the value of life of the child, respect for the opinions of the majority, respect for democracy and placing the future of individuals and society above the outdated mythology of the Church would seem to be alive and well in the decision to pass this bill. [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘Culture Wars: After a decade of debate, the Philippines passes Reproductive Health Bill’, Time, 17 December 2012. [ii] Ibid.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro01b", "score": 0.6482581496238708, "text": "Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle. Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here. As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con04b", "score": 0.6481333374977112, "text": "Are we really talking about a 'life?' At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own 'existence,' really commensurable with the killing of a 'person?' There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly 'human' life is. A foetus is not a life until it fulfils certain criteria. Before 24 weeks, a foetus does not feel pain, is not conscious of itself or its surroundings. Until a fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be called a life, any more than the acorn can be called a tree.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-society-gfhbcimrst-pro04b", "score": 0.6454429626464844, "text": "We do not disagree that abortion is a generally undesirable thing. Even those who believe that abortion is ethical feel it would be preferable not to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. It may be very distressing for mothers if they have not made an autonomous choice to go through with the abortion but the proposition is wrong to assume that they have not. Cultural biases towards male children are often internalised by women. It makes sense that both mothers and fathers would be concerned about who will care for them in old age – not just men. Men and women from the same socio-economic and cultural background are also likely to have similar ethical views and therefore are unlikely to disagree on their ethical standpoint on abortion. Therefore, it is not the case that women suffer because they are forced or coerced into abortions. Furthermore, this is not a problem exclusive to gender selective abortion. Whilst there is a greater prevalence of abortions of female babies, there are a lot of abortions of male babies as well. Assuming that abortion does cause women a lot of distress, this harm will not be removed by encouraging parents to have girls because they will continue to abort male foetuses. The solution for this problem is to educate people about alternative methods of contraception so that unwanted pregnancies do not occur and also to empower women in their marital relationships by encouraging them to have their own income and so on. This can be better targeted by self-help women’s groups and the like.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con03b", "score": 0.6443483829498291, "text": "Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they: a) are not lives, are not human until fairly late b) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-con03b", "score": 0.6430142521858215, "text": "It is hardly shattering the mystery of childbirth, given how common ultrasound scans are. Sharla Miller, who went through gender selection, refutes the suggesting it is like playing God, arguing 'it's just like every other procedure the medical field can do for you. When our eldest child had spina bifida, they fixed that. Were they playing God?' 1. Moreover, knowing what gender a child will be is tremendously helpful for parents in planning for the future (picking clothes, colour schemes, toys, names etc.). Why not extend that ability to plan? Moreover, in many countries and cultures gender selection happens already, usually by selective abortion or abandonment of unwanted babies. Everyone can agree that this is a terrible waste of life and potentially very dangerous for the mother concerned, and of course many people object strongly to abortion on moral grounds. The use of new technologies to allow gender selection at the start of pregnancy will reduce and hopefully eventually end the use of selective abortion. 1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News:", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con03a", "score": 0.6382062435150146, "text": "Legalizing abortion defies the principle of life affirmation Every life presents an inherent value to society. Every individual has the potential to contribute in one way or another, and taking the child's life before it has even had a chance to experience and contribute to the world undermines that potential. Even more, the underlying philosophical claim behind abortion is that not every life is equally valued and if a life is 'unwanted' or 'accidental' it is not worth enough to live. That kind of thinking goes directly against the life-affirming policies and philosophies of most countries, and peoples themselves.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-free-speech-debate-nvhbfemir-pro01b", "score": 0.6381189823150635, "text": "It is a massive over-generalisation to suggest a link between those who take offence from blasphemous or sacrilegious statements and violence [i] . Furthermore within the predicates of religious thought an offence against god has to be of a magnitude different from one against a temporal power – to question that basic fact is to question religions being religious; it’s nonsensical. Most religions claim a total, but self-supporting, basis for their concept of truth. It is all true or none of it is; it’s nonsensical to believe in an omniscient being who is only one view among many. However, contrasting those traditions with the European Enlightenment tradition – and, apparently, criticising them for not sharing its values is not only contrary but hypocritical – the basis of the offence is the conflict between the two traditions. [i] Greenboro News and Record. Anti-abortion violence negate pro-life goals. 11 October 1998.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con03b", "score": 0.7350496649742126, "text": "There is no medical consensus on this issue. Where Dilation and Extraction is performed without inducing partial birth then it has the potential to be just as safe for the mother." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con02a", "score": 0.6939852833747864, "text": "Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general Partial-birth abortions form a tiny proportion of all abortions, but from a medical and psychological point of view they ought to be the least controversial. The reason for this focus is that late-term abortions are the most obviously distasteful, because late-term foetuses look more like babies than embryos or foetuses at an earlier developmental stage. Late-term abortions therefore make for the best pro-life campaigning material. By attempting to focus the debate here, campaigners are aiming to conflate all abortions with late-term abortions, and to increase opposition to all abortion on that basis.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con02b", "score": 0.6872357130050659, "text": "Although many people who are against partial-birth abortion are against abortion in general, there is no necessary link, as partial-birth abortion is a particularly horrifying form of abortion. This is for the reasons already explained: it involves a deliberate, murderous physical assault on a half-born baby, whom we know for certain will feel pain and suffer as a result. We accept that there is some legitimate medical debate about whether embryos and earlier foetuses feel pain; there is no such debate in this case, and this is why partial-birth abortion is uniquely horrific, and uniquely unjustifiable.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro04b", "score": 0.6766282916069031, "text": "These opinion polls are misleading, as they force respondents to choose between an outright ban and no control at all – it is impossible for them to register support for partial-birth abortion in cases where the mother’s physical or psychological health is in danger. A majority of Americans are still in favour of the right to abortion. More importantly, this should not be the business of the general public or of legislators. Nobody who would prefer not to have a partial-birth abortion will be made to have one. Most people who want it banned will never face a situation where it directly affects them in any case. We should leave decisions up to the people who are directly affected by them - not to outsiders, who are free to express their opinion but not to impose it on everyone else. This is a campaign promise George Bush should not keep.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-con03a", "score": 0.6752905249595642, "text": "Parents have the right to use their best judgment, in the light of medical advice, as to what is in the best interest of their child There is compelling evidence that shortly after birth is the best time to perform this operation and that the rate of complications at this age is generally agreed to be between 0.2 and 0.4 percent. When performed later in life the risk of complications increases ten-fold to between two and four percent. In the light of this it is appropriate to recognize the rights of parents to approve a procedure that would be riskier if elected later in life on behalf of their child [i] . [i] Michael Benatar. \"How Not to Argue About Circumcision\". The American Journal of Bioethics. 2003", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro03b", "score": 0.6692919731140137, "text": "Arguing that adoption is a good option shows a fundamental lack of awareness of what is involved in carrying an unwanted foetus to term. Pregnancy can be stressful at the best of times; being forced to carry an unwanted child against your will is enormously traumatic, and can cause permanent psychological harm, as can the knowledge that your own unwanted child is growing up elsewhere and may one day return to find you. If a mother chooses to carry a foetus to term and then give it up for adoption, that’s fine, but nobody should force her to do so.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con02b", "score": 0.6691921949386597, "text": "The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro02b", "score": 0.6670325398445129, "text": "This is misleading - in partial-birth abortion, as the term suggests, the foetus is not fully born when it is killed: the purpose of collapsing the skull is to allow the foetus’ head to pass more easily through the birth canal. At no point in the process is a live foetus entirely outside the womb, so legal personhood is never an issue.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con01b", "score": 0.6659488677978516, "text": "Allowing partial-birth abortion is utterly inconsistent with the growing, and legally recognised, respect for foetal rights in the United States. If a man can sue the mother of his child for taking drugs during pregnancy which discolour their child’s teeth, if pregnant women can be banned from the smoking sections of restaurants, what sense does it make to allow exactly the same foetuses to have their skulls deliberately crushed?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro03a", "score": 0.6658170819282532, "text": "Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption Tragically, some babies are unwanted, but this does not mean that we should kill them. There are plenty of other options, notably adoption. If anything, the case for adoption is more compelling in the third trimester, because the pregnancy is nearer to its natural end and there is less time, only about ten weeks, for the mother to have to put up with it. [1] Unwanted pregnancy and adoption may be psychologically harmful, but in many cases so is abortion, particularly at a late stage of pregnancy when the mother can see that the dead foetus is recognisably a baby - the guilt feelings associated with feeling that one is responsible for murdering a child can be unbearable. [1] Bupa, ‘Stages of pregnancy’, April 2010,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-con03a", "score": 0.6655313968658447, "text": "The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives. Dr. Mark Hughes, who helped pioneer the procedure, intended it to be used to prevent disease and 'your gender is not a disease, last time I checked. There's no suffering. There's no illness. And I don't think doctors have any business being there' 1.Furthermore, In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. These new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer a specific gender. 1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News:", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con02b", "score": 0.6623644232749939, "text": "In 2006 already Baroness Ruth Deech, the former chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK explained, that it is far more ethical to choose an embryo before implantation, than getting pregnant, deciding there’s something wrong with the baby and then aborting it. Mainly it is the duty to impose the right restrictions that would enable a distinction on what is necessary for a normal lifestyle and where to draw the line for genetic predispositions (so for example to not abort or not implant babies with genes for obesity). Also it is in the human nature to abort fetuses from the uterus if they are not healthy, it is a help to the natural process. Because during every cycle of a sexually active female fertilized eggs if not found to be healthy enough to survive get aborted naturally (1). 1. Head to head: Genetic screening, 05/10/2006, , accessed 05/23/2011", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro01a", "score": 0.6614983081817627, "text": "The foetus feels pain Partial-birth abortion is disgusting. Like all abortions, it involves the killing of an unborn child, but unlike first trimester abortions there is no doubt that the foetus can feel pain by the third trimester. [1] The procedure involves sticking a pair of scissors into a baby’s brain, enlarging the hole, sucking the brain out with a catheter and then crushing the skull. It is entirely unacceptable to do this to a living human being. Psychological damage to the mother as a result of rape or teenage pregnancy or depression is in the end less significant than the physical damage - death - caused to the child. [1] Lee, Susan J., et al., ‘Fetal Pain, A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 294 (8), 2005,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-pro03a", "score": 0.6594132781028748, "text": "In any other situation involving minors a precautionary principle would be applied Any risk needs to be justified against some benefit. In the absence of any demonstrable benefit then there is no need to tolerate any risk, particularly in the case of a newborn baby who cannot express his opinion one way or another and will not be able to do so for years to come. The risks of circumcision have been repeatedly demonstrated. Though they may be rare, they run from septicemia through to blood hemorrhage and heart attacks. There is little research conducted on the long term effects of the procedure; however there is a growing body of evidence that a surgical complication rate is about 1 in 500 and the post-surgical rate of attrition is believed by many to be higher [i] . [i] Paul M. Fleiss, MD. “The Case Against Circumcision”. Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36--45.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-con01a", "score": 0.6555048227310181, "text": "There is no proven cause of harm and parents routinely make medical decisions for children to give their consent or otherwise Circumcision is akin, in many ways, to vaccination; a routine and simple procedure with miniscule risks and compelling probable benefits. We acknowledge the right of parents to take these decisions on the behalf of their children, even if the benefits in question are primarily cultural and spiritual, and relativistic in character. Parents routinely make decisions with far greater implications for their children’s futures in terms of their education and general welfare on a regular basis and this should really be seen as no different [i] . As has been established, even in the most impromptu settings, male circumcision, unlike FGM, runs almost no risk of causing severe injury or infection. MGM does not endanger or restrict a child's development, or his ability to living and normal, fulfilled adult life. Parents make much more damaging choices for their children all the time - choices that do not involve modification of a child's body. The cost of raising a child as a junior rugby player is an increased risk that the child may sustain life changing injuries. The cost of sending a child to a Montessori nursery as opposed to a curriculum-based institution is the possibility that they may lack personal discipline or respect for authority later in life. Parents are still permitted to make these decisions, despite the impact they may have on a child’s development. Why not allow them to submit their children to a relatively minor and inconsequential aesthetic procedure? [i] Dr. Brian Morris, Professor of Molecular Medical Sciences. \"Circumcision Should Be Routine; is Akin to a Safe Surgical ‘Vaccine’\". Opposing Views", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con01a", "score": 0.6546079516410828, "text": "Most abortions are performed out of convenience Most abortions are performed entirely voluntarily by women that have the means to raise a child, but simply don't want to. While emergency abortions or abortions under trying circumstances such as rape are held out as reasons to continue to have abortions, they are infrequent and serve more to provide cover for voluntarily \"life-style\" abortions. This is wrong. For example: In 2004, only 7% of women in the US cited health risk as the reason for abortion. Most had social reasons, i.e. were not ready, did not want a baby, a baby would interfere with their career etc.1 1 L.B Finner et al", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-pro04b", "score": 0.65257728099823, "text": "Sex-specific, generic diseases are only avoided a majority of the time, the process is not near 100% accurate and therefore the medical benefits cannot be used without considering of the medical costs. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis involves the development of embryos outside the womb, which are then tested for gender. One or two of the desired gender are then implanted in the womb. Those that are not of the desired gender, or are surplus to requirements are destroyed (typically, over a dozen embryos are used to select a single one to be implanted). A human life has been created with the express purpose of being destroyed. This is another form of abortion – only the conception is deliberate. Ultimately, it will be these technologies and not MicroSort that is used, since whilst the latter has a 93% accuracy rate if a girl is desired (itself a lower result than genetic diagnosis), its accuracy falls to 82% for boys, and the vast majority of selections will inevitably be for males 1 . Thus, given that they are so keen to have a child of a particular gender and so unwilling to risk having one of the other gender, parents will not risk using MicroSort. Even if they do choose it, whilst there have not been overt problems thus far, scientific experts like Lord Winston express the fear that the process damages sperm, making genetic mutation much more likely. Both techniques are therefore to be condemned. 1. Genetics and IVF Institute. (2008, January 1). Microsort. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Genetics and IVF Institute:", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-pro03b", "score": 0.6448909640312195, "text": "The precautionary principle is alive and well but risks are inevitable in any procedure. There is no reliable data on fatalities directly related to circumcision. The causes of the 10 million or so neonatal deaths that occur around the world each year are closely linked to the income and educational level of the mother, with diarrhea and malnutrition being the leading causes. By contrast children that are born with access to modern surgery and informed parents are likely to do well.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro03a", "score": 0.6408370733261108, "text": "Rape victims have no choice when it comes to getting pregnant, therefore they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy Women, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child. In cases where the rape victim cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favor. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault they underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the \"unwanted children\". 1 SECASA", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro04a", "score": 0.6404604911804199, "text": "There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus. Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1 1 PRO-Life Information", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-pro03b", "score": 0.6381196975708008, "text": "Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable. That life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1) 1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, , accessed 05/24/2011", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con01b", "score": 0.7279797196388245, "text": "Allowing partial-birth abortion is utterly inconsistent with the growing, and legally recognised, respect for foetal rights in the United States. If a man can sue the mother of his child for taking drugs during pregnancy which discolour their child’s teeth, if pregnant women can be banned from the smoking sections of restaurants, what sense does it make to allow exactly the same foetuses to have their skulls deliberately crushed?" } ]

[ { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-pro03b", "score": 0.690863311290741, "text": "We fully accept that children are treated differently in the eyes of the law. However, the very fact that proposition allows for that exceptionalism must require them to acknowledge that the role of the parent is given a status different from any other in society. We acknowledge their right to make decisions in the stead of their child, fully accepting that those decisions have enormous implications. We accept that parents take life and death decisions for their children on a regular basis and we must trust them to do so. Society respects the rights of parents to keep their children safe in no end of perilous situations, and when their judgement is wrong, it is a matter for regret, not legislation.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "validation-society-gfhbcimrst-pro04b", "score": 0.6900681853294373, "text": "We do not disagree that abortion is a generally undesirable thing. Even those who believe that abortion is ethical feel it would be preferable not to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. It may be very distressing for mothers if they have not made an autonomous choice to go through with the abortion but the proposition is wrong to assume that they have not. Cultural biases towards male children are often internalised by women. It makes sense that both mothers and fathers would be concerned about who will care for them in old age – not just men. Men and women from the same socio-economic and cultural background are also likely to have similar ethical views and therefore are unlikely to disagree on their ethical standpoint on abortion. Therefore, it is not the case that women suffer because they are forced or coerced into abortions. Furthermore, this is not a problem exclusive to gender selective abortion. Whilst there is a greater prevalence of abortions of female babies, there are a lot of abortions of male babies as well. Assuming that abortion does cause women a lot of distress, this harm will not be removed by encouraging parents to have girls because they will continue to abort male foetuses. The solution for this problem is to educate people about alternative methods of contraception so that unwanted pregnancies do not occur and also to empower women in their marital relationships by encouraging them to have their own income and so on. This can be better targeted by self-help women’s groups and the like.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro03b", "score": 0.6888784170150757, "text": "Arguing that adoption is a good option shows a fundamental lack of awareness of what is involved in carrying an unwanted foetus to term. Pregnancy can be stressful at the best of times; being forced to carry an unwanted child against your will is enormously traumatic, and can cause permanent psychological harm, as can the knowledge that your own unwanted child is growing up elsewhere and may one day return to find you. If a mother chooses to carry a foetus to term and then give it up for adoption, that’s fine, but nobody should force her to do so.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-con03a", "score": 0.6887555718421936, "text": "Any body of values that claims to respect the rights of the individual must recognise the right of a woman to choose Even the doctrines of the Church accepts that pregnancy is not, in and of itself, a virtue – there is no compulsion to maximise the number of pregnancies; there is simply a disagreement about how they should be avoided. The Church recommends that couples may minimise the chance without ever making it impossible through a chemical or physical barrier. In some parts of the world a pregnancy, even one that is not planned, is seen as a time for joy – a blessing for the family that will lead to a new and happy life bringing pleasure to both parents, their society and the child. That ideal is very far from the experience of much of the world where a child is another mouth to feed on impossibly little income. For all too much of the world, that life will be cruel, nasty and short. In slums, favellas and barren wastes that life is likely to be one marked more by dysentery or diarrhea, malnutrition and misery than by the sanitised, idealised image promoted in the West. That is, of course, not to say that children everywhere cannot be a cause for joy, of course they can. Indeed even within the poorest of situations, a new child can be the focus of great joy in an otherwise hard life. However, if that is to be the case, that child must be planned and prepared for. Overwhelmingly, the mother is likely to have paramount responsibility for the child; so that planning and preparation needs to be theirs. It is difficult to imagine the scenario that would reach the objective observer to reach the conclusion that the right group of individuals to reach that decision were a group of celibate men who had never met the parents and would take to role in the care or support of the child. Yet that, astonishingly, is what Proposition would like us to believe.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con03a", "score": 0.6867887377738953, "text": "Legalizing abortion defies the principle of life affirmation Every life presents an inherent value to society. Every individual has the potential to contribute in one way or another, and taking the child's life before it has even had a chance to experience and contribute to the world undermines that potential. Even more, the underlying philosophical claim behind abortion is that not every life is equally valued and if a life is 'unwanted' or 'accidental' it is not worth enough to live. That kind of thinking goes directly against the life-affirming policies and philosophies of most countries, and peoples themselves.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-society-gfyhbprcsao-con02b", "score": 0.6865676045417786, "text": "The benefits for women in this situation could easily be enforced via legislation, without the need for a one child policy to begin with. The gain from mothers who are able to work could easily be replicated through family planning and a greater focus on equality between genders in the country. As it is, the one child policy as defined in side opposition’s case causes women’s rights to be violated and often results in the deaths of otherwise healthy baby girls.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-society-gfhbhsbaa-pro01b", "score": 0.6863903403282166, "text": "Because no democratic government should ever attempt to regulate people's reproductive rights and dictate who is or isn't allowed to have children. And unless a massive harm can be shown to the child, the government usually doesn't take children away from their parents, as that might be more harmful. But the government is allowed to define what a family is or should be, under the law.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-con02b", "score": 0.6847281455993652, "text": "Parental responsibility is a duty, not a right. Society trusts parents to act in the interests of their child but does not do so unreservedly. Where those actions lead directly to a provable harm, we consider it either neglect or abuse of the child and the parental privileges are revoked. No matter how earnestly the parent may believe it is in the child’s best interest, they may not send them out to work in injurious conditions, they may not allow or encourage them to engage in sexual conduct, they may not allow them to use armaments or certain drugs before a certain age. Because these things cause harm to the child and that is a breach of the duty of care entrusted to the parent by wider society. The same is true of denying them medical treatment.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "validation-society-gfhbcimrst-con05b", "score": 0.6799700856208801, "text": "It is ridiculous to say that a decision based on a financial incentive is not an autonomous decision. We allow poor people to make the decision to take on a job or sell items that they own even though these decisions are incentivised by money. We still regard these decisions as autonomous. Furthermore we do believe that families make careful considerations when they decide whether or not to have children. This is evidenced by the fact that families make the decision to abort female but not male children. Parents obviously consider the choice to have a child and we do not think that this will change when there is a government based financial incentive. This is especially the case because the reason that parents currently DO NOT have female children is for financial reasons. As you mentioned, male children tend to be more able to financially support their parents in their old age in these countries. Surely then a financial incentive is exactly the right kind to provide for these parents since it is financial incentives that are causing them not to produce females in the first place. If the opposition is concerned with financial incentives for the poor then they should be concerned with the status quo. Furthermore, though governments may not know individual situations, they do know more about the widespread societal consequences of gender ratio imbalance and the long term predictions if these conditions continue to exist. They are also more likely to be concerned with the greater good of society whilst families make selfish decisions. Many of these families make decisions not based on rational reasoning or informed, educated plans but on cultural and social wisdom that may not produce the best decision. The bias towards men is cultural ‘wisdom’ of this nature. Lastly, we’d like to thank the opposition for showing just how effective our policy will be at encouraging families to produce girls", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro01b", "score": 0.676580548286438, "text": "Nobody would choose to have a partial-birth abortion over a much simpler abortion in the first trimester. Partial-birth abortions are either medically or psychologically necessary. If a young mother either does not find out she is pregnant or is too scared to tell anyone, if a woman is raped and decides at any stage that she does not want the baby, if a woman is threatening suicide if she is forced to carry a baby to term, we should not make her suffer further by forbidding her from ending the pregnancy. For all sorts of reasons, many women do not seek any kind of medical help until late in their pregnancy - this should not mean they forfeit their right to an abortion. In any case, if abortion is allowed at all, and given that the foetus is not recognised in law as a human being, it should be nobody’s business but the mother’s whether and at what stage she chooses to have an abortion.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-con01b", "score": 0.6728625893592834, "text": "People are free to choose whether or not to have children. Human beings are granted freedom of choice. The decision to have offspring is, like many others, only a matter of personal choice and there is no duty here that we can talk about. The only real responsibilities towards society that people have are those imposed on them by law. (Paying taxes or protecting a country being prime examples of these). Because society has not chosen to create a law forcing everybody to have children, we see that choosing not to bear offspring is accepted by society.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-pro03b", "score": 0.6703401803970337, "text": "The idea of family planning is wrong; and it reflects the unequal power structures operating in society. Within African cultures families are polygamous, extended, and far from the ‘normal’ neutral family structure. Therefore by enforcing family planning we are failing to understand what the family is across Africa. Family planning is simply seeking to limit choice about the structure of the family. Just including man and wife rather than any more extended family is itself encouraging a certain structure that not all Africans agree with or desire for their family.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-culture-tphwpac-con04a", "score": 0.6678796410560608, "text": "Culture is an incredibly complex concept Culture contains many elements; it is the food one eats, the clothing one wears, the holidays one celebrates, and the names of the spirits one worships. However, it is much more than that; culture dictates parent-child relationships, courting customs, family size, gender roles, healthcare, education, and every law, regulation, and standard a society holds. Governments rarely give blanket approval to an indigenous customs; children are often compelled to attend school and receive vaccines, substances used in religious rituals may be banned, and customs that infringe on the rights of group members are not permitted. These restrictions may be reasonable, however, they create a false sense of cultural preservation. Rather than ostensibly protect aboriginal culture, governments should leave it alone.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-religion-cmrsgfhbr-con01b", "score": 0.6651038527488708, "text": "Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support [i] . It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result [ii] . The values for the respect for the life of the mother, the value of life of the child, respect for the opinions of the majority, respect for democracy and placing the future of individuals and society above the outdated mythology of the Church would seem to be alive and well in the decision to pass this bill. [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘Culture Wars: After a decade of debate, the Philippines passes Reproductive Health Bill’, Time, 17 December 2012. [ii] Ibid.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "validation-society-gfhbcimrst-pro04a", "score": 0.6645782589912415, "text": "Abortion It is estimated that around 10 million female foetuses were aborted in the past 20 years in India. [1] These abortions were motivated by cultural and financial reasons discussed above e.g. dowry, parents fear that daughters can’t care for them in old age, need to continue male lineage. Regardless of what one believes about the ethics of abortion, abortion causes a lot of emotional distress to women. In some cases this is because the woman has formed an emotional attachment to her unborn child. In some cases it may be because the woman has an ethical disagreement with abortion but is unable to refuse the abortion. Women are especially unlikely to have this kind of decision making power in the very countries where men are valued more highly than women and husbands tend to have power over their wives. Our policy changes the incentives that families have to get an abortion. Whereas a female child was one a costly liability, our policy now makes having female children less of a liability, if not a financial asset. This means that fewer women will have to undergo abortions. [1] Boseley, Sarah. “10 million girl foetuses aborted in India.” The Guardian. 2006.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-society-gfhbcimrst-con02a", "score": 0.6607809662818909, "text": "Commodifying women. Surely providing a financial incentive for families to produce women causes women to be likened to a product that needs to be manufactured. Families will continue to have a social stigma against female children and they will be viewed simply as a financial asset. This is not only bad for women in general in the country but for babies that are only alive because they provide income. These children are unlikely to be loved and cared for as a male child might be and it is cruel to encourage them to be brought into the world to live life in such a condition. Furthermore, the commoditisation of money can only serve to worsen the problem of trafficking mentioned earlier by the proposition.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro03a", "score": 0.6558052897453308, "text": "Rape victims have no choice when it comes to getting pregnant, therefore they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy Women, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child. In cases where the rape victim cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favor. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault they underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the \"unwanted children\". 1 SECASA", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-society-gfhbcimrst-con02b", "score": 0.6546234488487244, "text": "Encouraging families to have female children at least gives people a reason to value females at all, even if this is merely a financial value. In the current scenario women are not valuable in any sense. They are valued so little that their lives are ended without a flinch when they are only infants.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con02b", "score": 0.6542849540710449, "text": "In 2006 already Baroness Ruth Deech, the former chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK explained, that it is far more ethical to choose an embryo before implantation, than getting pregnant, deciding there’s something wrong with the baby and then aborting it. Mainly it is the duty to impose the right restrictions that would enable a distinction on what is necessary for a normal lifestyle and where to draw the line for genetic predispositions (so for example to not abort or not implant babies with genes for obesity). Also it is in the human nature to abort fetuses from the uterus if they are not healthy, it is a help to the natural process. Because during every cycle of a sexually active female fertilized eggs if not found to be healthy enough to survive get aborted naturally (1). 1. Head to head: Genetic screening, 05/10/2006, , accessed 05/23/2011", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01b", "score": 0.6535460352897644, "text": "Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro02b", "score": 0.7742956876754761, "text": "It’s not as if the employee can’t tell their employer at present – it’s that he or she could, but doesn’t want to. They get to decide what’s in their best interests (including what’s likely at trial) – and sadly, that will often be keeping quiet about his condition." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03b", "score": 0.7042378783226013, "text": "Some very few people may do this and it’s the job of the government to attempt to educate people about the enormous dangers of doing so to minimise that. Nevertheless, most people will quite properly prioritise their lives and health over their job, which in any case legislation should safeguard by stopping unfair dismissal.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con02b", "score": 0.6985364556312561, "text": "No customer or patient complained in either case. Neither employer demonstrated that wearing the cross prevented either employee from performing their duties efficiently. Indeed, given the size and diversity of both organisations’ client base, a demonstration that they support free expression might be welcomed. The key point here is that both of the employees concerned did believe that the right to not only hold, but proclaim, their beliefs was core to their faith. By denying them the right to express that impeded not just their actions but their beliefs.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con02a", "score": 0.690517008304596, "text": "Both employers acted out of concern for the interests of their clients, employees should respect that. Employers don’t introduce rules because it’s fun but, rather, because they serve a purpose. Ms. Chaplin has expressed concern about the legal costs incurred by the NHS Trust which employed her in fighting the action she initiated. Health and safety rules exist, in part, to avoid the possibility of subsequent legal action; it might be reasonable for her to support such rules given her concern [i] . Likewise, airlines have uniform policies to make their services, well, uniform. It’s what their customers expect. In much the same way as many Christians refuse to receive communion from a woman or a homosexual, it simply goes with the job. For any workplace to function, the lifestyles of the employees need to accommodate the needs of the customers or users of the service provided by the employer. Clearly there is a degree of balance involved and the values of the employee need to be respected. However, this case isn’t about the values of the employee – they weren’t fired for being Christian – it was about and active decision in how to demonstrate those values. A decision not taken by their co-religionists and one that seemed to owe more to belligerence than to belief. [i] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-education-usuprmhbu-con02b", "score": 0.6684843897819519, "text": "The prejudice that individuals in the workplace hold for these minorities already exist through their current perception of these people as being less qualified as them due to their conspicuous absence from the workplace as it is. The best way to deal with such resentment and prejudice is to use affirmative action and bring more of these minorities into the workplace where they work side-by-side as co-workers and prove themselves as equally competent and qualified as every other person in the workplace. Although affirmative action may initially cause this assumption to occur, it is its own cure as affirmative action allows these minorities to prove themselves in the workplace and dispel such a baseless assumption.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro03b", "score": 0.657561182975769, "text": "Working with someone with HIV does not put you at risk. Suggesting that it does serves to perpetuate the myths that do such harm to HIV-positive people who already suffer too much. To clarify: AIDS cannot be transmitted through external, intact skin. It cannot pass through the air like cold germs. Sweat, urine, tears and saliva cannot transmit HIV. Whilst blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid and breast milk can, how often are such fluids encountered at work? Even if they are, and such fluids are HIV positive, they must enter another’s body through mucus membranes, directly into the bloodstream (e.g. via injection), or from mother to child via breastfeeding or in the womb. What workplaces risk such transferral?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con01b", "score": 0.6561620235443115, "text": "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con01b", "score": 0.6561620235443115, "text": "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-pro02b", "score": 0.6528067588806152, "text": "Nobody is being forced to perform acts of violence by the words of another; it is their choice to do so. Equally, there are plenty of people who would hold views that could be considered homophobic but would be appalled by acts of violence. It is fundamental to the principles of respect for the individual that I cannot be held liable for the actions of others. There is no dividing line between the incitement Proposition claims exists and my jokingly suggesting to a broke friend that they rob a bank. Ironically, perhaps, the defence of “The Devil made me do it” is not one that is taken seriously by any credible framework of laws.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-politics-cdmaggpdgdf-pro02b", "score": 0.650572657585144, "text": "Being a citizen does not come with a right to know everything that the state does. In much the same way being a shareholder does not mean you get to know absolutely everything every person in a business does. Instead you get the headlines and a summary, most of the time the how the business goes about getting the results is left to the management. Ultimately the state’s purpose is to protect its citizens and this comes before letting them know everything about how that is done.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "validation-society-gihbsosbcg-con03b", "score": 0.6487700939178467, "text": "As explained in counterargument two, the rationale behind this form of discrimination is nonnegotiable and absolutist due to its religious/moral nature. Consensus-building will not happen in the near future on this issue and even if the potentiality of social acceptance of the LGBT community was in the not-so-distant future, this does not offer any protection to those in danger now, nor remove our obligation to their protection from discrimination and unjust punishment.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con03b", "score": 0.6460690498352051, "text": "Recognizing that people have different views is a fairly fundamental part of maintaining societal cohesion. Freedom of expression requires the corollary that there is no right not to be offended – it is hard to see how such a right would be manifest in practical terms. It is also worth reiterating that there were no complaints from customers or patients in either case.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-law-aegtlcpsyhwa-con04b", "score": 0.6458262205123901, "text": "The opposition’s point is a rather speculative one, as you could apply this argument to teachers in general, or anyone in positions of power over more vulnerable groups, such as nurses or doctors. Just because a minority choose to abuse (such as with the paedophile scandals in reported in some public US high schools) [1] that does not mean everyone in the teaching profession should have the right to protect those in their care revoked. [1] Irvine, Martha, and Tanner, Robert, ‘AP: Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools’, The Washington Post, 21 October 2007,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-pro01b", "score": 0.6436817049980164, "text": "If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-pro01b", "score": 0.6436817049980164, "text": "If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con05b", "score": 0.6431076526641846, "text": "Goods provided by the state, like healthcare, are often, and necessarily, subject to certain provisions. For example, in order to get unemployment benefits, a person must prove that they are regularly looking for a job and a means to get themselves off benefits. Denying access to healthcare for smokers does not mean denying them healthcare access forever; they can regain unlimited access if they stop smoking. Therefore, prioritizing non-smokers for healthcare in certain cases is not impeding upon smokers' basic liberties but a recognition that those who care about their own health enough to not smoke should be prioritized.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-pro03b", "score": 0.6400305032730103, "text": "Virtually every employee dresses differently for work than they do outside. We accept the fact that there are behaviours and attitudes that must be left at the door when we enter the workplace. Those unwilling to make such an accommodation simply don’t work for organisations with those requirements. If the women concerned had such a great commitment to their faith, then they should find a different job.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-pro03a", "score": 0.637629508972168, "text": "The confession of religious faith is far more important than the rather petty rules that banned the wearing of the cross. People of faith attest that those beliefs determine the nature of their own identity and their place in the Universe. In the case of Nadia Eweida, at least, the employer’s case was based on the idea that wearing a symbol of that faith might not enhance their uniform. The difference between the significance of the claims could not be greater. Indeed, British Airways, Eweida’s employer, has since changed their policy to permit staff to wear religious or charitable imagery [i] in large part because of the absurdity of the position. The case against Chaplin was based on health and safety legislation - but not because the cross and chain posed a risk to others but to herself [ii] ; a risk she was, presumably, prepared to accept. On one hand there are individuals protecting their sincere beliefs in the most profound of issues and, on the other, managers applying what the Archbishop of Canterbury described as “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness”. [iii] There is no suggestion that harm to another could have been caused here and, therefore, no reason not to respect the heartfelt beliefs of the individuals involved. [i] BBC News Website. “Christian Airline Employee Loses Cross ban Appeal”. 12 February 2010. [ii] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work” [iii] The Telegraph, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at cross ban’, 4 April 2010,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-economy-epehwmrbals-con03b", "score": 0.6370072364807129, "text": "The concept of a nation’s sovereignty is losing weight against the rights of a global citizen. Citizens everywhere in the world should be able to enjoy equal standards of employment and not suffer at the hands of a nation’s neglect. The rights of a nebulous entity such as the state should not be equated with the much more vital rights of individual workers to humane standards of treatment and good working conditions.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-con02a", "score": 0.6344335079193115, "text": "The causality is wrong. Legalisation doesn’t prevent HIV/AIDS transmission, safe sex, or effective regulation. Workers need to be taught about safe sex; safe sex needs to be legalised; and HIV transmission criminalised. National governments need to concentrate on providing access to prevention tools - such as condoms. Legalisation should not suddenly be announced by government but only done if it is what sex workers want and is the best option for them, this can be done through consolations with groups such as the Global Network of Sex Workers Projects(see NSWP, 2013), to help formulate policy that will work for everyone", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-economy-epegppphw-con03b", "score": 0.6326667666435242, "text": "The notion that labour alienates might have looked true in Marx’s days, but nowadays, employers have learnt that if they want to get the most from their workforce, they need to make their jobs meaningful. Employers can do this by offering work that fits an employee’s ‘intrinsic motivation’ (Intrinsic motivation at work, 2009), and by designing the work process in such a way that it facilitates ‘flow’ (Beyond boredom and anxiety, 2000). Interestingly, these days, companies actually compete for labour by making their work environment more meaningful, as for example Google’s ‘Life at Google’-page shows (Life at Google). As to the idea of allowing a market in organs: if people willingly and knowingly choose to sell their organs, what is wrong with it? Also, consider the status quo: demand is still there, but the prohibition effectively lowers supply, leading to a significant number of deaths every year for lack of donor organs. Why is that morally more justifiable?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro01b", "score": 0.8612509369850159, "text": "It is in the interests of employers not to have to pay their employees. It is in the interests of employers not to offer vacation time. It is in the interests of employers not to spend money on ensuring health and safety measures are complied with. It is in the interests of employers to do many things that violate the rights of their employees and as a society we prevent them from doing these things because the benefit to the business (and the economy as a whole) does not outweigh the harm caused by the violation of those rights. Most people who are being treated for HIV are no less productive than any other worker – 58% of people with HIV believe it has no impact on their working life. [1] [1] Pebody, Roger, ‘HIV health problems cause few problems in employment, but discrimination still a reality in UK’, aidsmap, 27 August 2009," } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro04b", "score": 0.807278573513031, "text": "All these worthwhile aims can be achieved without employees having to tell their employers of their HIV status on an involuntary basis. The scale of the problem can be easily inferred from national and regional medical statistics. For example, mining companies in South Africa have put in place excellent programmes to combat prejudice and treat sick employees without compulsory disclosure.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro03a", "score": 0.8053693175315857, "text": "It’s in the interests of co-workers It’s in the interests of other workers. The possibility of transmission, while very unlikely, is real and one they have a right to know about so as to be able to guard against it. While most of the time it will not be problem as transmission requires a transfer of bodily fluids this may occasionally happen in a workplace. [1] This is particularly true of healthworkers (e.g. doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives, paramedics, etc) who should have both a moral and a legal obligation to disclose if they are HIV-positive. Even outside the medical field industrial accidents may expose employees to risk. Employers have a duty to protect their workforce. [1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘HIV Transmission’, Department of Health and Human Services,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con02b", "score": 0.7967686057090759, "text": "Employers can be trusted to use this information responsibly. They are already used to keeping sensitive information (e.g. about salaries, annual reports, or employees' addresses and telephone numbers) confidential. Nor is it in their interest to open themselves up to lawsuits for bullying and discrimination in the workplace. There is no reason to assume that businesses will be more likely to leak information about someone's HIV status than doctors or hospitals, who already have such information.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro04a", "score": 0.7570131421089172, "text": "Tackling HIV requires a responsible and active position by everyone Businesses ought to take a responsible and active position on HIV. The issue isn’t going to go away. Successful programs designed to help HIV-positive employees remain in the workplace for as long as they want to do so should be developed. Procedures for treating personnel with fairness and dignity must be put in place. The potential fears and prejudices of other employees must be combated. The beginning of that process is ensuring they know about the problem and, crucially, the scale of it. Without knowledge of the numbers involved, employers may put in place inadequate medical and pensions arrangements that will ultimately prove inadequate.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con01a", "score": 0.7521718144416809, "text": "Employers have no right to private medical information Employers have no right to know. This is an arena into which the state has no right to intrude, or to compel intrusion by others. Employers will know if their employee’s work is satisfactory or unsatisfactory – what more do they need to know than that? If employers find out, they might dismiss workers – which is exactly why many employees don’t want to tell them. If workers are forced to disclose the fact that they have HIV, the merit principle will go out the window. Even if not dismissed, their prospects for promotion will be shattered – because of prejudice, or the perception that their career has in any meaningful sense been ‘finished’ by their condition (which is often not the case as sufferers can work and lead fulfilling lives after diagnosis; life expectancy after diagnosis in the US was 22.5 years in 2005 [1] ). Even if not fired and career advancement doesn’t suffer, prejudice from co-workers is likely. From harassment to reluctance to associate or interact with the employee, this is something the employee knows he might face. He has a right to decide for himself whether or not to make himself open to that. Managers may promise, or be bound, not to disclose such information to other workers – but how likely is enforcement of such an undertaking? For these reasons, even problems with huge HIV problems like South Africa haven’t adopted this policy. [1] Harrison, Kathleen M. et al., ‘Life Expectancy After HIV Diagnosis Based on National HIV Surveillance Data From 25 States, United States’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol 53 Issue 1, January 2010,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro02b", "score": 0.7410749793052673, "text": "It’s not as if the employee can’t tell their employer at present – it’s that he or she could, but doesn’t want to. They get to decide what’s in their best interests (including what’s likely at trial) – and sadly, that will often be keeping quiet about his condition.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con02a", "score": 0.7352800965309143, "text": "The risks of ignorance and prejudice are too high This measure could be actively dangerous for HIV-positive workers. Ignorance causes so much bad behaviour towards AIDS sufferers and HIV-positive men and women. A fifth of men in the UK who disclose their HIV positive status at work then experience HIV discrimination. [1] The proposition seeks to institutionalise and widen the shunning and ill-treatment of HIV-positive workers that already happens when people find out about their condition. Even if not motivated by prejudice, co-workers will often take excessive precautions which are medically unnecessary and inflame unsubstantiated fears of casual transmission. In addition, many people who are HIV-positive choose not to reveal their condition for fear of violent reactions to them from their families and the rest of society. If disclosure to an employer is compulsory, then the news will inevitably leak out to the wider community. In effect, they will lose any right of privacy completely. [1] Pebody, 2009", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03a", "score": 0.7195444703102112, "text": "It is a disincentive to get tested in the first place The requirement to disclose their condition if known would be a disincentive to get tested in the first place. This is especially the case for many people in places like sub-Saharan Africa, but also applies widely elsewhere. Their job is so important to them (since there’s no safety net to speak of if they lose it) that they’d prefer to go in ignorance of their HIV status than find out and risk being fired for it. The medical repercussions of that are obvious.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-economy-beegshbtsb-pro01b", "score": 0.7031345963478088, "text": "While people do indeed need proper rest and downtime in order to perform to their maximum potential, exactly how much rest they need changes from individual to individual. A \"one size fits all\" approach through legislation will necessarily mean that some people who could work quite comfortably with no ill effects will be prevented from doing so. The choice to work or not rightly belongs to them, as does even their decision to risk their health. It might be worth it to someone to take a chance on sleep deprivation in order to earn more pay.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-economy-beegshbtsb-pro04a", "score": 0.6979783773422241, "text": "A maximum working week provides protection for workers. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 23 “Everyone has the right to work… to just and favourable conditions of work” and article 24 “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”1 both relate to a fundamental freedom from being forced to work too hard. Working for too many hours per week can affect health, wellbeing and productivity over the medium to longer term. In extremis, as we can see in the “karoshi” phenomenon in Japan, people can work themselves to an early grave.2 Even in less extreme examples, we can see health issues affecting productivity and causing medical problems which require paying to treat. The WHO estimates that work related stress costs $300bn p.a. in the US, to take one example.3 It goes without saying that all this avoidable stress and medical trouble needs paying for. That the businesses themselves manage to push those costs onto wider society or the state doesn’t make those costs go anywhere from the point of view of an economy as a whole. Therefore a maximum working week prevents business from externalising costs to others. 1 United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-economy-beegshbtsb-con04b", "score": 0.6930441856384277, "text": "Only some SME will be affected, and those on such a knife edge financially would probably not have lasted long in the face of competition in any event. Such enterprises are really being subsidised by taking advantage of their workers at the expense of those workers health.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03b", "score": 0.692038893699646, "text": "Some very few people may do this and it’s the job of the government to attempt to educate people about the enormous dangers of doing so to minimise that. Nevertheless, most people will quite properly prioritise their lives and health over their job, which in any case legislation should safeguard by stopping unfair dismissal.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-economy-epegppphw-con03b", "score": 0.6891545653343201, "text": "The notion that labour alienates might have looked true in Marx’s days, but nowadays, employers have learnt that if they want to get the most from their workforce, they need to make their jobs meaningful. Employers can do this by offering work that fits an employee’s ‘intrinsic motivation’ (Intrinsic motivation at work, 2009), and by designing the work process in such a way that it facilitates ‘flow’ (Beyond boredom and anxiety, 2000). Interestingly, these days, companies actually compete for labour by making their work environment more meaningful, as for example Google’s ‘Life at Google’-page shows (Life at Google). As to the idea of allowing a market in organs: if people willingly and knowingly choose to sell their organs, what is wrong with it? Also, consider the status quo: demand is still there, but the prohibition effectively lowers supply, leading to a significant number of deaths every year for lack of donor organs. Why is that morally more justifiable?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-society-epiasghbf-pro02b", "score": 0.6887404918670654, "text": "Again employment needs to be contextualised with what type of jobs are provided and entered into. It remains questionable as to whether the mental health of women improves if women are employed to work within hazardous work environments, or where there is no job security. For example domestic workers remain vulnerable to different abuses - such as non payment, excessive work hours, abuse, and forced labour. Women may be vulnerable to gender based violence on their way to work. Furthermore, street traders are placed in a vulnerable position where the right to work is not respected. The forced eviction and harassment of female street-traders is a common story, underlined by political motivations. A recent example includes the eviction of street hawkers in Johannesburg [1] . [1] See further readings: WIEGO, 2013.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-economy-epiasghbf-pro02b", "score": 0.688637912273407, "text": "Again employment needs to be contextualised with what type of jobs are provided and entered into. It remains questionable as to whether the mental health of women improves if women are employed to work within hazardous work environments, or where there is no job security. For example domestic workers remain vulnerable to different abuses - such as non payment, excessive work hours, abuse, and forced labour. Women may be vulnerable to gender based violence on their way to work. Furthermore, street traders are placed in a vulnerable position where the right to work is not respected. The forced eviction and harassment of female street-traders is a common story, underlined by political motivations. A recent example includes the eviction of street hawkers in Johannesburg [1] . [1] See further readings: WIEGO, 2013.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeshwimra-pro02b", "score": 0.6876828670501709, "text": "Employers’ reluctance to hire older staff and attempts to remove aging staff from payrolls can both be addressed more efficiently via the free market. It is true that employer-provided pension plans are beginning to falter under the burden of an increasingly long-lived work force. However, this only serves to illustrate the flaws in employee benefit schemes of this type. The state should not attempt to prop up a method of social welfare provision that is clearly ill suited to current trends in the labour market. Long term employment with particular firms, and especially jobs-for-life, are dwindling. If individual workers were incentivised or obliged to obtain their own health insurance, and to set up their own pension plans, the burden of doing so would be shifted away from employers. Demand and consumer preference would dictate the price at which these services were delivered, reducing the overall cost of obtaining health insurance or paying into a pension pot. Employers would no longer be required to assess potential employees in terms of the sums of money they are likely to draw from health insurance and pension funds. Businesses could once again focus on selecting new employees by merit. Under the status quo, the increasing inaccessibility of employer-led pension schemes has left young adults stranded in a pension market where lack of demand has led to individual retirement plans becoming massively over-priced. Under the resolution, although the financial burden presented by a corporate pension scheme would be more predictable, it would still impact massively on businesses’ profits and artificially restrict the size of the pensions market. Rather than bear the transaction costs inherent in continual renegotiation of pension schemes and employee benefit plans, rather than accept that worries about healthcare and pension liabilities will cause employers to avoid employing older people, side proposition should trust that the market will be as competent at providing fairly priced pensions as it is at providing fairly priced commodities.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeshwimra-pro01b", "score": 0.6856688857078552, "text": "It is justifiable, in the interests of public safety and the reputation of key professions, to compel individuals to retire from jobs that are dependent on high levels of physical or mental health. However, proposition’s attempt to depart from the status quo is deeply flawed. The proposition side seem to be presenting an argument in favour of a better regulated wage market and a better constructed corpus of employment law. Neither of these flaws in the status quo would be adequately addressed by the resolution. Moreover, forcibly excluding older individuals from the labour market could harm productivity of the state’s economy by increasing the time and cost of training new workers, and reducing the breadth of skills and expertise available to employers. Japan is frequently cited as an example of the harm that a “seniority-wage system” can do to both corporate accountability and innovation. The flaws of this approach to remuneration are not causally linked to the age of the individuals that a firm chooses to employ, but to a widespread refusal to assess their productivity and suitability for promotion according to other criteria. As a report published in the Economist notes, the Japanese gerontocracy “has few legal underpinnings; rather, it has to do with culture and tradition. A few business leaders have condemned it, but… politicians have largely kept [silent].” [i] A full merit based system of pay and promotion would allow older employees to continue to participate, without having to permanently bar them from the workforce. This approach would resemble the status quo to a degree. Employees would be sought according their ability to fulfil the specific needs of the employer; irrespective of their age, the ability of an employee to successfully and efficiently carry out tasks assigned to her would be basic the indicator used to make decisions on pay and promotion. Even where age and seniority assume a wider, more ingrained cultural significance, as in Italy and Japan, it would be grossly disproportionate to address an apparent bias in favour of promoting senior citizens by excluding them from the workforce entirely. [i] “Corporate governance in Japan: Bring it on.” The Economist, 29 May 2008.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con01b", "score": 0.6805490851402283, "text": "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con01b", "score": 0.6805490851402283, "text": "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con02a", "score": 0.6768506765365601, "text": "Both employers acted out of concern for the interests of their clients, employees should respect that. Employers don’t introduce rules because it’s fun but, rather, because they serve a purpose. Ms. Chaplin has expressed concern about the legal costs incurred by the NHS Trust which employed her in fighting the action she initiated. Health and safety rules exist, in part, to avoid the possibility of subsequent legal action; it might be reasonable for her to support such rules given her concern [i] . Likewise, airlines have uniform policies to make their services, well, uniform. It’s what their customers expect. In much the same way as many Christians refuse to receive communion from a woman or a homosexual, it simply goes with the job. For any workplace to function, the lifestyles of the employees need to accommodate the needs of the customers or users of the service provided by the employer. Clearly there is a degree of balance involved and the values of the employee need to be respected. However, this case isn’t about the values of the employee – they weren’t fired for being Christian – it was about and active decision in how to demonstrate those values. A decision not taken by their co-religionists and one that seemed to owe more to belligerence than to belief. [i] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro03b", "score": 0.8027421236038208, "text": "Working with someone with HIV does not put you at risk. Suggesting that it does serves to perpetuate the myths that do such harm to HIV-positive people who already suffer too much. To clarify: AIDS cannot be transmitted through external, intact skin. It cannot pass through the air like cold germs. Sweat, urine, tears and saliva cannot transmit HIV. Whilst blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid and breast milk can, how often are such fluids encountered at work? Even if they are, and such fluids are HIV positive, they must enter another’s body through mucus membranes, directly into the bloodstream (e.g. via injection), or from mother to child via breastfeeding or in the womb. What workplaces risk such transferral?" } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro04a", "score": 0.7623957395553589, "text": "Tackling HIV requires a responsible and active position by everyone Businesses ought to take a responsible and active position on HIV. The issue isn’t going to go away. Successful programs designed to help HIV-positive employees remain in the workplace for as long as they want to do so should be developed. Procedures for treating personnel with fairness and dignity must be put in place. The potential fears and prejudices of other employees must be combated. The beginning of that process is ensuring they know about the problem and, crucially, the scale of it. Without knowledge of the numbers involved, employers may put in place inadequate medical and pensions arrangements that will ultimately prove inadequate.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03a", "score": 0.7528653740882874, "text": "It is a disincentive to get tested in the first place The requirement to disclose their condition if known would be a disincentive to get tested in the first place. This is especially the case for many people in places like sub-Saharan Africa, but also applies widely elsewhere. Their job is so important to them (since there’s no safety net to speak of if they lose it) that they’d prefer to go in ignorance of their HIV status than find out and risk being fired for it. The medical repercussions of that are obvious.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro02b", "score": 0.7271289825439453, "text": "It’s not as if the employee can’t tell their employer at present – it’s that he or she could, but doesn’t want to. They get to decide what’s in their best interests (including what’s likely at trial) – and sadly, that will often be keeping quiet about his condition.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con01a", "score": 0.7249437570571899, "text": "Employers have no right to private medical information Employers have no right to know. This is an arena into which the state has no right to intrude, or to compel intrusion by others. Employers will know if their employee’s work is satisfactory or unsatisfactory – what more do they need to know than that? If employers find out, they might dismiss workers – which is exactly why many employees don’t want to tell them. If workers are forced to disclose the fact that they have HIV, the merit principle will go out the window. Even if not dismissed, their prospects for promotion will be shattered – because of prejudice, or the perception that their career has in any meaningful sense been ‘finished’ by their condition (which is often not the case as sufferers can work and lead fulfilling lives after diagnosis; life expectancy after diagnosis in the US was 22.5 years in 2005 [1] ). Even if not fired and career advancement doesn’t suffer, prejudice from co-workers is likely. From harassment to reluctance to associate or interact with the employee, this is something the employee knows he might face. He has a right to decide for himself whether or not to make himself open to that. Managers may promise, or be bound, not to disclose such information to other workers – but how likely is enforcement of such an undertaking? For these reasons, even problems with huge HIV problems like South Africa haven’t adopted this policy. [1] Harrison, Kathleen M. et al., ‘Life Expectancy After HIV Diagnosis Based on National HIV Surveillance Data From 25 States, United States’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol 53 Issue 1, January 2010,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-con02a", "score": 0.7229002118110657, "text": "The causality is wrong. Legalisation doesn’t prevent HIV/AIDS transmission, safe sex, or effective regulation. Workers need to be taught about safe sex; safe sex needs to be legalised; and HIV transmission criminalised. National governments need to concentrate on providing access to prevention tools - such as condoms. Legalisation should not suddenly be announced by government but only done if it is what sex workers want and is the best option for them, this can be done through consolations with groups such as the Global Network of Sex Workers Projects(see NSWP, 2013), to help formulate policy that will work for everyone", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-con02b", "score": 0.6962090730667114, "text": "Criminalising HIV transmission puts human rights in greater jeopardy. The stigmatisation of HIV/AIDS will remain prominent. The acceptance, and inclusion, of sex workers will become further marginalised as they become symbols of risk, disease, and transmission. This is something no sex worker would want. Countless articles from Ghana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa suggest public support legalising sex work (i.e. see Ghana Web, 2013).", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-law-aegtlcpsyhwa-con04b", "score": 0.6856337189674377, "text": "The opposition’s point is a rather speculative one, as you could apply this argument to teachers in general, or anyone in positions of power over more vulnerable groups, such as nurses or doctors. Just because a minority choose to abuse (such as with the paedophile scandals in reported in some public US high schools) [1] that does not mean everyone in the teaching profession should have the right to protect those in their care revoked. [1] Irvine, Martha, and Tanner, Robert, ‘AP: Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools’, The Washington Post, 21 October 2007,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con02b", "score": 0.6856139898300171, "text": "No customer or patient complained in either case. Neither employer demonstrated that wearing the cross prevented either employee from performing their duties efficiently. Indeed, given the size and diversity of both organisations’ client base, a demonstration that they support free expression might be welcomed. The key point here is that both of the employees concerned did believe that the right to not only hold, but proclaim, their beliefs was core to their faith. By denying them the right to express that impeded not just their actions but their beliefs.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-con03a", "score": 0.6819952130317688, "text": "Legalization leaves ‘risk’ in the hands of the worker. Legalising sex as work, puts the burden of risk to the sex workers themselves; and having its basis from European law models raises questions over applicability across Africa. Although, in theory, a legal framework will enhance a duty of rights and a voice for workers, it also becomes the individual who need to be aware of rights, safe practices, and security risks. Legalisation means individuals become responsible. However, when considering how youths are lured into cities, and workers enter the profession following promised opportunities, is that ‘just’? Before legalising the profession individuals need to be granted choices to not engage in such practices. The family relations forcing migration and prostitution need evaluation. How much power can national legislation have when traditional, local, and family power relations limit choices to enter sex work? Will state actors follow laws when sex work remains culturally unacceptable? Further, legalization needs to be met with opportunities to exit the industry.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con02a", "score": 0.6808984279632568, "text": "Both employers acted out of concern for the interests of their clients, employees should respect that. Employers don’t introduce rules because it’s fun but, rather, because they serve a purpose. Ms. Chaplin has expressed concern about the legal costs incurred by the NHS Trust which employed her in fighting the action she initiated. Health and safety rules exist, in part, to avoid the possibility of subsequent legal action; it might be reasonable for her to support such rules given her concern [i] . Likewise, airlines have uniform policies to make their services, well, uniform. It’s what their customers expect. In much the same way as many Christians refuse to receive communion from a woman or a homosexual, it simply goes with the job. For any workplace to function, the lifestyles of the employees need to accommodate the needs of the customers or users of the service provided by the employer. Clearly there is a degree of balance involved and the values of the employee need to be respected. However, this case isn’t about the values of the employee – they weren’t fired for being Christian – it was about and active decision in how to demonstrate those values. A decision not taken by their co-religionists and one that seemed to owe more to belligerence than to belief. [i] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03b", "score": 0.6803811192512512, "text": "Some very few people may do this and it’s the job of the government to attempt to educate people about the enormous dangers of doing so to minimise that. Nevertheless, most people will quite properly prioritise their lives and health over their job, which in any case legislation should safeguard by stopping unfair dismissal.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-oeghsshwpsst-pro01b", "score": 0.6796741485595703, "text": "While a serious disease, AIDS transmission makes up only a tiny proportion of sexually transmitted infections each year. [1] Firstly the harm of these infections has always been satisfactorily low before public Sex Education, and secondly even if mandatory public education did have a substantive benefit it would not outweigh the infringement on the moral freedom of the parents. [1] Health Protection Agency, STI Annual Data Tables", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con01b", "score": 0.6768522262573242, "text": "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con01b", "score": 0.6768522262573242, "text": "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-law-lghbacpsba-pro03b", "score": 0.671398401260376, "text": "The privilege that subsists between solicitors and their clients is well documented. Therefore, when people go about becoming solicitors they go into it knowing the potential moral pitfalls. Having entered the career they accept the moral burden and should seek to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct. In addition, the moral burden is mitigated by those such rules. It is stated that in exceptional circumstances, situations involving children or the potential serious bodily harm on any individual the duty of confidentiality can be departed from.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-con02b", "score": 0.6636011600494385, "text": "Parental responsibility is a duty, not a right. Society trusts parents to act in the interests of their child but does not do so unreservedly. Where those actions lead directly to a provable harm, we consider it either neglect or abuse of the child and the parental privileges are revoked. No matter how earnestly the parent may believe it is in the child’s best interest, they may not send them out to work in injurious conditions, they may not allow or encourage them to engage in sexual conduct, they may not allow them to use armaments or certain drugs before a certain age. Because these things cause harm to the child and that is a breach of the duty of care entrusted to the parent by wider society. The same is true of denying them medical treatment.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-pro03b", "score": 0.6625548601150513, "text": "Introducing new ‘good’ laws can drive sex work activities underground, and contradictorily reduce access to necessary health care services. Legislation does not ensure universal access: legalising sex work does not stop unequal politics. First, the provision of HIV/AIDS treatment and care is dependent on the global-economy and influenced by investor faiths, ethics, and motives [1] . Therefore access to ART (Antiretroviral treatment) among sex workers is controlled by who is providing aid and distributing resources. Second, the most effective prevention strategy is believed to be ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, and use a Condom). Such mottos exclude sex workers, and directly place the burden of HIV/AIDS to the individual. Such mottos are founded on strong Christian beliefs - legalising sex work cannot easily change traditional structures. [1] A decline in global AID funding has been noted with the global economic downturn (World Bank, 2011). Further, the impact of faith-based institutions, and PEPFAR’s ‘anti-prostitution pledge’, on HIV/AIDS has been discussed (NSWP, 2011 Avert, 2013).", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-international-ssiarcmhb-con03a", "score": 0.6622554659843445, "text": "Barrier contraception can protect women from husbands with AIDS/HIV. There are many cases, particularly in South America and Africa, of men contracting HIV from sexual partners outside their marriage, be it from before they were married or from an extramarital affair and passing it on to their wives. In cases such as these, the wife may follow all of the teachings of the Catholic Church and still contract HIV. If the Church did not forbid the use of barrier contraception then the frequency of occurrences such as these would be severely limited. Since, as discussed above, the Catholic Church, has a responsibility to promote life in its people, their ban of barrier contraception is unjustified.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-con03b", "score": 0.6603372693061829, "text": "There is no reason why, under this model, you could not retain suitable precautions to ensure that this doesn’t happen. For example, you could continue the obligation for companies to sell the drug at cost (they would, naturally, continue to be incentivised by the huge profits they expect to make when the drug is licensed). Further, you could impose financial sanctions on companies that refused to take appropriate action towards completing testing.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-law-tllgrhwds-con04b", "score": 0.6588366627693176, "text": "It should first be observed that accidents and inadvertent harm can befall S&M practitioners irrespective of the level of caution that they exercise. It is unacceptable to require responsible adults to run the risk of prosecution whenever they engage in a consensual act of sexual expression. Further, relationships, even sadomasochistic relationships, can break down and become acrimonious. There is a risk that an embittered partner who formerly consented to prohibited S&M activity might try to use that fact to blackmail or persecute his or her ex-lover. The opposition state that the freedom to dissent from laws regulating one’s private conduct begins to break down when the number of people engaging in a “private” activity grows. Why should the freedom to engage in a particular sexual activity imply a trade off against the freedom to choose how many people we engage in that activity with? Interacting with multiple sexual partners is not, in itself, illegal in the majority of western liberal states, but it does not exclude other sexual fetishes, such as S&M. The opposition is disguising a further limitation on sexual freedom- the freedom to engage in group S&M- as a concession to liberalism. Finally, the awareness that a particular activity is proscribed can affect an individual’s ability to enjoy that activity. The pleasure inherent in free expression of sexual identity is compromised by the knowledge that discovery will lead to prosecution and stigmatization. As numerous accounts by those involved in the LGBT liberation movement have demonstrated, knowing that one’s sexuality is seen as something immoral and socially destructive is inhibiting and upsetting, even in private contexts.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro04b", "score": 0.7965506911277771, "text": "All these worthwhile aims can be achieved without employees having to tell their employers of their HIV status on an involuntary basis. The scale of the problem can be easily inferred from national and regional medical statistics. For example, mining companies in South Africa have put in place excellent programmes to combat prejudice and treat sick employees without compulsory disclosure." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro01a", "score": 0.7565699815750122, "text": "It’s in the interests of employers It’s in the interests of employers. A long, incurable and debilitating condition has stricken one of their employees. They will have to make provision for possible sickness cover and replacement workers, potentially for medical and/or retirement costs. HIV can make people tired and can lead to being sick more often as it means the immune system will not be able to fight off infections as well as it normally would. [1] The employee’s productivity might be reduced to the point at which their continued employment is no longer viable. If things are made difficult for employers with HIV positive workers, then they are less likely in the future to employ people who (they suspect) are HIV positive. Employers must be listened to in this debate – in many HIV-stricken countries, they’re the last thing between a semi-functioning society and complete economic and social collapse. Traditional rights ideas such as concerns about privacy of medical records are less important than the benefit to society of being able to cope with the unique problem of HIV more effectively. [1] Dickens, Carol, ‘Signs of HIV, AIDS symptoms’, AIDS Symptoms,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro02a", "score": 0.7527769804000854, "text": "It’s in the interests of employees It’s in the interests of the HIV positive employee. Right now, although in many countries it is illegal to fire someone for having HIV [1] prejudiced employers can claim that they didn’t know their employer had HIV when they fired him, so they must have been acting on other grounds. The employee then has to try and prove that they did know, which can be very hard. Furthermore, once informed the employer can reasonably be expected to display a minimum level of understanding and compassion to the employee. [1] Civil Rights Division, Ouestions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS’, U.S. Department of Justice,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con02a", "score": 0.7329950928688049, "text": "The risks of ignorance and prejudice are too high This measure could be actively dangerous for HIV-positive workers. Ignorance causes so much bad behaviour towards AIDS sufferers and HIV-positive men and women. A fifth of men in the UK who disclose their HIV positive status at work then experience HIV discrimination. [1] The proposition seeks to institutionalise and widen the shunning and ill-treatment of HIV-positive workers that already happens when people find out about their condition. Even if not motivated by prejudice, co-workers will often take excessive precautions which are medically unnecessary and inflame unsubstantiated fears of casual transmission. In addition, many people who are HIV-positive choose not to reveal their condition for fear of violent reactions to them from their families and the rest of society. If disclosure to an employer is compulsory, then the news will inevitably leak out to the wider community. In effect, they will lose any right of privacy completely. [1] Pebody, 2009", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro01b", "score": 0.7318630814552307, "text": "It is in the interests of employers not to have to pay their employees. It is in the interests of employers not to offer vacation time. It is in the interests of employers not to spend money on ensuring health and safety measures are complied with. It is in the interests of employers to do many things that violate the rights of their employees and as a society we prevent them from doing these things because the benefit to the business (and the economy as a whole) does not outweigh the harm caused by the violation of those rights. Most people who are being treated for HIV are no less productive than any other worker – 58% of people with HIV believe it has no impact on their working life. [1] [1] Pebody, Roger, ‘HIV health problems cause few problems in employment, but discrimination still a reality in UK’, aidsmap, 27 August 2009,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro03b", "score": 0.7053564190864563, "text": "Working with someone with HIV does not put you at risk. Suggesting that it does serves to perpetuate the myths that do such harm to HIV-positive people who already suffer too much. To clarify: AIDS cannot be transmitted through external, intact skin. It cannot pass through the air like cold germs. Sweat, urine, tears and saliva cannot transmit HIV. Whilst blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid and breast milk can, how often are such fluids encountered at work? Even if they are, and such fluids are HIV positive, they must enter another’s body through mucus membranes, directly into the bloodstream (e.g. via injection), or from mother to child via breastfeeding or in the womb. What workplaces risk such transferral?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03a", "score": 0.68303382396698, "text": "It is a disincentive to get tested in the first place The requirement to disclose their condition if known would be a disincentive to get tested in the first place. This is especially the case for many people in places like sub-Saharan Africa, but also applies widely elsewhere. Their job is so important to them (since there’s no safety net to speak of if they lose it) that they’d prefer to go in ignorance of their HIV status than find out and risk being fired for it. The medical repercussions of that are obvious.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "validation-health-hpiahbps-pro01b", "score": 0.673529326915741, "text": "In order to combat disease equality needs to be a central component. Drug distribution, new training schemes, and facilities, targeting disease prevention and treatment are influenced by market economics and feasibility. Treatments by Anti-retrovirals should not just be for those who can afford private healthcare. Further, when considering health care private actors need to broaden horizons. Although funding remains uneven and below target, the specific inclusion of HIV, TB and Malaria within the MDG has distorted the focus on disease. Investment is required in neglected tropical diseases and non-communicable diseases something the private sector has yet to be willing to invest in.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con01a", "score": 0.6658872961997986, "text": "Employers have no right to private medical information Employers have no right to know. This is an arena into which the state has no right to intrude, or to compel intrusion by others. Employers will know if their employee’s work is satisfactory or unsatisfactory – what more do they need to know than that? If employers find out, they might dismiss workers – which is exactly why many employees don’t want to tell them. If workers are forced to disclose the fact that they have HIV, the merit principle will go out the window. Even if not dismissed, their prospects for promotion will be shattered – because of prejudice, or the perception that their career has in any meaningful sense been ‘finished’ by their condition (which is often not the case as sufferers can work and lead fulfilling lives after diagnosis; life expectancy after diagnosis in the US was 22.5 years in 2005 [1] ). Even if not fired and career advancement doesn’t suffer, prejudice from co-workers is likely. From harassment to reluctance to associate or interact with the employee, this is something the employee knows he might face. He has a right to decide for himself whether or not to make himself open to that. Managers may promise, or be bound, not to disclose such information to other workers – but how likely is enforcement of such an undertaking? For these reasons, even problems with huge HIV problems like South Africa haven’t adopted this policy. [1] Harrison, Kathleen M. et al., ‘Life Expectancy After HIV Diagnosis Based on National HIV Surveillance Data From 25 States, United States’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol 53 Issue 1, January 2010,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-con02a", "score": 0.6652002930641174, "text": "The causality is wrong. Legalisation doesn’t prevent HIV/AIDS transmission, safe sex, or effective regulation. Workers need to be taught about safe sex; safe sex needs to be legalised; and HIV transmission criminalised. National governments need to concentrate on providing access to prevention tools - such as condoms. Legalisation should not suddenly be announced by government but only done if it is what sex workers want and is the best option for them, this can be done through consolations with groups such as the Global Network of Sex Workers Projects(see NSWP, 2013), to help formulate policy that will work for everyone", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03b", "score": 0.662440836429596, "text": "These vital drugs will become outdated. Diseases often have the ability to build a resistance to treatment, making many of these currently generic drugs impotent. In Tanzania, 75% of health workers were providing lower than recommended levels of anti-malaria drugs which resulted in a drug resistant form of the disease becoming prominent [1] . Giving recently developed drugs to Africa will have a greater impact against diseases such as HIV than giving them twenty year old drugs to which a disease is already immune. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-pro03b", "score": 0.6537114381790161, "text": "Introducing new ‘good’ laws can drive sex work activities underground, and contradictorily reduce access to necessary health care services. Legislation does not ensure universal access: legalising sex work does not stop unequal politics. First, the provision of HIV/AIDS treatment and care is dependent on the global-economy and influenced by investor faiths, ethics, and motives [1] . Therefore access to ART (Antiretroviral treatment) among sex workers is controlled by who is providing aid and distributing resources. Second, the most effective prevention strategy is believed to be ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, and use a Condom). Such mottos exclude sex workers, and directly place the burden of HIV/AIDS to the individual. Such mottos are founded on strong Christian beliefs - legalising sex work cannot easily change traditional structures. [1] A decline in global AID funding has been noted with the global economic downturn (World Bank, 2011). Further, the impact of faith-based institutions, and PEPFAR’s ‘anti-prostitution pledge’, on HIV/AIDS has been discussed (NSWP, 2011 Avert, 2013).", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-con03a", "score": 0.6536102890968323, "text": "Legalization leaves ‘risk’ in the hands of the worker. Legalising sex as work, puts the burden of risk to the sex workers themselves; and having its basis from European law models raises questions over applicability across Africa. Although, in theory, a legal framework will enhance a duty of rights and a voice for workers, it also becomes the individual who need to be aware of rights, safe practices, and security risks. Legalisation means individuals become responsible. However, when considering how youths are lured into cities, and workers enter the profession following promised opportunities, is that ‘just’? Before legalising the profession individuals need to be granted choices to not engage in such practices. The family relations forcing migration and prostitution need evaluation. How much power can national legislation have when traditional, local, and family power relations limit choices to enter sex work? Will state actors follow laws when sex work remains culturally unacceptable? Further, legalization needs to be met with opportunities to exit the industry.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-education-usuprmhbu-con02b", "score": 0.6523814797401428, "text": "The prejudice that individuals in the workplace hold for these minorities already exist through their current perception of these people as being less qualified as them due to their conspicuous absence from the workplace as it is. The best way to deal with such resentment and prejudice is to use affirmative action and bring more of these minorities into the workplace where they work side-by-side as co-workers and prove themselves as equally competent and qualified as every other person in the workplace. Although affirmative action may initially cause this assumption to occur, it is its own cure as affirmative action allows these minorities to prove themselves in the workplace and dispel such a baseless assumption.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-pro04a", "score": 0.6492298245429993, "text": "The IAAF and the Athletics commission have the highest burden to protect their athletes. Just as an employer has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees, the IAAF has a duty to provide a safe environment for their athletes. The sports medical team is responsible for ‘preventing illness and injury’, [1] clearly something that is caused by harsh training. As do all those who are involved in sports. These athletes only exist in a professional capacity because bodies created the positions for the athletes to exist. If the world wants to pay people to perform and compete for them, then once that offer is made they have a moral duty to ensure that work is safe, since they are culpable in creating that work. Moreover, we give the IAAF power in the promise that by giving up localised power of judgement over sport, they can better protect athletes and creating a fairer sporting environment. Abusive training methods are a huge failure on the part of the IAAF and as such they must use the most powerful disincentive possible to them. [1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-pro03b", "score": 0.6482573747634888, "text": "Virtually every employee dresses differently for work than they do outside. We accept the fact that there are behaviours and attitudes that must be left at the door when we enter the workplace. Those unwilling to make such an accommodation simply don’t work for organisations with those requirements. If the women concerned had such a great commitment to their faith, then they should find a different job.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-economy-epiasghbf-pro02b", "score": 0.6477194428443909, "text": "Again employment needs to be contextualised with what type of jobs are provided and entered into. It remains questionable as to whether the mental health of women improves if women are employed to work within hazardous work environments, or where there is no job security. For example domestic workers remain vulnerable to different abuses - such as non payment, excessive work hours, abuse, and forced labour. Women may be vulnerable to gender based violence on their way to work. Furthermore, street traders are placed in a vulnerable position where the right to work is not respected. The forced eviction and harassment of female street-traders is a common story, underlined by political motivations. A recent example includes the eviction of street hawkers in Johannesburg [1] . [1] See further readings: WIEGO, 2013.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-society-epiasghbf-pro02b", "score": 0.6476127505302429, "text": "Again employment needs to be contextualised with what type of jobs are provided and entered into. It remains questionable as to whether the mental health of women improves if women are employed to work within hazardous work environments, or where there is no job security. For example domestic workers remain vulnerable to different abuses - such as non payment, excessive work hours, abuse, and forced labour. Women may be vulnerable to gender based violence on their way to work. Furthermore, street traders are placed in a vulnerable position where the right to work is not respected. The forced eviction and harassment of female street-traders is a common story, underlined by political motivations. A recent example includes the eviction of street hawkers in Johannesburg [1] . [1] See further readings: WIEGO, 2013.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-con03b", "score": 0.644024133682251, "text": "There is no reason why, under this model, you could not retain suitable precautions to ensure that this doesn’t happen. For example, you could continue the obligation for companies to sell the drug at cost (they would, naturally, continue to be incentivised by the huge profits they expect to make when the drug is licensed). Further, you could impose financial sanctions on companies that refused to take appropriate action towards completing testing.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeshwimra-pro02a", "score": 0.6439112424850464, "text": "Maintaining access to pension and healthcare plans Creating a mandatory retirement age ensures that businesses will be able to maintain employees’ pension plans and healthcare schemes. In many liberal democracies that operate without centralised, government sponsored welfare systems, the support provided by employers’ insurance systems is the only means of obtaining hospital care or a retirement income for a large number of working age individuals. Many firms also offer so-called defined benefit pension plans to their workers. Pensions of this type guarantee that a worker will receive a certain, regular level of income on retirement – an amount calculated according to a fixed formula that takes account of an employee’s salary and the length of their service with a company. As the Ford motor company attempted to do in 2010, many firms will attempt to remove older employees who show no desire to retire of their own volition. The older an employee is at the point of retirement, the more money- under a defined benefit plan- a firm will have to pay out in the form of pension contributions. Further, as individuals age they will represent more of a risk in terms of healthcare liabilities. As an individual ages, the likelihood that she will develop chronic diseases such as cancer increases. The greater the aggregate age of a company’s workforce, the more likely it is that the company will, at some point, have to cover the costs of treating a serious illness. Two specific harms result from this situation. First, employers will become reluctant to hire older individuals, aware of the increased risk that their productivity may be affected by an illness that will be treated at their firm’s expense. Second, as employees age, their retirement settlements will constitute an ever increasing burden on their employer. Life spans across the western world are collectively increasing. The longer an employee remains in work, the larger their pension, the greater the liability they represent to a business. As a consequence, between the cost of maintaining a previous generation’s pension settlements and the cost of treating the afflictions of longer-lived workers, it is highly likely that some employee support schemes will collapse. Other schemes, as has occurred in many UK businesses, will be closed off to new employees. Either way, the obstacle presented by an aging workforce will deny a younger generation the chance to benefit from schemes and subsidies that their employer provided to their fathers and grandfathers.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con02b", "score": 0.638775110244751, "text": "No customer or patient complained in either case. Neither employer demonstrated that wearing the cross prevented either employee from performing their duties efficiently. Indeed, given the size and diversity of both organisations’ client base, a demonstration that they support free expression might be welcomed. The key point here is that both of the employees concerned did believe that the right to not only hold, but proclaim, their beliefs was core to their faith. By denying them the right to express that impeded not just their actions but their beliefs.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con02b", "score": 0.7738026976585388, "text": "Employers can be trusted to use this information responsibly. They are already used to keeping sensitive information (e.g. about salaries, annual reports, or employees' addresses and telephone numbers) confidential. Nor is it in their interest to open themselves up to lawsuits for bullying and discrimination in the workplace. There is no reason to assume that businesses will be more likely to leak information about someone's HIV status than doctors or hospitals, who already have such information." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro01a", "score": 0.7348887920379639, "text": "It’s in the interests of employers It’s in the interests of employers. A long, incurable and debilitating condition has stricken one of their employees. They will have to make provision for possible sickness cover and replacement workers, potentially for medical and/or retirement costs. HIV can make people tired and can lead to being sick more often as it means the immune system will not be able to fight off infections as well as it normally would. [1] The employee’s productivity might be reduced to the point at which their continued employment is no longer viable. If things are made difficult for employers with HIV positive workers, then they are less likely in the future to employ people who (they suspect) are HIV positive. Employers must be listened to in this debate – in many HIV-stricken countries, they’re the last thing between a semi-functioning society and complete economic and social collapse. Traditional rights ideas such as concerns about privacy of medical records are less important than the benefit to society of being able to cope with the unique problem of HIV more effectively. [1] Dickens, Carol, ‘Signs of HIV, AIDS symptoms’, AIDS Symptoms,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro04a", "score": 0.7323335409164429, "text": "Tackling HIV requires a responsible and active position by everyone Businesses ought to take a responsible and active position on HIV. The issue isn’t going to go away. Successful programs designed to help HIV-positive employees remain in the workplace for as long as they want to do so should be developed. Procedures for treating personnel with fairness and dignity must be put in place. The potential fears and prejudices of other employees must be combated. The beginning of that process is ensuring they know about the problem and, crucially, the scale of it. Without knowledge of the numbers involved, employers may put in place inadequate medical and pensions arrangements that will ultimately prove inadequate.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con01a", "score": 0.7280489206314087, "text": "Employers have no right to private medical information Employers have no right to know. This is an arena into which the state has no right to intrude, or to compel intrusion by others. Employers will know if their employee’s work is satisfactory or unsatisfactory – what more do they need to know than that? If employers find out, they might dismiss workers – which is exactly why many employees don’t want to tell them. If workers are forced to disclose the fact that they have HIV, the merit principle will go out the window. Even if not dismissed, their prospects for promotion will be shattered – because of prejudice, or the perception that their career has in any meaningful sense been ‘finished’ by their condition (which is often not the case as sufferers can work and lead fulfilling lives after diagnosis; life expectancy after diagnosis in the US was 22.5 years in 2005 [1] ). Even if not fired and career advancement doesn’t suffer, prejudice from co-workers is likely. From harassment to reluctance to associate or interact with the employee, this is something the employee knows he might face. He has a right to decide for himself whether or not to make himself open to that. Managers may promise, or be bound, not to disclose such information to other workers – but how likely is enforcement of such an undertaking? For these reasons, even problems with huge HIV problems like South Africa haven’t adopted this policy. [1] Harrison, Kathleen M. et al., ‘Life Expectancy After HIV Diagnosis Based on National HIV Surveillance Data From 25 States, United States’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol 53 Issue 1, January 2010,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro01b", "score": 0.7118471264839172, "text": "It is in the interests of employers not to have to pay their employees. It is in the interests of employers not to offer vacation time. It is in the interests of employers not to spend money on ensuring health and safety measures are complied with. It is in the interests of employers to do many things that violate the rights of their employees and as a society we prevent them from doing these things because the benefit to the business (and the economy as a whole) does not outweigh the harm caused by the violation of those rights. Most people who are being treated for HIV are no less productive than any other worker – 58% of people with HIV believe it has no impact on their working life. [1] [1] Pebody, Roger, ‘HIV health problems cause few problems in employment, but discrimination still a reality in UK’, aidsmap, 27 August 2009,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro03b", "score": 0.7008897662162781, "text": "Working with someone with HIV does not put you at risk. Suggesting that it does serves to perpetuate the myths that do such harm to HIV-positive people who already suffer too much. To clarify: AIDS cannot be transmitted through external, intact skin. It cannot pass through the air like cold germs. Sweat, urine, tears and saliva cannot transmit HIV. Whilst blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid and breast milk can, how often are such fluids encountered at work? Even if they are, and such fluids are HIV positive, they must enter another’s body through mucus membranes, directly into the bloodstream (e.g. via injection), or from mother to child via breastfeeding or in the womb. What workplaces risk such transferral?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro02b", "score": 0.6865978240966797, "text": "It’s not as if the employee can’t tell their employer at present – it’s that he or she could, but doesn’t want to. They get to decide what’s in their best interests (including what’s likely at trial) – and sadly, that will often be keeping quiet about his condition.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-con02b", "score": 0.6772368550300598, "text": "Criminalising HIV transmission puts human rights in greater jeopardy. The stigmatisation of HIV/AIDS will remain prominent. The acceptance, and inclusion, of sex workers will become further marginalised as they become symbols of risk, disease, and transmission. This is something no sex worker would want. Countless articles from Ghana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa suggest public support legalising sex work (i.e. see Ghana Web, 2013).", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-con02a", "score": 0.6717655062675476, "text": "The causality is wrong. Legalisation doesn’t prevent HIV/AIDS transmission, safe sex, or effective regulation. Workers need to be taught about safe sex; safe sex needs to be legalised; and HIV transmission criminalised. National governments need to concentrate on providing access to prevention tools - such as condoms. Legalisation should not suddenly be announced by government but only done if it is what sex workers want and is the best option for them, this can be done through consolations with groups such as the Global Network of Sex Workers Projects(see NSWP, 2013), to help formulate policy that will work for everyone", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-law-cplgpshwdp-con03a", "score": 0.6700661182403564, "text": "The disclosure of previous convictions could falsely characterize the defendant. This motion is incredibly dangerous in a variety of ways as not only convictions but also acquittals and other past conduct could then be raised in a court trials. This means that a jury could be informed that somebody had questionable behaviour, such as a sexual interest in children, even if they had never been tried or much less convicted of an actual offence. This would allow the prosecution to unduly blacken the character of the defendant, and easily prejudice the jury against them for no valid reason, and without the evidence which formal proceedings would require. Studies into jury verdicts have found that a jury was ‘50% more likely to convict if it was told that the defendant had a conviction for a similar previous offence than if it was given no information’, particularly in regard to sexual offences [1] . This is proof that jurors are highly susceptible to prejudice when reaching a verdict. [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-economy-epiasghbf-pro02b", "score": 0.6676283478736877, "text": "Again employment needs to be contextualised with what type of jobs are provided and entered into. It remains questionable as to whether the mental health of women improves if women are employed to work within hazardous work environments, or where there is no job security. For example domestic workers remain vulnerable to different abuses - such as non payment, excessive work hours, abuse, and forced labour. Women may be vulnerable to gender based violence on their way to work. Furthermore, street traders are placed in a vulnerable position where the right to work is not respected. The forced eviction and harassment of female street-traders is a common story, underlined by political motivations. A recent example includes the eviction of street hawkers in Johannesburg [1] . [1] See further readings: WIEGO, 2013.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-society-epiasghbf-pro02b", "score": 0.6675192713737488, "text": "Again employment needs to be contextualised with what type of jobs are provided and entered into. It remains questionable as to whether the mental health of women improves if women are employed to work within hazardous work environments, or where there is no job security. For example domestic workers remain vulnerable to different abuses - such as non payment, excessive work hours, abuse, and forced labour. Women may be vulnerable to gender based violence on their way to work. Furthermore, street traders are placed in a vulnerable position where the right to work is not respected. The forced eviction and harassment of female street-traders is a common story, underlined by political motivations. A recent example includes the eviction of street hawkers in Johannesburg [1] . [1] See further readings: WIEGO, 2013.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-con03b", "score": 0.6661761999130249, "text": "Issues of sexuality tend to raise great passion but to accept that people should be harangued, threatened or intimidated for just getting on with their lives, quite legally and posing no threat to others is absurd. A liberal society should be free to defend that liberalism, if people wish to change that reality then there are democratic ways of doing so that do not incite hatred on the streets. Homosexuality has been legal in the UK for over forty years; it is absurd that gay people should still have to face this kind of barracking on a regular basis.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03b", "score": 0.6644463539123535, "text": "Some very few people may do this and it’s the job of the government to attempt to educate people about the enormous dangers of doing so to minimise that. Nevertheless, most people will quite properly prioritise their lives and health over their job, which in any case legislation should safeguard by stopping unfair dismissal.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con01b", "score": 0.6634080410003662, "text": "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con01b", "score": 0.6634080410003662, "text": "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-education-eghhwmvc-pro01b", "score": 0.6623657941818237, "text": "A great deal of health care and prevention of diseases is information and an informed decision. The United Kingdom does not have a system of compulsory health care, but disease outbreaks are still prevented due to the voluntary uptake of immunizations. The pediatrician Miriam Fine-Goulden explains: “The risk of contracting these infections is only so low at present because the voluntary uptake of immunizations has been high enough (in most cases) to reduce the chance of contact with those organisms through the process of herd immunity.” [1] Also it can be argued that measles, mumps and rubella (one of the diseases vaccine against) are far from harmful. They are relatively minor illnesses [2] . Measles causes a rash and high fever. Mumps causes swollen glands, headache and fever. Rubella is usually mild and can go unnoticed. Just because medical advance has been made in vaccinations it does not mean that we have to be immunized against every little disease known to man. Bearing in mind the cost of such jabs on the heavily burdened NHS, surely it would be better to not make the MMR jab compulsory. This way we keep parents happy and the NHS budget can be stretched further. Researches also show that alternative approaches towards diseases such as better nutrition, homeopathy, etc. give very positive results. Healthier populations would not need vaccines to fight a disease. High profits that are now reserved only for the pharmaceutical industry would be spread to other areas of the economy, such as agriculture and the service sector, and more people would gain. [1] Miriam Fine-Goulden: Should childhood vaccinations be compulsory in the UK ?, University College London, , accessed 05/29/2011 [2] BBC News, Should the MMR vaccine be compulsory, 03/02/2002, , accessed 05/29/2011", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-international-bldimehbn-pro02b", "score": 0.660828709602356, "text": "This is really not an issue about the reporting of gay marriage or the opportunities to host a pride march. In many of these countries gay men and women face repression, imprisonment and violence. Regardless of the victims of such actions, it says something fundamental about the perpetrators of those actions – governments, security services or religious groups – that they perform the actions at all. Privacy is an argument to be used to prevent discrimination, not cover-ups of discrimination and abuse; those who are offended by such reporting can invoke their privacy simply by tuning out. Equally it is questionable that proposition would make such an argument based on the view that certain racial, ethnic or religious groups were less than human and it might trouble bigots of another stripe to see their interests of those communities mentioned in the media. It is difficult to find a definition of Human Rights that would not condemn the suppression of individuals on the basis of sexuality that does not also have to argue that gay men and women are less than human. Such an argument is as offensive as it is palpably untrue.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-education-usuprmhbu-con02b", "score": 0.6565485596656799, "text": "The prejudice that individuals in the workplace hold for these minorities already exist through their current perception of these people as being less qualified as them due to their conspicuous absence from the workplace as it is. The best way to deal with such resentment and prejudice is to use affirmative action and bring more of these minorities into the workplace where they work side-by-side as co-workers and prove themselves as equally competent and qualified as every other person in the workplace. Although affirmative action may initially cause this assumption to occur, it is its own cure as affirmative action allows these minorities to prove themselves in the workplace and dispel such a baseless assumption.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-ldhwprhs-con01b", "score": 0.653296947479248, "text": "It is simply unfair to ask people to be the victims in a societal experiment on the basis that it will all be okay in the end. In a context like this the language used is not only offensive but also threatening. This legislation may not be great constitutional theory but provides very real protection of people’s safety and quality of life. In addition to which, homophobia long enjoyed the sanction and protection of the state it is interesting that when that is reversed just a little it becomes an assault on free speech.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-law-tllgrhwds-con04b", "score": 0.6519338488578796, "text": "It should first be observed that accidents and inadvertent harm can befall S&M practitioners irrespective of the level of caution that they exercise. It is unacceptable to require responsible adults to run the risk of prosecution whenever they engage in a consensual act of sexual expression. Further, relationships, even sadomasochistic relationships, can break down and become acrimonious. There is a risk that an embittered partner who formerly consented to prohibited S&M activity might try to use that fact to blackmail or persecute his or her ex-lover. The opposition state that the freedom to dissent from laws regulating one’s private conduct begins to break down when the number of people engaging in a “private” activity grows. Why should the freedom to engage in a particular sexual activity imply a trade off against the freedom to choose how many people we engage in that activity with? Interacting with multiple sexual partners is not, in itself, illegal in the majority of western liberal states, but it does not exclude other sexual fetishes, such as S&M. The opposition is disguising a further limitation on sexual freedom- the freedom to engage in group S&M- as a concession to liberalism. Finally, the awareness that a particular activity is proscribed can affect an individual’s ability to enjoy that activity. The pleasure inherent in free expression of sexual identity is compromised by the knowledge that discovery will lead to prosecution and stigmatization. As numerous accounts by those involved in the LGBT liberation movement have demonstrated, knowing that one’s sexuality is seen as something immoral and socially destructive is inhibiting and upsetting, even in private contexts.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03b", "score": 0.6695367097854614, "text": "Some very few people may do this and it’s the job of the government to attempt to educate people about the enormous dangers of doing so to minimise that. Nevertheless, most people will quite properly prioritise their lives and health over their job, which in any case legislation should safeguard by stopping unfair dismissal." } ]

[ { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con01a", "score": 0.6331171989440918, "text": "Denying healthcare to smokers is impractical There are several reasons why limiting access to healthcare for smokers could prove impractical. Ultimately they surround the issue of how you define who is a smoker. One man might have chain smoked for 20 years but given up for a year, since a bill limiting access to healthcare for smokers was passed. Meanwhile, another might have been smoking cigarettes now and again just for the past year. Who would be prioritized if the two were on a waiting list for the same operation? If the law penalizes anyone who has ever smoked then it would not provide nearly as strong an incentive to stop smoking. But, if the law does not penalize anyone who has smoked, then choosing whom to punish would seem quite arbitrary. Furthermore, what is stopping people from simply lying about how much/whether they smoke? They might not show any obvious signs of being a smoker. Even if they do, they could claim to have given up, work around fumes or be a victim of passive smoking.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-education-egscphsrdt-con01a", "score": 0.6314452290534973, "text": "Right to privacy Even if a right to privacy (which would prevent random drug testing with no reason for suspicion) does not exist in law in every country, many students being affected by drugs tests will perceive that the notional right to privacy which they believe they possess is being violated. Because they would perceive this violation as a harm, it should not be imposed without good reason. This problematizes the nature of 'random' testing, which by definition means forcing drug tests on individuals on whom there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use. Firstly, the majority of those being tested will most likely test negative (as the previously cited statistics suggest) and so a majority will be harmed for no fault of their own, but rather as a consequence of the crimes of others. This may be seen as the equivalent of searching all homes in a neighbourhood for an illegal weapon on the suspicion that one of them was hiding it -an action which would be illegal in almost every western liberal democracy. Further, however, even if students do engage in illegal drug use, random drug tests will additionally catch only those on whom there was previously no suspicion against (as students who show signs of drug use are already usually tested). In order to not already be under suspicion, these drug-using students would have to be engaging in their education, not disrupting the education of others, and not displaying erratic or harmful behaviour. As they are not actively harming others, these students should be subject only to the same standards as individuals in other areas of society: to only have their privacy violated by drugs tests if their behaviour actively brings them under suspicion.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con02a", "score": 0.6307716369628906, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers will lead to thousands of people being turned away and potentially dying from preventable illnesses The denial of access to healthcare for smokers is a policy that will directly lead to the turning away of millions of people, merely for making one perfectly legal, if ill-advised lifestyle choice. In a state like France, where 20 per cent of the population, 12 million people, are smokers, such a policy would leave a large minority unable to access basic healthcare for issues that may be unrelated to their smoking habit . Furthermore, it may lead to the ridiculous situation whereby smokers are dying from preventable diseases despite hospitals being under-utilized, as a fifth of the population is no longer allowed in.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-pro03b", "score": 0.630275309085846, "text": "First, note that the reason for the existence of the placebo arm is to determine if the drug is more effective than placebo, so in some cases the drug will not be, and nothing will have been lost! Second, for this point to stand, it has to be shown why the present generation should be prioritised above all future ones: the consequences of giving the present patients a slightly increased chance of survival is to negatively impact patients in the future in a myriad ways (see opposition arguments). Third, there are a number of reasons to doubt that this is, in fact in the present patient’s best interest: it is not the case that terminally ill people have ‘nothing to lose’ and can therefore be used as human guinea pigs (providing there is an, as yet unspecified, probability of survival). The large-scale provision of un-trialled drugs may well result in side-effects denigrating the quality of the patient’s remaining years. Finally, the practical consequence considered can be sidestepped through a) better supervision of trials and b) improved doctor-patient relationships (a particular problem during the AIDS crisis). Further, note that the case of AIDS is something of an anomalous one: AIDS patients were more numerous and politicised than any other group before or since, thus enabling this sort of trial-breaking behaviour.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro04b", "score": 0.6290698647499084, "text": "There is no evidence that limiting access to healthcare would act as a deterrent. In fact, in the developing world, where a smoker would on average have worse access to healthcare, tobacco consumption has increased significantly over the last decade.1 Furthermore, governments have indeed acted to discourage smoking through a variety of methods. These have included advertising campaigns and banning smoking in public places and they seem to have worked. Cigarette use in the developed world has declined over the last 50 years. In the UK, smoking rates have dropped by half between 1974 and 2009, from 45% down to 21%2. A majority 59% have never taken up the habit3. 1 World Health Organization, The Tobacco Atlas, 2 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011. 3 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-con02b", "score": 0.6290283799171448, "text": "Criminalising HIV transmission puts human rights in greater jeopardy. The stigmatisation of HIV/AIDS will remain prominent. The acceptance, and inclusion, of sex workers will become further marginalised as they become symbols of risk, disease, and transmission. This is something no sex worker would want. Countless articles from Ghana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa suggest public support legalising sex work (i.e. see Ghana Web, 2013).", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghhbampt-con01b", "score": 0.6290109157562256, "text": "This comes down to the ‘well it can’t hurt, can it’ approach to alternatives. There is simply no serious medic – or any other scientist for that matter who would suggest that it’s a good idea to ingest products that are of dubious origin and purport medical benefits without having been tested. In many cases these have been shown to be at least irrelevant and at worst actively harmful. Of course it is painful to deny treatment to a patient on the basis that the medication has yet to complete its trial stage but there is a reason for doing that in that it allows doctors to be 100 percent sure of a product before they’re prescribed.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con02b", "score": 0.6288325190544128, "text": "Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy simply gives these individuals more opportunity to do as they wish. Secondly a lack of transparency creates uncertainty which can be filled by a rival wanting to seize power; if the leader is just ill and there is a void of information it is simply for rivals to seize the narrative and claim he is dead enabling their takeover.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con02b", "score": 0.6288325190544128, "text": "Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy simply gives these individuals more opportunity to do as they wish. Secondly a lack of transparency creates uncertainty which can be filled by a rival wanting to seize power; if the leader is just ill and there is a void of information it is simply for rivals to seize the narrative and claim he is dead enabling their takeover.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-con01b", "score": 0.6279375553131104, "text": "First, this may well be overridden by the individual rights of present patients (see proposition arguments). Second, the greater time taken to recruit is one that may be offset by greater numbers: whilst the trial will be of a lower quality (no control group, etc.) there will nevertheless be a greater number of people willing to take the drug (people who wouldn’t have wanted to be part of a trial, but are willing to try the new treatment). Consequently, it may well be possible to compensate for the other problems with the trial. Further, alternative trialling models can be employed, for example using patients who choose not to take the drug as the control group. Whilst you lose the benefit here of having a double-blind trial (as under the status quo), you gain in terms of the benefits to current patients.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con01b", "score": 0.6279059052467346, "text": "Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to. By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race. Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02b", "score": 0.6274113059043884, "text": "Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b", "score": 0.6266996264457703, "text": "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-health-sshwnasso-pro03b", "score": 0.6264423131942749, "text": "The option given to the police and victim to not disclose the information undermines the principled claim in Proposition Argument Two that people should be free to determine the importance of the information on their own; this denies them that freedom in some cases. Given cases where there is a risk of vigilantism are the ones which excite the most public feeling, these cases may be the ones which people feel are most important to know about.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-law-hrpghwicic-con04b", "score": 0.6253111958503723, "text": "This point alludes to a potentially tiny minority of incidents. It is likely that most people, realising the importance of their card, would not lose it. In cases where it is used properly, it could be an enormous benefit to the user and increase their convenience.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03b", "score": 0.6252464652061462, "text": "These vital drugs will become outdated. Diseases often have the ability to build a resistance to treatment, making many of these currently generic drugs impotent. In Tanzania, 75% of health workers were providing lower than recommended levels of anti-malaria drugs which resulted in a drug resistant form of the disease becoming prominent [1] . Giving recently developed drugs to Africa will have a greater impact against diseases such as HIV than giving them twenty year old drugs to which a disease is already immune. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-digital-freedoms-phbplpfsbop-con03b", "score": 0.6250311732292175, "text": "As previously stated upon entering a profession which involves being in the public limelight one should expect to be put under such stresses. If you are publicly known, there will be a demand for information about you and the media is simply obtaining stories which their readership wish to consume. The Diana example was, as the opposition argument expresses, an extraordinary case; one which is extremely rare and from which lessons have been learnt. However there are codes of ethics which all journalists sign up to which contain caveats to ensure that physical and mental harm is kept to a minimum if in existence at all. While on occasion a journalist can fail to live up-to these ethics they are, on the whole, well adhered to and in those instances when not, professional sanctions often take place to minimize such an issue from occurring again.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-pro04a", "score": 0.6244661808013916, "text": "Monitoring who enters the sex trade. By including sex workers under a legal framework regulatory rules can be imposed on who enters the profession, such as is found in Senegal. The introduction of Senegal’s Identity Card means frequent health checks are required upon registration to be a prostitute. Additionally, the use of children and youths within the sex industry can be controlled. Global estimations of HIV/AIDS show young people are at highest risk. The UNDP (2013) called for a legal framework able to ensure the protection of children and youths. Regulation and monitoring is the only way to do so.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con02b", "score": 0.6234228610992432, "text": "It often doesn’t require enforcement – it changes attitudes itself, making people not do so. In Scotland, within three months 99% of locations abided by the ban, without the need for excess heavy handed enforcement 1 . This is because non-smokers will ask a smoker to stub it out if they are smoking where they are not allowed to. There seems little reason why this wont happen in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa just as in the west. Even so, a lot of laws are not enforceable in all cases – that doesn’t mean that they will be complete failures. 1 The Scottish Government, 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', scotland.gov.uk, 26 June 2006,", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-law-tllgrhwds-pro03b", "score": 0.6233620047569275, "text": "The notion of consent cannot apply to a practice in which participants lack the ability to withdraw at any given time. Rape cases are easier to prosecute as it is clear and evident that the victim did not consent to the activity. The legalization of sadomasochism would create situations in which consent has been given beforehand but cannot be withdrawn during the activity. There may be genuine confusion between participants in a situation where one party wishes to withdraw their consent but is unable due to the activities already underway. In that case, it would appear unreasonable to prosecute despite the victim’s anguish. To spare such horrible situations arising, the practice must remain illegal. Finally, a number of criminal cases, including the English case of R v Dica, have held that intentionally or recklessly exposing a partner to a sexually transmitted infection by refusing to wear a condom can be a criminally action. Where an individual is aware that certain sexual interactions carry a risk of harm, and he does not obtain his partner’s full and informed acknowledgment of that risk, in English law at least, he commits a crime [i] . If a man forces sex on a woman who has rejected his advances on the basis that he will not wear a condom, a rape is committed. If a man deceives a woman into having unprotected sex by lying about his sexual health, the decision in R v Dica will hold him liable for any resulting harm. [i] R v Dica [2004] QB 1257", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con01b", "score": 0.8359254002571106, "text": "Employers have a right to know about issue which will affect their business. An employee with a serious incurable illness which requires a large amount of medication to control is inevitably going to affect the business in a way that the employer will have to know about in order to work around it. Aside from the fact that HIV status need not be communicated to co-workers, managers and employers already have a duty to prevent harassment and prejudice in any circumstances and this would not change." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro04b", "score": 0.7843029499053955, "text": "All these worthwhile aims can be achieved without employees having to tell their employers of their HIV status on an involuntary basis. The scale of the problem can be easily inferred from national and regional medical statistics. For example, mining companies in South Africa have put in place excellent programmes to combat prejudice and treat sick employees without compulsory disclosure.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con02b", "score": 0.7816994786262512, "text": "Employers can be trusted to use this information responsibly. They are already used to keeping sensitive information (e.g. about salaries, annual reports, or employees' addresses and telephone numbers) confidential. Nor is it in their interest to open themselves up to lawsuits for bullying and discrimination in the workplace. There is no reason to assume that businesses will be more likely to leak information about someone's HIV status than doctors or hospitals, who already have such information.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro02a", "score": 0.7791152596473694, "text": "It’s in the interests of employees It’s in the interests of the HIV positive employee. Right now, although in many countries it is illegal to fire someone for having HIV [1] prejudiced employers can claim that they didn’t know their employer had HIV when they fired him, so they must have been acting on other grounds. The employee then has to try and prove that they did know, which can be very hard. Furthermore, once informed the employer can reasonably be expected to display a minimum level of understanding and compassion to the employee. [1] Civil Rights Division, Ouestions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS’, U.S. Department of Justice,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro02b", "score": 0.7599676251411438, "text": "It’s not as if the employee can’t tell their employer at present – it’s that he or she could, but doesn’t want to. They get to decide what’s in their best interests (including what’s likely at trial) – and sadly, that will often be keeping quiet about his condition.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro01a", "score": 0.7522192597389221, "text": "It’s in the interests of employers It’s in the interests of employers. A long, incurable and debilitating condition has stricken one of their employees. They will have to make provision for possible sickness cover and replacement workers, potentially for medical and/or retirement costs. HIV can make people tired and can lead to being sick more often as it means the immune system will not be able to fight off infections as well as it normally would. [1] The employee’s productivity might be reduced to the point at which their continued employment is no longer viable. If things are made difficult for employers with HIV positive workers, then they are less likely in the future to employ people who (they suspect) are HIV positive. Employers must be listened to in this debate – in many HIV-stricken countries, they’re the last thing between a semi-functioning society and complete economic and social collapse. Traditional rights ideas such as concerns about privacy of medical records are less important than the benefit to society of being able to cope with the unique problem of HIV more effectively. [1] Dickens, Carol, ‘Signs of HIV, AIDS symptoms’, AIDS Symptoms,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con02a", "score": 0.7283200621604919, "text": "The risks of ignorance and prejudice are too high This measure could be actively dangerous for HIV-positive workers. Ignorance causes so much bad behaviour towards AIDS sufferers and HIV-positive men and women. A fifth of men in the UK who disclose their HIV positive status at work then experience HIV discrimination. [1] The proposition seeks to institutionalise and widen the shunning and ill-treatment of HIV-positive workers that already happens when people find out about their condition. Even if not motivated by prejudice, co-workers will often take excessive precautions which are medically unnecessary and inflame unsubstantiated fears of casual transmission. In addition, many people who are HIV-positive choose not to reveal their condition for fear of violent reactions to them from their families and the rest of society. If disclosure to an employer is compulsory, then the news will inevitably leak out to the wider community. In effect, they will lose any right of privacy completely. [1] Pebody, 2009", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro03a", "score": 0.7253076434135437, "text": "It’s in the interests of co-workers It’s in the interests of other workers. The possibility of transmission, while very unlikely, is real and one they have a right to know about so as to be able to guard against it. While most of the time it will not be problem as transmission requires a transfer of bodily fluids this may occasionally happen in a workplace. [1] This is particularly true of healthworkers (e.g. doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives, paramedics, etc) who should have both a moral and a legal obligation to disclose if they are HIV-positive. Even outside the medical field industrial accidents may expose employees to risk. Employers have a duty to protect their workforce. [1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘HIV Transmission’, Department of Health and Human Services,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro01b", "score": 0.7130991220474243, "text": "It is in the interests of employers not to have to pay their employees. It is in the interests of employers not to offer vacation time. It is in the interests of employers not to spend money on ensuring health and safety measures are complied with. It is in the interests of employers to do many things that violate the rights of their employees and as a society we prevent them from doing these things because the benefit to the business (and the economy as a whole) does not outweigh the harm caused by the violation of those rights. Most people who are being treated for HIV are no less productive than any other worker – 58% of people with HIV believe it has no impact on their working life. [1] [1] Pebody, Roger, ‘HIV health problems cause few problems in employment, but discrimination still a reality in UK’, aidsmap, 27 August 2009,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03a", "score": 0.7117985486984253, "text": "It is a disincentive to get tested in the first place The requirement to disclose their condition if known would be a disincentive to get tested in the first place. This is especially the case for many people in places like sub-Saharan Africa, but also applies widely elsewhere. Their job is so important to them (since there’s no safety net to speak of if they lose it) that they’d prefer to go in ignorance of their HIV status than find out and risk being fired for it. The medical repercussions of that are obvious.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-digital-freedoms-gthbtsbp-con03a", "score": 0.6800307631492615, "text": "It is reasonable that people have access to information that effects them personally but not information that relates to their neighbours’, employers’, former-partners’ or other citizens who maythose who work for public bodies. The right to access allows people to see information that affects them personally or where there is reasonable suspicion of harm or nefarious practices. It doesn’t allow them to invade the privacy of other citizens who just happen to work for public bodies or have some other association [i] . Unless there is reason to suspect corruption, why should law-abiding citizens who sell goods and services to public bodies have the full details of their negotiations made public for their other buyers, who may have got a worse deal, to see? Why should the memo sent by an otherwise competent official on a bad day be made available for her neighbours to read over? A presumption in favour of publication would ensure that all of these things, and others, would be made a reality with the force of law behind them. This would place additional burdens on government in terms of recruitment and negotiations with private firms – not to mention negotiations with other governments with less transparent systems. Let’s assume for the moment that the British government introduced a system, it is quite easy imagine a sense of “For God’s sake don’t tell the British” spreading around the capitals of the world fairly quickly. [i] Section 40 0(A) od the FOIA. See also Freedom of Information Act Environmental Information Regulations. When Should Salaries be Disclosed? Information Commissioner’s Office.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con01a", "score": 0.670473039150238, "text": "Denial of privacy to the leaders The leaders of states deserve privacy in exactly the same way as anyone else. Just like their citizens leaders want and deserve privacy and it would be unfair for everyone to know about their health. Leaders may suffer from diseases such AIDS/HIV or embarrassing illnesses which could damage a leader. The people only a need for the people to know when the illness significantly damages the running of the government. The government can function on its own without its leader for several days; only if the illness incapacitates the leader for a long period is there any need to tell the people. Clearly if the President is working from his bed he is still doing the job and his government is functioning. William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain was toasted as 'the Saviour of Europe' while he was seriously ill but still running the country during the height of the Napoleonic Wars. 1 1 Bloy, Marjie, 'William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806)', Victorian Web, 4 January 2006,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro04a", "score": 0.6656622290611267, "text": "Tackling HIV requires a responsible and active position by everyone Businesses ought to take a responsible and active position on HIV. The issue isn’t going to go away. Successful programs designed to help HIV-positive employees remain in the workplace for as long as they want to do so should be developed. Procedures for treating personnel with fairness and dignity must be put in place. The potential fears and prejudices of other employees must be combated. The beginning of that process is ensuring they know about the problem and, crucially, the scale of it. Without knowledge of the numbers involved, employers may put in place inadequate medical and pensions arrangements that will ultimately prove inadequate.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03b", "score": 0.6612141728401184, "text": "Some very few people may do this and it’s the job of the government to attempt to educate people about the enormous dangers of doing so to minimise that. Nevertheless, most people will quite properly prioritise their lives and health over their job, which in any case legislation should safeguard by stopping unfair dismissal.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-con01b", "score": 0.6531596779823303, "text": "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con01b", "score": 0.6531596779823303, "text": "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-fsaphgiap-pro01b", "score": 0.6529515385627747, "text": "If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-pro01b", "score": 0.6529515385627747, "text": "If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-free-speech-debate-nshbcsbawc-con02b", "score": 0.6504502892494202, "text": "No customer or patient complained in either case. Neither employer demonstrated that wearing the cross prevented either employee from performing their duties efficiently. Indeed, given the size and diversity of both organisations’ client base, a demonstration that they support free expression might be welcomed. The key point here is that both of the employees concerned did believe that the right to not only hold, but proclaim, their beliefs was core to their faith. By denying them the right to express that impeded not just their actions but their beliefs.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-economy-epehwacbr-pro01b", "score": 0.6407034397125244, "text": "Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them. Collective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1] Further, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members. [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-economy-epehwacbr-con04a", "score": 0.6395736336708069, "text": "Collective Bargaining is a Right. Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right. This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1] [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro02b", "score": 0.7772362232208252, "text": "The use of generic drugs can sometimes fail to bring about a reduced price. For the cost of drugs to decrease, there must be competition within the industry to drive prices down. The switch from patented to generic drugs in Ireland failed to bring about any significant saving for this reason [1] . African countries must therefore ensure competition in order for generic drugs to become truly affordable which could be problematic due to continued protectionism in some states. [1] Hogan,L. ‘Switch to generic drugs fails to bring expected savings for HSE’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro01b", "score": 0.7166873812675476, "text": "The argument that states will save money due to less people smoking based upon healthcare costs from treating smoking related diseases is over-simplistic. While smoking does cause medical costs, taxation can counterbalance this – in 2009, the South African government gained 9 billion Rand (€620 million) from excise duties on tobacco 1 . Paradoxically, less people smoking could lead to less money for other projects. Indeed, some countries in Europe raise the amount of health expenditure it causes from tobacco taxation 2 . 1 American Cancer Society, “Tobacco tax success story: South Africa”, tobaccofreekids.org, October 2012, 2 BBC News, “Smoking disease costs NHS £5Bn”, BBC News, 2009,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-society-fygspsmy-con03b", "score": 0.6811545491218567, "text": "In health services where much care is provided for free there has always been a question of balancing resources. Some treatments are just too expensive, when this is the case the individuals are free to pay for private healthcare. Clearly then if there is less money to be spent on healthcare there just needs to be a rethink about which treatments are affordable as a part of free healthcare. In the United States deciding what treatments are worth the cost is left to the market, in more centrally organised health systems as is the case in Europe there is a regulator or commission that decides. In the UK this is NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) which decides what drugs are worthwhile based upon quality-adjusted life years and usually does not recommend treatments that cost more than £20-30,000 per QALY. [1] The answer then would be to drop this down to a lower figure. [1] Dreaper, Jane, ‘Researchers claim NHS drug decisions ‘are flawed’’, BBC News, 24 January 2013,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03a", "score": 0.6799097657203674, "text": "Most vital drugs are already generic Many drugs which are used in the treatment of HIV, malaria and cancer are already generic drugs which are produced in their millions [1] . This removes the necessity to provide further high quality generic drugs as there is already an easily accessible source of pharmaceuticals. Effective treatments for Malaria, in conjunction with prevention methods, have resulted in a 33% decrease in African deaths from the disease since 2000 [2] . The drugs responsible for this have been readily available to Africa, demonstrating a lack of any further need to produce pharmaceuticals for the continent. [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] World Health Organisation ’10 facts on malaria’, March 2013", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-fhhphwisu-pro01b", "score": 0.6772412657737732, "text": "While the idea that better access to preventative medicine will quickly and drastically lower general medical care costs is an incredible notion, it sadly is just that – a notion. As an aside, the same argument – lowered costs – could be made for simply improving the existing tactics of preventative medicine without the need to invest into universal coverage. Returning to this proposition though, while it might be realistic to expect some reduction in costs from improved prevention, those would very unlikely ever amount to a significant amount – and certainly not an amount that would make introducing universal health coverage a feasible strategy. [1] Universal health care will cause people to use the health care system more. If they are covered, they will go to the doctor when they do not really need to, and will become heavy users of the system. We can see in other countries that this heavier use leads to delays in treatment and constant demands for more resources. As a result care is rationed and taxes keep going up. [1] Leonhardt, D., Free Lunch on Health? Think Again, published 8/8/2007, , accessed 9/18/2011", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-con03b", "score": 0.6757915616035461, "text": "Reducing the cost of family planning; making more contraceptive resources and materials available around the clock; and distributing commodities to hospitals does not ensure access. There is no point increasing funding for programs that will not get used due to a lack of popularity or continued ideas of family planning and management. Improving the ‘alternative essentials’ can only work if those using reproductive resources are supported and in a patriarchal society this means needing the involvement of both men and women.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con01b", "score": 0.6679120063781738, "text": "Some countries, such as India and Thailand, have specialised in producing generic drugs. These states provide the majority of generic drugs to Africa. This removes the burden of other countries to supply Africa with their own drugs whilst potentially damaging their own research companies. India has managed to create a very profitable industry based around cheap generic drugs which it mainly exports to the African continent [1] , decreasing the necessity of other states to contribute vast resources. Providing generics to Africa will not damage development by the big pharmaceutical companies as at the moment these countries cannot afford the drugs so are not a market. The drugs are researched on the assumption that they will be sold in the developed world. What matters therefore is to ensure that generics for Africa don’t get sold back to the developed world undercutting patented drugs. [1] Kumar,S. ‘India, Africa’s Pharma’", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-international-astshbghacn-con01a", "score": 0.666161835193634, "text": "Cost could be spent on other things Gabon’s government invested €370 million in the games. [1] Even though it is one of the more stable West African countries, there are still many people living in grinding poverty – nearly 20% of the population, according to the World Bank [2] . While infrastructure development is welcome, it is a better use of money to lift people out of poverty rather than for three weeks of football. It can also have other negative effects on the day to day lives of individuals, for example in South Africa when it hosted the world cup tolls were increase [3] . [1] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012, [2] World Bank, “World Development Indicators”, World Bank Databank, [3] Sands, Darren, “In South Africa, the African Cup of Nations is big business”, Black Enterprise, 2013,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "validation-health-hpiahbps-con02b", "score": 0.6626494526863098, "text": "Being part of a brand ensures investors maintain a standard, and ensure infrastructure, drugs, and medical practices are met. Building franchises for health-care ensures familiarity and is setting standards to follow. Blue Star is a case in point. The Blue Star Network has been rolled out across Africa, and the franchise provides family planning resources and training on sexual and reproductive health. Once the private clinics have completed training, Blue Star recognition is awarded [1] . Including the private sector in health care provision means a structural shift in the model of care: improved efficiency, quality and methods of care. [1] See further readings: Marie Stopes International, 2013.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03b", "score": 0.65666663646698, "text": "These vital drugs will become outdated. Diseases often have the ability to build a resistance to treatment, making many of these currently generic drugs impotent. In Tanzania, 75% of health workers were providing lower than recommended levels of anti-malaria drugs which resulted in a drug resistant form of the disease becoming prominent [1] . Giving recently developed drugs to Africa will have a greater impact against diseases such as HIV than giving them twenty year old drugs to which a disease is already immune. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con02b", "score": 0.6546065807342529, "text": "Rather than the state pouring money into campaigns, they should spend it on other more important things, such as improving the health system, infrastructure or other, more important things. The UK Department of Health doubled its media spending from less than", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghhbampt-con03b", "score": 0.6532620191574097, "text": "his is of course an excellent argument for more and better funded clinics, especially in parts of the world (including much of the West) where access to medicine is difficult. It is also evidence that when people are genuinely worried about their health they tend to consult providers of conventional medicine who are, as a result, extremely busy. It perhaps says more than anything else about many practitioners of alternative medicines that they have time to sit around bonding with their patients. Unsurprisingly, such a luxury is rare in an A and E ward or even in the average GP’s surgery.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghhbampt-con02a", "score": 0.6491735577583313, "text": "The pharmaceutical and medical industries are worth billions of dollars annually. They have an interest in ignoring the efficacy of remedies that are, for the most part, free or considerably cheaper It’s understandable that the medical establishment has an interest in ignoring treatments that are freely available. Pharmaceutical companies make billions each year selling drugs that cost pennies to manufacture. There is an enormous vested interest in insuring that the world in general- and the West in particular-remain tied to the idea that the only solution to disease is to swallow a pill provided by a man in a white coat. There are other solutions that have been used for thousands of years before anybody worked out how to make a buck out of it. For much of the world these therapies continue to be the ones people rely on and the rush of pharmaceutical companies to issue patents on genes of some of these traditional remedies suggests that there must be at least some truth in them.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04b", "score": 0.6479596495628357, "text": "If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-health-dhiahwivdp-pro04b", "score": 0.6459429264068604, "text": "A study carried out by Masiye (2007) indicates only around 40% of Zambia’s hospitals can be defined as efficient. There remains a significant problem of resource wastage in Zambia’s hospitals and the hospitals are technically inefficient in producing, and delivering, services. Health goals cannot be achieved in Zambia if hospitals continue to function inefficiently. This raises concern as to how the hospitals cope once referrals are sent? Is the wider health system adequate? Outsourcing of medical professions into rural areas, and making improvements in the speed and quality of referrals does not resolve the issue of hospital quality. Although VDP’s can act to significantly reduce the number of inappropriate referrals investment, training, and improved management, is still required within Zambia’s hospital system. Additionally, improved access to drugs is needed. Drug shortages have been reported due to corruption scandals - funding provided to supply drugs in the health sector have previously gone missing [1] . Generic drugs are in short-supply, and high demand. Without doctors being able to access vital drugs, whether they are located in hospitals or remote areas, treatment cannot be provided. [1] See further readings: IRIN, 2011.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-health-dhiahwivdp-con04b", "score": 0.645438015460968, "text": "Figures showcasing the popular use of traditional practices, and medicine, do not show the reasons behind use. It fails to recognise the degree of choice and the nature of treatment provided. If people don’t have access to modern medicine then they will go to that which is available. The answer then is to increase access to modern medicine to provide the alternative.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro02b", "score": 0.6447776556015015, "text": "f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money. [1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009. [2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro01a", "score": 0.6442455053329468, "text": "Easily affordable drugs will mean greater access Generic drugs are much cheaper to produce, which is ideal for Africa’s struggling population. While there has been significant gross domestic product (GDP) growth in Africa, the actual distribution of wealth is relatively unequal. According to Afrobarometer, 53% of Africans still feel that their economic condition is poor [1] . This restricts their ability to purchase high cost drugs. Generic medication would reduce the price of these drugs, making them affordable to the average citizen. The patented drug Glivec, used for cancer treatment, costs £48.62 for 400 mg in South Africa while its generic equivalent (produced in India) costs £4.82 [2] . Increased access will result in higher levels of treatment, which in turn will reduce death rates from preventable diseases in Africa. [1] Hofmeyr, Jan, ‘Africa Rising? Popular Dissatisfaction with Economic Management Despite a Decade of Growth’ [2] Op Cit", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-health-hpiahbps-pro01b", "score": 0.6440500020980835, "text": "In order to combat disease equality needs to be a central component. Drug distribution, new training schemes, and facilities, targeting disease prevention and treatment are influenced by market economics and feasibility. Treatments by Anti-retrovirals should not just be for those who can afford private healthcare. Further, when considering health care private actors need to broaden horizons. Although funding remains uneven and below target, the specific inclusion of HIV, TB and Malaria within the MDG has distorted the focus on disease. Investment is required in neglected tropical diseases and non-communicable diseases something the private sector has yet to be willing to invest in.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro01b", "score": 0.6434200406074524, "text": "Greater access of generic drugs can increase the chances of overexposure and misuse. This has a detrimental effect on fighting diseases. Greater access will lead to higher use rates which, in turn increases the chances of the disease developing an immunity to the drug [1] , as is already happening to antibiotics resulting in at least 23,000 deaths in the United States. [2] This immunity requires new pharmaceuticals to counteract the disease which can take years to produce. It is therefore, disadvantageous to produce high quality generic drugs for Africa. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’ pg.2 [2] National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer’, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 December 2013,", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro02a", "score": 0.6412957906723022, "text": "Allowing production of generic drugs saves lives, particularly in the developing world Many developing countries are fraught with terrible disease. Much of Africa and Asia are devastated by malaria, and in many parts of Africa AIDS is a horrendous scourge, infecting large percentages of many countries populations. For example, in Swaziland, 26% of the adult population is infected with the virus1. In light of these obscenely high infection rates, African governments have sought to find means of acquiring enough drugs to treat their ailing populations. The producers of the major AIDS medications do donate substantial amounts of drugs to stricken countries, yet at the same time they charge ruinously high prices for that which they do sell, leading to serious shortages in countries that cannot afford them. The denial of the right to produce or acquire generic drugs is effectively a death sentence to people in these countries. With generic drugs freely available on the market, the access to such drugs would be facilitated far more readily and cheaply; prices would be pushed down to market levels and African governments would be able to stand a chance of providing the requisite care to their people2. Under the current system attempts by governments to access generic drugs can be met by denials of free treatments, leading to even further suffering. There is no ethical justification to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge artificially high prices for drugs that save lives. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent drugs do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves due to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for malaria, which affects the developing world almost exclusively, thus limiting the market to customers with little money to pay for the drugs3. The result is patents and viable treatments sitting on shelves, effectively gathering dust within company records, when they could be used to save lives. But when there is no profit there is no production. Allowing the production of generic drugs is to allow justice to be done in the developing world, saving lives and ending human suffering. 1 United Nations. 2006. \"Country Program Outline for Swaziland, 2006-2010\". United Nations Development Program. Available: 2 Mercer, Illana. 2001. \"Patent Wrongs\". Mises Daily. Available: 3 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. \"Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'\". The Guardian. Available:", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro01b", "score": 0.7918153405189514, "text": "Greater access of generic drugs can increase the chances of overexposure and misuse. This has a detrimental effect on fighting diseases. Greater access will lead to higher use rates which, in turn increases the chances of the disease developing an immunity to the drug [1] , as is already happening to antibiotics resulting in at least 23,000 deaths in the United States. [2] This immunity requires new pharmaceuticals to counteract the disease which can take years to produce. It is therefore, disadvantageous to produce high quality generic drugs for Africa. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’ pg.2 [2] National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer’, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 December 2013," } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro02a", "score": 0.7357441782951355, "text": "Allowing production of generic drugs saves lives, particularly in the developing world Many developing countries are fraught with terrible disease. Much of Africa and Asia are devastated by malaria, and in many parts of Africa AIDS is a horrendous scourge, infecting large percentages of many countries populations. For example, in Swaziland, 26% of the adult population is infected with the virus1. In light of these obscenely high infection rates, African governments have sought to find means of acquiring enough drugs to treat their ailing populations. The producers of the major AIDS medications do donate substantial amounts of drugs to stricken countries, yet at the same time they charge ruinously high prices for that which they do sell, leading to serious shortages in countries that cannot afford them. The denial of the right to produce or acquire generic drugs is effectively a death sentence to people in these countries. With generic drugs freely available on the market, the access to such drugs would be facilitated far more readily and cheaply; prices would be pushed down to market levels and African governments would be able to stand a chance of providing the requisite care to their people2. Under the current system attempts by governments to access generic drugs can be met by denials of free treatments, leading to even further suffering. There is no ethical justification to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge artificially high prices for drugs that save lives. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent drugs do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves due to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for malaria, which affects the developing world almost exclusively, thus limiting the market to customers with little money to pay for the drugs3. The result is patents and viable treatments sitting on shelves, effectively gathering dust within company records, when they could be used to save lives. But when there is no profit there is no production. Allowing the production of generic drugs is to allow justice to be done in the developing world, saving lives and ending human suffering. 1 United Nations. 2006. \"Country Program Outline for Swaziland, 2006-2010\". United Nations Development Program. Available: 2 Mercer, Illana. 2001. \"Patent Wrongs\". Mises Daily. Available: 3 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. \"Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'\". The Guardian. Available:", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03a", "score": 0.7303266525268555, "text": "Most vital drugs are already generic Many drugs which are used in the treatment of HIV, malaria and cancer are already generic drugs which are produced in their millions [1] . This removes the necessity to provide further high quality generic drugs as there is already an easily accessible source of pharmaceuticals. Effective treatments for Malaria, in conjunction with prevention methods, have resulted in a 33% decrease in African deaths from the disease since 2000 [2] . The drugs responsible for this have been readily available to Africa, demonstrating a lack of any further need to produce pharmaceuticals for the continent. [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] World Health Organisation ’10 facts on malaria’, March 2013", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con01b", "score": 0.7252323031425476, "text": "Some countries, such as India and Thailand, have specialised in producing generic drugs. These states provide the majority of generic drugs to Africa. This removes the burden of other countries to supply Africa with their own drugs whilst potentially damaging their own research companies. India has managed to create a very profitable industry based around cheap generic drugs which it mainly exports to the African continent [1] , decreasing the necessity of other states to contribute vast resources. Providing generics to Africa will not damage development by the big pharmaceutical companies as at the moment these countries cannot afford the drugs so are not a market. The drugs are researched on the assumption that they will be sold in the developed world. What matters therefore is to ensure that generics for Africa don’t get sold back to the developed world undercutting patented drugs. [1] Kumar,S. ‘India, Africa’s Pharma’", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03b", "score": 0.7227534055709839, "text": "These vital drugs will become outdated. Diseases often have the ability to build a resistance to treatment, making many of these currently generic drugs impotent. In Tanzania, 75% of health workers were providing lower than recommended levels of anti-malaria drugs which resulted in a drug resistant form of the disease becoming prominent [1] . Giving recently developed drugs to Africa will have a greater impact against diseases such as HIV than giving them twenty year old drugs to which a disease is already immune. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro02b", "score": 0.7117495536804199, "text": "Allowing the sale of generic drugs will not help the plight of the developing world. Many drug companies invest substantial amounts of money, gleaned from the sale of profitable dugs in the developed world, into researching treatments for the developing world. Without the revenues available from patent-protected drug sales, companies' profits will fall, precipitating a reduction in pro bono giving and research. Allowing the production of generic drugs will thus in the long run hurt the developing world.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con01a", "score": 0.7105859518051147, "text": "Dominance of generic drugs will reduce reinvestment and innovation in donating countries The production of high quality generic drugs endangers pharmaceutical progress. In order to export high quality generic drugs, some countries have suggested allowing generic drug manufacturers access to patented drugs. In Canada, amendments to Canada’s Access to Medicine Regime (CAMR) would have forced pharmaceutical research companies to give up their patents [1] . This is problematic however as research based companies invest a large proportion of their profits back in to the industry. The requirements proposed for some Western countries for obligatory quantities of generic drugs to be given to Africa have been accused to removing any incentive to invest in research to combat disease [2] . [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] ibid", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03b", "score": 0.710098922252655, "text": "Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro03a", "score": 0.7070949077606201, "text": "Reduce the prominence of bad and fake drugs The increased availability of high quality generic drugs will reduce the numbers of bad and fake pharmaceuticals on the markets. The cost of patented drugs has forced many to search for other options. This is exploited by the billion dollar global counterfeit drug trade [1] . Fake drugs are the cause of around 100,000 deaths in Africa every year. Bad drugs, which are substandard, have also found their way in to Africa; one in six tuberculosis pills have been found to be of a poor quality [2] . The widespread introduction of low cost, high quality drugs will hopefully ensure that consumers do not turn to sellers in market places. [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’ [2] Ibid", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04a", "score": 0.7044166922569275, "text": "Unfair to apply same patent laws universally It is unrealistic to expect poorer countries, such as those in Africa, to pay the same price as the developed world’s markets. Current patent laws for many countries dictate that prices for buying patented drugs should be universally the same. This makes it extremely difficult for African countries to purchase pharmaceuticals set at the market price of developed countries. In the US there are nine patented drugs which cost in excess of $200,000 [1] . To expect developing African states to afford this price is unfair and reinforces the exploitative relationship between the developed and developing world. Generic drugs escape this problem due to their universally low prices. [1] Herper,M. ‘The World’s Most Expensive Drugs’", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03a", "score": 0.6980204582214355, "text": "Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value. 1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. \"Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug\". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. \"Patent Rent-Seeking\". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. \"Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages\". Flanders Today.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con02a", "score": 0.6828247308731079, "text": "Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies [1] . These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted [2] . [1] Childs,D. ‘Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?’ [2] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-society-asfhwapg-con02b", "score": 0.6799601316452026, "text": "Patenting in general is creating more possibilities for patients than if there was no patenting and less competition for development. Even if treatments and diagnostics for some diseases are expensive, they are at least there and are beginning to benefit the people that need them most. If the government is that concerned for the well-being of its poor patients, the issue of private and public dis-allocations is far more troubling than patents. However, if the government does believe that such a treatment in necessary for the greater good of the country, which happens in very few cases, there still are mechanisms to loosen patent rights. The Hastings Center explains that governments and other organizations can encourage research on needed therapies, such as a malaria vaccine, by setting up prizes for innovation related to them or by promising to purchase the therapies once they are developed 1. Other measures rely on voluntary action. Patented drugs can be sold at little or no mark-up in poor countries. Scientists and their employers can decide not to patent an invention that might prove useful to other researchers, or they might patent it but license it strategically to maximize its impact on future research and its availability to people in need. For example, when the scientist Salk believed he has developed a vaccination that should be basic health care, he decided not to patent his polio vaccine, which saved millions 2.Also, companies like GlaxoSmithKline have initiatives for having drugs made more available and affordable to poor countries 3. Governments and NGOs can also contribute. Experts in research analysis (Professors Walsh, Cohen, and Charlene Cho) concluded that patents do not have a “substantial” impact upon basic biomedical research and that “...none of a random sample of academics reported stopping a research project due to another’s patent on a research input, and only about 1% of the random sample of academics reported experiencing a delay or modification in their research due to patents 4.”Most of the newly developed gene therapies / genes are not that essential to be for free for everyone and further on for those few, that are, there are different methods of abuse prevention. 1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center, , accessed 07/20/2011 2. Josephine Johnston, Intellectual Property in Biomedicine, The Hastings Center, , accessed 07/21/2011 3. IB Times, “GSK lead initiative to help poorer countries”, accessed 07/20/2011 4. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006, , accessed 07/21/2011", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con02b", "score": 0.676483690738678, "text": "Medically there is no difference between generic and patented drugs. They are both identical, with the exception of aesthetic differences in some US drugs to avoid copyright infringement. Generic drugs cost less because they do not have to invest in R&D [1] . They focus on efficient methods of production and ensure that their product can be sold at a competitively low price. The lack of a need for R&D is therefore more prominent than quality in the pricing of generic drugs. [1] Stoppler,M. ‘Generic Drugs, Are They as Good as Brand Names?’", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-international-gsciidfi-pro02a", "score": 0.6747969388961792, "text": "ACTA promotes medical research Companies that accept huge research costs – such as the pharmaceutical industries – need the surety of knowing that they will have some payback for that research. Without that there is little point in them undertaking the research in the first place and medical science will suffer. It’s easy to say that manufacturing a pill only costs two cents – the reality is that a trial alone can cost upwards of $100m with the whole research and development per approved drug costing billions. [i] The framework for doing that is one that requires a profit for investors and security for researchers. Allowing for generic medicines to undermine that end point profit discourages the necessary blue-sky thinking and ground-breaking research as they’re risky and may not see a financial return. As a result, those medicines that are proven ‘sellers’ need to make the profit for the long-term investment that will be required for cures for cancer, AIDS and other global killers. Stopping pharmaceutical companies from making a healthy profit on established antibiotics and similar medicines means that they then don’t have the financial muscle to be able to fund the long development and large amount of research necessary to create the drugs of the future. If they then believe those drugs will quickly be recreated and turned into generics they will give up researching entirely. [i] Herper, Matthew, ‘The Truly Staggering Cost of Inventing New Drugs’, Forbes, 10 February 2012.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro04a", "score": 0.671594500541687, "text": "When generic drugs are legalized firms and individuals no longer feel the incentive to misallocate resources to the race to patent new drugs and to monitor existing patents, or to spend resources stealing from one another Patent regimes cause firms to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same or very similar drugs, though only the first to do so may profit from it due to the winner-takes-all patent system. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. These races can thus lead to efforts by firms to steal research from one another, thus resulting in further wastes of resources in engaging and attempting to prevent corporate espionage. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing patents. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded, for example, in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of patent-generated inefficiency 1. The inefficiency does not end with production, however, as firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return 2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to patent piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. Clearly, in the absence of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. This is shown by the introduction of generic antiretroviral drugs for treating AIDS where the introduction of generic drugs forced the price of the branded drugs down from $10439 to $931 in September/October 2000 3. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. \"Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform\". National Health Federation. Available: 2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. \"Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property\". Available: 3 Avert.org, \"AIDS, Drug Prices and Generic Drugs\",", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-health-hpiahbps-con01b", "score": 0.671333372592926, "text": "In seeking to make private health care affordable new models are being introduced. The new models introduced tackle issues over affordability from a demand and supply perspective. First, multiple health financing schemes have been rolled-out across Sub-Saharan Africa. A range of financing and insurance options are being built, from investing in health providers [1] to including bottom-up approaches. Community based health insurance, as found in Rwanda and Ghana, are ensuring a move towards universal coverage (see USAID, 2012). Secondly, in tackling supply issues, low-cost private clinics models are being constructed. In Kenya, the Avenue Group provides a positive example working to provide affordable private health care. Risk-pooling, by members, is accepted as a method of payment. Costs are reduced by working with patients, whilst a regular payment source is provided for the caregiver (see Avenue Group, 2013). [1] The IFC recently announced a $4mn investment in AAR East Africa, expanding out-patient care (see AVCA, 2013).", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04b", "score": 0.6673746109008789, "text": "Pharmaceutical companies investing in R&D deserve to make a return on their investments. Research and development can take a long time and will cost significant sums of money. The cost of creating many new drugs was estimated to be as high as $5 billion in 2013 [1] . There is also a risk that the drug may fail during the various phases of production, which makes the $5 billion price-tag even more daunting. It is therefore necessary for these companies to continue to make a profit, which they do through patenting. If they allow drugs to immediately become generic or subsidise them to some of the biggest markets for some diseases then they shall make a significant financial loss. [1] Herper,M. ‘The Cost of Creating a New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing Big Pharma to Change’", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro03b", "score": 0.6638762354850769, "text": "It is nearly impossible to remove black markets; medication is no exception. Attempts thus far to remove the African counterfeit pharmaceuticals have been unsuccessful. Corruption and a lack of manpower have ensured that counterfeits continue to reach Africa, especially from India [1] . As long as there is a profit to be made, fakes and bad drugs will be sold at a lower price than even generic drugs on the African continent which have the addition of importation and tax in their cost [2] . [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’ [2] Ibid", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-fhhphwisu-pro01b", "score": 0.6592039465904236, "text": "While the idea that better access to preventative medicine will quickly and drastically lower general medical care costs is an incredible notion, it sadly is just that – a notion. As an aside, the same argument – lowered costs – could be made for simply improving the existing tactics of preventative medicine without the need to invest into universal coverage. Returning to this proposition though, while it might be realistic to expect some reduction in costs from improved prevention, those would very unlikely ever amount to a significant amount – and certainly not an amount that would make introducing universal health coverage a feasible strategy. [1] Universal health care will cause people to use the health care system more. If they are covered, they will go to the doctor when they do not really need to, and will become heavy users of the system. We can see in other countries that this heavier use leads to delays in treatment and constant demands for more resources. As a result care is rationed and taxes keep going up. [1] Leonhardt, D., Free Lunch on Health? Think Again, published 8/8/2007, , accessed 9/18/2011", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "validation-health-hpiahbps-con01a", "score": 0.6570800542831421, "text": "The missing MDG: inequality Privatising health care cannot be discussed without raising concern over inequality. The privatisation of health care promotes exclusive health care, and is failing to bridge the gap between accessible care for low-income groups and the elite. The model remains unaffordable for many, and therefore ineffective. Even where affordable options are available the quality of care deteriorates. Quality assurance, and affordable care, is needed. For example, taking the case of South Africa. Health care is provided through both public and private systems. However, the pricing of private health care: whereby better facilities and speed of treatment are found, leaves a majority out-of-pocket and excluded (All Africa, 2013). Prices need to be controlled and affordable options made available. Although formal employers have been involved in supporting access and coverage to health insurance schemes, to prevent a two-tier health system, a majority work within formal employment. If everyone has a ‘right’ to adequate health care, privatisation neglects their rights to health [1] . [1] See further readings: War on Want (2013).", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro03b", "score": 0.7875195741653442, "text": "It is nearly impossible to remove black markets; medication is no exception. Attempts thus far to remove the African counterfeit pharmaceuticals have been unsuccessful. Corruption and a lack of manpower have ensured that counterfeits continue to reach Africa, especially from India [1] . As long as there is a profit to be made, fakes and bad drugs will be sold at a lower price than even generic drugs on the African continent which have the addition of importation and tax in their cost [2] . [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’ [2] Ibid" } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03a", "score": 0.7235295176506042, "text": "Most vital drugs are already generic Many drugs which are used in the treatment of HIV, malaria and cancer are already generic drugs which are produced in their millions [1] . This removes the necessity to provide further high quality generic drugs as there is already an easily accessible source of pharmaceuticals. Effective treatments for Malaria, in conjunction with prevention methods, have resulted in a 33% decrease in African deaths from the disease since 2000 [2] . The drugs responsible for this have been readily available to Africa, demonstrating a lack of any further need to produce pharmaceuticals for the continent. [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] World Health Organisation ’10 facts on malaria’, March 2013", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con01b", "score": 0.7104888558387756, "text": "Some countries, such as India and Thailand, have specialised in producing generic drugs. These states provide the majority of generic drugs to Africa. This removes the burden of other countries to supply Africa with their own drugs whilst potentially damaging their own research companies. India has managed to create a very profitable industry based around cheap generic drugs which it mainly exports to the African continent [1] , decreasing the necessity of other states to contribute vast resources. Providing generics to Africa will not damage development by the big pharmaceutical companies as at the moment these countries cannot afford the drugs so are not a market. The drugs are researched on the assumption that they will be sold in the developed world. What matters therefore is to ensure that generics for Africa don’t get sold back to the developed world undercutting patented drugs. [1] Kumar,S. ‘India, Africa’s Pharma’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro01a", "score": 0.7079831957817078, "text": "Easily affordable drugs will mean greater access Generic drugs are much cheaper to produce, which is ideal for Africa’s struggling population. While there has been significant gross domestic product (GDP) growth in Africa, the actual distribution of wealth is relatively unequal. According to Afrobarometer, 53% of Africans still feel that their economic condition is poor [1] . This restricts their ability to purchase high cost drugs. Generic medication would reduce the price of these drugs, making them affordable to the average citizen. The patented drug Glivec, used for cancer treatment, costs £48.62 for 400 mg in South Africa while its generic equivalent (produced in India) costs £4.82 [2] . Increased access will result in higher levels of treatment, which in turn will reduce death rates from preventable diseases in Africa. [1] Hofmeyr, Jan, ‘Africa Rising? Popular Dissatisfaction with Economic Management Despite a Decade of Growth’ [2] Op Cit", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro02b", "score": 0.7007814049720764, "text": "The use of generic drugs can sometimes fail to bring about a reduced price. For the cost of drugs to decrease, there must be competition within the industry to drive prices down. The switch from patented to generic drugs in Ireland failed to bring about any significant saving for this reason [1] . African countries must therefore ensure competition in order for generic drugs to become truly affordable which could be problematic due to continued protectionism in some states. [1] Hogan,L. ‘Switch to generic drugs fails to bring expected savings for HSE’", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro02b", "score": 0.6962929368019104, "text": "Allowing the sale of generic drugs will not help the plight of the developing world. Many drug companies invest substantial amounts of money, gleaned from the sale of profitable dugs in the developed world, into researching treatments for the developing world. Without the revenues available from patent-protected drug sales, companies' profits will fall, precipitating a reduction in pro bono giving and research. Allowing the production of generic drugs will thus in the long run hurt the developing world.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-con01a", "score": 0.6889097094535828, "text": "Generic drugs often prove to be less effective than their brand name counterparts, and can even be dangerous Generic drugs are meant to retain a substantial degree of bioequivalence with their brand name predecessors. Yet, even under strict testing laws in this regard, generic drugs have on several cases been shown to manifest side effects not present in their parent products. For example, a generic version of Wellbutrin XL, an anti-depressant, that was ostensibly chemically equivalent to the brand name drug, caused suicidal episodes in several users1. This demonstrates that no amount of chemical testing can guarantee true bioequivalence, and thus generic drugs cannot be considered as identical to brand name drugs in terms of safety. While improving testing of generics would go some way toward fixing this problem, it would not do so entirely, as the market for new drugs will be so greatly widened with the approval of generic production that the cost of screening will be very high and the likelihood of poor knock-offs reaching consumers, particularly in the developing world where screening is less robust, is increased substantially2. Brand name drugs may be more expensive, but their safety is more thoroughly guaranteed. Flooding the market with cheap, potentially dangerous alternative drugs helps no one but the undertaker. 1 Childs, Dan. 2007. \"Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?\". ABC News. Available: 2 Mercurio, Bryan. 2007. \"Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines\". Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights. Available:", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con01a", "score": 0.682178258895874, "text": "Dominance of generic drugs will reduce reinvestment and innovation in donating countries The production of high quality generic drugs endangers pharmaceutical progress. In order to export high quality generic drugs, some countries have suggested allowing generic drug manufacturers access to patented drugs. In Canada, amendments to Canada’s Access to Medicine Regime (CAMR) would have forced pharmaceutical research companies to give up their patents [1] . This is problematic however as research based companies invest a large proportion of their profits back in to the industry. The requirements proposed for some Western countries for obligatory quantities of generic drugs to be given to Africa have been accused to removing any incentive to invest in research to combat disease [2] . [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] ibid", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con02a", "score": 0.6780930161476135, "text": "Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies [1] . These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted [2] . [1] Childs,D. ‘Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?’ [2] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro02a", "score": 0.677575945854187, "text": "Allowing production of generic drugs saves lives, particularly in the developing world Many developing countries are fraught with terrible disease. Much of Africa and Asia are devastated by malaria, and in many parts of Africa AIDS is a horrendous scourge, infecting large percentages of many countries populations. For example, in Swaziland, 26% of the adult population is infected with the virus1. In light of these obscenely high infection rates, African governments have sought to find means of acquiring enough drugs to treat their ailing populations. The producers of the major AIDS medications do donate substantial amounts of drugs to stricken countries, yet at the same time they charge ruinously high prices for that which they do sell, leading to serious shortages in countries that cannot afford them. The denial of the right to produce or acquire generic drugs is effectively a death sentence to people in these countries. With generic drugs freely available on the market, the access to such drugs would be facilitated far more readily and cheaply; prices would be pushed down to market levels and African governments would be able to stand a chance of providing the requisite care to their people2. Under the current system attempts by governments to access generic drugs can be met by denials of free treatments, leading to even further suffering. There is no ethical justification to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge artificially high prices for drugs that save lives. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent drugs do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves due to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for malaria, which affects the developing world almost exclusively, thus limiting the market to customers with little money to pay for the drugs3. The result is patents and viable treatments sitting on shelves, effectively gathering dust within company records, when they could be used to save lives. But when there is no profit there is no production. Allowing the production of generic drugs is to allow justice to be done in the developing world, saving lives and ending human suffering. 1 United Nations. 2006. \"Country Program Outline for Swaziland, 2006-2010\". United Nations Development Program. Available: 2 Mercer, Illana. 2001. \"Patent Wrongs\". Mises Daily. Available: 3 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. \"Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'\". The Guardian. Available:", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con02b", "score": 0.6771763563156128, "text": "Medically there is no difference between generic and patented drugs. They are both identical, with the exception of aesthetic differences in some US drugs to avoid copyright infringement. Generic drugs cost less because they do not have to invest in R&D [1] . They focus on efficient methods of production and ensure that their product can be sold at a competitively low price. The lack of a need for R&D is therefore more prominent than quality in the pricing of generic drugs. [1] Stoppler,M. ‘Generic Drugs, Are They as Good as Brand Names?’", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03a", "score": 0.6758256554603577, "text": "Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value. 1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. \"Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug\". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. \"Patent Rent-Seeking\". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. \"Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages\". Flanders Today.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03b", "score": 0.6750673055648804, "text": "These vital drugs will become outdated. Diseases often have the ability to build a resistance to treatment, making many of these currently generic drugs impotent. In Tanzania, 75% of health workers were providing lower than recommended levels of anti-malaria drugs which resulted in a drug resistant form of the disease becoming prominent [1] . Giving recently developed drugs to Africa will have a greater impact against diseases such as HIV than giving them twenty year old drugs to which a disease is already immune. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-con01b", "score": 0.6678630113601685, "text": "Dangerous generic drugs are rare, and when they are found they are quickly pulled from the market. Arguments against generics on the grounds of safety are no more than alarmist nonsense. When people go to the drug store they have a choice between expensive brand name drugs and cheaper generics. It is their right to economize and choose the less glossy alternative.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03b", "score": 0.6644600629806519, "text": "Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro04a", "score": 0.6634986400604248, "text": "When generic drugs are legalized firms and individuals no longer feel the incentive to misallocate resources to the race to patent new drugs and to monitor existing patents, or to spend resources stealing from one another Patent regimes cause firms to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same or very similar drugs, though only the first to do so may profit from it due to the winner-takes-all patent system. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. These races can thus lead to efforts by firms to steal research from one another, thus resulting in further wastes of resources in engaging and attempting to prevent corporate espionage. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing patents. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded, for example, in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of patent-generated inefficiency 1. The inefficiency does not end with production, however, as firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return 2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to patent piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. Clearly, in the absence of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. This is shown by the introduction of generic antiretroviral drugs for treating AIDS where the introduction of generic drugs forced the price of the branded drugs down from $10439 to $931 in September/October 2000 3. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. \"Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform\". National Health Federation. Available: 2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. \"Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property\". Available: 3 Avert.org, \"AIDS, Drug Prices and Generic Drugs\",", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04a", "score": 0.6523701548576355, "text": "Unfair to apply same patent laws universally It is unrealistic to expect poorer countries, such as those in Africa, to pay the same price as the developed world’s markets. Current patent laws for many countries dictate that prices for buying patented drugs should be universally the same. This makes it extremely difficult for African countries to purchase pharmaceuticals set at the market price of developed countries. In the US there are nine patented drugs which cost in excess of $200,000 [1] . To expect developing African states to afford this price is unfair and reinforces the exploitative relationship between the developed and developing world. Generic drugs escape this problem due to their universally low prices. [1] Herper,M. ‘The World’s Most Expensive Drugs’", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04b", "score": 0.6447803974151611, "text": "Pharmaceutical companies investing in R&D deserve to make a return on their investments. Research and development can take a long time and will cost significant sums of money. The cost of creating many new drugs was estimated to be as high as $5 billion in 2013 [1] . There is also a risk that the drug may fail during the various phases of production, which makes the $5 billion price-tag even more daunting. It is therefore necessary for these companies to continue to make a profit, which they do through patenting. If they allow drugs to immediately become generic or subsidise them to some of the biggest markets for some diseases then they shall make a significant financial loss. [1] Herper,M. ‘The Cost of Creating a New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing Big Pharma to Change’", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-international-gsciidfi-pro02a", "score": 0.6403024196624756, "text": "ACTA promotes medical research Companies that accept huge research costs – such as the pharmaceutical industries – need the surety of knowing that they will have some payback for that research. Without that there is little point in them undertaking the research in the first place and medical science will suffer. It’s easy to say that manufacturing a pill only costs two cents – the reality is that a trial alone can cost upwards of $100m with the whole research and development per approved drug costing billions. [i] The framework for doing that is one that requires a profit for investors and security for researchers. Allowing for generic medicines to undermine that end point profit discourages the necessary blue-sky thinking and ground-breaking research as they’re risky and may not see a financial return. As a result, those medicines that are proven ‘sellers’ need to make the profit for the long-term investment that will be required for cures for cancer, AIDS and other global killers. Stopping pharmaceutical companies from making a healthy profit on established antibiotics and similar medicines means that they then don’t have the financial muscle to be able to fund the long development and large amount of research necessary to create the drugs of the future. If they then believe those drugs will quickly be recreated and turned into generics they will give up researching entirely. [i] Herper, Matthew, ‘The Truly Staggering Cost of Inventing New Drugs’, Forbes, 10 February 2012.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-con02b", "score": 0.6350256204605103, "text": "Obviously, not every policy is 100% effective. However, a ban on products that is well created and adequately enforced could at least reject a material from the mainstream, and signals disapproval. Not everyone will follow a ban but many will see that the ban is there for a good reason and will not seek alternatives. Counterfeit cosmetics are a different issue – one is the attempt to capitalize off of a brand, the other is to provide a product to achieve people’s goals.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-con02a", "score": 0.632587730884552, "text": "Prohibition is counterproductive As tempting as it is to feel that banning is the solution to problems, it doesn’t work. Almost all states prohibits certain drugs, but that does not stop them being used. [1] Despite being banned in Ghana, skin whitening creams are still openly advertised on billboards [2] . Counterfeit cosmetics of all types exist worldwide [3] , they are illegal for a variety of reasons, not least intellectual property abuse: banning skin lighting creams would simply give more space to the counterfeits. A ban could lead users towards either a homemade substance, or pills and injections which would almost certainly be more damaging as a result of a lack of regulation. [1] See the Debatabase debate ‘ This House supports the legalisation of drugs’ [2] Al Jazeera English, “The Stream: Fair Beauty”, YouTube, 22 August 2013, , roughly 18 minutes in [3] RIA Novosti, “Counterfeit cosmetics: Turning beauties in to beasts”, RT, 08 November 2010,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04b", "score": 0.6623903512954712, "text": "Pharmaceutical companies investing in R&D deserve to make a return on their investments. Research and development can take a long time and will cost significant sums of money. The cost of creating many new drugs was estimated to be as high as $5 billion in 2013 [1] . There is also a risk that the drug may fail during the various phases of production, which makes the $5 billion price-tag even more daunting. It is therefore necessary for these companies to continue to make a profit, which they do through patenting. If they allow drugs to immediately become generic or subsidise them to some of the biggest markets for some diseases then they shall make a significant financial loss. [1] Herper,M. ‘The Cost of Creating a New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing Big Pharma to Change’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03a", "score": 0.6291240453720093, "text": "Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value. 1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. \"Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug\". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. \"Patent Rent-Seeking\". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. \"Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages\". Flanders Today.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-science-cidfiphwa-pro05b", "score": 0.6282585859298706, "text": "Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. \"Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform\"", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-science-cidfiphwa-con01a", "score": 0.6281945705413818, "text": "Policing intellectual property rights is self-sustaining While there is a cost to implementing intellectual property rights and policing them this cost is mostly met by those who apply for the patents. Each country’s patent office charges for the patent application, in the case of the UK this is between £230-280.1 It also costs to renew the patent year on year with the cost often rising. This means that the government offices that process intellectual property meet their costs through the user fees.2 Much of the costs of enforcement are also met by those who own the intellectual property as their patents enable them to go to court against those who they believe are infringing their intellectual property rights. 1 Intellectual Property Office, How much does it cost? 2 Inventors Digest, Patent Office Unveils New, Bigger Budget, 2011", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-con03b", "score": 0.6279296875, "text": "There is no reason why, under this model, you could not retain suitable precautions to ensure that this doesn’t happen. For example, you could continue the obligation for companies to sell the drug at cost (they would, naturally, continue to be incentivised by the huge profits they expect to make when the drug is licensed). Further, you could impose financial sanctions on companies that refused to take appropriate action towards completing testing.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-economy-thsptr-pro01b", "score": 0.6277530789375305, "text": "Simply because someone can feasibly pay more does not mean he should be obligated to do so. Everyone’s property rights should be considered equal; the property rights of the wealthy should not be trodden upon by the state while leaving that of the less well-off alone. Fundamentally, any amount of appropriation of what belongs to an individual for the benefit of others is a kind of theft, and if the state is going to tax people, morally it can only do so if it treats everyone equally, which progressive taxation certainly does not do.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-international-gsciidfi-pro03b", "score": 0.6275300979614258, "text": "Were proposition’s case true then it would raise the question of why no consumers groups have been involved in the negotiations or representative of cloth and other manufacturers in the developing world – or for that matter the originators of design techniques more generally. The only people consulted were the stakeholders of extremely wealthy brands; mostly price-gougers with appalling records in terms of how they spend that money as it relates to the payment of workers or suppliers. This agreement serves purely for the protection of a wealthy few and against the interests of the overwhelming majority in the industries they represent.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-law-thgglcplgphw-pro03b", "score": 0.6274256706237793, "text": "Medical uses of the coca leaf are already legal under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. [1] . The coca plant has also never been proven to be a better ingredient in these varied domestic products than other plants, and other plants may even perform even better as ingredients. [2] There is therefore no compelling reason to believe that its global cultivation would result in any meaningful economic boost or better products on the market. Saving lives from being ruined by cocaine is more important than nay minor boost we might get from other coca products. [1] United Nations. “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961”. United Nations. 1961, amended 1972. [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-science-cidfiphwa-pro03b", "score": 0.627009928226471, "text": "The cost of research and development of new products is often extremely high for firms. In order to reap a profit from their efforts, they must be able to count on the guarantee of ownership over their intellectual property. In the absence of such a guarantee, the incentive of firms to research and innovate declines substantially, resulting in a less dynamic business climate. The duplication of effort by research firms is rare in practice, and the efforts to develop spin-off products can easily become the beginning of entirely new inventive projects.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-con03b", "score": 0.6265205144882202, "text": "In recent years there has been a large amount of aid provided to Africa for the express purpose of climate change adaption, demonstrating a growing awareness to this issue. The UNEP claimed that between 2010 and 2011 it provided several hundred million dollars each year, with an unknown amount coming from other development projects, directed towards climate change adaption [1] . While this does not cover future costs, it is a start. [1] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-economy-epehwmrbals-con01b", "score": 0.625773012638092, "text": "Achieving development at the cost of principles of development is not acceptable. The means by which you achieve development is equally important, and will remain integral in the principles and priorities of a nation once it achieves developed status. The road is as important as the destination! Building the economy on poor labour standards is building on unstable ground as those jobs will simply move as soon as costs rise in any way.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-economy-beghwprsci-con01a", "score": 0.6253273487091064, "text": "The government has no right to tell business what it should charge for its goods. It should be up to business what it charges for its goods; if it decides to charge less than the cost price, it must have a market-based reason to do so, and it is not the place of government to intervene. It is well-known that consumers focus on the prices of a few staple goods, such as bread, milk, baked beans, etc. So it is rational for retailers with high fixed costs (in wages, rents, power etc.) to set the prices for these key products very low, and even make a loss on selling them, because it will entice more shoppers into their stores. These consumers will also buy other products on which the store does make a profit, and overall sales volumes and profits will rise.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con02a", "score": 0.6246621608734131, "text": "People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy 23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone . [1] . While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered. New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case. [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghhbampt-con02b", "score": 0.6246007084846497, "text": "Absolutely nobody questions that many remedies can be drawn from nature- penicillin provides one example- but there is something of a jump that happens between chewing on a piece of bark and a regulated dose of a chemical. Let’s deal quickly with the cost of medications – the second pill may well ‘cost pennies’; the first one, by contrast, costs hundreds of millions of dollars in research. On the basis that there is probably more than one medicine in the world that procedure will need to be repeated. As for the idea that there are older or more traditional remedies and that these are still frequently used in much of the world, that is, indeed true. They are the same periods of history and parts of the planet were the bulk of humankind died – or continues to die – agonizing deaths from relatively commonplace diseases that modern medicine is able to cure with ‘a pill from a man in a white coat’. It is admittedly regrettable that more of the world isn’t covered by the protection science offers but that is scarcely the fault of science.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "validation-economy-tiacphbtt-pro03b", "score": 0.6243771910667419, "text": "The SIM card taxation is an inequitable model for Tanzania’s poor. The tax fee proposed will have detrimental effects to low-income users, whereby the cost exceeds the amount of money they spend on their mobile. For example considering the cost of tax, living, and mobile phone usage, the poor may be placed in a vulnerable position. Evidence suggests 8 million out of 22 million SIM card owners will be affected - with the rural poor feeling the greatest economic burden [1] . The burden of taxation may simply mean the poor can’t afford a phone. Taxation cannot be promoted without recognising the constraints on household savings and income. Universal benefits are debatable when the initial disposable income is polarised to start - the price tag is not-so-small for some. [1] See further readings: BBC, 2013; Luhwago, 2013.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-society-fygspsmy-con03b", "score": 0.6242252588272095, "text": "In health services where much care is provided for free there has always been a question of balancing resources. Some treatments are just too expensive, when this is the case the individuals are free to pay for private healthcare. Clearly then if there is less money to be spent on healthcare there just needs to be a rethink about which treatments are affordable as a part of free healthcare. In the United States deciding what treatments are worth the cost is left to the market, in more centrally organised health systems as is the case in Europe there is a regulator or commission that decides. In the UK this is NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) which decides what drugs are worthwhile based upon quality-adjusted life years and usually does not recommend treatments that cost more than £20-30,000 per QALY. [1] The answer then would be to drop this down to a lower figure. [1] Dreaper, Jane, ‘Researchers claim NHS drug decisions ‘are flawed’’, BBC News, 24 January 2013,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-law-lgsghwlp-pro02b", "score": 0.6241241693496704, "text": "Market mechanisms are inappropriate for the exchange of some goods, such as children, medically needed bodily substances or organs, and sex. These are precious goods, and we should not allow citizens to alienate these goods for payment. Instead, the terms of alienation should protect the critical interests of all involved. While sexual relationships serve legitimate needs, it does not follow that we should be able to purchase them. Having children serves legitimate needs, but we do not think that people should be able to buy children. Buying sex robs the provider of dignity and the right to sexual autonomy. Moreover, people are not entitled to some goods simply because they have money. If we allow money to determine who can have children, donated organs, or sexual intimacy, then this will lead to unfair distributions. Market mechanisms may eclipse other forms of exchange, and deprive those without significant wealth of the means to happiness.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-international-gsciidfi-pro02a", "score": 0.6239789128303528, "text": "ACTA promotes medical research Companies that accept huge research costs – such as the pharmaceutical industries – need the surety of knowing that they will have some payback for that research. Without that there is little point in them undertaking the research in the first place and medical science will suffer. It’s easy to say that manufacturing a pill only costs two cents – the reality is that a trial alone can cost upwards of $100m with the whole research and development per approved drug costing billions. [i] The framework for doing that is one that requires a profit for investors and security for researchers. Allowing for generic medicines to undermine that end point profit discourages the necessary blue-sky thinking and ground-breaking research as they’re risky and may not see a financial return. As a result, those medicines that are proven ‘sellers’ need to make the profit for the long-term investment that will be required for cures for cancer, AIDS and other global killers. Stopping pharmaceutical companies from making a healthy profit on established antibiotics and similar medicines means that they then don’t have the financial muscle to be able to fund the long development and large amount of research necessary to create the drugs of the future. If they then believe those drugs will quickly be recreated and turned into generics they will give up researching entirely. [i] Herper, Matthew, ‘The Truly Staggering Cost of Inventing New Drugs’, Forbes, 10 February 2012.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-sport-ehcpssohwpup-pro03b", "score": 0.6233850121498108, "text": "Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-law-phwmfri-con01b", "score": 0.6224941611289978, "text": "Whilst it is true that a crime ought to be proportionate to the severity of the crime committed, there is no reason why that must be the only factor. This motion does not remove the proportionality about which you are concerned, but merely adds an additional factor. If two people earn the same amount, but person A has committed a more serious crime, person A will still receive a larger fine. Further, it is unclear why people would find this more unfair than a system in which all were impacted equally by the fines they receive.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-economy-fegippghp-con01a", "score": 0.622037410736084, "text": "Trade may not help those most in need. Aid is linked to need. Trade rewards those who are able and willing to engage in trade. This involves a number of elements – as well as having the rights sorts and quantity of goods and services and being willing to sell at the desired price, a country may need to meet certain other criteria of a purchasing country. For example, that country may make demands in terms of corruption, human rights, political support at the United Nations, or any other of a large number of possible preconditions for a trading partnership. This will suit some countries in the developing world. But for others it will act as a bar to trade. They will therefore not receive the redistribution of wealth that is claimed for the global trading web. In this way, trade can distribute its benefits very unevenly. By contrast, aid can in theory be more evenly distributed and can be targeted against identified need rather than against the ability to compete in a trading marketplace. While aid has not always been targeted effectively and has sometimes been wasted there have been efforts to increase accountability and coordinate aid better such as the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 1. 1 Development Co-operation Directorate, 'Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action', OECD, Retrieved 2 September 2011 from oecd.org:", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con02b", "score": 0.7361316680908203, "text": "Medically there is no difference between generic and patented drugs. They are both identical, with the exception of aesthetic differences in some US drugs to avoid copyright infringement. Generic drugs cost less because they do not have to invest in R&D [1] . They focus on efficient methods of production and ensure that their product can be sold at a competitively low price. The lack of a need for R&D is therefore more prominent than quality in the pricing of generic drugs. [1] Stoppler,M. ‘Generic Drugs, Are They as Good as Brand Names?’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro01b", "score": 0.6889883279800415, "text": "Greater access of generic drugs can increase the chances of overexposure and misuse. This has a detrimental effect on fighting diseases. Greater access will lead to higher use rates which, in turn increases the chances of the disease developing an immunity to the drug [1] , as is already happening to antibiotics resulting in at least 23,000 deaths in the United States. [2] This immunity requires new pharmaceuticals to counteract the disease which can take years to produce. It is therefore, disadvantageous to produce high quality generic drugs for Africa. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’ pg.2 [2] National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer’, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 December 2013,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con01b", "score": 0.6851803660392761, "text": "Some countries, such as India and Thailand, have specialised in producing generic drugs. These states provide the majority of generic drugs to Africa. This removes the burden of other countries to supply Africa with their own drugs whilst potentially damaging their own research companies. India has managed to create a very profitable industry based around cheap generic drugs which it mainly exports to the African continent [1] , decreasing the necessity of other states to contribute vast resources. Providing generics to Africa will not damage development by the big pharmaceutical companies as at the moment these countries cannot afford the drugs so are not a market. The drugs are researched on the assumption that they will be sold in the developed world. What matters therefore is to ensure that generics for Africa don’t get sold back to the developed world undercutting patented drugs. [1] Kumar,S. ‘India, Africa’s Pharma’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro01a", "score": 0.6831461787223816, "text": "Easily affordable drugs will mean greater access Generic drugs are much cheaper to produce, which is ideal for Africa’s struggling population. While there has been significant gross domestic product (GDP) growth in Africa, the actual distribution of wealth is relatively unequal. According to Afrobarometer, 53% of Africans still feel that their economic condition is poor [1] . This restricts their ability to purchase high cost drugs. Generic medication would reduce the price of these drugs, making them affordable to the average citizen. The patented drug Glivec, used for cancer treatment, costs £48.62 for 400 mg in South Africa while its generic equivalent (produced in India) costs £4.82 [2] . Increased access will result in higher levels of treatment, which in turn will reduce death rates from preventable diseases in Africa. [1] Hofmeyr, Jan, ‘Africa Rising? Popular Dissatisfaction with Economic Management Despite a Decade of Growth’ [2] Op Cit", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro03a", "score": 0.6777870655059814, "text": "Reduce the prominence of bad and fake drugs The increased availability of high quality generic drugs will reduce the numbers of bad and fake pharmaceuticals on the markets. The cost of patented drugs has forced many to search for other options. This is exploited by the billion dollar global counterfeit drug trade [1] . Fake drugs are the cause of around 100,000 deaths in Africa every year. Bad drugs, which are substandard, have also found their way in to Africa; one in six tuberculosis pills have been found to be of a poor quality [2] . The widespread introduction of low cost, high quality drugs will hopefully ensure that consumers do not turn to sellers in market places. [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’ [2] Ibid", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-health-bhhghwapc-pro03b", "score": 0.6758437752723694, "text": "This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them. The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them. Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, , accessed 08/07/2011", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04a", "score": 0.6748448610305786, "text": "Unfair to apply same patent laws universally It is unrealistic to expect poorer countries, such as those in Africa, to pay the same price as the developed world’s markets. Current patent laws for many countries dictate that prices for buying patented drugs should be universally the same. This makes it extremely difficult for African countries to purchase pharmaceuticals set at the market price of developed countries. In the US there are nine patented drugs which cost in excess of $200,000 [1] . To expect developing African states to afford this price is unfair and reinforces the exploitative relationship between the developed and developing world. Generic drugs escape this problem due to their universally low prices. [1] Herper,M. ‘The World’s Most Expensive Drugs’", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con01a", "score": 0.6530309319496155, "text": "Dominance of generic drugs will reduce reinvestment and innovation in donating countries The production of high quality generic drugs endangers pharmaceutical progress. In order to export high quality generic drugs, some countries have suggested allowing generic drug manufacturers access to patented drugs. In Canada, amendments to Canada’s Access to Medicine Regime (CAMR) would have forced pharmaceutical research companies to give up their patents [1] . This is problematic however as research based companies invest a large proportion of their profits back in to the industry. The requirements proposed for some Western countries for obligatory quantities of generic drugs to be given to Africa have been accused to removing any incentive to invest in research to combat disease [2] . [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] ibid", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03b", "score": 0.652816116809845, "text": "Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-health-dhgamvs-con03b", "score": 0.6519376635551453, "text": "The mere fact pharmaceutical companies make profits from their vaccines is not evidence of anything other than innovation and sound economics. It wouldn’t matter how hard pharmaceutical companies wanted people to believe vaccines were safe, if they were harmful, the evidence would be quickly apparent. The fact only a few people have been compensated for damages resulting from vaccines is testament not to the will of pharmaceutical companies to deny the ill effects of their vaccines, but rather proof that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the vaccines are safe and effective.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-bhhghwapc-pro01b", "score": 0.651650607585907, "text": "Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be. Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood. It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role. [1] [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt , accessed 08/07/2011", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-con04a", "score": 0.649604082107544, "text": "This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine By allowing anyone who is critically ill to use experimental drugs you enhance the already dubious role of drug company reps: especially in the USA, (where doctors do not operate under the NHS guidance found in the UK), there is already a problem of patterns of prescription being altered by the techniques of drug reps, rather than by evidence1. Where drugs are for sale before they have completed testing, there is even less evidence available, and therefore less ability for physicians to contest the claims of either reps or their own patients (who may have heard of the drug during their own research). Hence you magnify the problem of potentially ineffective of even harmful prescription. 1 Harris, Gwyn, ‘Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour’, Family Practice, Vol.26 2009, pp.169-70,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghhbampt-con01b", "score": 0.6491478681564331, "text": "This comes down to the ‘well it can’t hurt, can it’ approach to alternatives. There is simply no serious medic – or any other scientist for that matter who would suggest that it’s a good idea to ingest products that are of dubious origin and purport medical benefits without having been tested. In many cases these have been shown to be at least irrelevant and at worst actively harmful. Of course it is painful to deny treatment to a patient on the basis that the medication has yet to complete its trial stage but there is a reason for doing that in that it allows doctors to be 100 percent sure of a product before they’re prescribed.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04b", "score": 0.6489584445953369, "text": "Pharmaceutical companies investing in R&D deserve to make a return on their investments. Research and development can take a long time and will cost significant sums of money. The cost of creating many new drugs was estimated to be as high as $5 billion in 2013 [1] . There is also a risk that the drug may fail during the various phases of production, which makes the $5 billion price-tag even more daunting. It is therefore necessary for these companies to continue to make a profit, which they do through patenting. If they allow drugs to immediately become generic or subsidise them to some of the biggest markets for some diseases then they shall make a significant financial loss. [1] Herper,M. ‘The Cost of Creating a New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing Big Pharma to Change’", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro05b", "score": 0.6472834348678589, "text": "Ideas can be owned, to a certain extent. The creative effort involved in the production of a drug formula is every bit as great as the building of a new chair or other tangible asset. Nothing special separates them and law must reflect that. It is a fundamental violation of property rights to steal from drug companies the rights they own to drugs by allowing the production of generic knock-offs.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-society-asfhwapg-con02b", "score": 0.6471369862556458, "text": "Patenting in general is creating more possibilities for patients than if there was no patenting and less competition for development. Even if treatments and diagnostics for some diseases are expensive, they are at least there and are beginning to benefit the people that need them most. If the government is that concerned for the well-being of its poor patients, the issue of private and public dis-allocations is far more troubling than patents. However, if the government does believe that such a treatment in necessary for the greater good of the country, which happens in very few cases, there still are mechanisms to loosen patent rights. The Hastings Center explains that governments and other organizations can encourage research on needed therapies, such as a malaria vaccine, by setting up prizes for innovation related to them or by promising to purchase the therapies once they are developed 1. Other measures rely on voluntary action. Patented drugs can be sold at little or no mark-up in poor countries. Scientists and their employers can decide not to patent an invention that might prove useful to other researchers, or they might patent it but license it strategically to maximize its impact on future research and its availability to people in need. For example, when the scientist Salk believed he has developed a vaccination that should be basic health care, he decided not to patent his polio vaccine, which saved millions 2.Also, companies like GlaxoSmithKline have initiatives for having drugs made more available and affordable to poor countries 3. Governments and NGOs can also contribute. Experts in research analysis (Professors Walsh, Cohen, and Charlene Cho) concluded that patents do not have a “substantial” impact upon basic biomedical research and that “...none of a random sample of academics reported stopping a research project due to another’s patent on a research input, and only about 1% of the random sample of academics reported experiencing a delay or modification in their research due to patents 4.”Most of the newly developed gene therapies / genes are not that essential to be for free for everyone and further on for those few, that are, there are different methods of abuse prevention. 1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center, , accessed 07/20/2011 2. Josephine Johnston, Intellectual Property in Biomedicine, The Hastings Center, , accessed 07/21/2011 3. IB Times, “GSK lead initiative to help poorer countries”, accessed 07/20/2011 4. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006, , accessed 07/21/2011", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro02b", "score": 0.6463127732276917, "text": "Allowing the sale of generic drugs will not help the plight of the developing world. Many drug companies invest substantial amounts of money, gleaned from the sale of profitable dugs in the developed world, into researching treatments for the developing world. Without the revenues available from patent-protected drug sales, companies' profits will fall, precipitating a reduction in pro bono giving and research. Allowing the production of generic drugs will thus in the long run hurt the developing world.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-health-bhhghwapc-pro02b", "score": 0.6451658606529236, "text": "Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence. [1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem. Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine. [2] This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs. [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6–13. [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002, , accessed 08/01/2011", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro03b", "score": 0.6414070725440979, "text": "It is nearly impossible to remove black markets; medication is no exception. Attempts thus far to remove the African counterfeit pharmaceuticals have been unsuccessful. Corruption and a lack of manpower have ensured that counterfeits continue to reach Africa, especially from India [1] . As long as there is a profit to be made, fakes and bad drugs will be sold at a lower price than even generic drugs on the African continent which have the addition of importation and tax in their cost [2] . [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’ [2] Ibid", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-bhhghwapc-pro04b", "score": 0.6412864327430725, "text": "Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies [1] . Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% [2] . “U.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure\" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs. This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising. [3] Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a ‘blockbuster’ drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug [4] . So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more. [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003, , accessed 07/30/2011 [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, , accessed 07/30/2011 [3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010, , accessed 07/29/2011 [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03a", "score": 0.6402756571769714, "text": "Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value. 1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. \"Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug\". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. \"Patent Rent-Seeking\". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. \"Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages\". Flanders Today.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03b", "score": 0.7662706971168518, "text": "These vital drugs will become outdated. Diseases often have the ability to build a resistance to treatment, making many of these currently generic drugs impotent. In Tanzania, 75% of health workers were providing lower than recommended levels of anti-malaria drugs which resulted in a drug resistant form of the disease becoming prominent [1] . Giving recently developed drugs to Africa will have a greater impact against diseases such as HIV than giving them twenty year old drugs to which a disease is already immune. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro03a", "score": 0.7239329814910889, "text": "Reduce the prominence of bad and fake drugs The increased availability of high quality generic drugs will reduce the numbers of bad and fake pharmaceuticals on the markets. The cost of patented drugs has forced many to search for other options. This is exploited by the billion dollar global counterfeit drug trade [1] . Fake drugs are the cause of around 100,000 deaths in Africa every year. Bad drugs, which are substandard, have also found their way in to Africa; one in six tuberculosis pills have been found to be of a poor quality [2] . The widespread introduction of low cost, high quality drugs will hopefully ensure that consumers do not turn to sellers in market places. [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’ [2] Ibid", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03b", "score": 0.6901955604553223, "text": "Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro02b", "score": 0.6863824129104614, "text": "The use of generic drugs can sometimes fail to bring about a reduced price. For the cost of drugs to decrease, there must be competition within the industry to drive prices down. The switch from patented to generic drugs in Ireland failed to bring about any significant saving for this reason [1] . African countries must therefore ensure competition in order for generic drugs to become truly affordable which could be problematic due to continued protectionism in some states. [1] Hogan,L. ‘Switch to generic drugs fails to bring expected savings for HSE’", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con01a", "score": 0.6838087439537048, "text": "Dominance of generic drugs will reduce reinvestment and innovation in donating countries The production of high quality generic drugs endangers pharmaceutical progress. In order to export high quality generic drugs, some countries have suggested allowing generic drug manufacturers access to patented drugs. In Canada, amendments to Canada’s Access to Medicine Regime (CAMR) would have forced pharmaceutical research companies to give up their patents [1] . This is problematic however as research based companies invest a large proportion of their profits back in to the industry. The requirements proposed for some Western countries for obligatory quantities of generic drugs to be given to Africa have been accused to removing any incentive to invest in research to combat disease [2] . [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] ibid", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro02a", "score": 0.6793698072433472, "text": "Savings can be used in other sections of medical care The decreased cost of pharmaceuticals allows African states to focus on other aspects of medical schemes. Pharmaceuticals are not the only aspect in treatment, there needs to be sufficient staff, medical equipment and infrastructure [1] . These requirements cost money, which the savings made on pharmaceuticals provide. In Europe, 50% of dispensed medicines are generic yet they cost only 18% of pharmaceutical expenditure, with a similar model predicted for South Africa. This allows the state to focus on other aspects of medical schemes [2] . [1] Ibid [2] Health24, ‘South Africans embrace generic meds’", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro02b", "score": 0.6746153235435486, "text": "Allowing the sale of generic drugs will not help the plight of the developing world. Many drug companies invest substantial amounts of money, gleaned from the sale of profitable dugs in the developed world, into researching treatments for the developing world. Without the revenues available from patent-protected drug sales, companies' profits will fall, precipitating a reduction in pro bono giving and research. Allowing the production of generic drugs will thus in the long run hurt the developing world.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro03b", "score": 0.6665452718734741, "text": "It is nearly impossible to remove black markets; medication is no exception. Attempts thus far to remove the African counterfeit pharmaceuticals have been unsuccessful. Corruption and a lack of manpower have ensured that counterfeits continue to reach Africa, especially from India [1] . As long as there is a profit to be made, fakes and bad drugs will be sold at a lower price than even generic drugs on the African continent which have the addition of importation and tax in their cost [2] . [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’ [2] Ibid", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03a", "score": 0.6629399657249451, "text": "Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value. 1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. \"Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug\". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. \"Patent Rent-Seeking\". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. \"Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages\". Flanders Today.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-health-dhiahwivdp-pro04b", "score": 0.6580280661582947, "text": "A study carried out by Masiye (2007) indicates only around 40% of Zambia’s hospitals can be defined as efficient. There remains a significant problem of resource wastage in Zambia’s hospitals and the hospitals are technically inefficient in producing, and delivering, services. Health goals cannot be achieved in Zambia if hospitals continue to function inefficiently. This raises concern as to how the hospitals cope once referrals are sent? Is the wider health system adequate? Outsourcing of medical professions into rural areas, and making improvements in the speed and quality of referrals does not resolve the issue of hospital quality. Although VDP’s can act to significantly reduce the number of inappropriate referrals investment, training, and improved management, is still required within Zambia’s hospital system. Additionally, improved access to drugs is needed. Drug shortages have been reported due to corruption scandals - funding provided to supply drugs in the health sector have previously gone missing [1] . Generic drugs are in short-supply, and high demand. Without doctors being able to access vital drugs, whether they are located in hospitals or remote areas, treatment cannot be provided. [1] See further readings: IRIN, 2011.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con02b", "score": 0.6501357555389404, "text": "Medically there is no difference between generic and patented drugs. They are both identical, with the exception of aesthetic differences in some US drugs to avoid copyright infringement. Generic drugs cost less because they do not have to invest in R&D [1] . They focus on efficient methods of production and ensure that their product can be sold at a competitively low price. The lack of a need for R&D is therefore more prominent than quality in the pricing of generic drugs. [1] Stoppler,M. ‘Generic Drugs, Are They as Good as Brand Names?’", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04b", "score": 0.6500259637832642, "text": "Pharmaceutical companies investing in R&D deserve to make a return on their investments. Research and development can take a long time and will cost significant sums of money. The cost of creating many new drugs was estimated to be as high as $5 billion in 2013 [1] . There is also a risk that the drug may fail during the various phases of production, which makes the $5 billion price-tag even more daunting. It is therefore necessary for these companies to continue to make a profit, which they do through patenting. If they allow drugs to immediately become generic or subsidise them to some of the biggest markets for some diseases then they shall make a significant financial loss. [1] Herper,M. ‘The Cost of Creating a New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing Big Pharma to Change’", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-society-asfhwapg-con02b", "score": 0.6449328660964966, "text": "Patenting in general is creating more possibilities for patients than if there was no patenting and less competition for development. Even if treatments and diagnostics for some diseases are expensive, they are at least there and are beginning to benefit the people that need them most. If the government is that concerned for the well-being of its poor patients, the issue of private and public dis-allocations is far more troubling than patents. However, if the government does believe that such a treatment in necessary for the greater good of the country, which happens in very few cases, there still are mechanisms to loosen patent rights. The Hastings Center explains that governments and other organizations can encourage research on needed therapies, such as a malaria vaccine, by setting up prizes for innovation related to them or by promising to purchase the therapies once they are developed 1. Other measures rely on voluntary action. Patented drugs can be sold at little or no mark-up in poor countries. Scientists and their employers can decide not to patent an invention that might prove useful to other researchers, or they might patent it but license it strategically to maximize its impact on future research and its availability to people in need. For example, when the scientist Salk believed he has developed a vaccination that should be basic health care, he decided not to patent his polio vaccine, which saved millions 2.Also, companies like GlaxoSmithKline have initiatives for having drugs made more available and affordable to poor countries 3. Governments and NGOs can also contribute. Experts in research analysis (Professors Walsh, Cohen, and Charlene Cho) concluded that patents do not have a “substantial” impact upon basic biomedical research and that “...none of a random sample of academics reported stopping a research project due to another’s patent on a research input, and only about 1% of the random sample of academics reported experiencing a delay or modification in their research due to patents 4.”Most of the newly developed gene therapies / genes are not that essential to be for free for everyone and further on for those few, that are, there are different methods of abuse prevention. 1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center, , accessed 07/20/2011 2. Josephine Johnston, Intellectual Property in Biomedicine, The Hastings Center, , accessed 07/21/2011 3. IB Times, “GSK lead initiative to help poorer countries”, accessed 07/20/2011 4. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006, , accessed 07/21/2011", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-con01a", "score": 0.6443656086921692, "text": "Generic drugs often prove to be less effective than their brand name counterparts, and can even be dangerous Generic drugs are meant to retain a substantial degree of bioequivalence with their brand name predecessors. Yet, even under strict testing laws in this regard, generic drugs have on several cases been shown to manifest side effects not present in their parent products. For example, a generic version of Wellbutrin XL, an anti-depressant, that was ostensibly chemically equivalent to the brand name drug, caused suicidal episodes in several users1. This demonstrates that no amount of chemical testing can guarantee true bioequivalence, and thus generic drugs cannot be considered as identical to brand name drugs in terms of safety. While improving testing of generics would go some way toward fixing this problem, it would not do so entirely, as the market for new drugs will be so greatly widened with the approval of generic production that the cost of screening will be very high and the likelihood of poor knock-offs reaching consumers, particularly in the developing world where screening is less robust, is increased substantially2. Brand name drugs may be more expensive, but their safety is more thoroughly guaranteed. Flooding the market with cheap, potentially dangerous alternative drugs helps no one but the undertaker. 1 Childs, Dan. 2007. \"Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?\". ABC News. Available: 2 Mercurio, Bryan. 2007. \"Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines\". Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights. Available:", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-international-gsciidfi-pro02a", "score": 0.6433672308921814, "text": "ACTA promotes medical research Companies that accept huge research costs – such as the pharmaceutical industries – need the surety of knowing that they will have some payback for that research. Without that there is little point in them undertaking the research in the first place and medical science will suffer. It’s easy to say that manufacturing a pill only costs two cents – the reality is that a trial alone can cost upwards of $100m with the whole research and development per approved drug costing billions. [i] The framework for doing that is one that requires a profit for investors and security for researchers. Allowing for generic medicines to undermine that end point profit discourages the necessary blue-sky thinking and ground-breaking research as they’re risky and may not see a financial return. As a result, those medicines that are proven ‘sellers’ need to make the profit for the long-term investment that will be required for cures for cancer, AIDS and other global killers. Stopping pharmaceutical companies from making a healthy profit on established antibiotics and similar medicines means that they then don’t have the financial muscle to be able to fund the long development and large amount of research necessary to create the drugs of the future. If they then believe those drugs will quickly be recreated and turned into generics they will give up researching entirely. [i] Herper, Matthew, ‘The Truly Staggering Cost of Inventing New Drugs’, Forbes, 10 February 2012.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro04a", "score": 0.6368986964225769, "text": "When generic drugs are legalized firms and individuals no longer feel the incentive to misallocate resources to the race to patent new drugs and to monitor existing patents, or to spend resources stealing from one another Patent regimes cause firms to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same or very similar drugs, though only the first to do so may profit from it due to the winner-takes-all patent system. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. These races can thus lead to efforts by firms to steal research from one another, thus resulting in further wastes of resources in engaging and attempting to prevent corporate espionage. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing patents. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded, for example, in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of patent-generated inefficiency 1. The inefficiency does not end with production, however, as firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return 2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to patent piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. Clearly, in the absence of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. This is shown by the introduction of generic antiretroviral drugs for treating AIDS where the introduction of generic drugs forced the price of the branded drugs down from $10439 to $931 in September/October 2000 3. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. \"Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform\". National Health Federation. Available: 2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. \"Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property\". Available: 3 Avert.org, \"AIDS, Drug Prices and Generic Drugs\",", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04a", "score": 0.636871337890625, "text": "Unfair to apply same patent laws universally It is unrealistic to expect poorer countries, such as those in Africa, to pay the same price as the developed world’s markets. Current patent laws for many countries dictate that prices for buying patented drugs should be universally the same. This makes it extremely difficult for African countries to purchase pharmaceuticals set at the market price of developed countries. In the US there are nine patented drugs which cost in excess of $200,000 [1] . To expect developing African states to afford this price is unfair and reinforces the exploitative relationship between the developed and developing world. Generic drugs escape this problem due to their universally low prices. [1] Herper,M. ‘The World’s Most Expensive Drugs’", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "validation-health-hpiahbps-pro01b", "score": 0.6309821605682373, "text": "In order to combat disease equality needs to be a central component. Drug distribution, new training schemes, and facilities, targeting disease prevention and treatment are influenced by market economics and feasibility. Treatments by Anti-retrovirals should not just be for those who can afford private healthcare. Further, when considering health care private actors need to broaden horizons. Although funding remains uneven and below target, the specific inclusion of HIV, TB and Malaria within the MDG has distorted the focus on disease. Investment is required in neglected tropical diseases and non-communicable diseases something the private sector has yet to be willing to invest in.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghhbampt-con02a", "score": 0.6302704215049744, "text": "The pharmaceutical and medical industries are worth billions of dollars annually. They have an interest in ignoring the efficacy of remedies that are, for the most part, free or considerably cheaper It’s understandable that the medical establishment has an interest in ignoring treatments that are freely available. Pharmaceutical companies make billions each year selling drugs that cost pennies to manufacture. There is an enormous vested interest in insuring that the world in general- and the West in particular-remain tied to the idea that the only solution to disease is to swallow a pill provided by a man in a white coat. There are other solutions that have been used for thousands of years before anybody worked out how to make a buck out of it. For much of the world these therapies continue to be the ones people rely on and the rush of pharmaceutical companies to issue patents on genes of some of these traditional remedies suggests that there must be at least some truth in them.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con02b", "score": 0.6299211978912354, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-con01b", "score": 0.6287850141525269, "text": "Dangerous generic drugs are rare, and when they are found they are quickly pulled from the market. Arguments against generics on the grounds of safety are no more than alarmist nonsense. When people go to the drug store they have a choice between expensive brand name drugs and cheaper generics. It is their right to economize and choose the less glossy alternative.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con01b", "score": 0.7715955972671509, "text": "Some countries, such as India and Thailand, have specialised in producing generic drugs. These states provide the majority of generic drugs to Africa. This removes the burden of other countries to supply Africa with their own drugs whilst potentially damaging their own research companies. India has managed to create a very profitable industry based around cheap generic drugs which it mainly exports to the African continent [1] , decreasing the necessity of other states to contribute vast resources. Providing generics to Africa will not damage development by the big pharmaceutical companies as at the moment these countries cannot afford the drugs so are not a market. The drugs are researched on the assumption that they will be sold in the developed world. What matters therefore is to ensure that generics for Africa don’t get sold back to the developed world undercutting patented drugs. [1] Kumar,S. ‘India, Africa’s Pharma’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro02b", "score": 0.729738175868988, "text": "The use of generic drugs can sometimes fail to bring about a reduced price. For the cost of drugs to decrease, there must be competition within the industry to drive prices down. The switch from patented to generic drugs in Ireland failed to bring about any significant saving for this reason [1] . African countries must therefore ensure competition in order for generic drugs to become truly affordable which could be problematic due to continued protectionism in some states. [1] Hogan,L. ‘Switch to generic drugs fails to bring expected savings for HSE’", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro01b", "score": 0.7276728749275208, "text": "Greater access of generic drugs can increase the chances of overexposure and misuse. This has a detrimental effect on fighting diseases. Greater access will lead to higher use rates which, in turn increases the chances of the disease developing an immunity to the drug [1] , as is already happening to antibiotics resulting in at least 23,000 deaths in the United States. [2] This immunity requires new pharmaceuticals to counteract the disease which can take years to produce. It is therefore, disadvantageous to produce high quality generic drugs for Africa. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’ pg.2 [2] National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer’, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 December 2013,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro04a", "score": 0.7196989059448242, "text": "When generic drugs are legalized firms and individuals no longer feel the incentive to misallocate resources to the race to patent new drugs and to monitor existing patents, or to spend resources stealing from one another Patent regimes cause firms to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same or very similar drugs, though only the first to do so may profit from it due to the winner-takes-all patent system. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. These races can thus lead to efforts by firms to steal research from one another, thus resulting in further wastes of resources in engaging and attempting to prevent corporate espionage. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing patents. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded, for example, in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of patent-generated inefficiency 1. The inefficiency does not end with production, however, as firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return 2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to patent piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. Clearly, in the absence of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. This is shown by the introduction of generic antiretroviral drugs for treating AIDS where the introduction of generic drugs forced the price of the branded drugs down from $10439 to $931 in September/October 2000 3. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. \"Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform\". National Health Federation. Available: 2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. \"Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property\". Available: 3 Avert.org, \"AIDS, Drug Prices and Generic Drugs\",", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro01a", "score": 0.7104321718215942, "text": "Easily affordable drugs will mean greater access Generic drugs are much cheaper to produce, which is ideal for Africa’s struggling population. While there has been significant gross domestic product (GDP) growth in Africa, the actual distribution of wealth is relatively unequal. According to Afrobarometer, 53% of Africans still feel that their economic condition is poor [1] . This restricts their ability to purchase high cost drugs. Generic medication would reduce the price of these drugs, making them affordable to the average citizen. The patented drug Glivec, used for cancer treatment, costs £48.62 for 400 mg in South Africa while its generic equivalent (produced in India) costs £4.82 [2] . Increased access will result in higher levels of treatment, which in turn will reduce death rates from preventable diseases in Africa. [1] Hofmeyr, Jan, ‘Africa Rising? Popular Dissatisfaction with Economic Management Despite a Decade of Growth’ [2] Op Cit", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-international-gsciidfi-pro02a", "score": 0.7097190618515015, "text": "ACTA promotes medical research Companies that accept huge research costs – such as the pharmaceutical industries – need the surety of knowing that they will have some payback for that research. Without that there is little point in them undertaking the research in the first place and medical science will suffer. It’s easy to say that manufacturing a pill only costs two cents – the reality is that a trial alone can cost upwards of $100m with the whole research and development per approved drug costing billions. [i] The framework for doing that is one that requires a profit for investors and security for researchers. Allowing for generic medicines to undermine that end point profit discourages the necessary blue-sky thinking and ground-breaking research as they’re risky and may not see a financial return. As a result, those medicines that are proven ‘sellers’ need to make the profit for the long-term investment that will be required for cures for cancer, AIDS and other global killers. Stopping pharmaceutical companies from making a healthy profit on established antibiotics and similar medicines means that they then don’t have the financial muscle to be able to fund the long development and large amount of research necessary to create the drugs of the future. If they then believe those drugs will quickly be recreated and turned into generics they will give up researching entirely. [i] Herper, Matthew, ‘The Truly Staggering Cost of Inventing New Drugs’, Forbes, 10 February 2012.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con02b", "score": 0.702695906162262, "text": "Medically there is no difference between generic and patented drugs. They are both identical, with the exception of aesthetic differences in some US drugs to avoid copyright infringement. Generic drugs cost less because they do not have to invest in R&D [1] . They focus on efficient methods of production and ensure that their product can be sold at a competitively low price. The lack of a need for R&D is therefore more prominent than quality in the pricing of generic drugs. [1] Stoppler,M. ‘Generic Drugs, Are They as Good as Brand Names?’", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03a", "score": 0.7008427381515503, "text": "Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value. 1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. \"Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug\". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. \"Patent Rent-Seeking\". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. \"Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages\". Flanders Today.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03b", "score": 0.6904133558273315, "text": "These vital drugs will become outdated. Diseases often have the ability to build a resistance to treatment, making many of these currently generic drugs impotent. In Tanzania, 75% of health workers were providing lower than recommended levels of anti-malaria drugs which resulted in a drug resistant form of the disease becoming prominent [1] . Giving recently developed drugs to Africa will have a greater impact against diseases such as HIV than giving them twenty year old drugs to which a disease is already immune. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro02a", "score": 0.6846282482147217, "text": "Allowing production of generic drugs saves lives, particularly in the developing world Many developing countries are fraught with terrible disease. Much of Africa and Asia are devastated by malaria, and in many parts of Africa AIDS is a horrendous scourge, infecting large percentages of many countries populations. For example, in Swaziland, 26% of the adult population is infected with the virus1. In light of these obscenely high infection rates, African governments have sought to find means of acquiring enough drugs to treat their ailing populations. The producers of the major AIDS medications do donate substantial amounts of drugs to stricken countries, yet at the same time they charge ruinously high prices for that which they do sell, leading to serious shortages in countries that cannot afford them. The denial of the right to produce or acquire generic drugs is effectively a death sentence to people in these countries. With generic drugs freely available on the market, the access to such drugs would be facilitated far more readily and cheaply; prices would be pushed down to market levels and African governments would be able to stand a chance of providing the requisite care to their people2. Under the current system attempts by governments to access generic drugs can be met by denials of free treatments, leading to even further suffering. There is no ethical justification to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge artificially high prices for drugs that save lives. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent drugs do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves due to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for malaria, which affects the developing world almost exclusively, thus limiting the market to customers with little money to pay for the drugs3. The result is patents and viable treatments sitting on shelves, effectively gathering dust within company records, when they could be used to save lives. But when there is no profit there is no production. Allowing the production of generic drugs is to allow justice to be done in the developing world, saving lives and ending human suffering. 1 United Nations. 2006. \"Country Program Outline for Swaziland, 2006-2010\". United Nations Development Program. Available: 2 Mercer, Illana. 2001. \"Patent Wrongs\". Mises Daily. Available: 3 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. \"Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'\". The Guardian. Available:", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-bhhghwapc-pro04b", "score": 0.6833933591842651, "text": "Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies [1] . Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% [2] . “U.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure\" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs. This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising. [3] Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a ‘blockbuster’ drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug [4] . So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more. [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003, , accessed 07/30/2011 [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, , accessed 07/30/2011 [3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010, , accessed 07/29/2011 [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-con03a", "score": 0.683343231678009, "text": "Most vital drugs are already generic Many drugs which are used in the treatment of HIV, malaria and cancer are already generic drugs which are produced in their millions [1] . This removes the necessity to provide further high quality generic drugs as there is already an easily accessible source of pharmaceuticals. Effective treatments for Malaria, in conjunction with prevention methods, have resulted in a 33% decrease in African deaths from the disease since 2000 [2] . The drugs responsible for this have been readily available to Africa, demonstrating a lack of any further need to produce pharmaceuticals for the continent. [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] World Health Organisation ’10 facts on malaria’, March 2013", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-con02b", "score": 0.6824992895126343, "text": "If firms are afraid their formulae will be stolen, then they should keep them hidden. Otherwise, they should seek to make their new drug public, benefiting everyone so that the most people possible can have access to them. The release of ideas is most bountiful when there is active and constant competition to produce newer and better products and ideas. This is only possible in the absence of constricting patent protections. Furthermore, firms' attempts to \"invent around\" patents do not actually benefit anyone, as their aim is often not to improve upon existing models, but to design products that are as close to replicas as possible without violating law. This is a gross misallocation of resources created by the unjust patents regime.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro03a", "score": 0.6819683313369751, "text": "Reduce the prominence of bad and fake drugs The increased availability of high quality generic drugs will reduce the numbers of bad and fake pharmaceuticals on the markets. The cost of patented drugs has forced many to search for other options. This is exploited by the billion dollar global counterfeit drug trade [1] . Fake drugs are the cause of around 100,000 deaths in Africa every year. Bad drugs, which are substandard, have also found their way in to Africa; one in six tuberculosis pills have been found to be of a poor quality [2] . The widespread introduction of low cost, high quality drugs will hopefully ensure that consumers do not turn to sellers in market places. [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’ [2] Ibid", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-con04b", "score": 0.6810773611068726, "text": "Research and development will continue, irrespective of intellectual property rights. The desire of firms to stay ahead of the competition will drive them to invest in research regardless. That their profits will be diminished by the removal of intellectual property rights is only natural and due to the fact that they will no longer have monopoly control over their intangible assets, and will thus not be able to engage in the rent-seeking behavior inherent in monopoly control of products. The costs of commercialization, which include building factories, developing markets, etc., are often much higher than the costs of the initial conception of an idea1 these are areas where competition will force down costs. Furthermore, there will always be demand for a brand name over a generic product. In this way the initial producer can still profit more than generic producers, if not at monopolistic levels. 1Markey, Justice Howard. 1975. Special Problems in Patent Cases, 66 F.R.D. 529.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-society-asfhwapg-con02b", "score": 0.6710276007652283, "text": "Patenting in general is creating more possibilities for patients than if there was no patenting and less competition for development. Even if treatments and diagnostics for some diseases are expensive, they are at least there and are beginning to benefit the people that need them most. If the government is that concerned for the well-being of its poor patients, the issue of private and public dis-allocations is far more troubling than patents. However, if the government does believe that such a treatment in necessary for the greater good of the country, which happens in very few cases, there still are mechanisms to loosen patent rights. The Hastings Center explains that governments and other organizations can encourage research on needed therapies, such as a malaria vaccine, by setting up prizes for innovation related to them or by promising to purchase the therapies once they are developed 1. Other measures rely on voluntary action. Patented drugs can be sold at little or no mark-up in poor countries. Scientists and their employers can decide not to patent an invention that might prove useful to other researchers, or they might patent it but license it strategically to maximize its impact on future research and its availability to people in need. For example, when the scientist Salk believed he has developed a vaccination that should be basic health care, he decided not to patent his polio vaccine, which saved millions 2.Also, companies like GlaxoSmithKline have initiatives for having drugs made more available and affordable to poor countries 3. Governments and NGOs can also contribute. Experts in research analysis (Professors Walsh, Cohen, and Charlene Cho) concluded that patents do not have a “substantial” impact upon basic biomedical research and that “...none of a random sample of academics reported stopping a research project due to another’s patent on a research input, and only about 1% of the random sample of academics reported experiencing a delay or modification in their research due to patents 4.”Most of the newly developed gene therapies / genes are not that essential to be for free for everyone and further on for those few, that are, there are different methods of abuse prevention. 1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center, , accessed 07/20/2011 2. Josephine Johnston, Intellectual Property in Biomedicine, The Hastings Center, , accessed 07/21/2011 3. IB Times, “GSK lead initiative to help poorer countries”, accessed 07/20/2011 4. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006, , accessed 07/21/2011", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-con04a", "score": 0.6704317927360535, "text": "Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product or drug, people and firms put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people's intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries' investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The US pharmaceutical industry alone spends tens of billions of dollars every year on researching new drugs1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment. Without the protection of patents, new drugs lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the formula and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Patent protection is particularly important to companies with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, such as pharmaceutical firms. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished as they will not be guaranteed a payback for their research costs as a competitor could simply take the product off them. Within a robust patents system, firms compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to \"invent around\" one another's patents, leading to gradual improvements in drugs and treatments, benefiting all consumers2. Without patents the drugs companies are trapped in a kind of prisoners' dilemma where both are individually better off by refusing to innovate, yet both suffer if neither innovates. Patents are the solution to this: if a company innovates, it alone can reap the rewards of the new invention3. In the absence of patent protection there is no incentive to develop new drugs, meaning in the long run more people will suffer from diseases and ailments that might have been cured were it profitable to invest in developing them. Clearly, patent protection is essential for a dynamic, progressive pharmaceutical industry. 1 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry\". The Congress of the United States. Available: 2 Nicol, Dianne and Jane Nielsen. 2003. \"Patents and Medical Biotechnology: Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry\". Center for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper 6. Available: 3 Yale Law & Technology. 2011, \"Patents: Essential, if flawed\", Available:", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-pro05b", "score": 0.6679016351699829, "text": "Ideas can be owned, to a certain extent. The creative effort involved in the production of a drug formula is every bit as great as the building of a new chair or other tangible asset. Nothing special separates them and law must reflect that. It is a fundamental violation of property rights to steal from drug companies the rights they own to drugs by allowing the production of generic knock-offs.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-science-cidfiphwa-pro03b", "score": 0.6675527095794678, "text": "The cost of research and development of new products is often extremely high for firms. In order to reap a profit from their efforts, they must be able to count on the guarantee of ownership over their intellectual property. In the absence of such a guarantee, the incentive of firms to research and innovate declines substantially, resulting in a less dynamic business climate. The duplication of effort by research firms is rare in practice, and the efforts to develop spin-off products can easily become the beginning of entirely new inventive projects.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04a", "score": 0.6637890338897705, "text": "Unfair to apply same patent laws universally It is unrealistic to expect poorer countries, such as those in Africa, to pay the same price as the developed world’s markets. Current patent laws for many countries dictate that prices for buying patented drugs should be universally the same. This makes it extremely difficult for African countries to purchase pharmaceuticals set at the market price of developed countries. In the US there are nine patented drugs which cost in excess of $200,000 [1] . To expect developing African states to afford this price is unfair and reinforces the exploitative relationship between the developed and developing world. Generic drugs escape this problem due to their universally low prices. [1] Herper,M. ‘The World’s Most Expensive Drugs’", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-dhghwapgd-con02a", "score": 0.6619041562080383, "text": "Patent rights allow firms to more readily release their products and methods into the public domain, particularly through licensing Without patent protection, innovative and enterprising firms lacking the capacity to market successfully or efficiently produce new drugs might develop new drugs and never release them, since it would simply result in others profiting from their efforts. After all, no one likes to see others profit by their hard work, and leaving them nothing; such is tantamount to slavery. Patent protection encourages the release of new ideas and products to the public, which serves to benefit society generally1. The main mechanism for this is the system of licensing, by which firs can retain their right of ownership over a drug while essentially renting the ability to produce it to firms with productive capacities that would better capitalize on the new product. Furthermore, the disclosure of ideas to the public allows firms to try to make the product better by \"inventing around\" the initial design, or by exploiting it once the term of the patent expires2. If the drug formula never enters the public, it might never do so, leaving society bereft of a potentially valuable asset. 1 Rockwell, Llewellyn. 2011. \"The Google Pharm Case\". Mises Daily. Available: 2 Business Line. 2007. \"Patents Grant Freedom to Invent Around\". Hindu Business Line. Available:", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro02b", "score": 0.7280125617980957, "text": "What those statistics mean could be questionable – did the ban make people stop, or only provide an extra incentive or assistance for those who already want to stop to do so? It could be suggested that this would simply lead to increased smoking within the home. Even so, other measures could be more effective, if the goal is a simple reduction in smoking numbers." } ]

[ { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con02a", "score": 0.6799433827400208, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers will lead to thousands of people being turned away and potentially dying from preventable illnesses The denial of access to healthcare for smokers is a policy that will directly lead to the turning away of millions of people, merely for making one perfectly legal, if ill-advised lifestyle choice. In a state like France, where 20 per cent of the population, 12 million people, are smokers, such a policy would leave a large minority unable to access basic healthcare for issues that may be unrelated to their smoking habit . Furthermore, it may lead to the ridiculous situation whereby smokers are dying from preventable diseases despite hospitals being under-utilized, as a fifth of the population is no longer allowed in.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro05b", "score": 0.6780637502670288, "text": "Is it really the job of African states to stop smoking? Africans have the same amount of personal responsibility to choose to smoke or not – policies should reflect that.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro02a", "score": 0.667081892490387, "text": "This ban would lower healthcare costs. The health problems that smokers experience cost taxpayers (where healthcare is provided by the government) or the individual (for private healthcare) a lot of money. Decreasing the number of smokers – as a result of a reduction in both “social smokers” (those who smoke when out with friends) and “passive smokers” (those who do not smoke themselves but are exposed to the second-hand smoke of others) – will lead to a decrease in these healthcare costs. This has been reported – for example – in Arizona, where a study found that hospital admissions due to diagnoses for which there is evidence for a cause by smoking have decreased since the statewide smoking ban, and that costs have thus decreased [1] . [1] Herman, Patricia M., and Walsh, Michele E. “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban. American Journal of Public Health. 101(3). March 2011.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-pro02a", "score": 0.6665216684341431, "text": "Other taxes try to change behaviour Taxes that try to change people’s behaviour on things that are not liked have been used since the 16th century, and are commonly applied to alcohol, smoking and gambling. In the US, when cigarette prices went up 4%, use dropped by 10% [11]. As this worked with tobacco, which creates similar health problems to obesity, this tried and tested strategy can work. Research has shown that when the price of unhealthy food goes up, people eat less of it [12]. A fat tax would make people healthier.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con03b", "score": 0.6645363569259644, "text": "Smoking is not a real choice, as nicotine is an addictive drug - in fact; recent allegations suggest that tobacco companies deliberately produce the most addictive cigarettes they can. Up to 90% of smokers begin when they are below the age of 181, often due to peer pressure; once addicted, continuing to smoke is no longer an issue of freedom of choice, but of chemical compulsion. Like other addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine, tobacco should be banned since this is the only way to force people to quit. Most smokers say that they want to kick the habit", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con04b", "score": 0.6624453067779541, "text": "Each has its own disadvantages. A growing form of tobacco sales in Africa – Nigeria in particular – is the “single stick” 1 . If retailers break packets of cigarettes apart, customers won’t see the packets containing health warnings or similar. Cost increases can lead to increased use of rollups 2 , or even counterfeit cigarettes, 3 both of which have happened in South Africa as a result of taxation. At any rate, it’s not a zero sum game – more than one policy can be introduced at the same time. 1 Kluger, 2009, 2 Olitola, Bukola, “The use of roll-your-own cigarettes in South Africa”, Public Health Association of South Africa, 26 February 2014, 3 Miti, Siya, “Tobacco tax hikes 'boost illegal traders'”, Dispatch Live, 28 February 2014,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-law-tahglcphsld-pro02b", "score": 0.6621724963188171, "text": "Prohibition may not be working in the UK but that does not mean that prohibition is not working everywhere. In the US, the Drug Enforcement Agency states that “Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years.” [1] [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts’,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro01a", "score": 0.6618398427963257, "text": "Lower healthcare costs Smoking caused disease causes large expenses for healthcare systems, something which is particularly burdensome in countries without the rich well developed healthcare systems of the developed world. In the UK lung cancer, one of the diseases caused by smoking, costs £90 per person or £9071 per patient. 1 Even the cost per head of population is higher than Ghana’s entire healthcare budget of $83.4 (about £50) per person. 2 The reduction in smoking, which would be triggered by the ban, would lead to a drop in smoking related illness. A study in the US state of Arizona showed that hospital admissions for smoking related diseases dropped after a ban on smoking in public places 3 . This would allow resources to be focused on the big killers other than tobacco – including HIV AIDS. 1 The National Cancer Research Institute, ‘Lung cancer UK price tag eclipses the cost of any other cancer’, Cancer Research UK, 7 November 2012, 2 Assuming Ghanaian health spending of 5.2% of GDP which is $40.71 billion split between a population of 25.37 million from World Bank Databank 3 Herman, Patricia M., and Walsh, Michele E. “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban”, American Journal of Public Health, March 2011,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con01a", "score": 0.6615635752677917, "text": "Paternalistic Personal autonomy has to be the key to this debate. If people want to smoke – and the owner of the public place has no issue with that – it is not the role of the state to step in. While smoking is dangerous, people should be free in a society to take their own risks, and live with their decisions. All that is required is ensuring that smokers are educated about the risks so that they can make an informed decision.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con02b", "score": 0.6606343984603882, "text": "The opposition fails to recognize the impact that such a policy will have on smokers. Access will only be denied to smokers who continue to smoke once the bill is in place, if it is proven that they have given up, they will be free to access healthcare. Therefore, the only smokers who will be turned away, and who will potentially die from preventable illnesses are those who place their habit above that of their life.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con02a", "score": 0.6563494205474854, "text": "Unenforceable Smoking bans are often unenforceable in higher income countries. This is because they require expensive manpower or CCTV in order to stop those flouting the ban, with scarce resources a police force will almost always have other more important crimes to deal with. If Berlin 1 and New York City 2 cannot enforce them, most African cities won’t be able to either. Ghana's advertising ban has been flouted in the past. When asked in a survey about advertising 35% of Ghanaians recalled hearing a tobacco advert on radio or television despite such ads being banned. 3 1 AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008, 2 Huff Post New York, 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011, 3 Kaloko, Mustapha, 2013, , p.18", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con01a", "score": 0.6556289792060852, "text": "Regulation harms safety and the poor population Cigarettes are so common that there is hardly any chance all the people will stop. What will happen is that policies, regarding tobacco regulation or banning will mainly restrict the possibilities of the poor. In 2009, in the US, a law to triple the federal excise tax on cigarettes was signed, which meant that the federal tax on cigarette jumped from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 today. The administration projects, that such a \"sin tax\" will bring in at least $38 billion over the next five years. Smokers, usually coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds (getting welfare, unemployment or disability checks instead of paychecks) still pay the whole cigarette tax, while they do not get the same amount of funding as others. Anyone concerned about widening income inequality should have second thoughts about this distribution of the tax burden1. Effectively this means, that while a higher financial burden might not cause problems to high and middle class smokers, it will cause the poor smoker, to either limit the freedom of choice by not buying cigarettes or either make sure other necessities, such as food, other supplies will not be provided. In fact researchers estimate that in Bangladesh 10.5 million people are going hungry and 350 children are dying each day due to diversion of money from food to tobacco2. The current situation is that poor turn to \"shag\" or rolling tobacco for self-made cigarettes, which may then be more harmful as the state cannot control it's ingredients as thorough or in the end even turn to the black market of tobacco farmers, where there is no control", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-con01a", "score": 0.6516793966293335, "text": "This ban would be difficult to enforce. Given the popularity of smoking, a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places would be difficult to enforce, requiring constant vigilance by many police officers or security cameras. It has been reported that smoking bans are not being enforced in Yakima, Washington 1, Atlantic City2, Berlin 3and other places. In New York City, the major has said that the New York Police Department (NYPD) are too busy to enforce the ban on smoking in their parks and on their beaches, and that the job will be left to citizens4. 1. Guenthner, Hayley, 'Smoking Ban Difficult to Enforce in Yakima', KIMA TV, 1 April 2011, 2. Sajor, Stephanie, 'Smoking Ban Not Enforced at Atlantic City Casinos', ThirdAge.com, 25 April 2011, 3. AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008, 4. 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro04a", "score": 0.6512748599052429, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers would act as a deterrent, discouraging smokers Governments should do everything they can to discourage smoking. They already attempt to do so in a number of ways, such as through ensuring graphic health warnings are present on all tobacco packaging. Many states have also introduced legislation banning smoking indoors in an attempt to discourage the habit. However, smoking is still a massive problem - millions of people still do it. The refusal of medical treatment to smokers would surely be a massive deterrent to current/potential smokers from continuing/starting the habit. The safety net of modern healthcare being pulled from underneath them would be a powerful incentive to give up the habit, and reduce the estimated $100 billion that the White House believes smokers cost the economy annually through loss of productivity1. 1 USA Today, 15 Jul 11, Do smokers cost society money.. Accessed 15 Jul 11.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro03a", "score": 0.6512504816055298, "text": "The state has to take measures to protect the health of its citizens There is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year1 - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 5 million people die from smoking each year2 - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease. In a democracy the people elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time, are well equipped to make a better and more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. Therefore one of the principles is, that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. That is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking or limit with different means the usage of tobacco - an activity which kills millions of people each year. Precedent is that if a company produces food that is poisonous or a car that fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off the market. Since all cigarettes and other tobacco products are poisonous and potentially lethal, they should all be taken off the market. In short, smoking should be banned or very harshly regulated. 1 Cancer Action Network, Help Fight Tobacco and Save Lives, 2 Ash.Research report, Tobacco: Global trends, August 2007,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro02b", "score": 0.6501505970954895, "text": "The added cost to public healthcare that comes as a result of diseases brought upon by smoking is vastly outweighed by the amount of money governments around the world receive in taxes on tobacco. The UK currently takes around 60% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes in tax duty. In 2008, the US took over $16 billion in tobacco tax revenue1. Such high tax duties and revenues can hardly be justified if smokers are not even to get healthcare for their money. And without the taxes, cigarettes would be much cheaper, encouraging more people to smoke. Moreover, because smokers tend to die earlier than non-smokers, per head the average health care costs are lower than those of non-smokers2. 1 Tax Policy Centre, US Tobacco Revenue Statistics, 2 USA Today, 15 Jul 11, Do smokers cost society money.. Accessed 15 Jul 11.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro03a", "score": 0.6444205641746521, "text": "The added cost to public healthcare that comes as a result of diseases brought upon by smoking is vastly outweighed by the amount of money governments around the world receive in taxes on tobacco. The UK currently takes around 60% of the cost of a pack of Many people have to wait for surgery when they have fallen ill or gotten injured through no fault of their own. Many of the people they are waiting behind have fallen ill out of choice. This includes smokers who have contracted diseases as a result of their habit. There is a vast array of information, easily available to smokers, on the dangers of cigarettes. If despite this, a person chooses to smoke anyway then it is unfair that others who have fallen ill out of genuine misfortune should have to wait in line behind them for healthcare. This problem is particularly in acute in states that have universal healthcare, where non-smokers are forced to wait in a queue for treatment behind those who have negligently made themselves ill smoking. In Britain for example, they have attempted to avoid this by establishing standards under which surgery is denied to obese patients1. Thomas Condliff, the patient, was denied gastric band surgery due to having a body mass index lower than the threshold under which they believed the surgery would be effective2. The priority in such cases is and should be with those who have made a conscious decision to develop an unhealthy habit. 1 BBC News, 11 Jul 11, Man appeals for NHS gastric bypass surgery. Accessed 14 Jul 11.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-sport-ehcpssohwpup-pro01b", "score": 0.639925479888916, "text": "Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created. An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con01b", "score": 0.6378909945487976, "text": "Personal autonomy arguments sound reasonable, but often ignore the wider consequences. Public health is a key issue – the state has a role in stopping people harming themselves – they may be harming themselves but the cost often falls on government through public healthcare, and therefore on all taxpayers. Moreover smoking also harms others through passive smoking, this is particularly true in public places that are enclosed.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con01a", "score": 0.6372781991958618, "text": "Denying healthcare to smokers is impractical There are several reasons why limiting access to healthcare for smokers could prove impractical. Ultimately they surround the issue of how you define who is a smoker. One man might have chain smoked for 20 years but given up for a year, since a bill limiting access to healthcare for smokers was passed. Meanwhile, another might have been smoking cigarettes now and again just for the past year. Who would be prioritized if the two were on a waiting list for the same operation? If the law penalizes anyone who has ever smoked then it would not provide nearly as strong an incentive to stop smoking. But, if the law does not penalize anyone who has smoked, then choosing whom to punish would seem quite arbitrary. Furthermore, what is stopping people from simply lying about how much/whether they smoke? They might not show any obvious signs of being a smoker. Even if they do, they could claim to have given up, work around fumes or be a victim of passive smoking.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro05b", "score": 0.728935718536377, "text": "Is it really the job of African states to stop smoking? Africans have the same amount of personal responsibility to choose to smoke or not – policies should reflect that." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con03b", "score": 0.6914495229721069, "text": "Even if such a link were true – the campaign against the ban on smoking in public places in the UK accept that it’s unlikely that it is the primary cause of closures in the UK 1 – the public health benefits would make it worth it. Reductions on spending in some areas of the economy is likely to be balanced by increases elsewhere; of course there will be losses in some industries – particularly tabacco itself but those who stop smoking will have the money to spend elsewhere. Moreover the economic effects are likely to be different in Africa; smoking outside in the UK, bearing in mind the infamous British weather, is a far less attractive proposition than smoking outdoors in many African countries. 1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con02b", "score": 0.6823280453681946, "text": "It often doesn’t require enforcement – it changes attitudes itself, making people not do so. In Scotland, within three months 99% of locations abided by the ban, without the need for excess heavy handed enforcement 1 . This is because non-smokers will ask a smoker to stub it out if they are smoking where they are not allowed to. There seems little reason why this wont happen in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa just as in the west. Even so, a lot of laws are not enforceable in all cases – that doesn’t mean that they will be complete failures. 1 The Scottish Government, 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', scotland.gov.uk, 26 June 2006,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro04b", "score": 0.6707457304000854, "text": "There is no evidence that limiting access to healthcare would act as a deterrent. In fact, in the developing world, where a smoker would on average have worse access to healthcare, tobacco consumption has increased significantly over the last decade.1 Furthermore, governments have indeed acted to discourage smoking through a variety of methods. These have included advertising campaigns and banning smoking in public places and they seem to have worked. Cigarette use in the developed world has declined over the last 50 years. In the UK, smoking rates have dropped by half between 1974 and 2009, from 45% down to 21%2. A majority 59% have never taken up the habit3. 1 World Health Organization, The Tobacco Atlas, 2 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011. 3 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro03b", "score": 0.6695466637611389, "text": "It would require a large amount of resources for law enforcement to go in to such public places occasionally to see that the ban is being enforced. It would be easier to enforce conditions relating to the packaging and production of tobacco, which occurs on fewer sites, than ban an activity in certain places which is not so enforceable.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro03b", "score": 0.6657149791717529, "text": "While some studies have shown that numbers of smokers in countries in which a smoking ban has been introduced have fallen, it seems that these results only represent those people who were trying to quit smoking anyway, with the smoking ban acting as an added incentive. Studies in England have shown that while there was a rise in the number of smokers trying to quit soon after the ban in 2007, that rise has fallen again since1. So, while there was an initial fall in the number of smokers, the smoking ban in England is not having a continuing effect on whether more people are giving up the habit.Additionally, it can be argued that since people are continuing to smoke in countries with a smoking ban, but not doing so in public, there must be more smoking going on within the home. If there are any dangers of second-hand smoke, then a smoking ban moves those dangers from responsible adults who can choose whether to go somewhere where smoking is allowed (in public) to children who cannot (in the home), which is immoral. 1 Lies, Elaine, 'Smokers quit after ban, but numbers ebb: study', Reuters, 6 June 2011,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-health-ahwba-pro03b", "score": 0.6633688807487488, "text": "First of all alcohol abuse (excessive amounts of alcohol) contribute only to a small percentage of all alcohol use in society. Even in Germany, where prices of beer are very low in comparison to other beverages, the data shows, that only 1.7 million (in a country of more than 80 million) use alcohol in a harmful way. [1] So why force people to give up something, just because a minority is not sure how to use it. Further on, even if it was a concerning amount of people whose health is impacted by alcohol abuse, campaigns and information have very effectively reduced the death rate for cirrhosis. During a 22-year period, death from cirrhosis: dropped 29.8% among black men, 15.3% among white men, 47.9% among black women and 33.3% among white women [2] [1] Ryan R., The Highs and Lows of Germany's Drinking Culture, published 11/18/2006, , accessed 08/18/2011 [2] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York, , accessed 08/18/2011", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con04b", "score": 0.6595925092697144, "text": "Each has its own disadvantages. A growing form of tobacco sales in Africa – Nigeria in particular – is the “single stick” 1 . If retailers break packets of cigarettes apart, customers won’t see the packets containing health warnings or similar. Cost increases can lead to increased use of rollups 2 , or even counterfeit cigarettes, 3 both of which have happened in South Africa as a result of taxation. At any rate, it’s not a zero sum game – more than one policy can be introduced at the same time. 1 Kluger, 2009, 2 Olitola, Bukola, “The use of roll-your-own cigarettes in South Africa”, Public Health Association of South Africa, 26 February 2014, 3 Miti, Siya, “Tobacco tax hikes 'boost illegal traders'”, Dispatch Live, 28 February 2014,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con03a", "score": 0.6587091684341431, "text": "Ban would harm the wider economy A ban could harm the wider economy – from bars to clubs, if smokers are unable to smoke inside, they may be more likely to stay away. According to some critics, this lead to the closures of bars in the UK when such a ban was brought in 1 . Research in the United States has shown drops in employment in bars of between 4 and 16 percent. 2 1 BBC News, “MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs”, BBC News, 2011, 2 Pakko, Michael R., 'Clearing the Haze? New Evidence on the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans', The Regional Economist, January 2008,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-law-tahglcphsld-pro02b", "score": 0.6575464606285095, "text": "Prohibition may not be working in the UK but that does not mean that prohibition is not working everywhere. In the US, the Drug Enforcement Agency states that “Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years.” [1] [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts’,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con01a", "score": 0.6558988690376282, "text": "Regulation harms safety and the poor population Cigarettes are so common that there is hardly any chance all the people will stop. What will happen is that policies, regarding tobacco regulation or banning will mainly restrict the possibilities of the poor. In 2009, in the US, a law to triple the federal excise tax on cigarettes was signed, which meant that the federal tax on cigarette jumped from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 today. The administration projects, that such a \"sin tax\" will bring in at least $38 billion over the next five years. Smokers, usually coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds (getting welfare, unemployment or disability checks instead of paychecks) still pay the whole cigarette tax, while they do not get the same amount of funding as others. Anyone concerned about widening income inequality should have second thoughts about this distribution of the tax burden1. Effectively this means, that while a higher financial burden might not cause problems to high and middle class smokers, it will cause the poor smoker, to either limit the freedom of choice by not buying cigarettes or either make sure other necessities, such as food, other supplies will not be provided. In fact researchers estimate that in Bangladesh 10.5 million people are going hungry and 350 children are dying each day due to diversion of money from food to tobacco2. The current situation is that poor turn to \"shag\" or rolling tobacco for self-made cigarettes, which may then be more harmful as the state cannot control it's ingredients as thorough or in the end even turn to the black market of tobacco farmers, where there is no control", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con04b", "score": 0.6501837372779846, "text": "Most people who smoke tobacco are law-abiding normal citizens who would like to stop. They would not resort to criminal or black-market activities if cigarettes were no longer legally available - they would just quit. Banning smoking would make this happen and massively lighten the burden on health resources of the countries in which it was banned. The reason why such actions may have happened in India was probably poor regulation of the market or mainly poor execution of already set out rules. Something that is easily preventable in Westernized countries.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro04a", "score": 0.6493254899978638, "text": "This ban would be easy to introduce. A ban in all public places would be no more difficult to introduce than existing bans preventing smoking in only some public places. As long as people are given plenty of notice of changes, as was done in airports in Saudi Arabia, and the rules are made clear and readily available1 there should be few difficulties in introducing this ban. 1 Smith, Louise. “Smoking in public places: the ban in force – Commons Library Standard Note.” Parliament. 20 May 2011.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con02a", "score": 0.6479426026344299, "text": "Unenforceable Smoking bans are often unenforceable in higher income countries. This is because they require expensive manpower or CCTV in order to stop those flouting the ban, with scarce resources a police force will almost always have other more important crimes to deal with. If Berlin 1 and New York City 2 cannot enforce them, most African cities won’t be able to either. Ghana's advertising ban has been flouted in the past. When asked in a survey about advertising 35% of Ghanaians recalled hearing a tobacco advert on radio or television despite such ads being banned. 3 1 AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008, 2 Huff Post New York, 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011, 3 Kaloko, Mustapha, 2013, , p.18", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro01b", "score": 0.6468377709388733, "text": "First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes. Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro04b", "score": 0.6403132677078247, "text": "This ban would not be so easy to introduce. A ban on smoking in all public places would not be easily accepted by all. For example, there are groups in England seeking to change the existing ban there so that more places are exempt; the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign wants to change the smoking ban so that large venues can have a designated smoking area which can be avoided by non-smokers1. 1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con01a", "score": 0.6384588479995728, "text": "Paternalistic Personal autonomy has to be the key to this debate. If people want to smoke – and the owner of the public place has no issue with that – it is not the role of the state to step in. While smoking is dangerous, people should be free in a society to take their own risks, and live with their decisions. All that is required is ensuring that smokers are educated about the risks so that they can make an informed decision.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro01b", "score": 0.6373655796051025, "text": "The argument that states will save money due to less people smoking based upon healthcare costs from treating smoking related diseases is over-simplistic. While smoking does cause medical costs, taxation can counterbalance this – in 2009, the South African government gained 9 billion Rand (€620 million) from excise duties on tobacco 1 . Paradoxically, less people smoking could lead to less money for other projects. Indeed, some countries in Europe raise the amount of health expenditure it causes from tobacco taxation 2 . 1 American Cancer Society, “Tobacco tax success story: South Africa”, tobaccofreekids.org, October 2012, 2 BBC News, “Smoking disease costs NHS £5Bn”, BBC News, 2009,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con02a", "score": 0.6339625120162964, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers will lead to thousands of people being turned away and potentially dying from preventable illnesses The denial of access to healthcare for smokers is a policy that will directly lead to the turning away of millions of people, merely for making one perfectly legal, if ill-advised lifestyle choice. In a state like France, where 20 per cent of the population, 12 million people, are smokers, such a policy would leave a large minority unable to access basic healthcare for issues that may be unrelated to their smoking habit . Furthermore, it may lead to the ridiculous situation whereby smokers are dying from preventable diseases despite hospitals being under-utilized, as a fifth of the population is no longer allowed in.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-dssiahwlswo-con02a", "score": 0.6328348517417908, "text": "The causality is wrong. Legalisation doesn’t prevent HIV/AIDS transmission, safe sex, or effective regulation. Workers need to be taught about safe sex; safe sex needs to be legalised; and HIV transmission criminalised. National governments need to concentrate on providing access to prevention tools - such as condoms. Legalisation should not suddenly be announced by government but only done if it is what sex workers want and is the best option for them, this can be done through consolations with groups such as the Global Network of Sex Workers Projects(see NSWP, 2013), to help formulate policy that will work for everyone", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-international-segiahbarr-con01b", "score": 0.631479024887085, "text": "Fifteen out of the twenty countries which have made the most progress towards completing the MDGs are African states. According the UNDP the goals of universal education, gender equality and the empowerment of women, combat HIV/AIDS, TB malaria and other diseases and Global partnership are on track to being completed. While the other goals have not been completed, there is hope that they will be completed in time. The fact that the majority of states have made at least some improvement on these goals is a positive in itself. They have attempted to improve the quality of their populations’ lives, which has a positive impact upon their economies.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro01b", "score": 0.8047279119491577, "text": "The argument that states will save money due to less people smoking based upon healthcare costs from treating smoking related diseases is over-simplistic. While smoking does cause medical costs, taxation can counterbalance this – in 2009, the South African government gained 9 billion Rand (€620 million) from excise duties on tobacco 1 . Paradoxically, less people smoking could lead to less money for other projects. Indeed, some countries in Europe raise the amount of health expenditure it causes from tobacco taxation 2 . 1 American Cancer Society, “Tobacco tax success story: South Africa”, tobaccofreekids.org, October 2012, 2 BBC News, “Smoking disease costs NHS £5Bn”, BBC News, 2009," } ]

[ { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro02b", "score": 0.7423292994499207, "text": "f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money. [1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009. [2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con03b", "score": 0.7329170107841492, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers will not hurt the economy, for the health care costs of smokers are substantially larger than those of non-smokers. In fact, 'health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for non-smokers' . Furthermore, though the opposition points out that because smokers die younger, average health costs are in fact lower than non-smokers, denying access to healthcare will have two effects which will cancel each other out: more people will give up smoking, increasing gross medical costs for the state, but those who don't will die younger for they won't get treatment, which will offset the previous rise.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con03a", "score": 0.7100273966789246, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers will hurt the economy Economically, the healthcare of the nation is important for maintaining a productive workforce. Do we really want to lose otherwise functional members of the workforce the first time they contract an aggravated throat infection and cannot afford, or delay for financial reasons, a simple course of antibiotics? Quite apart from productivity, as The Guardian notes, smokers in the United Kingdom also contribute over £10 billion to government coffers through the tobacco tax 1. To lose this source of revenue will do more to hurt national health services than the occasional complication in surgery granted to a smoker. Lastly, because smokers die younger than non-smokers, though they cost more per year, over their lifetime their average health costs are lower than those of longer-living, non-smokers. 1.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-pro01b", "score": 0.7086141705513, "text": "The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro02a", "score": 0.7084673047065735, "text": "Smokers are a drain on economic resources Smokers contribute a disproportionately large amount to the cost of healthcare. They are a drain on resources. In the UK it is estimated that up to 9,500 beds are blocked daily by smokers, and that up to eight million doctor consultations are required on their behalf each year. A well-informed smoker, unable or unwilling to quit, might assume an increased risk for himself but he would also be indirectly increasing the likelihood of others being unable to access necessary healthcare and this is not fair. Allowing smokers to take scarce beds or organs needed for transplants - that could otherwise go to those suffering from genuine misfortunes - is an unjust allocation of resources.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro04b", "score": 0.701853334903717, "text": "There is no evidence that limiting access to healthcare would act as a deterrent. In fact, in the developing world, where a smoker would on average have worse access to healthcare, tobacco consumption has increased significantly over the last decade.1 Furthermore, governments have indeed acted to discourage smoking through a variety of methods. These have included advertising campaigns and banning smoking in public places and they seem to have worked. Cigarette use in the developed world has declined over the last 50 years. In the UK, smoking rates have dropped by half between 1974 and 2009, from 45% down to 21%2. A majority 59% have never taken up the habit3. 1 World Health Organization, The Tobacco Atlas, 2 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011. 3 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-pro01b", "score": 0.6858338117599487, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con03b", "score": 0.677193820476532, "text": "Even if such a link were true – the campaign against the ban on smoking in public places in the UK accept that it’s unlikely that it is the primary cause of closures in the UK 1 – the public health benefits would make it worth it. Reductions on spending in some areas of the economy is likely to be balanced by increases elsewhere; of course there will be losses in some industries – particularly tabacco itself but those who stop smoking will have the money to spend elsewhere. Moreover the economic effects are likely to be different in Africa; smoking outside in the UK, bearing in mind the infamous British weather, is a far less attractive proposition than smoking outdoors in many African countries. 1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro04a", "score": 0.6758158206939697, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers would act as a deterrent, discouraging smokers Governments should do everything they can to discourage smoking. They already attempt to do so in a number of ways, such as through ensuring graphic health warnings are present on all tobacco packaging. Many states have also introduced legislation banning smoking indoors in an attempt to discourage the habit. However, smoking is still a massive problem - millions of people still do it. The refusal of medical treatment to smokers would surely be a massive deterrent to current/potential smokers from continuing/starting the habit. The safety net of modern healthcare being pulled from underneath them would be a powerful incentive to give up the habit, and reduce the estimated $100 billion that the White House believes smokers cost the economy annually through loss of productivity1. 1 USA Today, 15 Jul 11, Do smokers cost society money.. Accessed 15 Jul 11.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con02a", "score": 0.675367534160614, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers will lead to thousands of people being turned away and potentially dying from preventable illnesses The denial of access to healthcare for smokers is a policy that will directly lead to the turning away of millions of people, merely for making one perfectly legal, if ill-advised lifestyle choice. In a state like France, where 20 per cent of the population, 12 million people, are smokers, such a policy would leave a large minority unable to access basic healthcare for issues that may be unrelated to their smoking habit . Furthermore, it may lead to the ridiculous situation whereby smokers are dying from preventable diseases despite hospitals being under-utilized, as a fifth of the population is no longer allowed in.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro01b", "score": 0.6681091785430908, "text": "First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes. Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-pro01a", "score": 0.667180597782135, "text": "Being fat causes problems for everyone Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems. Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment. This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity’s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can’t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con01b", "score": 0.6629241108894348, "text": "Personal autonomy arguments sound reasonable, but often ignore the wider consequences. Public health is a key issue – the state has a role in stopping people harming themselves – they may be harming themselves but the cost often falls on government through public healthcare, and therefore on all taxpayers. Moreover smoking also harms others through passive smoking, this is particularly true in public places that are enclosed.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro02a", "score": 0.6624227166175842, "text": "Reduce smoking A ban on smoking in public places would help reduce the rates of people smoking, by making it appear socially unusual – people will have to leave enclosed public places to smoke, each time they want to smoke. This is particularly important in Africa which is at an early stage of the tobacco epidemic where it can be prevented from ever coming to be seen as being normal. The ban both through the new obstacle and the change in norms could reduce smoking rates. In England, nine months after such a ban, the fall in smoking rates (such as with much of the Global North) accelerated 1 - it has been claimed by up to 400,000. 1 Daily Mail Reporter, “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit”, Daily Mail, 4 July 2008,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro01b", "score": 0.6622263789176941, "text": "Denying, or even reducing, access to healthcare for smokers is impractical, and therefore an unrealistic policy goal. First, the extent to which care is denied is questionable. Does the proposition model include denying palliative care? If it does, this literally means leaving people to suffer agonising pain in emergencies while they try to locate private prescription painkillers, if they can afford them. Further, does it include denying emergency procedures such as resuscitation in the case of a heart attack? If it does, where are patients supposed to go? Private emergency rooms are few and far between, or non-existent, in many countries – never mind private ambulances. Second, in order to encourage smokers to stop smoking, the process needs to involve reactivating access to healthcare if smokers quit. But any cut-off point at which the right is re-activated will necessarily be arbitrary. Some studies have suggested that, for instance, teenagers do irreparable damage to their respiratory systems even if they stop smoking young. If all citizens make an informed decision to smoke, as the proposition argues, isn’t it the case that teenagers make an informed decision to do inordinate damage to their bodies? If it is, then why should there be an absolute cut-off point at which one reassumes healthcare rights? Should there be a relative scale? Wouldn’t this be impossible to construct on a scientific basis?", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con02b", "score": 0.6609017252922058, "text": "The opposition fails to recognize the impact that such a policy will have on smokers. Access will only be denied to smokers who continue to smoke once the bill is in place, if it is proven that they have given up, they will be free to access healthcare. Therefore, the only smokers who will be turned away, and who will potentially die from preventable illnesses are those who place their habit above that of their life.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-society-fygspsmy-con03b", "score": 0.6606632471084595, "text": "In health services where much care is provided for free there has always been a question of balancing resources. Some treatments are just too expensive, when this is the case the individuals are free to pay for private healthcare. Clearly then if there is less money to be spent on healthcare there just needs to be a rethink about which treatments are affordable as a part of free healthcare. In the United States deciding what treatments are worth the cost is left to the market, in more centrally organised health systems as is the case in Europe there is a regulator or commission that decides. In the UK this is NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) which decides what drugs are worthwhile based upon quality-adjusted life years and usually does not recommend treatments that cost more than £20-30,000 per QALY. [1] The answer then would be to drop this down to a lower figure. [1] Dreaper, Jane, ‘Researchers claim NHS drug decisions ‘are flawed’’, BBC News, 24 January 2013,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con01b", "score": 0.6597724556922913, "text": "This is a very limited view of government; today everyone agrees that the government should be allowed to tax things that harm us such as alcohol and tobacco. These, like fat, only indirectly harm others. Attitudes towards fat are changing as the problem becomes much greater. It is now accepted that when people do things that harm others indirectly the government must have a role. The rise in healthcare costs creates just such costs by increasing the cost of the healthcare system as a whole which is either paid for by everyone through taxes or passed on through higher insurance premiums.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-fhhphwisu-pro01b", "score": 0.6580881476402283, "text": "While the idea that better access to preventative medicine will quickly and drastically lower general medical care costs is an incredible notion, it sadly is just that – a notion. As an aside, the same argument – lowered costs – could be made for simply improving the existing tactics of preventative medicine without the need to invest into universal coverage. Returning to this proposition though, while it might be realistic to expect some reduction in costs from improved prevention, those would very unlikely ever amount to a significant amount – and certainly not an amount that would make introducing universal health coverage a feasible strategy. [1] Universal health care will cause people to use the health care system more. If they are covered, they will go to the doctor when they do not really need to, and will become heavy users of the system. We can see in other countries that this heavier use leads to delays in treatment and constant demands for more resources. As a result care is rationed and taxes keep going up. [1] Leonhardt, D., Free Lunch on Health? Think Again, published 8/8/2007, , accessed 9/18/2011", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-health-ahwba-pro03a", "score": 0.6566004753112793, "text": "Banning alcohol would lead to healthier individuals. A ban of alcohol would have a great impact on the health of every individual. Alcohol and especially alcohol abuse are very common problems in today’s society. Long lasting abuse of substances leads to many chronic diseases such as liver cirrhosis (damage to liver cells); pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas); various cancers, including liver, mouth, throat, larynx (the voice box), and esophagus; high blood pressure; and psychological disorders. [1] With a ban of alcohol we would very much lower the rates of consumption, as already current drug laws show. Even though drugs have a similar effect as alcohol, because of the risk of consequences when using those substances. Therefore in general the number of alcohol addiction would sink and cause also less of a financial health burden. According to the US alone, the economic cost of alcohol abuse in 1998 was 184.6 billion dollars. [2] This is a burden which many state budgets have to bear. Therefore if this cost can be prevented, the lives of people improved (by not getting the chronic diseases) we should do so. [1] Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Alcohol and Public Health, , accessed 08/17/2011 [2] Harwood, H.; The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992. Report prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, , accessed 08/17/2011", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro03b", "score": 0.760360062122345, "text": "It would require a large amount of resources for law enforcement to go in to such public places occasionally to see that the ban is being enforced. It would be easier to enforce conditions relating to the packaging and production of tobacco, which occurs on fewer sites, than ban an activity in certain places which is not so enforceable." } ]

[ { "id": "training-religion-frgsbnaofcs-pro04a", "score": 0.7213869690895081, "text": "A ban would be easy to enforce As a face covering is very obvious, it would be a school to check to see if someone is wearing one. France [1] and Turkey [2] already have attempted such bans on headscarves, which do not cover the face. This could be enforced by teachers, not police. [1] BBC News, ‘French scarf ban comes into force’, 2 September 2004, [2] Rainsford, Sarah, ‘Turkey divided over headscarf ban’, BBC News, 11 February 2008,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro02a", "score": 0.7074378728866577, "text": "Reduce smoking A ban on smoking in public places would help reduce the rates of people smoking, by making it appear socially unusual – people will have to leave enclosed public places to smoke, each time they want to smoke. This is particularly important in Africa which is at an early stage of the tobacco epidemic where it can be prevented from ever coming to be seen as being normal. The ban both through the new obstacle and the change in norms could reduce smoking rates. In England, nine months after such a ban, the fall in smoking rates (such as with much of the Global North) accelerated 1 - it has been claimed by up to 400,000. 1 Daily Mail Reporter, “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit”, Daily Mail, 4 July 2008,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con01a", "score": 0.7051987051963806, "text": "Paternalistic Personal autonomy has to be the key to this debate. If people want to smoke – and the owner of the public place has no issue with that – it is not the role of the state to step in. While smoking is dangerous, people should be free in a society to take their own risks, and live with their decisions. All that is required is ensuring that smokers are educated about the risks so that they can make an informed decision.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro02a", "score": 0.682499349117279, "text": "Restrictions reach out to the general population A ban or high restrictions is a good measure to diminish the effects of smoking in society, because unlike the spreading of information (which is usually done by schools / clubs), governmental restrictions or a total ban will ensure the access of measures to the whole population. Through a ban on advertisement or higher taxation those citizens not involved in active educational structures get educated about the problem. Studies on the ban of advertisements show that bans actually contribute great amounts to the reduction of smokers. \"The tobacco industry employs predatory marketing strategies to get young people hooked to their addictive drug,\" said Dr Douglas Bettcher, Director of WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative. \"But comprehensive advertising bans do work, reducing tobacco consumption by up to 16% in countries that have already taken this legislative step.\"1 So because these measures can drastically decrease smoking when other measures have failed, the state is right to impose bans on advertisement, higher prices or any other measures. 1 The Times of Malta, more public scrutiny of tobacco industry, published 01/18/2011", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro03a", "score": 0.6821561455726624, "text": "This ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up smoking altogether. Not being able to smoke in public will make it more difficult for smokers to keep up with their habit. For example, if they are no longer able to smoke in the pub, smokers would have to go outside – possibly in the rain or other uncomfortable weather – and be away from their non-smoking friends every time they wanted to have a cigarette. So, a smoking ban would encourage smokers to smoke less frequently and maybe even give up. This can be seen in countries already with smoking bans. For example, a study in England found that in the nine months after the smoking ban was introduced, there was a 5.5% fall in the number of smokers in the country, compared to the much lower fall of 1.6 % in the nine months before the ban [1] . This can only be a good thing, since giving up smoking decreases the risk of death, even for those suffering from early stage lung cancer [2] . [1] Daily Mail. “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit.” Daily Mail. 4 July 2008. [2] Parsons, A., Daley, A., Begh, R., and Aveyard, P.. “Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis.” British Medical Journal. 340. 21 January 2010.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro01b", "score": 0.6751400232315063, "text": "First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes. Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-law-ucgllghwbg-con02b", "score": 0.6742107272148132, "text": "Gambling is not impossible to ban, although it will not be easy such examples of states that have banned it show that it is possible and although illegal activity may arise from the ban this can also be stopped by though rules. If government did not ban activities where some may find a way around it, nothing would be banned at all. Making an activity more difficult to pursue will still reduce the number of those who take it up. It is not impossible to put effective deterrent steps in place, such as the recent US ban on American banks processing credit card payments to internet gambling sites.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con02a", "score": 0.6723979711532593, "text": "Unenforceable Smoking bans are often unenforceable in higher income countries. This is because they require expensive manpower or CCTV in order to stop those flouting the ban, with scarce resources a police force will almost always have other more important crimes to deal with. If Berlin 1 and New York City 2 cannot enforce them, most African cities won’t be able to either. Ghana's advertising ban has been flouted in the past. When asked in a survey about advertising 35% of Ghanaians recalled hearing a tobacco advert on radio or television despite such ads being banned. 3 1 AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008, 2 Huff Post New York, 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011, 3 Kaloko, Mustapha, 2013, , p.18", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro03b", "score": 0.6667425036430359, "text": "While some studies have shown that numbers of smokers in countries in which a smoking ban has been introduced have fallen, it seems that these results only represent those people who were trying to quit smoking anyway, with the smoking ban acting as an added incentive. Studies in England have shown that while there was a rise in the number of smokers trying to quit soon after the ban in 2007, that rise has fallen again since1. So, while there was an initial fall in the number of smokers, the smoking ban in England is not having a continuing effect on whether more people are giving up the habit.Additionally, it can be argued that since people are continuing to smoke in countries with a smoking ban, but not doing so in public, there must be more smoking going on within the home. If there are any dangers of second-hand smoke, then a smoking ban moves those dangers from responsible adults who can choose whether to go somewhere where smoking is allowed (in public) to children who cannot (in the home), which is immoral. 1 Lies, Elaine, 'Smokers quit after ban, but numbers ebb: study', Reuters, 6 June 2011,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con02a", "score": 0.6660381555557251, "text": "The Ban is Unenforceable This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws. [1] [1] Miller, Craig. “Laws Limiting Car-Phone use Tough to Enforce.” NPR. 08/2007", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro04b", "score": 0.6591665744781494, "text": "There is no evidence that limiting access to healthcare would act as a deterrent. In fact, in the developing world, where a smoker would on average have worse access to healthcare, tobacco consumption has increased significantly over the last decade.1 Furthermore, governments have indeed acted to discourage smoking through a variety of methods. These have included advertising campaigns and banning smoking in public places and they seem to have worked. Cigarette use in the developed world has declined over the last 50 years. In the UK, smoking rates have dropped by half between 1974 and 2009, from 45% down to 21%2. A majority 59% have never taken up the habit3. 1 World Health Organization, The Tobacco Atlas, 2 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011. 3 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-sport-ehcpssohwpup-pro01b", "score": 0.6588905453681946, "text": "Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created. An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con01b", "score": 0.6561263203620911, "text": "Personal autonomy arguments sound reasonable, but often ignore the wider consequences. Public health is a key issue – the state has a role in stopping people harming themselves – they may be harming themselves but the cost often falls on government through public healthcare, and therefore on all taxpayers. Moreover smoking also harms others through passive smoking, this is particularly true in public places that are enclosed.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con03a", "score": 0.6550518274307251, "text": "Smoking is a choice of lifestyle the government should not intervene with Freedom of choice is what differentiates democracies from dictatorships, autocracies or any other form of government. It goes by the principle, that the individual is free to do, whatever he or she wants, as long as this choice does not limit the freedom of choice, bodily integrity or any other human right of another individual in society. This also applies to smoking. While the law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally it should not stop those taking risks themselves. The state allows individuals to make lifestyle choices that endanger their life all the time. Because there is not difference between smoking and the other life endangering activities, banning or severely regulating smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro02b", "score": 0.6532487273216248, "text": "What those statistics mean could be questionable – did the ban make people stop, or only provide an extra incentive or assistance for those who already want to stop to do so? It could be suggested that this would simply lead to increased smoking within the home. Even so, other measures could be more effective, if the goal is a simple reduction in smoking numbers.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro04a", "score": 0.6478089094161987, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers would act as a deterrent, discouraging smokers Governments should do everything they can to discourage smoking. They already attempt to do so in a number of ways, such as through ensuring graphic health warnings are present on all tobacco packaging. Many states have also introduced legislation banning smoking indoors in an attempt to discourage the habit. However, smoking is still a massive problem - millions of people still do it. The refusal of medical treatment to smokers would surely be a massive deterrent to current/potential smokers from continuing/starting the habit. The safety net of modern healthcare being pulled from underneath them would be a powerful incentive to give up the habit, and reduce the estimated $100 billion that the White House believes smokers cost the economy annually through loss of productivity1. 1 USA Today, 15 Jul 11, Do smokers cost society money.. Accessed 15 Jul 11.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-health-bhhgwtnychrrs-pro03b", "score": 0.6465103626251221, "text": "There is no obligation on the city to protect citizens from their own choices. Citizens are responsible for their own bodies including what they eat and drink. Making any part of government responsible for this would mean a need for much more regulation on almost anything that would protect lives. In this case it would require a much tougher response than simply a partial ban that only affects large drinks. Moreover if there is such an obligation why is it the obligation of the city while the state does not have such an obligation with regards to 7-11s?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con04b", "score": 0.6408570408821106, "text": "Most people who smoke tobacco are law-abiding normal citizens who would like to stop. They would not resort to criminal or black-market activities if cigarettes were no longer legally available - they would just quit. Banning smoking would make this happen and massively lighten the burden on health resources of the countries in which it was banned. The reason why such actions may have happened in India was probably poor regulation of the market or mainly poor execution of already set out rules. Something that is easily preventable in Westernized countries.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con02b", "score": 0.6395015716552734, "text": "The opposition fails to recognize the impact that such a policy will have on smokers. Access will only be denied to smokers who continue to smoke once the bill is in place, if it is proven that they have given up, they will be free to access healthcare. Therefore, the only smokers who will be turned away, and who will potentially die from preventable illnesses are those who place their habit above that of their life.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.6388607621192932, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro04b", "score": 0.6961048245429993, "text": "Yes, tobacco is harmful – but is it really a benefit to remove economic activity, which people choose to do? Labour abuses occur in other industries – but that’s an argument for increased labour protections and economic development, not economic self-inflicted wounds." } ]

[ { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con03b", "score": 0.6583736538887024, "text": "Smoking is not a real choice, as nicotine is an addictive drug - in fact; recent allegations suggest that tobacco companies deliberately produce the most addictive cigarettes they can. Up to 90% of smokers begin when they are below the age of 181, often due to peer pressure; once addicted, continuing to smoke is no longer an issue of freedom of choice, but of chemical compulsion. Like other addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine, tobacco should be banned since this is the only way to force people to quit. Most smokers say that they want to kick the habit", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro02a", "score": 0.6543754935264587, "text": "Restrictions reach out to the general population A ban or high restrictions is a good measure to diminish the effects of smoking in society, because unlike the spreading of information (which is usually done by schools / clubs), governmental restrictions or a total ban will ensure the access of measures to the whole population. Through a ban on advertisement or higher taxation those citizens not involved in active educational structures get educated about the problem. Studies on the ban of advertisements show that bans actually contribute great amounts to the reduction of smokers. \"The tobacco industry employs predatory marketing strategies to get young people hooked to their addictive drug,\" said Dr Douglas Bettcher, Director of WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative. \"But comprehensive advertising bans do work, reducing tobacco consumption by up to 16% in countries that have already taken this legislative step.\"1 So because these measures can drastically decrease smoking when other measures have failed, the state is right to impose bans on advertisement, higher prices or any other measures. 1 The Times of Malta, more public scrutiny of tobacco industry, published 01/18/2011", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con01b", "score": 0.650252103805542, "text": "People often express concern about taxes harming the poor, since they are both most likely to smoke and the least able to afford it. But when tobacco prices are kept low, more poor people use tobacco, and thus waste more of their money on it. In Bangladesh, as prices have remained low over the years, per capita spending on tobacco has increased. While raising taxes may harm some poor individuals who are unable to quit, in many situations this problem is alleviated by the existence of alternate low-cost tobacco products. To the degree that these are minimally advertised and unpalatable, they may be a resource to the addicted while being unlikely to attract the uninitiated. In addition, if the policy benefits a large number of poor smokers but harms a few, then the decision may have to be made to tolerate the harm in order to benefit the many. Negative effects can be addressed through programs to help the poor quit, or to subsidize a food substance generally consumed only by the poorest1. 1 PATH Canada and Work for a Better Bangladesh, Tobacco and Poverty,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con01a", "score": 0.646087110042572, "text": "Regulation harms safety and the poor population Cigarettes are so common that there is hardly any chance all the people will stop. What will happen is that policies, regarding tobacco regulation or banning will mainly restrict the possibilities of the poor. In 2009, in the US, a law to triple the federal excise tax on cigarettes was signed, which meant that the federal tax on cigarette jumped from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 today. The administration projects, that such a \"sin tax\" will bring in at least $38 billion over the next five years. Smokers, usually coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds (getting welfare, unemployment or disability checks instead of paychecks) still pay the whole cigarette tax, while they do not get the same amount of funding as others. Anyone concerned about widening income inequality should have second thoughts about this distribution of the tax burden1. Effectively this means, that while a higher financial burden might not cause problems to high and middle class smokers, it will cause the poor smoker, to either limit the freedom of choice by not buying cigarettes or either make sure other necessities, such as food, other supplies will not be provided. In fact researchers estimate that in Bangladesh 10.5 million people are going hungry and 350 children are dying each day due to diversion of money from food to tobacco2. The current situation is that poor turn to \"shag\" or rolling tobacco for self-made cigarettes, which may then be more harmful as the state cannot control it's ingredients as thorough or in the end even turn to the black market of tobacco farmers, where there is no control", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro04b", "score": 0.6459440588951111, "text": "There is no evidence that limiting access to healthcare would act as a deterrent. In fact, in the developing world, where a smoker would on average have worse access to healthcare, tobacco consumption has increased significantly over the last decade.1 Furthermore, governments have indeed acted to discourage smoking through a variety of methods. These have included advertising campaigns and banning smoking in public places and they seem to have worked. Cigarette use in the developed world has declined over the last 50 years. In the UK, smoking rates have dropped by half between 1974 and 2009, from 45% down to 21%2. A majority 59% have never taken up the habit3. 1 World Health Organization, The Tobacco Atlas, 2 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011. 3 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-law-tahglcphsld-pro07b", "score": 0.6362755298614502, "text": "If the state is to make money from taxing drugs, this undercuts the (supposed) advantages of lower-priced drugs and will just encourage a black market to continue. In the UK, there is large black market for tobacco; it is suspected that tax has not been paid on 21% of cigarettes and 58% of hand rolling tobacco consumed. [1] Furthermore, for the state to take revenue from this practise is morally wrong, whatever use the money is put to. The point of drug treatment is to help abusers off drugs, but under the proposition’s system the state would have a financial interest in prolonging addiction. [1] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, ‘Tobacco Smuggling and Crossborder Shopping’,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-con03b", "score": 0.6358702182769775, "text": "While pubs and restaurants might lose money from some smokers initially, they will gain money from those who are more likely to eat/drink somewhere if they know they will not have to breathe in second-hand smoke. Even the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign admits that pub business is on a decline in the UK anyway, and that the current economic environment in the country is probably partly to blame1. Some pubs have actually seen improved business since the introduction of a smoking ban, like the Village Pub and Grill in Wisconsin, who say that they get more families coming to eat during the day, and have non-smokers staying longer in their bar 2 The lack of smoke indoors also makes pubs a better environment in which to work. 1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs, 2 Linnane, Rory et al., 'One Year After State Smoking Ban, Village Pub Sees Better Business, Health', ShorewoodPatch, 6 July 2011,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro02a", "score": 0.633003294467926, "text": "Reduce smoking A ban on smoking in public places would help reduce the rates of people smoking, by making it appear socially unusual – people will have to leave enclosed public places to smoke, each time they want to smoke. This is particularly important in Africa which is at an early stage of the tobacco epidemic where it can be prevented from ever coming to be seen as being normal. The ban both through the new obstacle and the change in norms could reduce smoking rates. In England, nine months after such a ban, the fall in smoking rates (such as with much of the Global North) accelerated 1 - it has been claimed by up to 400,000. 1 Daily Mail Reporter, “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit”, Daily Mail, 4 July 2008,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con03b", "score": 0.6306400299072266, "text": "Even if such a link were true – the campaign against the ban on smoking in public places in the UK accept that it’s unlikely that it is the primary cause of closures in the UK 1 – the public health benefits would make it worth it. Reductions on spending in some areas of the economy is likely to be balanced by increases elsewhere; of course there will be losses in some industries – particularly tabacco itself but those who stop smoking will have the money to spend elsewhere. Moreover the economic effects are likely to be different in Africa; smoking outside in the UK, bearing in mind the infamous British weather, is a far less attractive proposition than smoking outdoors in many African countries. 1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-law-thgglcplgphw-con01b", "score": 0.6298940181732178, "text": "If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available. [1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con03a", "score": 0.6296147108078003, "text": "Ban would harm the wider economy A ban could harm the wider economy – from bars to clubs, if smokers are unable to smoke inside, they may be more likely to stay away. According to some critics, this lead to the closures of bars in the UK when such a ban was brought in 1 . Research in the United States has shown drops in employment in bars of between 4 and 16 percent. 2 1 BBC News, “MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs”, BBC News, 2011, 2 Pakko, Michael R., 'Clearing the Haze? New Evidence on the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans', The Regional Economist, January 2008,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro03b", "score": 0.6275529861450195, "text": "While some studies have shown that numbers of smokers in countries in which a smoking ban has been introduced have fallen, it seems that these results only represent those people who were trying to quit smoking anyway, with the smoking ban acting as an added incentive. Studies in England have shown that while there was a rise in the number of smokers trying to quit soon after the ban in 2007, that rise has fallen again since1. So, while there was an initial fall in the number of smokers, the smoking ban in England is not having a continuing effect on whether more people are giving up the habit.Additionally, it can be argued that since people are continuing to smoke in countries with a smoking ban, but not doing so in public, there must be more smoking going on within the home. If there are any dangers of second-hand smoke, then a smoking ban moves those dangers from responsible adults who can choose whether to go somewhere where smoking is allowed (in public) to children who cannot (in the home), which is immoral. 1 Lies, Elaine, 'Smokers quit after ban, but numbers ebb: study', Reuters, 6 June 2011,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro02b", "score": 0.626232922077179, "text": "f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money. [1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009. [2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-law-thgglcplgphw-pro01b", "score": 0.624984860420227, "text": "Compulsive Coca chewing may compromise oral health. The wider cultivation of coca plants may make cocaine itself more readily available, and cocaine has clear health risks to its consumption. This debate must be seen in terms of the wider health risks and problems that actually occur if cultivation is legalized, not just a narrow understanding of the health risks in a theoretical vacuum.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-law-tahglcphsld-pro02b", "score": 0.6240888237953186, "text": "Prohibition may not be working in the UK but that does not mean that prohibition is not working everywhere. In the US, the Drug Enforcement Agency states that “Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years.” [1] [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts’,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con04b", "score": 0.621816873550415, "text": "Most people who smoke tobacco are law-abiding normal citizens who would like to stop. They would not resort to criminal or black-market activities if cigarettes were no longer legally available - they would just quit. Banning smoking would make this happen and massively lighten the burden on health resources of the countries in which it was banned. The reason why such actions may have happened in India was probably poor regulation of the market or mainly poor execution of already set out rules. Something that is easily preventable in Westernized countries.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-economy-eptppppgh-con02b", "score": 0.6208773851394653, "text": "This again is a myth routinely put forward by the right. Governments already distinguish between regulations that should apply to all companies and those, more onerous ones, that apply to larger companies only. There are certain standards in terms of health and safety of foodstuffs, products and so forth. However, there is clearly a different role when it comes to regulating larger companies such as banks, insurance companies and major employers. There are particular sectors that require more regulation than others but the bulk of regulation is there to protect both staff and customers and it is part of the reality of doing business. The idea that regulation harms small business is simply absurd as they benefit from the regulation of larger businesses who may be either their suppliers or customers are also regulated. Equally start-up companies benefit from the fact that regulation evens up the playing field with more established competitors. If nobody is allowed to cut corners or perform other mildly criminal acts it is clearly an advantage to the new starters.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-law-thgglcplgphw-pro03a", "score": 0.6207783818244934, "text": "Legal coca cultivation would enhance economic growth in developing states Millions of people in South America chew coca leaves, so this practice cannot simply be wished away. [1] Moreover, it currently acts as a vital income source in many impoverished areas of the Andes. Pasquale Quispe, 53, owner of a 7.4-acre Bolivian coca farm, explained to the New York Times in 2006: “Coca is our daily bread, what gives us work, what gives us our livelihood.” [2] Previous attempts to eradicate coca cultivation in Bolivia harmed the poorest farmers there and led to significant social unrest. [3] When it is allowed, however, coca cultivation can actually have economic benefits. Peasant cultivators in the Andes have indicated their belief that coca chewing helps increase production in agriculture, fisheries and mining. [4] The legalization of coca cultivation globally would allow for the expansion of these economic benefits. The coca leaf may have uses as a stimulant and flavouring agent in drinks (in which it is currently used to a limited extent in the West), but also in the expansion of the many domestic products currently in use in the Andes, including syrups, teas, shampoo and toothpaste. It may also have a use as a general anaesthetic. [5] Only the legalization of its cultivation globally will allow these product and economic potentials to be fully realized and allow humanity to reap the full rewards of the coca plant, rather than simply being limited by the fear and stigma surrounding its illegal use in cocaine. [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009. [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006. [3] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006. [4] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. [5] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-law-thgglcplgphw-pro03b", "score": 0.6187469959259033, "text": "Medical uses of the coca leaf are already legal under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. [1] . The coca plant has also never been proven to be a better ingredient in these varied domestic products than other plants, and other plants may even perform even better as ingredients. [2] There is therefore no compelling reason to believe that its global cultivation would result in any meaningful economic boost or better products on the market. Saving lives from being ruined by cocaine is more important than nay minor boost we might get from other coca products. [1] United Nations. “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961”. United Nations. 1961, amended 1972. [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro02b", "score": 0.6181108355522156, "text": "How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con02b", "score": 0.7718818783760071, "text": "It often doesn’t require enforcement – it changes attitudes itself, making people not do so. In Scotland, within three months 99% of locations abided by the ban, without the need for excess heavy handed enforcement 1 . This is because non-smokers will ask a smoker to stub it out if they are smoking where they are not allowed to. There seems little reason why this wont happen in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa just as in the west. Even so, a lot of laws are not enforceable in all cases – that doesn’t mean that they will be complete failures. 1 The Scottish Government, 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', scotland.gov.uk, 26 June 2006," } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro03b", "score": 0.7287301421165466, "text": "It would require a large amount of resources for law enforcement to go in to such public places occasionally to see that the ban is being enforced. It would be easier to enforce conditions relating to the packaging and production of tobacco, which occurs on fewer sites, than ban an activity in certain places which is not so enforceable.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con02a", "score": 0.713090717792511, "text": "The Ban is Unenforceable This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws. [1] [1] Miller, Craig. “Laws Limiting Car-Phone use Tough to Enforce.” NPR. 08/2007", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro03a", "score": 0.6721872687339783, "text": "Easy to introduce A ban on smoking in public places would be simple to enforce – it is an obvious activity, and does not require any form of complex equipment or other special techniques . It would largely be enforced by other users of public places and those working there. If it changes attitudes enough, it could be largely self-enforcing – by changing attitudes and creating peer pressure 1 . 1 See Hartocollis, Anemona, “Why Citizens (gasp) are the smoking police), New York Times, 16 September 2010,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con02b", "score": 0.6554862856864929, "text": "New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro02a", "score": 0.6547616124153137, "text": "Reduce smoking A ban on smoking in public places would help reduce the rates of people smoking, by making it appear socially unusual – people will have to leave enclosed public places to smoke, each time they want to smoke. This is particularly important in Africa which is at an early stage of the tobacco epidemic where it can be prevented from ever coming to be seen as being normal. The ban both through the new obstacle and the change in norms could reduce smoking rates. In England, nine months after such a ban, the fall in smoking rates (such as with much of the Global North) accelerated 1 - it has been claimed by up to 400,000. 1 Daily Mail Reporter, “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit”, Daily Mail, 4 July 2008,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-law-cplglghwbhwd-pro03b", "score": 0.6505793929100037, "text": "Studies have been conducted on cities where a handgun ban has been implemented. It found that cities such as New York and DC continued to exhibit high rates of crime and proved to be some of the most dangerous cities in the world, regardless of the ban on guns.6 As mentioned, this is because criminal gangs and criminogenic neighbourhoods in these cities have become entrenched. Anyone desperate enough to seek out a handgun- either for use in a crime or as a means of defending themselves in a crime-ridden neighbourhood- is likely to be able to acquire one regardless of the legal control that city councils may attempt to put in place. In the case of stop and search laws, it proves that criminals are adaptable and change their methods based on this lower burden of proof. For example, many gangs opt to keep guns in armouries and only loan them out as and when they are necessary.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con04b", "score": 0.6504723429679871, "text": "Most people who smoke tobacco are law-abiding normal citizens who would like to stop. They would not resort to criminal or black-market activities if cigarettes were no longer legally available - they would just quit. Banning smoking would make this happen and massively lighten the burden on health resources of the countries in which it was banned. The reason why such actions may have happened in India was probably poor regulation of the market or mainly poor execution of already set out rules. Something that is easily preventable in Westernized countries.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro04a", "score": 0.6499367952346802, "text": "This ban would be easy to introduce. A ban in all public places would be no more difficult to introduce than existing bans preventing smoking in only some public places. As long as people are given plenty of notice of changes, as was done in airports in Saudi Arabia, and the rules are made clear and readily available1 there should be few difficulties in introducing this ban. 1 Smith, Louise. “Smoking in public places: the ban in force – Commons Library Standard Note.” Parliament. 20 May 2011.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con04b", "score": 0.647840142250061, "text": "Each has its own disadvantages. A growing form of tobacco sales in Africa – Nigeria in particular – is the “single stick” 1 . If retailers break packets of cigarettes apart, customers won’t see the packets containing health warnings or similar. Cost increases can lead to increased use of rollups 2 , or even counterfeit cigarettes, 3 both of which have happened in South Africa as a result of taxation. At any rate, it’s not a zero sum game – more than one policy can be introduced at the same time. 1 Kluger, 2009, 2 Olitola, Bukola, “The use of roll-your-own cigarettes in South Africa”, Public Health Association of South Africa, 26 February 2014, 3 Miti, Siya, “Tobacco tax hikes 'boost illegal traders'”, Dispatch Live, 28 February 2014,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro05a", "score": 0.6470550894737244, "text": "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 & Melinda Gates Foundation, no date,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-law-cpilhbishioe-pro02b", "score": 0.6450430750846863, "text": "States are capable of their own enforcement, even in the difficult cases – for example, Radovan Karadzic was arrested by the Serbian authorities for his trial by the ICTY, and would not necessarily have been arrested faster by an outside force rather than the Serbian police. A large number of states have been pouring resources in to capturing the Lord’s Resistance Army fugitives such as Joseph Kony – if they cannot do capture him, there is no reason to believe that an ICC Police would be able to. Recently the Ugandan Army has been willing to cross borders to chase Kony, so far with little to show for it. [1] [1] Van Woudenberg, Anneke, ‘How to Catch Joseph Kony’, Human Rights Watch, 9 March 2012,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-bhhgwtnychrrs-pro03b", "score": 0.6415576934814453, "text": "There is no obligation on the city to protect citizens from their own choices. Citizens are responsible for their own bodies including what they eat and drink. Making any part of government responsible for this would mean a need for much more regulation on almost anything that would protect lives. In this case it would require a much tougher response than simply a partial ban that only affects large drinks. Moreover if there is such an obligation why is it the obligation of the city while the state does not have such an obligation with regards to 7-11s?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con04a", "score": 0.6409201622009277, "text": "Pack labelling or taxation a better alternative If it’s not enforceable, enforceable solutions ought to be used instead. It would be easier to enforce pack labelling and branding requirements, from larger and clearer health warnings to even brand-free packs. Of course, American-style lawsuits by governments against tobacco manufacturers could be tried, as suggested in Nigeria 1 . 1 IRIN, “NIGERIA: Govt hits tobacco companies with whopping law suit”, irinnews.org, 9 November 2007,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro04b", "score": 0.6324560642242432, "text": "This ban would not be so easy to introduce. A ban on smoking in all public places would not be easily accepted by all. For example, there are groups in England seeking to change the existing ban there so that more places are exempt; the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign wants to change the smoking ban so that large venues can have a designated smoking area which can be avoided by non-smokers1. 1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-con02a", "score": 0.6315993666648865, "text": "Policing and financing the system is unmanageable If a large proportion of the population decided not to vote it would be impossible to make every non-voter pay the fine. For example, if just 10% of the UK voters failed to do so the government would have to chase up about £4 million in fines. Even if they sent demand letters to all these people, they could not take all those who refused to pay to court. Ironically, this measure hurts most those who the proposition are trying to enfranchise because they are least able to pay. The cost of policing this system will impact upon tax payers. The Government will need to expand and more civil servants positions will be needed to create, administer and enforce the processes. It is especially prudent that we look closely at the impact it would have financially on individual countries. For example, the US has more than ten times the voting population of Australia “the financial cost for the two nations is vastly different. Since it costs the Australian government roughly five dollars for every ballot they evaluate, the greater number of voters in America would exponentially increase bureaucratic costs\".1 1 Iowaprodigal", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-law-ucgllghwbg-con02b", "score": 0.6314104199409485, "text": "Gambling is not impossible to ban, although it will not be easy such examples of states that have banned it show that it is possible and although illegal activity may arise from the ban this can also be stopped by though rules. If government did not ban activities where some may find a way around it, nothing would be banned at all. Making an activity more difficult to pursue will still reduce the number of those who take it up. It is not impossible to put effective deterrent steps in place, such as the recent US ban on American banks processing credit card payments to internet gambling sites.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con03b", "score": 0.6302763819694519, "text": "Even if such a link were true – the campaign against the ban on smoking in public places in the UK accept that it’s unlikely that it is the primary cause of closures in the UK 1 – the public health benefits would make it worth it. Reductions on spending in some areas of the economy is likely to be balanced by increases elsewhere; of course there will be losses in some industries – particularly tabacco itself but those who stop smoking will have the money to spend elsewhere. Moreover the economic effects are likely to be different in Africa; smoking outside in the UK, bearing in mind the infamous British weather, is a far less attractive proposition than smoking outdoors in many African countries. 1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-law-lgpcphwawtai-pro03a", "score": 0.6294940114021301, "text": "Countries which do not allow intercept evidence have created a contradictory, rather than transparent, set of legal boundaries. Britain in particular seems to hold a paradoxical set of values in relation to intercept evidence. For example, British courts have allowed intercept material which has been lawfully obtained by foreign police forces. One notable example of this was the conviction of the Merseyside drugs squad chief Elmore Davies when it was discovered that he had a corrupt relationship with drug baron Curtis Warren [1] . The information which led to his conviction was collected on Dutch mobile phones by the Dutch police force, despite the fact that some of the conversations took place wholly within the UK. However this – bizarrely – was allowed as evidence in a British court [2] , despite the systematic rejection of intercept evidence in other cases. When a country seems to recognise and even capitalise on the potential of intercept evidence in some cases but simultaneously reject it in others, the result is inconsistent legal standards which damage accountability and transparency of the entire state. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-religion-frgsbnaofcs-pro04a", "score": 0.6294375658035278, "text": "A ban would be easy to enforce As a face covering is very obvious, it would be a school to check to see if someone is wearing one. France [1] and Turkey [2] already have attempted such bans on headscarves, which do not cover the face. This could be enforced by teachers, not police. [1] BBC News, ‘French scarf ban comes into force’, 2 September 2004, [2] Rainsford, Sarah, ‘Turkey divided over headscarf ban’, BBC News, 11 February 2008,", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-economy-beplcpdffe-con02b", "score": 0.6273031830787659, "text": "Governments have the power to ban online gambling in their own country. Even if citizens could use foreign websites, most will not choose to break the law. When the United States introduced its Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 gambling among those of college-age fell from 5.8% to 1.5% [12]. Blocking the leading websites will also be effective, as it makes it very hard for them to build a trusted brand. And governments can stop their banks handling payments to foreign gambling companies, cutting off their business.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con04b", "score": 0.7297661900520325, "text": "Each has its own disadvantages. A growing form of tobacco sales in Africa – Nigeria in particular – is the “single stick” 1 . If retailers break packets of cigarettes apart, customers won’t see the packets containing health warnings or similar. Cost increases can lead to increased use of rollups 2 , or even counterfeit cigarettes, 3 both of which have happened in South Africa as a result of taxation. At any rate, it’s not a zero sum game – more than one policy can be introduced at the same time. 1 Kluger, 2009, 2 Olitola, Bukola, “The use of roll-your-own cigarettes in South Africa”, Public Health Association of South Africa, 26 February 2014, 3 Miti, Siya, “Tobacco tax hikes 'boost illegal traders'”, Dispatch Live, 28 February 2014," } ]

[ { "id": "validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-pro02b", "score": 0.6925406455993652, "text": "It is important not to confuse two issues. The ongoing ‘Battle of the Brands’ between, for example, Coke and Pepsi or McDonalds and Burger King are the focus of the sponsors. It really seems unlikely that the directors of McDonalds lose a lot of sleep over competition from a family butcher in Dorset. The problem has come because the butcher is caught in the crossfire. It’s worth noting that that butcher has received the sort of media coverage that money really can’t buy, so he’s probably not complaining too much. It may have been wise to draft the legislation so that it only applied to companies of a certain size but, in reality, it only affects large-scale efforts to circumvent the rules. [i] [i] London 2012: Organisers clarify rules on branded clothing for spectators. BBC website. 20 July 2012.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con02b", "score": 0.6921587586402893, "text": "It often doesn’t require enforcement – it changes attitudes itself, making people not do so. In Scotland, within three months 99% of locations abided by the ban, without the need for excess heavy handed enforcement 1 . This is because non-smokers will ask a smoker to stub it out if they are smoking where they are not allowed to. There seems little reason why this wont happen in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa just as in the west. Even so, a lot of laws are not enforceable in all cases – that doesn’t mean that they will be complete failures. 1 The Scottish Government, 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', scotland.gov.uk, 26 June 2006,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-con01b", "score": 0.6921353936195374, "text": "In some countries, compliance rates have actually been high, proving that it is not a problem with the idea of having a ban but with the authorities themselves in different countries. In Scotland, for example, reports from 3 months after their smoking ban was introduced showed that about 99% of premises were following the law properly1. This shows that the opposition should not use the fact that a smoking ban might be difficult to enforce in some places in the initial stages of the law change as a reason not to introduce such a ban in the first place. Lots of laws are difficult to enforce, but still necessary in order to protect people. 1 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', The Scottish Government, 26 June 2006,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwilfepe-con03b", "score": 0.6747722029685974, "text": "Although we agree that it is the role of government to ensure a fair marketplace, we do not agree that the case described should be included in this definition. What we see is simply consumers reacting in accordance to their values – and currently the public opinion is quite opposed to the introduction of GMOs into their diets (71% in EU). [1] So it is only natural that products that include them are valued less. It also goes to show that these products should be labeled, so that consumers can make informed decisions in accordance to what they believe – something much more important in this case than a company’s profits. [1] Bonny, S., Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe, published 4/15/2008, , accessed 9/17/2011", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwilfepe-pro03b", "score": 0.672524094581604, "text": "For every company that actually makes an effort to create a program of healthy products, there ten that use labels to promote a “functional food” gimmick. More and more products are being labeled with the “health food” and “functional food” labels. One strong example of that is the “contains added vitamins and minerals” label in the U.S., with foods being fortified with vitamins – so seemingly improved for the better. Yet the U.S. population’s vitamin deficiencies are at an all time low. An epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania also notes that these fortifications and the labels that come with them are mostly a tactic used to distract consumers from actual nutritional problems – those of excess. [1] [1] Narayan, A., Figuring Out Food Labels, published 5/2/2010, , accessed 9/17/2011", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-pro02b", "score": 0.6722028255462646, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-con03b", "score": 0.6673431396484375, "text": "There is no reason why, under this model, you could not retain suitable precautions to ensure that this doesn’t happen. For example, you could continue the obligation for companies to sell the drug at cost (they would, naturally, continue to be incentivised by the huge profits they expect to make when the drug is licensed). Further, you could impose financial sanctions on companies that refused to take appropriate action towards completing testing.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwilfepe-pro01b", "score": 0.6655745506286621, "text": "Food labeling rarely helps consumers find out what exactly it is they are eating, because of the convoluted names companies use to describe ingredients. Forcing companies to label food does not mean they will actually make those labels easy to understand and useful. Even when it comes to things as important as common allergens in food, it is very difficult to understand whether it is included or not. [1] [1] Webster Family Wellness Center, Confusing terms make food labels difficult to understand, published 5/7/2011, , accessed 9/17/2011", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con02b", "score": 0.6632041931152344, "text": "This is argument for the reform of these laws, not against the laws themselves. Laws could also be introduced, for example, to require loggers to allow a certain percentage of their trees to reach the appropriate age for woodpecker nesting, or better review panels created to consider removing the 'endangered' label when it is no longer appropriate. These laws can shift as we see incentives shifting in order to ensure that good behaviour in incentivized overall.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro02b", "score": 0.6627660989761353, "text": "How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con02b", "score": 0.6582005023956299, "text": "New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwilfepe-con01b", "score": 0.6543877124786377, "text": "There are two things we need to respond with in this case. One regarding the current state of labels and the other the strategy of fighting obesity. It is a fact that the current label designs leave something to be desired. If currently only a certain (but not at all negligible) percentage go ahead and actually read the labels that does not mean that labels are inherently ineffective. It might just as well, if not more likely, mean that the current design of labels is simply not attractive and useful enough for people to pay attention to. Therefore efforts are being made to revamp the food label to improve its effectiveness. [1] As to the second, food labels are but a weapon in our arsenal against fighting obesity. It might be that on their own they will not defeat the epidemic, but they certainly play a key part of the overall strategy. [2] [1] Associated Press, New food nutrition labels from FDA coming, published 9/3/2011, , accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Benassi, M., The launch of a dynamic process, published in May 2006, , accessed 9/17/2011", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwilfepe-con02b", "score": 0.6532514095306396, "text": "These examples do not really demonstrate that food labels do not work or are deceptive but rather that consumers should be educated better about how to actually read and recognize them – something the consumers themselves want, a fact known now for decades. [1] On the other hand, stricter regulations on packaging advertising are being called for as well, attacking the problem from another perspective. [2] We contend that better educated consumers on the one and better regulations on the other will uproot this problem at hand. In addition, this just goes to show that food labels are anything but ineffective – they just need to be known and regulated better. [1] Hackleman, E. C., Food label information: what consumers say they want and what they need, published in 1981, , accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Neuman W., U.S. Seeks New Limits on Food Ads for Children, published 4/28/2011, , accessed 9/17/2011", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-law-thgglcplgphw-con03b", "score": 0.6522044539451599, "text": "The burden of evidence lies on the side trying to prove its harm, not on the side asserting that it is not harmful, and so the lack of categorical proof of its harm is in itself an argument for legalizing its cultivation and chewing. If proof of health risks arise then they can be addressed, but until then the ban is inappropriate and should be lifted.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwilfepe-con03a", "score": 0.6511430144309998, "text": "Food labeling introduces unfair prejudice against certain products Requiring companies to label their products a certain way might unfairly influence the sales of this product. Let us observe this point on the example of GMOs in food. For instance, a study investigated the influence of labeling a cornflakes product with different variations on the theme of containing GMOs. The packaging might say that the product contained \"USDA approved genetically modified corn\" or \"may contain genetically modified corn\", basically stating the same thing. Yet the first product was evaluated much more favorably than the second, with a 6% price perception difference. [1] Considering that GMOs are considered safe by the health authorities, [2] it would be unfair to prejudice against these products by specifically targeting them, when they pose no risk to health. [1] Onyango, B. M., et al., U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Food Labeled 'Genetically Modified', published in October 2006, , accessed 9/15/2011 [2] WHO, 20 questions on genetically modified foods, published 12/10/2010, , accessed 9/15/2011", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-health-hpiahbps-con02b", "score": 0.6510542035102844, "text": "Being part of a brand ensures investors maintain a standard, and ensure infrastructure, drugs, and medical practices are met. Building franchises for health-care ensures familiarity and is setting standards to follow. Blue Star is a case in point. The Blue Star Network has been rolled out across Africa, and the franchise provides family planning resources and training on sexual and reproductive health. Once the private clinics have completed training, Blue Star recognition is awarded [1] . Including the private sector in health care provision means a structural shift in the model of care: improved efficiency, quality and methods of care. [1] See further readings: Marie Stopes International, 2013.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-con02b", "score": 0.6509362459182739, "text": "Obviously, not every policy is 100% effective. However, a ban on products that is well created and adequately enforced could at least reject a material from the mainstream, and signals disapproval. Not everyone will follow a ban but many will see that the ban is there for a good reason and will not seek alternatives. Counterfeit cosmetics are a different issue – one is the attempt to capitalize off of a brand, the other is to provide a product to achieve people’s goals.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-economy-beghwarirgg-con03a", "score": 0.6500373482704163, "text": "Grey imports limit a company's control over its own products. A free flow of goods is not always an automatic good. The extra transport and pollution involved in grey imports alone is a serious argument against it. Grey importers often do not make clear that products sold under the same brand name in different markets are in fact sometimes tailored to suit the local market environment. So, for example, one of the reasons for lower pricing in some products in particular countries is that they do not include all of the same ingredients as a product sold under the same brand name in another country. This can be, for example, because the performance needs (e.g. the climate), regulatory framework, or consumers' willingness to pay in the two countries vary. Accordingly, in the importing country, consumers may end up paying for a familiar brand that is not actually as well designed for their needs as the domestically marketed version. 1 There are many practical problems with grey importation. For example, consumers may not understand usage instructions. 1 Santos, Botchi, 'Why locally sold cars are still better than grey-market options, 26 January 2010", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "validation-economy-beghwarirgg-pro03a", "score": 0.6480203866958618, "text": "Impossible to Stop. Governments might as well accept that allowing retailers to sell grey goods has benefits because government will never be able to completely prevent such imports. Government regulation may prevent most retailers from selling grey goods but it won't stop all. For example Tesco in the UK sold cut price Levi jeans for years, and fought Levi Strauss in the courts for four years to try and keep selling them.1 If even the biggest retailers are willing to sell grey goods unless stopped by the courts many smaller ones will be getting through the net. Moreover consumers will simply buy the goods elsewhere, particularly online. The government should instead legalise the import of grey goods so that it can make sure that these imports are of a high standard and do not break any other standards 1 BBC News, 'Tesco defeated in cheap jeans battle', 31 July 2002,", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-health-bhhgwtnychrrs-pro03b", "score": 0.6472010612487793, "text": "There is no obligation on the city to protect citizens from their own choices. Citizens are responsible for their own bodies including what they eat and drink. Making any part of government responsible for this would mean a need for much more regulation on almost anything that would protect lives. In this case it would require a much tougher response than simply a partial ban that only affects large drinks. Moreover if there is such an obligation why is it the obligation of the city while the state does not have such an obligation with regards to 7-11s?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con03b", "score": 0.7540331482887268, "text": "Even if such a link were true – the campaign against the ban on smoking in public places in the UK accept that it’s unlikely that it is the primary cause of closures in the UK 1 – the public health benefits would make it worth it. Reductions on spending in some areas of the economy is likely to be balanced by increases elsewhere; of course there will be losses in some industries – particularly tabacco itself but those who stop smoking will have the money to spend elsewhere. Moreover the economic effects are likely to be different in Africa; smoking outside in the UK, bearing in mind the infamous British weather, is a far less attractive proposition than smoking outdoors in many African countries. 1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs," } ]

[ { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro03b", "score": 0.7160996794700623, "text": "While some studies have shown that numbers of smokers in countries in which a smoking ban has been introduced have fallen, it seems that these results only represent those people who were trying to quit smoking anyway, with the smoking ban acting as an added incentive. Studies in England have shown that while there was a rise in the number of smokers trying to quit soon after the ban in 2007, that rise has fallen again since1. So, while there was an initial fall in the number of smokers, the smoking ban in England is not having a continuing effect on whether more people are giving up the habit.Additionally, it can be argued that since people are continuing to smoke in countries with a smoking ban, but not doing so in public, there must be more smoking going on within the home. If there are any dangers of second-hand smoke, then a smoking ban moves those dangers from responsible adults who can choose whether to go somewhere where smoking is allowed (in public) to children who cannot (in the home), which is immoral. 1 Lies, Elaine, 'Smokers quit after ban, but numbers ebb: study', Reuters, 6 June 2011,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-health-ahwba-con04a", "score": 0.7137138247489929, "text": "Banning alcohol harms the economy. Not only would banning alcohol infringe people’s civil liberties to an unacceptable degree, it would also put thousands of people out of work. The drinks industry is an enormous global industry. In 2007, it was a $970 billion global market for alcoholic beverages, experiencing a period of unprecedented change. While about 60 percent of the market was still in the hands of small, local enterprises, truly global players are steadily emerging and creating an even greater market. There are not good enough reasons for wreaking this havoc on the world economy. [1] A point further on is that currently governments raise large amounts of revenue from taxes and duties payable on alcoholic drinks. To ban alcohol would take away a major source of funding for public services. In addition, the effect of banning alcohol would call for additional policing on a huge scale, if the prohibition were to be enforced effectively. If would create a new class of illegal drug-users, traffickers, and dealers on an unprecedented scale. [1] Jackson J., Spirited performance, published May 2007, , accessed 08/17/2011", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro03a", "score": 0.7012152671813965, "text": "This ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up smoking altogether. Not being able to smoke in public will make it more difficult for smokers to keep up with their habit. For example, if they are no longer able to smoke in the pub, smokers would have to go outside – possibly in the rain or other uncomfortable weather – and be away from their non-smoking friends every time they wanted to have a cigarette. So, a smoking ban would encourage smokers to smoke less frequently and maybe even give up. This can be seen in countries already with smoking bans. For example, a study in England found that in the nine months after the smoking ban was introduced, there was a 5.5% fall in the number of smokers in the country, compared to the much lower fall of 1.6 % in the nine months before the ban [1] . This can only be a good thing, since giving up smoking decreases the risk of death, even for those suffering from early stage lung cancer [2] . [1] Daily Mail. “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit.” Daily Mail. 4 July 2008. [2] Parsons, A., Daley, A., Begh, R., and Aveyard, P.. “Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis.” British Medical Journal. 340. 21 January 2010.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro01b", "score": 0.6923425793647766, "text": "First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes. Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro02b", "score": 0.6855239868164062, "text": "What those statistics mean could be questionable – did the ban make people stop, or only provide an extra incentive or assistance for those who already want to stop to do so? It could be suggested that this would simply lead to increased smoking within the home. Even so, other measures could be more effective, if the goal is a simple reduction in smoking numbers.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-health-bhhgwtnychrrs-con02a", "score": 0.6809985637664795, "text": "The Ban Would Be a Barrier to Free Enterprise The proposal for this ban on large sodas would only affect businesses regulated by the NYC Board of Health. Restaurants, delis, food carts, and concession stands at theaters and stadiums would be affected because they are considered Food Service Establishments (FSEs). The ban would exclude grocery stores, 7-Eleven’s, and other establishments that are not considered FSE’s but are regulated by the State. Consequently, the ban cause the FSE to face repercussions as they would have to serve less soda (the goal of the ban), but also this selective, non-universal ban could encourage consumers to patronize other establishments where they would not be affected by the ban. There is currently a level of demand for large sodas in the market, but the ban would place a barrier on that whole sector of the market. It would be the government directly impeding free enterprise by providing different sets of rules for competing stores. In addition, New Yorkers would be encouraged to report violating establishments that would receive $200 fines. [1] It would be unfortunate to hurt businesses for a ban that wouldn’t necessarily be effective in its main goal to curb obesity because of the multiple blatant loopholes. [1] ‘From Supersized to Human-Sized: Reintroducing Reasonable Portions of Sugary Drinks in New York City’, NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Briefing, 12 June 2012.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-con01b", "score": 0.6802164316177368, "text": "In some countries, compliance rates have actually been high, proving that it is not a problem with the idea of having a ban but with the authorities themselves in different countries. In Scotland, for example, reports from 3 months after their smoking ban was introduced showed that about 99% of premises were following the law properly1. This shows that the opposition should not use the fact that a smoking ban might be difficult to enforce in some places in the initial stages of the law change as a reason not to introduce such a ban in the first place. Lots of laws are difficult to enforce, but still necessary in order to protect people. 1 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', The Scottish Government, 26 June 2006,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro04b", "score": 0.6769661903381348, "text": "This ban would not be so easy to introduce. A ban on smoking in all public places would not be easily accepted by all. For example, there are groups in England seeking to change the existing ban there so that more places are exempt; the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign wants to change the smoking ban so that large venues can have a designated smoking area which can be avoided by non-smokers1. 1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con03b", "score": 0.6747041344642639, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers will not hurt the economy, for the health care costs of smokers are substantially larger than those of non-smokers. In fact, 'health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for non-smokers' . Furthermore, though the opposition points out that because smokers die younger, average health costs are in fact lower than non-smokers, denying access to healthcare will have two effects which will cancel each other out: more people will give up smoking, increasing gross medical costs for the state, but those who don't will die younger for they won't get treatment, which will offset the previous rise.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con01a", "score": 0.6733190417289734, "text": "Regulation harms safety and the poor population Cigarettes are so common that there is hardly any chance all the people will stop. What will happen is that policies, regarding tobacco regulation or banning will mainly restrict the possibilities of the poor. In 2009, in the US, a law to triple the federal excise tax on cigarettes was signed, which meant that the federal tax on cigarette jumped from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 today. The administration projects, that such a \"sin tax\" will bring in at least $38 billion over the next five years. Smokers, usually coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds (getting welfare, unemployment or disability checks instead of paychecks) still pay the whole cigarette tax, while they do not get the same amount of funding as others. Anyone concerned about widening income inequality should have second thoughts about this distribution of the tax burden1. Effectively this means, that while a higher financial burden might not cause problems to high and middle class smokers, it will cause the poor smoker, to either limit the freedom of choice by not buying cigarettes or either make sure other necessities, such as food, other supplies will not be provided. In fact researchers estimate that in Bangladesh 10.5 million people are going hungry and 350 children are dying each day due to diversion of money from food to tobacco2. The current situation is that poor turn to \"shag\" or rolling tobacco for self-made cigarettes, which may then be more harmful as the state cannot control it's ingredients as thorough or in the end even turn to the black market of tobacco farmers, where there is no control", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro04b", "score": 0.6676108241081238, "text": "There is no evidence that limiting access to healthcare would act as a deterrent. In fact, in the developing world, where a smoker would on average have worse access to healthcare, tobacco consumption has increased significantly over the last decade.1 Furthermore, governments have indeed acted to discourage smoking through a variety of methods. These have included advertising campaigns and banning smoking in public places and they seem to have worked. Cigarette use in the developed world has declined over the last 50 years. In the UK, smoking rates have dropped by half between 1974 and 2009, from 45% down to 21%2. A majority 59% have never taken up the habit3. 1 World Health Organization, The Tobacco Atlas, 2 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011. 3 Daily Telegraph, 22 Jan 09, Lowest ever number of smokers after public ban and health campaigns.Accessed 14 Jul 2011.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro02a", "score": 0.6651079058647156, "text": "Restrictions reach out to the general population A ban or high restrictions is a good measure to diminish the effects of smoking in society, because unlike the spreading of information (which is usually done by schools / clubs), governmental restrictions or a total ban will ensure the access of measures to the whole population. Through a ban on advertisement or higher taxation those citizens not involved in active educational structures get educated about the problem. Studies on the ban of advertisements show that bans actually contribute great amounts to the reduction of smokers. \"The tobacco industry employs predatory marketing strategies to get young people hooked to their addictive drug,\" said Dr Douglas Bettcher, Director of WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative. \"But comprehensive advertising bans do work, reducing tobacco consumption by up to 16% in countries that have already taken this legislative step.\"1 So because these measures can drastically decrease smoking when other measures have failed, the state is right to impose bans on advertisement, higher prices or any other measures. 1 The Times of Malta, more public scrutiny of tobacco industry, published 01/18/2011", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-pro02b", "score": 0.6616454124450684, "text": "f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money. [1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009. [2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro03b", "score": 0.6615003347396851, "text": "It would require a large amount of resources for law enforcement to go in to such public places occasionally to see that the ban is being enforced. It would be easier to enforce conditions relating to the packaging and production of tobacco, which occurs on fewer sites, than ban an activity in certain places which is not so enforceable.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con01b", "score": 0.661340594291687, "text": "People often express concern about taxes harming the poor, since they are both most likely to smoke and the least able to afford it. But when tobacco prices are kept low, more poor people use tobacco, and thus waste more of their money on it. In Bangladesh, as prices have remained low over the years, per capita spending on tobacco has increased. While raising taxes may harm some poor individuals who are unable to quit, in many situations this problem is alleviated by the existence of alternate low-cost tobacco products. To the degree that these are minimally advertised and unpalatable, they may be a resource to the addicted while being unlikely to attract the uninitiated. In addition, if the policy benefits a large number of poor smokers but harms a few, then the decision may have to be made to tolerate the harm in order to benefit the many. Negative effects can be addressed through programs to help the poor quit, or to subsidize a food substance generally consumed only by the poorest1. 1 PATH Canada and Work for a Better Bangladesh, Tobacco and Poverty,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-law-ucgllghwbg-con03a", "score": 0.6592562794685364, "text": "Casinos create positive economic effects in the communities that host them Casinos can revive entire areas and regions. They create jobs and cause money to be spent on transport infrastructure. The jobs are not just in the casino itself. More jobs are created in hotels and other parts of the tourism industry. In an article for nwjob.com Sandra Miedema, ‘Snoqualmies’ employment coordinator is quoted saying that at any one time there are an average of 20 vacancies, from chefs to table dealers.1 In the United States commercial casinos employed more than 350,000 people in 2003.2 Casinos have helped to regenerate many places that previously had considerable poverty and social problems, e.g. Atlantic City, New Jersey5. 1 Libraryindex.com, ‘Casinos: The Effects of Casinos – Employment’ 2 Associated Press, Atlantic City to be transformed by 2012, November 20 2007", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro05a", "score": 0.6581197381019592, "text": "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 & Melinda Gates Foundation, no date,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-economy-beegshbtsb-con01a", "score": 0.657944917678833, "text": "Policing such a policy creates its own set of problems for the society and costs for the economy Complying with any regulation has a cost attached, and so does policing that regulation in order to make it effective. How would anyone know who was working where and for how long without either a very accepting populace or a very draconian state? At best there will be ignored regulations - 14-16% of the economy is already avoiding legal responsibilities1 and with employers dissuaded from taking risks that are larger than they would otherwise be, a working week cap has the effect of making the \"shadow\" economy even more attractive to businesses. 1 Friedrich Schneider with DominikEnste, \"The Growth of the Underground Economy\" IMF Paper 2002", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con03a", "score": 0.6556761860847473, "text": "Denying access to healthcare for smokers will hurt the economy Economically, the healthcare of the nation is important for maintaining a productive workforce. Do we really want to lose otherwise functional members of the workforce the first time they contract an aggravated throat infection and cannot afford, or delay for financial reasons, a simple course of antibiotics? Quite apart from productivity, as The Guardian notes, smokers in the United Kingdom also contribute over £10 billion to government coffers through the tobacco tax 1. To lose this source of revenue will do more to hurt national health services than the occasional complication in surgery granted to a smoker. Lastly, because smokers die younger than non-smokers, though they cost more per year, over their lifetime their average health costs are lower than those of longer-living, non-smokers. 1.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "validation-economy-beghwarirgg-pro03b", "score": 0.6541733145713806, "text": "It may be impossible to completely stop such imports however the vast majority of shops will not import these items while they are not allowed to. Opening the market up will simply lead to a flood of imports with a resulting effect on native manufacturing.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con01b", "score": 0.8948829174041748, "text": "Personal autonomy arguments sound reasonable, but often ignore the wider consequences. Public health is a key issue – the state has a role in stopping people harming themselves – they may be harming themselves but the cost often falls on government through public healthcare, and therefore on all taxpayers. Moreover smoking also harms others through passive smoking, this is particularly true in public places that are enclosed." } ]

[ { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro03b", "score": 0.8260437846183777, "text": "While a government has a responsibility to protect its population, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. The law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally. However, it should not stop them taking risks themselves - for example, dangerous sports such as rock-climbing, parachuting or motor-racing are legal. It is also legal to indulge in other health-threatening activities such as eating lots of fatty foods, taking no exercise, and drinking too much alcohol. Banning smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom. As the proposition points out, cigarettes are not dangerous because they are defective; rather they are inherently, potentially, harmful. But people should still be allowed to choose to buy and smoke them. A better comparison is to unhealthy foods. High cholesterol or a high intake of fat can be extremely harmful, leading to heart disease, obesity, and other conditions; but manufacturers of these products are not punished. Consumers simply like the taste of fatty food. People should be allowed to smoke cigarettes and to eat fatty foods - both these things are sources of pleasure which, while having serious associated health risks, are only fatal after many decades, unlike a poisonous food or an unsafe car, which pose immediate and high risks.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-con03a", "score": 0.8190459609031677, "text": "Smoking is a choice of lifestyle the government should not intervene with Freedom of choice is what differentiates democracies from dictatorships, autocracies or any other form of government. It goes by the principle, that the individual is free to do, whatever he or she wants, as long as this choice does not limit the freedom of choice, bodily integrity or any other human right of another individual in society. This also applies to smoking. While the law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally it should not stop those taking risks themselves. The state allows individuals to make lifestyle choices that endanger their life all the time. Because there is not difference between smoking and the other life endangering activities, banning or severely regulating smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-con01a", "score": 0.8168783783912659, "text": "Personal autonomy Like many other debates, this simply boils down to personal autonomy. Individuals should be free to take actions, even ones harmful to them as long as they do not harm others, at least not without good reason. Thus things that are almost entirely harmful such as smoking are allowed. It is a matter of personal choice – to suggest otherwise non-white women do not have the capacity to make that choice.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-ahwba-pro01b", "score": 0.8111259341239929, "text": "Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and no other individual. Since the pleasure gained from alcohol and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress alcohol use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of alcohol abuse.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-health-ahwba-con01b", "score": 0.7972161769866943, "text": "The state is obligated, when the health of citizens is on the line, to pass laws and regulations that protect them. The precedent has already been established in most countries with most forms of drugs. Citizens’ rights in this case are not a right to have drugs, but a right to be protected from the harmful effects of the substances, not merely on their own bodies but society as a whole. Governments would be derelict in their duty if they did not act to remove such harmful substances from society.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-law-tahglcphsld-con01b", "score": 0.7911118865013123, "text": "Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives. The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-health-ahgshbcsbl-pro01b", "score": 0.7881449460983276, "text": "While individual liberty is an important good, there are cases in which a Government can be justified in behaving in a paternalistic manner, even to prevent individuals harming themselves. Few people debate the law that you must wear a seatbelt in cars, for example. Moreover, cannabis can harm others and many of the ways in which it does so would not be possible to counter with regulation. In the words of philosopher George Sher, \"Drug use harms strangers by involving them in the collisions, shootouts and other catastrophes to which the impaired and overly aggressive drug users are prone. It harms family members by depriving them of the companionship and income of their addicted partners. It harms fetuses by exposing them to a toxic and permanently damaging prenatural environment. It harms children by subjecting them to the abuse of their drug-addled parents\"1. 1 Wolff, J. (n.d.). Regulation of Recreational Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from University College London:", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con01b", "score": 0.7817775011062622, "text": "The logical extent of opposition’s argument is a strongly libertarian society that does not legislate on almost any issue because it fears taking away people’s ability to choose. It is important to note that when someone causes a death through ignorant driving they have resulted in the dehumanisation of a person through the removal of their ability to choose. However, more so, the resulting society where people are free to do what they want ignores the fact that often people lack full information to make their decisions in an informed way. It also fails to understand that as time goes on people often regret decisions that they once made. As such, people are often happy to and do make the choice to give up some of their freedoms and allow the state to make those decisions for them. Given then that people consent to having the “humanity” taken away from them, it seems legitimate that the state can make decisions that they might not immediately agree with, under the assumption that the state, as a composite of a large number of different people has a level of oversight that the individual doesn’t. The state has the advantage of being able to take a step back and have a broader perspective. Individuals will make decisions that impact them in a positive way but this does not mean that those decisions will not have a negative wider impact on society. The state uses this broader perspective under the mandate to protect society as a whole looking at what is best for the group not the individual.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-sport-ehcpssohwpup-pro01b", "score": 0.7782365679740906, "text": "Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created. An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con05b", "score": 0.7768456935882568, "text": "Goods provided by the state, like healthcare, are often, and necessarily, subject to certain provisions. For example, in order to get unemployment benefits, a person must prove that they are regularly looking for a job and a means to get themselves off benefits. Denying access to healthcare for smokers does not mean denying them healthcare access forever; they can regain unlimited access if they stop smoking. Therefore, prioritizing non-smokers for healthcare in certain cases is not impeding upon smokers' basic liberties but a recognition that those who care about their own health enough to not smoke should be prioritized.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-economy-bhahwbsps-con01b", "score": 0.775779664516449, "text": "In some countries, compliance rates have actually been high, proving that it is not a problem with the idea of having a ban but with the authorities themselves in different countries. In Scotland, for example, reports from 3 months after their smoking ban was introduced showed that about 99% of premises were following the law properly1. This shows that the opposition should not use the fact that a smoking ban might be difficult to enforce in some places in the initial stages of the law change as a reason not to introduce such a ban in the first place. Lots of laws are difficult to enforce, but still necessary in order to protect people. 1 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', The Scottish Government, 26 June 2006,", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-bhhgwtnychrrs-pro03b", "score": 0.7748311161994934, "text": "There is no obligation on the city to protect citizens from their own choices. Citizens are responsible for their own bodies including what they eat and drink. Making any part of government responsible for this would mean a need for much more regulation on almost anything that would protect lives. In this case it would require a much tougher response than simply a partial ban that only affects large drinks. Moreover if there is such an obligation why is it the obligation of the city while the state does not have such an obligation with regards to 7-11s?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-con02b", "score": 0.7719189524650574, "text": "The opposition fails to recognize the impact that such a policy will have on smokers. Access will only be denied to smokers who continue to smoke once the bill is in place, if it is proven that they have given up, they will be free to access healthcare. Therefore, the only smokers who will be turned away, and who will potentially die from preventable illnesses are those who place their habit above that of their life.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-economy-epsihbdns-pro04b", "score": 0.7718134522438049, "text": "The principle at the heart of this debate is that of the rights of the individual. While it might be true that a large group of people make uninformed decisions, a ban on any decisions in relation to where people live will keep the individuals from making any decisions, informed and uninformed. The damage to those who actually could improve their lives greatly outweighs the benefits, especially as the resources that would be needed for this policy could be used to educate and inform people in rural areas and thus improve the basis of their decisions.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-society-epsihbdns-pro04b", "score": 0.7718134522438049, "text": "The principle at the heart of this debate is that of the rights of the individual. While it might be true that a large group of people make uninformed decisions, a ban on any decisions in relation to where people live will keep the individuals from making any decisions, informed and uninformed. The damage to those who actually could improve their lives greatly outweighs the benefits, especially as the resources that would be needed for this policy could be used to educate and inform people in rural areas and thus improve the basis of their decisions.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-law-tahglcphsld-pro01a", "score": 0.7666531205177307, "text": "People should be free to take drugs Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals. Since the pleasure gained from drugs and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of taking different types of drugs.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.7665801644325256, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-adhgphwfrs-pro01b", "score": 0.7663317322731018, "text": "First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes. Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-con01b", "score": 0.7647572159767151, "text": "States can and do ban products that are physically or socially harmful – that’s not illiberalism, it is common sense. It clearly does not suggest that non-white women do not have the capacity; white countries such as the USA engage in similar bans for health reasons. Anyway, In a society with mass media and celebrity-lead marketing campaigns, do people really make entirely autonomous decisions? Consumers almost never have complete information about what they are buying. When they don’t the government has to prevent them from making mistakes that may be harmful to themselves.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con01b", "score": 0.763184666633606, "text": "This is a very limited view of government; today everyone agrees that the government should be allowed to tax things that harm us such as alcohol and tobacco. These, like fat, only indirectly harm others. Attitudes towards fat are changing as the problem becomes much greater. It is now accepted that when people do things that harm others indirectly the government must have a role. The rise in healthcare costs creates just such costs by increasing the cost of the healthcare system as a whole which is either paid for by everyone through taxes or passed on through higher insurance premiums.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro02b", "score": 0.7100573182106018, "text": "Given all the responsibilities our society has transferred from parents onto schools and educators in the 21st century, is it really sensible to include caring for nutritional choices to this already bloated and unmanageable list? We need to ask ourselves, is it actually right that kids turn to schools and peers about lifestyle advice, when this is so clearly a domain of parents and families and so obviously a burden on an already taxed public school system." } ]

[ { "id": "training-education-egtyhshs-pro02b", "score": 0.6651129126548767, "text": "Schools have significantly better facilities and a much more appropriate and segregated learning atmosphere than the home. The state system pools facilities to allow access for all children to sports and science facilities1. Parents are very unlikely to be wealthy enough to provide the plethora of things necessary to a well-rounded education. Teaching within the home asks children to switch between 'learning' and 'play' mode in the same environment which is confusing especially for young children. Schools provide a specific environment that is dedicated to learning. Homes are more complex environments, ill-suited to teaching and the concentration required to learn. 1 'The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling' in Educate Expert (2011)", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-education-egshwrsla1-con02b", "score": 0.6636208891868591, "text": "Practical Skills can be taught in school. Many school systems have vocational schools. For example the German system vocational schools, Berufsschulen, have been around since the 19th Century where students spent part of their time in vocational training in the school and part of their time as apprentices, these are attended until at least the age of 18. [1] It is possible for Schooling to be flexible while still continuing to 18. [1] Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany London, ‘Education’, 2011,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro02b", "score": 0.6592099070549011, "text": "Schools already have enough pressures just to educate their students, they do not need additional pressure from having to ensure their nutrition as well. In the UK kitchen improvements cost £200 million and many local councils found they needed to take money from other budgets such as school maintainance budgets showing the increase in pressure on schools. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Q&A; Free school meals for infants’, 2 September 2014,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b", "score": 0.6578813791275024, "text": "Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro03b", "score": 0.6573731303215027, "text": "Again, if this is in fact true, then the incentives are already in place for better choices both on the side of students as well as schools. What the government should do is through subsidizing healthier meals and educational campaigns help both of them make those choices on their own, and not force an unnecessary ban on them.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-education-egtyhshs-pro02a", "score": 0.6572651267051697, "text": "The home is an ideal learning environment. Home schooling allows children to learn in an environment that has the needs of one or a very few number of students as the focus of the educative process. Parents are willing to invest in their children and can provide targeted provision that prioritises the learning needs of those individuals1. Therefore, specific textbooks that are tailored to the child's mode of learning can be purchased. State schools, in contrast, are often very ill-equipped and under-funded, leading to standardized text books and teaching methods. The home also lacks the many distractions and disadvantages of schools: peer pressure, social stigma attached to achievement, bullying, show-offs and general rowdiness. 1'Virtues in to Vices' in The Journal Of Home Education", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro06b", "score": 0.6564505100250244, "text": "This argument is based on the assumption that year-round schooling delivers academic benefits to students. However, as we will see in Opposition argument 6, there is very little evidence for this. Without concrete evidence that this massive change will deliver real improvements in national educational performance, it will merely divert attention from more pressing problems in our school systems.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-law-cppfmyhwicc-con04a", "score": 0.6515194773674011, "text": "Positive engagement would be more effective than curfews. Other successful schemes aim to work individually with young troublemakers, in order to cut their reoffending rate, for example by requiring them to meet with victims of crime so that they understand the consequences of their actions, and by pairing them with trained mentors. Overall, governments need to ensure good educational opportunities and employment prospects in order to bring optimism to communities where youngsters feel that their futures are pretty hopeless. Rather than trying to scare kids into good behaviour, why don’t we offer them a better life? Most areas with anti-social behaviour problems are poor, with bad schools, few jobs and little for kids to do with themselves. With little hope for the future, no wonder some kids go off the rails. So instead of threatening punishment, we should invest in better schools, places for kids to play and socialise, and the chance of a job.1 1. The Observer, 2004", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-education-egsrsla1j-con02b", "score": 0.6513746380805969, "text": "Practical skills can be taught in school. Many school systems have practical skills schools. For example, in Germany, ‘vocational schools’ (schools which teach practical skills) have been around since the 19th century. In these schools students spend part of their time in practical training and part of their time ‘on the job’. These schools are attended until the age of 18[10], and have been lauded for training highly skilled workers for German manufacturing[11]. It is therefore possible to create a system which is flexible and gives students the option to train in different ways while still staying in school until 18.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con04b", "score": 0.6498231291770935, "text": "First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK). In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school. A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school [1] hours to support the schools strict rules. [1] Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010 , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01b", "score": 0.6493816375732422, "text": "We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body. We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough. When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition. What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-oeghsshwpsst-con03b", "score": 0.6474007964134216, "text": "Parents often know nothing (or worse, are armed with dangerously naive delusions) of the sexual state of their children. The picture painted by abolitionists is inaccurate – the process of deciding what is taught in schools involves parents’ groups and school governing bodies on a school-by-school basis, so parents do have a role in deciding what is taught. But ultimately, the state should be involved in educating the whole child, not just in doling out academic ideas – and should work hard to safeguard sexual health of youngsters, a field near-impossible to separate from sex education. This is a subject just as important for the development of young people as the conventional subjects such as maths and English. The role of ‘teacher’ has to change with time. Once, teachers only instructed the children of the well-off or acted as a branch of the church, now they teach everyone in a secular society. As their role changes, they must remain responsible and obey the law: thus, the scaremongering of suggesting teachers will abuse their students or lure them into relationships is irrelevant, as both sides believe that is wrong, and should be prosecuted. Rules banning discussions of sex in schools can deny teachers the ability to deal with real problems. When an individual student comes to a teacher with a problem, a rule against discussing such things in the classroom will probably mean that this outlet of help the troubled adolescent has sought out, often because he feels the family isn’t the place to get help, will be denied to him, will turn its back on him. Like it or not, in today’s fractured society teachers have taken on the role of counsellor, and this rule will indirectly curtail their ability to fulfil it. The result of that will be appalling.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-education-egtyhshs-pro04a", "score": 0.6462047100067139, "text": "COUNTERPOINT Home-schooling is not the best option for exceptional students. The state does not ignore or abandon individuals that have special needs and those with special needs are those that most need the state's enormous resources to focus on their Family bonding is a massively important element of a child's development and is prioritised by home schooling1. The value of the family is constantly undermined in modern society; positive parental role models are found less and less frequently. If a parent is judged by a state vetting process to be good enough it is enormously beneficial for society as a whole to approve is an environment that cements both a positive role model and family bonding. 1'The Role of Interpretation Processes and Parental Discussion in the Media's Effects on Adolescents' Use of Alcohol' Erica Weintraub Austen, Bruce E. Pinkelton, Yuki Fujioka, Paediatrics, (2000)", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro03a", "score": 0.6454301476478577, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-con04b", "score": 0.6438193917274475, "text": "If the school is providing unhealthy meals then guidelines can be tightened to ensure they improve. If the students are throwing away food then there can be greater supervision by teachers. A study by Harvard University has also shown that food waste, and the amount of healthy food eaten can be increased by having more time allocated to eating. [1] [1] Wanjek, Christopher, ‘Are Healthy School Lunch Programs a Waste?’, Livescience, 7 October 2015,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-education-egshwrsla1-con02a", "score": 0.643608570098877, "text": "Not all skills are best learnt in a classroom environment. Practical skills (for example carpentry, cookery, gardening etc.), are often best learnt ‘on-the-job’ or through an apprenticeship. Both routes place young people into contact with professionals in the field as well as giving them access to a wider range of tools and materials than could possibly be available in schools. For many young people who would like to work in these areas extra years at school will merely be time ‘treading water’ before they can get on with learning the skills of their trade. This is even more alarming in the case of the UK with the new tuition fees for universities, which are likely to decrease the chances of certain socio-economic categories of going to university at all.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthwiyrs-con03b", "score": 0.639994204044342, "text": "Year-round schooling would necessitate a change in the way extra-curricular activities are structured, not a reduction in such hobbies. Shorter breaks of two or three weeks are more than sufficient for most extra-curricular activities and by spreading them throughout the year, instead of ring-fencing them into a couple of summer months, their beneficial impact might well be greater. If year-round schooling reduces the necessity to send students for extra tuition, as is common in some countries, then this should be considered a positive benefit of the change, not a problem. Families whose children are being educated year-round will have less reason to spend their hard-earned money on expensive and often unnecessary private classes.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro05b", "score": 0.6395823955535889, "text": "It is certainly true that children from disadvantaged families do not do as well as their luckier peers, but it is not clear why changing the pattern of school attendance will change this. The overall proportion of the year spent away from school will not change, so there is no reason to believe that year-round schooling will benefit students whose homes and families do not provide a positive learning environment [1] . [1] Newland, Christopher, “Letter to Auburn School Board”, 20th October 1998.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro04b", "score": 0.6389563083648682, "text": "There is no need for education about a healthy diet to be combined with free breakfasts for all. The teaching can be done separately just as effectively. Teaching at the same time as, or immediately before or after will simply mean students are concentrating on the food they have, not upon the lesson. Meal times are lively and social, not a good time for teaching.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro04a", "score": 0.6382977962493896, "text": "Year-round learning can help reduce the burden on parents. For many parents, particularly those with more than one child, summer vacations can be a stressful and difficult time. Without the structure provided by school attendance, children become bored easily and parents struggle to cope. This is especially true for mothers who may be bringing up children without a father present, or those who wish to continue or resume their careers after the first few years of motherhood; trying to combine a full-time job with the rigours of motherhood is hard but trying to do so during a three month school holiday is almost impossible. Year-round schooling makes such a work-life balance easier for young parents and allows women to return to the workplace on their own terms. [1] [1] Schulte, Brigid, “The Case For Year-Round School”, Washington Post, June 7th 2009.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro01b", "score": 0.6983314752578735, "text": "Media sensationalism is a poor justification for any state intervention of any kind. What histrionic television documentaries usually provide nothing more than a warning that our kids are in danger, along with a list of all the diseases obesity might cause. But there is absolutely nothing that would explain how exactly something as drastic as a ban would do anything to begin solving this problem. These observations highlight a distressing truth about contemporary western society – we are unable to accept that the state is unable to solve problems without the assistance and support of civil society. We have a hard time accepting the fact that responsibility will have to fall on the shoulders of parents to enforce (or, more likely, to adopt in the first place) a healthy and active lifestyle in their families. Advice provided by the Mayo Clinic explains that just talking isn’t effective. Kids and parents should go together for a brisk walk, ride on the bike or any other activity. It is important for a healthy lifestyle that parents present exercise as an opportunity to take care for the body, rather than a punishment or chore [1] . Finally, there is absolutely nothing stopping schools from offering healthier options alongside existing ones. In fact, many schools are choosing a healthier path already, without being forced by governments or regulatory bodies. [1] MayoClinic.com, 'Fitness for kids: Getting children off the couch', , accessed 09/10/2011" } ]

[ { "id": "training-economy-epeeghbpw-con01a", "score": 0.66246098279953, "text": "There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend. This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, \"The School Breakfast Program\",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Feeding America (2010), \"Hunger in America: Key Facts\", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, \"Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger\", [Accessed July 21, 2011].", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con01a", "score": 0.6552360653877258, "text": "Free choice It is the government’s job to provide schools and courts not to tell people what to eat. The government should stop people harming each other. But it’s not the government’s job to tell people what to do to themselves. Consuming fatty food does not harm other so should not be subject to government control. A fat tax would be like the government trying to prevent us from frivolous spending and getting into debt by being allowed to tax investments it considers to be bad.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-health-oeghsshwpsst-con03b", "score": 0.6550248265266418, "text": "Parents often know nothing (or worse, are armed with dangerously naive delusions) of the sexual state of their children. The picture painted by abolitionists is inaccurate – the process of deciding what is taught in schools involves parents’ groups and school governing bodies on a school-by-school basis, so parents do have a role in deciding what is taught. But ultimately, the state should be involved in educating the whole child, not just in doling out academic ideas – and should work hard to safeguard sexual health of youngsters, a field near-impossible to separate from sex education. This is a subject just as important for the development of young people as the conventional subjects such as maths and English. The role of ‘teacher’ has to change with time. Once, teachers only instructed the children of the well-off or acted as a branch of the church, now they teach everyone in a secular society. As their role changes, they must remain responsible and obey the law: thus, the scaremongering of suggesting teachers will abuse their students or lure them into relationships is irrelevant, as both sides believe that is wrong, and should be prosecuted. Rules banning discussions of sex in schools can deny teachers the ability to deal with real problems. When an individual student comes to a teacher with a problem, a rule against discussing such things in the classroom will probably mean that this outlet of help the troubled adolescent has sought out, often because he feels the family isn’t the place to get help, will be denied to him, will turn its back on him. Like it or not, in today’s fractured society teachers have taken on the role of counsellor, and this rule will indirectly curtail their ability to fulfil it. The result of that will be appalling.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro01a", "score": 0.6537256836891174, "text": "Marketing aimed at children should be subject to strict regulations. Unlike adults, children are not able to make healthy decisions for themselves. They don’t understand what calories, sodium content, or saturated fats are. They are unable to comprehend the long-term effects that fast food might have on their health and development. On the other hand, a toy is instantly appealing to them and offers a straightforward incentive to opt for such a meal. As long as the negative consequences cannot be explained to kids in a clear and compelling manner, we should not make unhealthy food even more desirable for them. We should not allow children to make bad choices based on information they don’t understand [1] . [1] Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “Fast Food FACTS: Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.” Yale University. November 2010.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-education-egshwrsla1-con02b", "score": 0.6500165462493896, "text": "Practical Skills can be taught in school. Many school systems have vocational schools. For example the German system vocational schools, Berufsschulen, have been around since the 19th Century where students spent part of their time in vocational training in the school and part of their time as apprentices, these are attended until at least the age of 18. [1] It is possible for Schooling to be flexible while still continuing to 18. [1] Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany London, ‘Education’, 2011,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "validation-education-egpsthwtj-con04b", "score": 0.6490613222122192, "text": "We don’t spend all of class time learning new methods so there should be time in class to practice any new method that is taught. Once some repetition has been done in class how much more do we really need at home? If we have not successfully learnt the method in the class then we will be simply repeating the mistake.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-con04a", "score": 0.6470093131065369, "text": "Can we be sure a school meal will be healthy? Even if the schools provide breakfast can we be sure that it will be healthy, and even if it is will the students eat it? Without individual supervision that having breakfast with parents provides it is difficult to ensure that the children are eating what they should be rather than throwing away the bits they like. In the UK there has been a campaign against the poor quality of school meals. [1] In the US there has been concern at the amounts of fresh fruit and vegtables being thrown away from school means. One study by the University of Vermont found food waste increased 56%. [2] [1] Evening Standard, ‘Unhealthy school meals are on the menu for over a million children’, 12 January 2013, [2] Welch, Ashley, ‘School lunch fruits and veggies often tossed in trash study finds’, CBSnews, 25 August 2015,", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro04b", "score": 0.6459540724754333, "text": "Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con03b", "score": 0.6456823348999023, "text": "There is absolutely nothing stopping the schools from finding ventures that are just as profitable with companies that offer healthy drinks and snacks. In fact, most of the existing contracts could simply remain in place, since most of the firms are conglomerates that could just as easily offer healthy alternatives to soda pops and cookies. Where that would prove impossible, it is simply a question of priorities: how many children afflicted by diabetes type 2 are worth a field trip? How many a new sports program or new equipment?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "validation-education-shwmsems-con04b", "score": 0.643819272518158, "text": "This argument is based on a particular view of the state and its role in society.it is a view of the state which is particularly innocent of and which fails to acknowledge the range of cultural messages relating to society and sexuality [1] which are broadcast hegemonically although not entirely openly by the state. [2] The state does have a role in sex education. It has taken an ever more holistic view of young citizens, and this is reflected in schools whose remit stretches not just to the academic education of students, but to the preparation of young people for the full spectrum of activities and responsibilities they will face in adult life. Sexual interaction is a fundamental part of that life. Schools have evolved far beyond the provision of skill in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and this should be reflected in such programs as sex education. The state does not in mandating sex education make any normative judgment regarding sexual practices, but rather provides the necessary information and the space to consider the emotional and social issues involved to make informed choices about sex. [1] Plummer, Sexual Cultures, Communities, Values and Intimacy, 1996 [2] Foucault, Studies in governmentality, 1979. Throughgood, Sex Education as Social Control, 1992", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-education-egshwrsla1-con02a", "score": 0.6414981484413147, "text": "Not all skills are best learnt in a classroom environment. Practical skills (for example carpentry, cookery, gardening etc.), are often best learnt ‘on-the-job’ or through an apprenticeship. Both routes place young people into contact with professionals in the field as well as giving them access to a wider range of tools and materials than could possibly be available in schools. For many young people who would like to work in these areas extra years at school will merely be time ‘treading water’ before they can get on with learning the skills of their trade. This is even more alarming in the case of the UK with the new tuition fees for universities, which are likely to decrease the chances of certain socio-economic categories of going to university at all.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con04a", "score": 0.641272246837616, "text": "Pupils will bring unhealthy food with them to schools. Frequently, a ban- whether or food, alcohol or forms of media- serves only to build interest in the things that has been prohibited. When a ban affects something that is a familiar part of everyday life that is generally regarded as benign, there is a risk that individuals may try to acquire the banned thing through other means. Having had their perspective in junk food defined partly by attractive, highly persuasive advertising, children are likely to adopt an ambivalent perspective on any attempt to restrict their dietary choices. The extreme contrast between the former popularity of vending machines in schools and the austere approach required by new policies may hamper schools’ attempts to convince pupils of the necessity and rationality of their decision. Even though schools may be able to coerce and compel their pupils to comply with disciplinary measures, they cannot stop children buying sweets outside of school hours. When rules at an Orange county school changed, and the cafeteria got rid of its sweets, the demand was still up high, so that the school had to figure out a way to fix the situation. They created a “candy cart” – which now brings them income for sports equipment or other necessities. One of the pupils, Edgar Coker (18-year-old senior) explained that: “If I couldn’t buy it here, I’d bring it from home.” [1] It is difficult to regulate junk food consumption through unsophisticated measures such as prohibition. A ban my undermine attempts to alter pupil’s mindsets and their perspective on food marketing and their own diets. [1] Harris G., 'A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of School', New York Times, 2 August 2010 , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro03a", "score": 0.6394498348236084, "text": "Bad nutrition habits start during childhood. Giving away toys with meals that are calorie laden and of poor nutritional quality creates an emotional attachment between the child and fast food [1] . This bond will then follow that child into adulthood, making it harder for her to make better nutritional choices in order to become a healthy individual. This ban would break that bond and make it easier for children to grow up to be healthier adults. [1] Storm, Stephanie. “McDonald’s Trims Its Happy Meal.” The New York Times. July 26, 2011.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthwiyrs-con03b", "score": 0.6390931606292725, "text": "Year-round schooling would necessitate a change in the way extra-curricular activities are structured, not a reduction in such hobbies. Shorter breaks of two or three weeks are more than sufficient for most extra-curricular activities and by spreading them throughout the year, instead of ring-fencing them into a couple of summer months, their beneficial impact might well be greater. If year-round schooling reduces the necessity to send students for extra tuition, as is common in some countries, then this should be considered a positive benefit of the change, not a problem. Families whose children are being educated year-round will have less reason to spend their hard-earned money on expensive and often unnecessary private classes.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-education-pstrgsehwt-pro05b", "score": 0.6389070153236389, "text": "Schools should teach what is true. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in contemporary science; it is not the place of communities to propagate lies, even if they are more in keeping with their religious beliefs. Indoctrinating children and denying them access to real science, which happens even if Creationism and evolution are given \"equal time\", is to fundamentally compromise the value of education [1] . It is an inculcation of false belief to suit a communal goal of maintaining a set of beliefs that may not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Creationists cannot win in the scientific arena because they are not scientists so they have decided to try to subvert the political system. Their goal is to undermine science and reason, and they must be stopped. [1] Rooney, Brian and Melia Patria. 2008. “Because the Bible Tells Me So?”. ABC News.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-oeghsshwpsst-pro02a", "score": 0.6386869549751282, "text": "Abstinence is an outdated view, based on religious teaching, which may be a personal choice but is not to be expected as the norm for everyone Young people express their sexuality as part of their development to adulthood. It is not having sex that is a problem, but having unsafe sex or hurting people through sexual choices. Refusing to promote safe sex would mean not moving with the times. Just because schools do not promote safe sex does not mean that adolescents will not experiment with sex. They will already be exposed to sexual imagery and ideas of sex so it is necessary that they are taught properly how to remain safe. Schools may also want to talk about abstinence at the same time; it is a way of keeping sexually safe. However schools have to recognise that the majority of pupils are unlikely to stick to abstinence regardless of how much the school promotes it. It is therefore necessary for the school to also promote and educate about safe sex.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeeghbpw-pro02b", "score": 0.6383007168769836, "text": "If school is so expensive, than shouldn't the government be subsidizing school costs instead of forcing parents to send kids to school when they can't afford the books and clothes? It is also unfair to assume that parents on welfare on neglectful and do not value education. Supporting meal programs in schools and subsidizing other costs are much more likely to draw children than forcing parents to send children to school when the kids are hungry and embarrassed1. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, \"The School Breakfast Program\",[Accessed July 21, 2011].", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro02a", "score": 0.6376492381095886, "text": "Making it easier for parents to raise their children well. As well meaning as parents may be in trying to guide their kids toward better nutritional choices, they face a formidable opponent: the fast food marketing machine that spends over 4 billion dollars on advertising a year, much of it targeted directly at kids [1] . This can create enough ‘pester power’ [2] from the kids themselves, seduced by the toy that comes with the meal, that it can persuade parents to make bad choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. By eliminating at least one layer of negative pressure, this law would help parents make those healthy choices that they already know are best. [1] Philpott, Tom. “The fast-food industry’s 4.2 billion marketing blitz.” Grist. November 10. 2010. [2] “San Francisco Happy meal Toy Ban Takes Effect, Sidestepped by McDonald’s.” Huffington Post. November 2011.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-oeghsshwpsst-pro04b", "score": 0.637026846408844, "text": "True, but nor does it make sense to make the classes mandatory once the child reaches an age where it is legally able to decide whether it wants to partake of them. Nor does this mean that these classes need to be promoting safe sex rather than simply teaching the facts and encouraging abstinence.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-pro03b", "score": 0.6365130543708801, "text": "Children will always feel pressure in certain areas of their lives, whether with exams or school plays. It may be true that pressure is greater for child performers, but children who perform at a professional level are generally more skilled, and so they are often better at dealing with this pressure. At the very least, they gain enough experience at a young age, that they learn the skills needed to succeed, even in high-pressure situations. Given the pressures all children face, [1] surely it is ethical to allow children into a world where they can learn how to deal with these stresses and protect themselves against possible future problems. [1] Etchingham, ‘Are we putting our kids under too much pressure?’", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro03b", "score": 0.7986562848091125, "text": "Again, if this is in fact true, then the incentives are already in place for better choices both on the side of students as well as schools. What the government should do is through subsidizing healthier meals and educational campaigns help both of them make those choices on their own, and not force an unnecessary ban on them." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con03a", "score": 0.7577878832817078, "text": "“Junk food” sales are an important source of funding for schools. An important issue to consider in this topic is the constellation of incentives that actually got us to the place where we are at today. With the environment designed to incentivize improving schools’ performance on standardized tests, there is absolutely nothing that would motivate them to invest their very limited resources into non-core programs or subjects, such as PE and sports and other activities. [1] Ironically, schools turned to soda and snack vending companies in order to increase their discretionary funds. An example cited in the paper is one high school in Beltsville, MD, which made $72,438.53 in the 1999-2000 school year through a contract with a soft drink company and another $26,227.49 through a contract with a snack vending company. The almost $100,000 obtained was used for a variety of activities, including instructional uses such as purchasing computers, as well as extracurricular uses such as the yearbook, clubs and field trips. Thus it becomes clear that the proposed ban is not only ineffective, but also demonstrably detrimental to schools and by extension their pupils. [1] Anderson, P. M., 'Reading, Writing and Raisinets: Are School Finances Contributing to Children’s Obesity?', National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2005, , accessed 9/11/2011", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeeghbpw-con01a", "score": 0.7546032667160034, "text": "There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend. This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, \"The School Breakfast Program\",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Feeding America (2010), \"Hunger in America: Key Facts\", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, \"Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger\", [Accessed July 21, 2011].", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro02b", "score": 0.7520959377288818, "text": "Schools already have enough pressures just to educate their students, they do not need additional pressure from having to ensure their nutrition as well. In the UK kitchen improvements cost £200 million and many local councils found they needed to take money from other budgets such as school maintainance budgets showing the increase in pressure on schools. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Q&A; Free school meals for infants’, 2 September 2014,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con02b", "score": 0.7482944130897522, "text": "Even if students spend a small fraction of their time in schools – and 6 hours is by no means an insignificant amount of time – it is still an incredible opportunity for intervention for a very important reason. The reason is the incredible potential for homogeneity of experience. at least in the aspect of food offered. We are able, to certain extent, control the school environment in such a way as to promote healthy choices and eliminate bad ones. When students return to their homes, we have lost that opportunity. In a nutshell, one healthy meal per day is much better than none. It can also be contended that children often share experiences from school with their parents and siblings back home. Thus a healthy environment in school could, potentially, find its way into homes we couldn’t otherwise reach by any other means.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01b", "score": 0.7468749284744263, "text": "We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body. We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough. When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition. What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b", "score": 0.7397072315216064, "text": "Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro06b", "score": 0.7230702042579651, "text": "This argument is based on the assumption that year-round schooling delivers academic benefits to students. However, as we will see in Opposition argument 6, there is very little evidence for this. Without concrete evidence that this massive change will deliver real improvements in national educational performance, it will merely divert attention from more pressing problems in our school systems.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro04b", "score": 0.7213391065597534, "text": "There is no need for education about a healthy diet to be combined with free breakfasts for all. The teaching can be done separately just as effectively. Teaching at the same time as, or immediately before or after will simply mean students are concentrating on the food they have, not upon the lesson. Meal times are lively and social, not a good time for teaching.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro03a", "score": 0.7190102934837341, "text": "Bad nutrition habits start during childhood. Giving away toys with meals that are calorie laden and of poor nutritional quality creates an emotional attachment between the child and fast food [1] . This bond will then follow that child into adulthood, making it harder for her to make better nutritional choices in order to become a healthy individual. This ban would break that bond and make it easier for children to grow up to be healthier adults. [1] Storm, Stephanie. “McDonald’s Trims Its Happy Meal.” The New York Times. July 26, 2011.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01a", "score": 0.7167999148368835, "text": "Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf. Although it might be very tempting for the government to try and attack the problem of childhood obesity by attempting to change, in essence, the very choices our kids can make, this is the wrong way of going about doing it. The purpose of schools is education – the genesis of active and useful members of society. A large extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most western countries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. The other side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history, but also of biology, health and nutrition. We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses, and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education. What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of the importance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consists of more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short, this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity, balanced meals and indulging in moderation are. They should also focus on the importance of choice, since in the case of childhood obesity, making the right nutritional and lifestyle choices is of paramount importance. But they should also focus on the importance of choice for a society and how all should take responsibility for their choices in such a society.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro05b", "score": 0.7151056528091431, "text": "It is certainly true that children from disadvantaged families do not do as well as their luckier peers, but it is not clear why changing the pattern of school attendance will change this. The overall proportion of the year spent away from school will not change, so there is no reason to believe that year-round schooling will benefit students whose homes and families do not provide a positive learning environment [1] . [1] Newland, Christopher, “Letter to Auburn School Board”, 20th October 1998.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con04b", "score": 0.7126827239990234, "text": "First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK). In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school. A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school [1] hours to support the schools strict rules. [1] Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010 , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro05a", "score": 0.7110964059829712, "text": "Reducing inequality. Evidence suggests that children from lower-income families tend to “fall behind” further during long summer vacations. These children are less likely to read books, pursue additional studies or take part in useful extracurricular activities compared to their peers from wealthier families. [1] This has a knock-on effect on their academic achievement, and once they have fallen behind it is very difficult for them to catch up. (This is the logic behind government-funded programs such as Head Start in the US or Sure Start in the UK) [2] Year-round schooling would remove this important driver of inequality, give students a level playing field on which to learn, and help create a more meritocratic society. [1] Johnson, Alex, “Year-round school gains ground around U.S.”, MSNBC.com, 27th October 2010. [2] “Early Head Start Benefits Children and Families”, US Department of Health and Human Services, April 2006.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "validation-economy-eehwpsstbm-pro01b", "score": 0.7097235321998596, "text": "It is unfair to reward extra achievements on top of the base level. To provide societal value from education, the base level of performance in education is already set very high. This means that even teachers who perform at base level are already working very hard to provide the societal value we require. Any difference above that already very high level is likely the result of luck and talent, both on the part of students and teachers themselves. Rewarding fortunate individuals for something they themselves didn't create is unjust and can only make other jealous. Moreover, many students may enter the school system- at various stages- accompanied by a range of external advantages and disadvantages. A student’s home environment is a major influence on their ability to achieve when in the school environment. Although a teacher’s pastoral role is growing, there is little that they can do to address poor parenting, or to encourage the engaged, stimulating parenting that produces some of the most able pupils.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-education-egshwrsla1-pro01b", "score": 0.7082255482673645, "text": "This argument suggests that children whom Britain's state schools have failed to teach even to read and write should be compelled to stay at those schools for an extra two years. It will not suddenly bring new opportunities just because children are forced to sit in a classroom for longer. This is absurd. It is re-enforcing failure. It is an idea according to which, if climbing a mountain on your hands and knees does not work, then you should be made to go on doing it. [1] [1] Bartholomew, James, ‘Raising the school-leaving age would be crazy’, 2006,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeeghbpw-pro04b", "score": 0.7072501182556152, "text": "Just because students attend school does not mean that they are going to receive a quality education. The best educated children are those whose parents are involved heavily in their school, helping them with their homework, and pushing them to excel1. Without involved parents, students can become just as easily discouraged. There really need to be programs to involve parents more in school, and provide good mentors and role models for students who don't have them. Schools also need to be improved. Just sending kids to school doesn't mean that they are going to learn and be determined to better themselves. Additionally particularly in the third world if children don't have good schools and qualified teachers, then what is the point of going to school? 1 Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), \"Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education\", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011].", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-education-egscphsrdt-pro02b", "score": 0.7052817344665527, "text": "None of these benefits apply if the peer pressure simply switches to harder drugs which are harder to test for or less likely to be tested for. Moreover, peer pressure can exist outside of schools, and amongst older teenagers who have the choice to vary their attendance of sixth forms, FE colleges or senior high schools. Random drug testing could lead to older children being pressured to cut classes for prolonged periods of time, in order to take drugs, in order to be thought of as cool. Teenagers are also notorious for believing that “nothing bad can happen to me”, even if that bad thing becomes more likely (such as being caught with a random drugs test). This is demonstrated by the fact that many teenagers already engage in illegal drug use despite the reasonably high chances that an adult will see them using drugs, smell smoke or notice the drug's effects on them in the status quo. [1] [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con03b", "score": 0.7043612599372864, "text": "There is absolutely nothing stopping the schools from finding ventures that are just as profitable with companies that offer healthy drinks and snacks. In fact, most of the existing contracts could simply remain in place, since most of the firms are conglomerates that could just as easily offer healthy alternatives to soda pops and cookies. Where that would prove impossible, it is simply a question of priorities: how many children afflicted by diabetes type 2 are worth a field trip? How many a new sports program or new equipment?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro01b", "score": 0.7019283175468445, "text": "Media sensationalism is a poor justification for any state intervention of any kind. What histrionic television documentaries usually provide nothing more than a warning that our kids are in danger, along with a list of all the diseases obesity might cause. But there is absolutely nothing that would explain how exactly something as drastic as a ban would do anything to begin solving this problem. These observations highlight a distressing truth about contemporary western society – we are unable to accept that the state is unable to solve problems without the assistance and support of civil society. We have a hard time accepting the fact that responsibility will have to fall on the shoulders of parents to enforce (or, more likely, to adopt in the first place) a healthy and active lifestyle in their families. Advice provided by the Mayo Clinic explains that just talking isn’t effective. Kids and parents should go together for a brisk walk, ride on the bike or any other activity. It is important for a healthy lifestyle that parents present exercise as an opportunity to take care for the body, rather than a punishment or chore [1] . Finally, there is absolutely nothing stopping schools from offering healthier options alongside existing ones. In fact, many schools are choosing a healthier path already, without being forced by governments or regulatory bodies. [1] MayoClinic.com, 'Fitness for kids: Getting children off the couch', , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-education-psthwbh-pro05b", "score": 0.7012206315994263, "text": "Setting homework with the intention of encouraging students to do well at tests is beneficial to students as much as it is to teachers and schools. National tests are a way of assessing whether students are at the level they should be, if they do well on the tests, that is a good thing. Therefore, a 'win' for the teachers and schools is also a great deal of learning for the student, the two need not be separated.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con02b", "score": 0.811486542224884, "text": "Even if students spend a small fraction of their time in schools – and 6 hours is by no means an insignificant amount of time – it is still an incredible opportunity for intervention for a very important reason. The reason is the incredible potential for homogeneity of experience. at least in the aspect of food offered. We are able, to certain extent, control the school environment in such a way as to promote healthy choices and eliminate bad ones. When students return to their homes, we have lost that opportunity. In a nutshell, one healthy meal per day is much better than none. It can also be contended that children often share experiences from school with their parents and siblings back home. Thus a healthy environment in school could, potentially, find its way into homes we couldn’t otherwise reach by any other means." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01b", "score": 0.7703284025192261, "text": "We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body. We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough. When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition. What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b", "score": 0.7690965533256531, "text": "Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-con02a", "score": 0.7633670568466187, "text": "The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity. Studies have shown that only a very small amount of the calories consumed by children come from foods like the Happy Meal. And while kids are eating at fast food restaurants at an alarming rate, it is their parents who make the decision to take them there 93% of the time. Of the kids who do want to go to McDonald’s, only 8% cite the toy as the primary reason. Therefore, this piece of legislation seems to tackle a perceived problem rather than a real one. Legislators would be better off focusing their attention where it matters: providing information to parents about making better choices for their kids, and improving the quality of school lunches, which are actually provided by the government and are eaten by kids every single day, often as their main meal [1] . [1] Eskenazi, Joe, and Wachs, Benjamin. “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. January 19, 2011.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01a", "score": 0.7622095942497253, "text": "Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf. Although it might be very tempting for the government to try and attack the problem of childhood obesity by attempting to change, in essence, the very choices our kids can make, this is the wrong way of going about doing it. The purpose of schools is education – the genesis of active and useful members of society. A large extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most western countries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. The other side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history, but also of biology, health and nutrition. We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses, and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education. What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of the importance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consists of more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short, this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity, balanced meals and indulging in moderation are. They should also focus on the importance of choice, since in the case of childhood obesity, making the right nutritional and lifestyle choices is of paramount importance. But they should also focus on the importance of choice for a society and how all should take responsibility for their choices in such a society.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro03b", "score": 0.7531866431236267, "text": "Again, if this is in fact true, then the incentives are already in place for better choices both on the side of students as well as schools. What the government should do is through subsidizing healthier meals and educational campaigns help both of them make those choices on their own, and not force an unnecessary ban on them.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-con02b", "score": 0.7470651268959045, "text": "Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con03a", "score": 0.7445763349533081, "text": "“Junk food” sales are an important source of funding for schools. An important issue to consider in this topic is the constellation of incentives that actually got us to the place where we are at today. With the environment designed to incentivize improving schools’ performance on standardized tests, there is absolutely nothing that would motivate them to invest their very limited resources into non-core programs or subjects, such as PE and sports and other activities. [1] Ironically, schools turned to soda and snack vending companies in order to increase their discretionary funds. An example cited in the paper is one high school in Beltsville, MD, which made $72,438.53 in the 1999-2000 school year through a contract with a soft drink company and another $26,227.49 through a contract with a snack vending company. The almost $100,000 obtained was used for a variety of activities, including instructional uses such as purchasing computers, as well as extracurricular uses such as the yearbook, clubs and field trips. Thus it becomes clear that the proposed ban is not only ineffective, but also demonstrably detrimental to schools and by extension their pupils. [1] Anderson, P. M., 'Reading, Writing and Raisinets: Are School Finances Contributing to Children’s Obesity?', National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2005, , accessed 9/11/2011", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro01b", "score": 0.7404324412345886, "text": "Media sensationalism is a poor justification for any state intervention of any kind. What histrionic television documentaries usually provide nothing more than a warning that our kids are in danger, along with a list of all the diseases obesity might cause. But there is absolutely nothing that would explain how exactly something as drastic as a ban would do anything to begin solving this problem. These observations highlight a distressing truth about contemporary western society – we are unable to accept that the state is unable to solve problems without the assistance and support of civil society. We have a hard time accepting the fact that responsibility will have to fall on the shoulders of parents to enforce (or, more likely, to adopt in the first place) a healthy and active lifestyle in their families. Advice provided by the Mayo Clinic explains that just talking isn’t effective. Kids and parents should go together for a brisk walk, ride on the bike or any other activity. It is important for a healthy lifestyle that parents present exercise as an opportunity to take care for the body, rather than a punishment or chore [1] . Finally, there is absolutely nothing stopping schools from offering healthier options alongside existing ones. In fact, many schools are choosing a healthier path already, without being forced by governments or regulatory bodies. [1] MayoClinic.com, 'Fitness for kids: Getting children off the couch', , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con04b", "score": 0.7398831248283386, "text": "First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK). In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school. A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school [1] hours to support the schools strict rules. [1] Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010 , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-con04b", "score": 0.7300370931625366, "text": "If the school is providing unhealthy meals then guidelines can be tightened to ensure they improve. If the students are throwing away food then there can be greater supervision by teachers. A study by Harvard University has also shown that food waste, and the amount of healthy food eaten can be increased by having more time allocated to eating. [1] [1] Wanjek, Christopher, ‘Are Healthy School Lunch Programs a Waste?’, Livescience, 7 October 2015,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro01a", "score": 0.7227540016174316, "text": "Schools need to practice what they preach Under the pressure of increasing media coverage and civil society initiatives, schools are being called upon to “take up arms” against childhood obesity, both by introducing more nutritional and physical education classes, as well as transforming the meals they are offering in their cafeterias. [1] Never before has school been so central to a child’s personal and social education. According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan, American children and teenagers spend in school about 32.5 hours per week homework a week – 7.5 hours more, than 20 years ago [2] . School curricula now cover topics such as personal finance, sex and relationships and citizenship. A precedent for teaching pupils about living well and living responsibly has already been established. Some schools, under national health programs, have given out free milk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case they are not getting enough at home [3] . While we are seeing various nutritional and health food curricula cropping up [4] , revamping the school lunch is proving to be a more challenging task. “Limited resources and budget cuts hamper schools from offering both healthful, good-tasting alternatives and physical education programs,“ says Sanchez-Vaznaugh, a San Francisco State University researcher. [5] With expert groups such as the Obesity Society urging policy makers to take into account the complex nature of the obesity epidemic [6] , especially the interplay of biological and social factors that lead to individuals developing the disease, it has become time for governments to urge schools to put their education into practice and give students an environment that allows them to make the healthy choices they learn about in class. [1] Stolberg, S. G., 'Michelle Obama Leads Campaign Against Obesity', New York Times, 9 February 2010, , accessed 9/11/2011 [2] University of Michigan, 'U.S. children and teens spend more time on academics', 17 November 2004, , accessed 09/08/2011 [3] Kent County Council, Nutritional Standards, published September 2007 , accessed 09/08/2011 [4] Veggiecation, 'The Veggiecation Program Announced as First Educational Partner of New York Coalition for Healthy School Food',18 May 2011, , accessed 9/11/2011 [5] ScienceDaily, 'Eliminating Junk Foods at Schools May Help Prevent Childhood Obesity', 7 March 2010, , accessed 9/11/2011 [6] Kushner, R. F., et al., 'SOLUTIONS: Eradicating America’s obesity epidemic', Washington Times, 16 August 2009, , accessed 9/11/2011", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwilfepe-con01b", "score": 0.7222757935523987, "text": "There are two things we need to respond with in this case. One regarding the current state of labels and the other the strategy of fighting obesity. It is a fact that the current label designs leave something to be desired. If currently only a certain (but not at all negligible) percentage go ahead and actually read the labels that does not mean that labels are inherently ineffective. It might just as well, if not more likely, mean that the current design of labels is simply not attractive and useful enough for people to pay attention to. Therefore efforts are being made to revamp the food label to improve its effectiveness. [1] As to the second, food labels are but a weapon in our arsenal against fighting obesity. It might be that on their own they will not defeat the epidemic, but they certainly play a key part of the overall strategy. [2] [1] Associated Press, New food nutrition labels from FDA coming, published 9/3/2011, , accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Benassi, M., The launch of a dynamic process, published in May 2006, , accessed 9/17/2011", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con04a", "score": 0.7216275334358215, "text": "Pupils will bring unhealthy food with them to schools. Frequently, a ban- whether or food, alcohol or forms of media- serves only to build interest in the things that has been prohibited. When a ban affects something that is a familiar part of everyday life that is generally regarded as benign, there is a risk that individuals may try to acquire the banned thing through other means. Having had their perspective in junk food defined partly by attractive, highly persuasive advertising, children are likely to adopt an ambivalent perspective on any attempt to restrict their dietary choices. The extreme contrast between the former popularity of vending machines in schools and the austere approach required by new policies may hamper schools’ attempts to convince pupils of the necessity and rationality of their decision. Even though schools may be able to coerce and compel their pupils to comply with disciplinary measures, they cannot stop children buying sweets outside of school hours. When rules at an Orange county school changed, and the cafeteria got rid of its sweets, the demand was still up high, so that the school had to figure out a way to fix the situation. They created a “candy cart” – which now brings them income for sports equipment or other necessities. One of the pupils, Edgar Coker (18-year-old senior) explained that: “If I couldn’t buy it here, I’d bring it from home.” [1] It is difficult to regulate junk food consumption through unsophisticated measures such as prohibition. A ban my undermine attempts to alter pupil’s mindsets and their perspective on food marketing and their own diets. [1] Harris G., 'A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of School', New York Times, 2 August 2010 , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro02a", "score": 0.7199534773826599, "text": "Schools are the best place to create lasting lifestyle changes. Schools are playing an increasingly formative role, in the sense that they’re being tasked with not only knowledge transfer, but also the creation of behaviors and placing emphasis on teaching students how to apply their knowledge. [1] Given this expanded mandate, the schools are not only obliged to therefore offer choices that would go hand in hand with healthier behavior, but also the perfect pressure point for lawmakers to go about introducing healthier lifestyles. The simple reason is that our kids are increasingly looking not to their parents, but schools and the environments they provide, for advice on how to live their lives. They are also the traditional environments for youth to continuously invent and reinvent themselves and therefore hold immense potential for behavior modification. [1] Fitzgerald, E., 'Some insights on new role of schools', New York Times, 21 January 2011, , accessed 9/11/2011", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-education-eghbpsbhrt-con03b", "score": 0.7189689874649048, "text": "One way to deal with this argument is by noting that this would be one tool in a school’s arsenal. If it proves to be obviously counterproductive, then it will not be employed, in the same way that other disciplinary tactics schools/society can impose will not be used if they are seen to be adverse or ineffective.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro04b", "score": 0.717856764793396, "text": "Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-law-cppfmyhwicc-pro01b", "score": 0.7166920304298401, "text": "Curfews are largely ineffective in preventing crime. Curfews do not target the right times of day as most juvenile crime appears to take place between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m., after the end of school and before working parents return home, rather than in the hours covered by curfews. There are many reports providing evidence that juvenile curfews do not have a significant effect upon crime figures. In addition, although society does have a problem with youth behaviour, although it is not as bad as the newspapers make out. What is often labelled anti-social behaviour today was considered normal for kids in the past – things like playing football in the street, going around in groups without an adult in charge, making a bit of noise sometimes, etc. We need to be careful to draw a line between things that some people don’t like, and actual crime.1 1 Adams, 2010.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro05b", "score": 0.7119646668434143, "text": "It is certainly true that children from disadvantaged families do not do as well as their luckier peers, but it is not clear why changing the pattern of school attendance will change this. The overall proportion of the year spent away from school will not change, so there is no reason to believe that year-round schooling will benefit students whose homes and families do not provide a positive learning environment [1] . [1] Newland, Christopher, “Letter to Auburn School Board”, 20th October 1998.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro06b", "score": 0.7089563012123108, "text": "This argument is based on the assumption that year-round schooling delivers academic benefits to students. However, as we will see in Opposition argument 6, there is very little evidence for this. Without concrete evidence that this massive change will deliver real improvements in national educational performance, it will merely divert attention from more pressing problems in our school systems.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro04b", "score": 0.7088865041732788, "text": "There is no need for education about a healthy diet to be combined with free breakfasts for all. The teaching can be done separately just as effectively. Teaching at the same time as, or immediately before or after will simply mean students are concentrating on the food they have, not upon the lesson. Meal times are lively and social, not a good time for teaching.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con04b", "score": 0.7472009658813477, "text": "First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK). In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school. A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school [1] hours to support the schools strict rules. [1] Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010 , accessed 09/10/2011" } ]

[ { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro03a", "score": 0.7086809277534485, "text": "Bad nutrition habits start during childhood. Giving away toys with meals that are calorie laden and of poor nutritional quality creates an emotional attachment between the child and fast food [1] . This bond will then follow that child into adulthood, making it harder for her to make better nutritional choices in order to become a healthy individual. This ban would break that bond and make it easier for children to grow up to be healthier adults. [1] Storm, Stephanie. “McDonald’s Trims Its Happy Meal.” The New York Times. July 26, 2011.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-con01a", "score": 0.7060628533363342, "text": "This ban constitutes serious governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices. Parents, not politicians, should be responsible for guiding the choices their children make and the food they eat, especially when they pay for it with their own money. Parents may have other reasons for wanting their children to have the meal with a toy, for example the toy is a useful distraction for the child. Governments should not try to impose their own idea of what constitutes appropriate food choices for children on parents and on businesses. Governments may aim to promote and educate, but imposing bans on private businesses goes too far [1] . [1] Martinez, Michael. “Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys.” CNN. November 13 2010.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-con04b", "score": 0.7038871645927429, "text": "If the school is providing unhealthy meals then guidelines can be tightened to ensure they improve. If the students are throwing away food then there can be greater supervision by teachers. A study by Harvard University has also shown that food waste, and the amount of healthy food eaten can be increased by having more time allocated to eating. [1] [1] Wanjek, Christopher, ‘Are Healthy School Lunch Programs a Waste?’, Livescience, 7 October 2015,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-sport-ehcpssohwpup-con04b", "score": 0.7002429366111755, "text": "The temptation of youth to try illegal substances is not just a problem in sports. In all environments you will have age restrictions. To say that we should uphold the ban for the sake of children is as if we would advocate a ban of alcohol for everyone, because some teenagers like to socialize with adults who are legally able to drink alcohol. There is always going to be an age restriction and it is the duty of institutions, trainers and athletes to uphold it, so that later in life as adults, athletes can make an informed decision.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b", "score": 0.7000141739845276, "text": "Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro03b", "score": 0.6996561884880066, "text": "It is important to instil good habits in children at an early age. But the manner in which it is done is equally important. Kids should be taught to make choices based on what is best for them, through information and appropriate explanations, rather than just being shielded from potential dangers. That kind of behaviour, predicated on reason and understanding, will have a far more lasting impact on the way they make choices, than just protecting them from temptation, with which they will inevitably have to cope later in life.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-education-eghbpsbhrt-con03b", "score": 0.6990148425102234, "text": "One way to deal with this argument is by noting that this would be one tool in a school’s arsenal. If it proves to be obviously counterproductive, then it will not be employed, in the same way that other disciplinary tactics schools/society can impose will not be used if they are seen to be adverse or ineffective.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-con03b", "score": 0.6967111229896545, "text": "Children might feel as if their rights are being taken away, but there is a reason why children are not given free reign over the way they live their lives. Governments have already stepped in to prevent children from endangering their health by consuming too much junk food, [1] [2] and indeed from working in non-performance fields. So too must they take charge in this issue and act so as to prevent children from becoming susceptible to the emotional and physical risks involved in being a child performer. [1] BBC News, ‘Junk food banned in school meals’ [2] Harris, ‘A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of Schools’", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-health-oeghsshwpsst-pro02a", "score": 0.6961989998817444, "text": "Abstinence is an outdated view, based on religious teaching, which may be a personal choice but is not to be expected as the norm for everyone Young people express their sexuality as part of their development to adulthood. It is not having sex that is a problem, but having unsafe sex or hurting people through sexual choices. Refusing to promote safe sex would mean not moving with the times. Just because schools do not promote safe sex does not mean that adolescents will not experiment with sex. They will already be exposed to sexual imagery and ideas of sex so it is necessary that they are taught properly how to remain safe. Schools may also want to talk about abstinence at the same time; it is a way of keeping sexually safe. However schools have to recognise that the majority of pupils are unlikely to stick to abstinence regardless of how much the school promotes it. It is therefore necessary for the school to also promote and educate about safe sex.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-law-thgglcplgphw-con03b", "score": 0.6932801008224487, "text": "The burden of evidence lies on the side trying to prove its harm, not on the side asserting that it is not harmful, and so the lack of categorical proof of its harm is in itself an argument for legalizing its cultivation and chewing. If proof of health risks arise then they can be addressed, but until then the ban is inappropriate and should be lifted.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-con03a", "score": 0.690179169178009, "text": "Such bans are easy to side step. The San Francisco ban has already been circumvented by McDonalds who has started selling their Happy Meals without the toys and then selling the toys separately for a nominal price [1] . Banning the sale of any toys in fast food restaurants would be difficult without prompting legal action from the companies. The steep legal costs of defending such a law would waste public resources that could easily be put to better use. [1] Eskenazi, Joe. “Happy Meal Ban. McDonlad’s Outsmarts San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. November 29, 2011.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-con03b", "score": 0.6872042417526245, "text": "While McDonald’s may have found a way to circumvent the ban, the significant pressure that was applied to them in the process led the company to improve the quality of the Happy Meal, by providing clients with fresh fruit and healthier drink options. Therefore, the ban could be considered a success.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro02b", "score": 0.6869363784790039, "text": "Given all the responsibilities our society has transferred from parents onto schools and educators in the 21st century, is it really sensible to include caring for nutritional choices to this already bloated and unmanageable list? We need to ask ourselves, is it actually right that kids turn to schools and peers about lifestyle advice, when this is so clearly a domain of parents and families and so obviously a burden on an already taxed public school system.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-culture-mthbah-con03b", "score": 0.685845136642456, "text": "Advertisers don't have the good of society in mind when they do their work - they only care about making profit. This means that they regularly advertise unhealthy or harmful things. Fast food adverts are a large part of the reason so many children are obese. Researchers have found that children aged 6-13 who were shown commercials for junk food were more likely to pick meals that were bad for them1. The adverts just try to make children eat as much bad food as possible without any concern for the health costs. 1 Junk Food Harmful for Kids. Hindustan Times", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro01b", "score": 0.6857181191444397, "text": "Children may have a strong preference for a certain type of meal over another, but young kids don’t buy their own food. Parents do. And if kids might not understand that fast food is bad for them, their parents should. If a child is eating too much fast food, that is not a marketing success, it’s a parenting failure.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-oeghsshwpsst-con02b", "score": 0.6846830248832703, "text": "That logic might sound impressive – but it’s the same one that fails to control underage drinking, underage smoking, the watching of rated movies by those forbidden to do so, the eating of bad food – and underage sex. It’s the same poor parental logic that has seen a generation of children grow up divorced from the society around them, children who die from drugs overdoses and whose parents say (honestly), ‘I just had no idea.’ It’s time to talk to our young people about what they do – honestly, frankly, without frightening them into dishonesty and deception. To do otherwise perpetuates the cycle of ignorance about youth society, and perpetuates the status quo of being able to do nothing to change it.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-con01b", "score": 0.6846022009849548, "text": "Such a limited view of the role of government may be something we have seen in the past, but even conservative governments today are warming to the ideas of social support, progressive taxation, etc. This shows a clear trend that the perception of government is changing – and rightly so. The challenges of the 21st century are vastly different from those of a hundred or more years ago, when that idea of government was popular or mainstream. Given the very recent and very cataclysmic events involving the world’s economy, that were arguably sparked by some very bad financial choices made by consumers, one could think that societies around the globe would be more than ever inclined to answer yes to those questions. In fact, what the government is doing in this case is respecting its boundaries – it cannot ban certain choices of food outright, although this might be the fastest solution. What it’s doing instead is providing a disincentive for a certain individually and societally harmful choice. That sort of action is entirely legitimate, as it doesn’t infringe on a person’s right to make a certain choice, yet it awards those who make the socially conscious one and it also protects the society in general from harm, since it takes important steps to reduce medical spending.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro02a", "score": 0.6833336353302002, "text": "Making it easier for parents to raise their children well. As well meaning as parents may be in trying to guide their kids toward better nutritional choices, they face a formidable opponent: the fast food marketing machine that spends over 4 billion dollars on advertising a year, much of it targeted directly at kids [1] . This can create enough ‘pester power’ [2] from the kids themselves, seduced by the toy that comes with the meal, that it can persuade parents to make bad choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. By eliminating at least one layer of negative pressure, this law would help parents make those healthy choices that they already know are best. [1] Philpott, Tom. “The fast-food industry’s 4.2 billion marketing blitz.” Grist. November 10. 2010. [2] “San Francisco Happy meal Toy Ban Takes Effect, Sidestepped by McDonald’s.” Huffington Post. November 2011.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-education-egscphsrdt-con02b", "score": 0.6831483840942383, "text": "Using random drug tests would mean that a greater number of teenage drug users would be caught and put into drug rehabilitation programs, which would surely help at least some of them. The school's duty of care means that they must at least be given this chance to give up drugs, even if they refuse it, as opposed to simply allowing them to keep using, which will most likely disrupt their education severely anyway.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro02b", "score": 0.6828904151916504, "text": "If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con03b", "score": 0.8396651744842529, "text": "There is absolutely nothing stopping the schools from finding ventures that are just as profitable with companies that offer healthy drinks and snacks. In fact, most of the existing contracts could simply remain in place, since most of the firms are conglomerates that could just as easily offer healthy alternatives to soda pops and cookies. Where that would prove impossible, it is simply a question of priorities: how many children afflicted by diabetes type 2 are worth a field trip? How many a new sports program or new equipment?" } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con04b", "score": 0.7823140025138855, "text": "First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK). In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school. A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school [1] hours to support the schools strict rules. [1] Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010 , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-con02b", "score": 0.7714548110961914, "text": "Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01b", "score": 0.7676810622215271, "text": "We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body. We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough. When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition. What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01a", "score": 0.7629343867301941, "text": "Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf. Although it might be very tempting for the government to try and attack the problem of childhood obesity by attempting to change, in essence, the very choices our kids can make, this is the wrong way of going about doing it. The purpose of schools is education – the genesis of active and useful members of society. A large extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most western countries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. The other side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history, but also of biology, health and nutrition. We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses, and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education. What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of the importance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consists of more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short, this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity, balanced meals and indulging in moderation are. They should also focus on the importance of choice, since in the case of childhood obesity, making the right nutritional and lifestyle choices is of paramount importance. But they should also focus on the importance of choice for a society and how all should take responsibility for their choices in such a society.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro03a", "score": 0.7580825686454773, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro02b", "score": 0.7579469084739685, "text": "Schools already have enough pressures just to educate their students, they do not need additional pressure from having to ensure their nutrition as well. In the UK kitchen improvements cost £200 million and many local councils found they needed to take money from other budgets such as school maintainance budgets showing the increase in pressure on schools. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Q&A; Free school meals for infants’, 2 September 2014,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-education-xeegshwfeu-pro02b", "score": 0.7567944526672363, "text": "Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con04a", "score": 0.7524036169052124, "text": "Pupils will bring unhealthy food with them to schools. Frequently, a ban- whether or food, alcohol or forms of media- serves only to build interest in the things that has been prohibited. When a ban affects something that is a familiar part of everyday life that is generally regarded as benign, there is a risk that individuals may try to acquire the banned thing through other means. Having had their perspective in junk food defined partly by attractive, highly persuasive advertising, children are likely to adopt an ambivalent perspective on any attempt to restrict their dietary choices. The extreme contrast between the former popularity of vending machines in schools and the austere approach required by new policies may hamper schools’ attempts to convince pupils of the necessity and rationality of their decision. Even though schools may be able to coerce and compel their pupils to comply with disciplinary measures, they cannot stop children buying sweets outside of school hours. When rules at an Orange county school changed, and the cafeteria got rid of its sweets, the demand was still up high, so that the school had to figure out a way to fix the situation. They created a “candy cart” – which now brings them income for sports equipment or other necessities. One of the pupils, Edgar Coker (18-year-old senior) explained that: “If I couldn’t buy it here, I’d bring it from home.” [1] It is difficult to regulate junk food consumption through unsophisticated measures such as prohibition. A ban my undermine attempts to alter pupil’s mindsets and their perspective on food marketing and their own diets. [1] Harris G., 'A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of School', New York Times, 2 August 2010 , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con02a", "score": 0.7434364557266235, "text": "Targeting schools will be an ineffective strategy. Schools may seem like a perfect place to effect behavioral change in youth, since 95% of young people are enrolled in schools. [1] But what researchers find is that changing the choices we have available does not necessarily lead to any behavioral change. Penny Gordon-Larsen, one of the researchers, wrote: \"Our findings suggest that no single approach, such as just having access to fresh fruits and veggies, might be effective in changing the way people eat. We really need to look at numerous ways of changing diet behaviors. There are likely more effective ways to influence what people eat.” [2] In the case of school children is this point seems particularly salient. Given that high school students in the US average only 6 hours in school [3] and the widespread availability of fast and other forms of “junk food”, we can hardly expect that impacting this single environment of the school will lead to any lasting behavioral changes. Realistically, what we can expect is for school children to go outside the school to find their favorite snacks and dishes. Even if, by some miracle, the ban would change the behavior of children in schools, there is still the matter of 10 hours (the ATUS suggests kids sleep an average of 8 hours per day) they will spend outside schools, where their meal choices will not be as tailored and limited. [1] Wechsler, H., et al., 'The Role of Schools in Preventing Childhood Obesity', National Association of State Boards of Education, December 2004, , accessed 9/11/2011 [2] Nordqvist, C., 'No Single Approach Will Solve America's Obesity Epidemic', Medical News Today, 11 June 2011, , accessed 9/11/2011 [3] Bureau of Labor Statistics, 'American Time Use Survey', 22 May 2011, , accessed 9/11/2011", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-con02a", "score": 0.738211989402771, "text": "The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity. Studies have shown that only a very small amount of the calories consumed by children come from foods like the Happy Meal. And while kids are eating at fast food restaurants at an alarming rate, it is their parents who make the decision to take them there 93% of the time. Of the kids who do want to go to McDonald’s, only 8% cite the toy as the primary reason. Therefore, this piece of legislation seems to tackle a perceived problem rather than a real one. Legislators would be better off focusing their attention where it matters: providing information to parents about making better choices for their kids, and improving the quality of school lunches, which are actually provided by the government and are eaten by kids every single day, often as their main meal [1] . [1] Eskenazi, Joe, and Wachs, Benjamin. “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. January 19, 2011.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con02b", "score": 0.7381662130355835, "text": "Even if students spend a small fraction of their time in schools – and 6 hours is by no means an insignificant amount of time – it is still an incredible opportunity for intervention for a very important reason. The reason is the incredible potential for homogeneity of experience. at least in the aspect of food offered. We are able, to certain extent, control the school environment in such a way as to promote healthy choices and eliminate bad ones. When students return to their homes, we have lost that opportunity. In a nutshell, one healthy meal per day is much better than none. It can also be contended that children often share experiences from school with their parents and siblings back home. Thus a healthy environment in school could, potentially, find its way into homes we couldn’t otherwise reach by any other means.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro01b", "score": 0.7365627288818359, "text": "Media sensationalism is a poor justification for any state intervention of any kind. What histrionic television documentaries usually provide nothing more than a warning that our kids are in danger, along with a list of all the diseases obesity might cause. But there is absolutely nothing that would explain how exactly something as drastic as a ban would do anything to begin solving this problem. These observations highlight a distressing truth about contemporary western society – we are unable to accept that the state is unable to solve problems without the assistance and support of civil society. We have a hard time accepting the fact that responsibility will have to fall on the shoulders of parents to enforce (or, more likely, to adopt in the first place) a healthy and active lifestyle in their families. Advice provided by the Mayo Clinic explains that just talking isn’t effective. Kids and parents should go together for a brisk walk, ride on the bike or any other activity. It is important for a healthy lifestyle that parents present exercise as an opportunity to take care for the body, rather than a punishment or chore [1] . Finally, there is absolutely nothing stopping schools from offering healthier options alongside existing ones. In fact, many schools are choosing a healthier path already, without being forced by governments or regulatory bodies. [1] MayoClinic.com, 'Fitness for kids: Getting children off the couch', , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeeghbpw-con01a", "score": 0.735456645488739, "text": "There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend. This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, \"The School Breakfast Program\",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Feeding America (2010), \"Hunger in America: Key Facts\", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, \"Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger\", [Accessed July 21, 2011].", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeeghbpw-pro02b", "score": 0.7301559448242188, "text": "If school is so expensive, than shouldn't the government be subsidizing school costs instead of forcing parents to send kids to school when they can't afford the books and clothes? It is also unfair to assume that parents on welfare on neglectful and do not value education. Supporting meal programs in schools and subsidizing other costs are much more likely to draw children than forcing parents to send children to school when the kids are hungry and embarrassed1. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, \"The School Breakfast Program\",[Accessed July 21, 2011].", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-con04b", "score": 0.7278727889060974, "text": "If the school is providing unhealthy meals then guidelines can be tightened to ensure they improve. If the students are throwing away food then there can be greater supervision by teachers. A study by Harvard University has also shown that food waste, and the amount of healthy food eaten can be increased by having more time allocated to eating. [1] [1] Wanjek, Christopher, ‘Are Healthy School Lunch Programs a Waste?’, Livescience, 7 October 2015,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro02b", "score": 0.7258012294769287, "text": "Given all the responsibilities our society has transferred from parents onto schools and educators in the 21st century, is it really sensible to include caring for nutritional choices to this already bloated and unmanageable list? We need to ask ourselves, is it actually right that kids turn to schools and peers about lifestyle advice, when this is so clearly a domain of parents and families and so obviously a burden on an already taxed public school system.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro04b", "score": 0.7255234718322754, "text": "Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-education-eghbpsbhrt-con03b", "score": 0.724737823009491, "text": "One way to deal with this argument is by noting that this would be one tool in a school’s arsenal. If it proves to be obviously counterproductive, then it will not be employed, in the same way that other disciplinary tactics schools/society can impose will not be used if they are seen to be adverse or ineffective.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b", "score": 0.7209712862968445, "text": "Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-pro02b", "score": 0.7204303741455078, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01b", "score": 0.7977877855300903, "text": "We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body. We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough. When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition. What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity." } ]

[ { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-con02a", "score": 0.7545000910758972, "text": "The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity. Studies have shown that only a very small amount of the calories consumed by children come from foods like the Happy Meal. And while kids are eating at fast food restaurants at an alarming rate, it is their parents who make the decision to take them there 93% of the time. Of the kids who do want to go to McDonald’s, only 8% cite the toy as the primary reason. Therefore, this piece of legislation seems to tackle a perceived problem rather than a real one. Legislators would be better off focusing their attention where it matters: providing information to parents about making better choices for their kids, and improving the quality of school lunches, which are actually provided by the government and are eaten by kids every single day, often as their main meal [1] . [1] Eskenazi, Joe, and Wachs, Benjamin. “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. January 19, 2011.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b", "score": 0.7523256540298462, "text": "Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro02b", "score": 0.7507032155990601, "text": "Schools already have enough pressures just to educate their students, they do not need additional pressure from having to ensure their nutrition as well. In the UK kitchen improvements cost £200 million and many local councils found they needed to take money from other budgets such as school maintainance budgets showing the increase in pressure on schools. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Q&A; Free school meals for infants’, 2 September 2014,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro04b", "score": 0.750357985496521, "text": "Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con04b", "score": 0.7495638728141785, "text": "First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK). In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school. A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school [1] hours to support the schools strict rules. [1] Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010 , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "validation-education-sthbmsnbcs-con03b", "score": 0.7493911385536194, "text": "Children should not be given power over their education, but it doesn’t follow that their opinions are of no consequence. We should very much care what they do and don’t enjoy. Firstly, if they don’t enjoy their schooling they won’t put any effort into it and will not actually learn anything. Secondly, if they feel we are making them do things they don’t want to do we will lose the ability to give them sensible suggestions. We might think they ought to learn maths, but forcing them to do it will cause more harm than good.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-education-xeegshwfeu-con03b", "score": 0.7468239068984985, "text": "Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con04a", "score": 0.7466114163398743, "text": "Pupils will bring unhealthy food with them to schools. Frequently, a ban- whether or food, alcohol or forms of media- serves only to build interest in the things that has been prohibited. When a ban affects something that is a familiar part of everyday life that is generally regarded as benign, there is a risk that individuals may try to acquire the banned thing through other means. Having had their perspective in junk food defined partly by attractive, highly persuasive advertising, children are likely to adopt an ambivalent perspective on any attempt to restrict their dietary choices. The extreme contrast between the former popularity of vending machines in schools and the austere approach required by new policies may hamper schools’ attempts to convince pupils of the necessity and rationality of their decision. Even though schools may be able to coerce and compel their pupils to comply with disciplinary measures, they cannot stop children buying sweets outside of school hours. When rules at an Orange county school changed, and the cafeteria got rid of its sweets, the demand was still up high, so that the school had to figure out a way to fix the situation. They created a “candy cart” – which now brings them income for sports equipment or other necessities. One of the pupils, Edgar Coker (18-year-old senior) explained that: “If I couldn’t buy it here, I’d bring it from home.” [1] It is difficult to regulate junk food consumption through unsophisticated measures such as prohibition. A ban my undermine attempts to alter pupil’s mindsets and their perspective on food marketing and their own diets. [1] Harris G., 'A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of School', New York Times, 2 August 2010 , accessed 09/10/2011", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-pro01a", "score": 0.7451851963996887, "text": "Marketing aimed at children should be subject to strict regulations. Unlike adults, children are not able to make healthy decisions for themselves. They don’t understand what calories, sodium content, or saturated fats are. They are unable to comprehend the long-term effects that fast food might have on their health and development. On the other hand, a toy is instantly appealing to them and offers a straightforward incentive to opt for such a meal. As long as the negative consequences cannot be explained to kids in a clear and compelling manner, we should not make unhealthy food even more desirable for them. We should not allow children to make bad choices based on information they don’t understand [1] . [1] Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “Fast Food FACTS: Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.” Yale University. November 2010.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "validation-education-shwmsems-con04b", "score": 0.7450056672096252, "text": "This argument is based on a particular view of the state and its role in society.it is a view of the state which is particularly innocent of and which fails to acknowledge the range of cultural messages relating to society and sexuality [1] which are broadcast hegemonically although not entirely openly by the state. [2] The state does have a role in sex education. It has taken an ever more holistic view of young citizens, and this is reflected in schools whose remit stretches not just to the academic education of students, but to the preparation of young people for the full spectrum of activities and responsibilities they will face in adult life. Sexual interaction is a fundamental part of that life. Schools have evolved far beyond the provision of skill in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and this should be reflected in such programs as sex education. The state does not in mandating sex education make any normative judgment regarding sexual practices, but rather provides the necessary information and the space to consider the emotional and social issues involved to make informed choices about sex. [1] Plummer, Sexual Cultures, Communities, Values and Intimacy, 1996 [2] Foucault, Studies in governmentality, 1979. Throughgood, Sex Education as Social Control, 1992", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwsytpsctpf-con01a", "score": 0.7420011162757874, "text": "This ban constitutes serious governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices. Parents, not politicians, should be responsible for guiding the choices their children make and the food they eat, especially when they pay for it with their own money. Parents may have other reasons for wanting their children to have the meal with a toy, for example the toy is a useful distraction for the child. Governments should not try to impose their own idea of what constitutes appropriate food choices for children on parents and on businesses. Governments may aim to promote and educate, but imposing bans on private businesses goes too far [1] . [1] Martinez, Michael. “Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys.” CNN. November 13 2010.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-con04b", "score": 0.7412688732147217, "text": "If the school is providing unhealthy meals then guidelines can be tightened to ensure they improve. If the students are throwing away food then there can be greater supervision by teachers. A study by Harvard University has also shown that food waste, and the amount of healthy food eaten can be increased by having more time allocated to eating. [1] [1] Wanjek, Christopher, ‘Are Healthy School Lunch Programs a Waste?’, Livescience, 7 October 2015,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-pro03b", "score": 0.741256058216095, "text": "The American FDA considers the use of trans fats to be 'generally safe'.(1) The British Food Standards Agency says the UK's low average consumption of trans fats makes a complete ban unnecessary.(6) These organisations are already supposed to regulate foodstuffs and monitor trans fats, if they agreed that they needed to act surely they would. For individuals considered especially vulnerable to the effects of trans-fat consumption, such as the old or the poor, the government should consider education, not a ban. Moreover, the real issue here isn't about health, but about the right of a citizen of a free country to choose to eat whatever foods he wishes. The role of government is not to restrict the freedoms of its citizens but to protect individuals and to defend their right to act freely. Informed, adult individuals have every right to eat whatever fattening, caloric or artery-clogging meals they please. Government health boards have no right to restrict the foods law-abiding citizens choose to put into their own bodies.(10)", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro04a", "score": 0.7395939826965332, "text": "Breakfast teaches about health Children need to learn about how good nutrition keeps them healthy. Providing a school breakfast means that the meal can be an educational experience and have teaching alongside. This education will ensure that when these children grow up they continue to eat healthily with future benefits for the nation’s health.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeeghbpw-pro02b", "score": 0.7370691895484924, "text": "If school is so expensive, than shouldn't the government be subsidizing school costs instead of forcing parents to send kids to school when they can't afford the books and clothes? It is also unfair to assume that parents on welfare on neglectful and do not value education. Supporting meal programs in schools and subsidizing other costs are much more likely to draw children than forcing parents to send children to school when the kids are hungry and embarrassed1. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, \"The School Breakfast Program\",[Accessed July 21, 2011].", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-con02b", "score": 0.7343636155128479, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-health-oeghsshwpsst-con03b", "score": 0.7320703864097595, "text": "Parents often know nothing (or worse, are armed with dangerously naive delusions) of the sexual state of their children. The picture painted by abolitionists is inaccurate – the process of deciding what is taught in schools involves parents’ groups and school governing bodies on a school-by-school basis, so parents do have a role in deciding what is taught. But ultimately, the state should be involved in educating the whole child, not just in doling out academic ideas – and should work hard to safeguard sexual health of youngsters, a field near-impossible to separate from sex education. This is a subject just as important for the development of young people as the conventional subjects such as maths and English. The role of ‘teacher’ has to change with time. Once, teachers only instructed the children of the well-off or acted as a branch of the church, now they teach everyone in a secular society. As their role changes, they must remain responsible and obey the law: thus, the scaremongering of suggesting teachers will abuse their students or lure them into relationships is irrelevant, as both sides believe that is wrong, and should be prosecuted. Rules banning discussions of sex in schools can deny teachers the ability to deal with real problems. When an individual student comes to a teacher with a problem, a rule against discussing such things in the classroom will probably mean that this outlet of help the troubled adolescent has sought out, often because he feels the family isn’t the place to get help, will be denied to him, will turn its back on him. Like it or not, in today’s fractured society teachers have taken on the role of counsellor, and this rule will indirectly curtail their ability to fulfil it. The result of that will be appalling.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmctyshwbcp-con03b", "score": 0.7314451336860657, "text": "Children might feel as if their rights are being taken away, but there is a reason why children are not given free reign over the way they live their lives. Governments have already stepped in to prevent children from endangering their health by consuming too much junk food, [1] [2] and indeed from working in non-performance fields. So too must they take charge in this issue and act so as to prevent children from becoming susceptible to the emotional and physical risks involved in being a child performer. [1] BBC News, ‘Junk food banned in school meals’ [2] Harris, ‘A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of Schools’", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro03b", "score": 0.7302628755569458, "text": "Exactly, the role of the school is to teach children, not to be providing food and using periods of time for this that could be used for lessons.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-pro02b", "score": 0.7282519340515137, "text": "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", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b", "score": 0.7725362181663513, "text": "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804." } ]

[ { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con05b", "score": 0.7317782044410706, "text": "All the same harms apply if the moral agent lets the five die. They still must cope with the knowledge that their decision resulted in deaths, in fact, more deaths. Indeed, PTSD is brought on by experience with horrific death regardless of whether or not the sufferer caused the death [1] . [1] Martynowicz, Daniel, ‘Afghanistan PTSD Worse Than Vietnam’, News By The Second, 1 July 2010,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-con02a", "score": 0.7298707962036133, "text": "The burden of parental responsibility Societies recognise the importance of parenting and the enormous responsibilities that go with it. In light of these, the parent is allowed broad discretion in determining how those responsibilities are best exercised. It seems likely that a parent in a situation such as this is likely to undertake a great deal more soul searching and thought than could be expected of an external party. This is a decision that is made in good conscience and, as things stand in most countries, within the law. Medical experts and others may well have opinions, frequently strongly held, but they are just that – opinions. The very fact that this issue has come to court, been heard and judges have reached differing decisions demonstrates that this is not an argument against fact. The opinions of parents are often supported by expert and legal authority. The parents can be expected to consider these opinions among many but must be left free to act in what they believe is the best interest of the child.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-law-lgplhbssbco-pro02b", "score": 0.7281326055526733, "text": "This is only an objection to particular cases of suicide; it cannot be made into a general case because some suicides really do only affect the individual – those in which there is no extended family or friendship group. And that an act is, on occasion, selfish is not sufficient grounds to prohibit it. Indeed, ostracising one’s friends or walking out on one’s family can upset people but we are hardly likely to deny people the liberty to make such individual, private life choices. Nobody has the right to force people to live in circumstances that cause them unhappiness. Suicide should be viewed in exactly the same way. Moreover it should be remembered that an attempt to prosecute survivors or in some way to punish relatives of those who succeed is clearly not going to help leaving grieving relatives in a worse position. [1] [1] Holt, ‘When Suicide was illegal’, 2011", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con01a", "score": 0.7213385105133057, "text": "It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others. In terms of moral absolutes, killing people is wrong sets the bar fairly low. Pretty much all societies have accepted this as a line that cannot be crossed without the explicit and specific agreement of the state which only happens in very rare circumstances such as in times of war. There is a simple reason for a blanket ban. It allows for no caveats, no misunderstandings, no fudging of the issue, and no shades of grey. Again, the reason for this approach is equally simple; anything other than such a clear cut approach will inevitably be abused [i] . As things stand guilt in the case of murder is determined entirely on the basis that it is proven that someone took another life. Their reasons for doing so may be reflected in sentencing but the court is not required to consider whether someone was justified in killing another. It is in the nature of a court case that it happens after the event and nobody other than the murderer and the deceased know what actually took place between them. If we take shaken baby syndrome cases as an example the parent still loves the child, they have acted in the madness of a moment out of frustration. It’s still murder. Supporting a dying relative can be no less frustrating but killing them would still be murder, even where that comes after a prolonged period of coercion to fill in forms and achieve the appearance of consent. It would, however, be very hard to prove. At least with a baby we can assume consent was not given, that would not be the case here. [i] Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman. ‘Second Thoughts’ Grow on Assisted Suicide. The Wall Street Journal. 5 August 2012.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-law-lgplhbssbco-con03b", "score": 0.7175759077072144, "text": "The fact of suffering is what makes it impossible to consider suicide a legitimate choice. Someone under the duress of intense pain and/or discomfort is not going to be able to make a fully voluntary and informed choice to end their life.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con05a", "score": 0.7151271104812622, "text": "The act of killing can wreak immense psychological damage upon rational individuals To know that one has actually killed another human being will haunt the moral agent forever. Instances of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for soldiers returning for warzones are increasingly reported, suggesting that a situation of killing very often warps the killer’s life [1] . This holds true even for people not directly and viscerally involved in killings, such as the incredible guilt felt by the team of the Manhattan project. [2] [1] ScienceBlog, ‘1 in 5 Iraq, Afghanistan Vets has PTSD’, 17 April 2008, [2] Long, Tony, ‘Aug. 6, 1945: ‘I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds’, Wired, 6 August 2007,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con03a", "score": 0.7124873399734497, "text": "There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved. By far the biggest worry is that a right to die will create a silent form of coercion that cannot be detected. In the West’s increasingly elderly society the role of older people in that society, their value and their continuing contribution is all too likely to be masked by the issue of the cost placed on those of working age. Even where older people do not face pressure from their families, society needs to be aware of this wider narrative. Such a narrative will slowly create a norm where the elderly feel that they are a burden and it is expected that they will exercise their right to die. The ‘choice’ will remain and they will even think it a choice free of coercion but will exercise their right not because they really want to die but because they feel it is what they ought to do, once the right to die is completely normalised those exercising it may not even consider that what they are doing is not really of their free will. Perceiving oneself as a burden is already a common cause of suicide [i] and would certainly increase if it were to no longer be considered taboo. Not having a right to die will not stop arguments about the burden placed on the working members of society by the elderly but it will stop this going any further towards the creation of a culture where individuals consider it normal that they should die when they feel they are a burden. [i] Joiner, Thomas E. et al., ‘The Psychology and Neurobiology of Suicidal Behaviour’, Annual Review of Psychology, 10 September 2004, p.304 .", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con01b", "score": 0.7120589017868042, "text": "This argument is selfish and ignores how love might push a person to make great sacrifices. We might have imperfect information about our importance, but whatever information we have, gives us an idea of how to assess complicated situations. If we were to follow this logic, self-determination would be impossible", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-education-eghbpsbhrt-pro04b", "score": 0.7080950736999512, "text": "The “unjust” argument is a good counter. One could cite some neurobiology evidence that lack of discipline is due to complex cognitive deficits that manifest through delayed brain development even in otherwise normal seeming children, which belies the “parental responsibility/failure” view. To start with, cognitive deficits can be caused by genetic factors or other things which started before birth, and can stop children being able to function normally. [1] [1] Tynan, W. Douglas, ‘Cognitive Deficits’, Medscape Reference, 3 June 2013,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con05a", "score": 0.7075566053390503, "text": "The act of killing is emotionally damaging To actually be involved in the death of another person is an incredibly traumatic experience. Soldiers coming back from war often suffer from ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ which suggests that being in a situation in which you have to take another persons life has a long lasting impact on your mental health. This is also true for people who are not directly involved in the act of killing. For instance, the people who worked on developing the atomic bomb described an incredible guilt for what they had created even though they were not involved in the decision to drop the bombs. The same traumatic experiences would likely affect the person responsible for pulling the lever.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-law-ueegllghwhsl-con03a", "score": 0.704490602016449, "text": "It is difficult to make a direct, legally sound link between a bully's behaviour and a victim's suicide Many of the children and adolescents who take their own lives allegedly as a result of bullying have a far more complicated background. Some already struggle with depression, and have unstable family situations that make it hard to turn to their parents for help with their problems. Phoebe Prince, for example, was taking anti-depressants, was devastated by her parents’ divorce, was self harming, and had already attempted suicide after a break up. And that was long before she was allegedly bullied to death [1] . She was a very troubled young woman, and anything could have pushed her over the edge. It would be hard to find the bullies criminally responsible for her death. [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 2”. Slate. July 20. 2010.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-con02b", "score": 0.7034482359886169, "text": "Parental responsibility is a duty, not a right. Society trusts parents to act in the interests of their child but does not do so unreservedly. Where those actions lead directly to a provable harm, we consider it either neglect or abuse of the child and the parental privileges are revoked. No matter how earnestly the parent may believe it is in the child’s best interest, they may not send them out to work in injurious conditions, they may not allow or encourage them to engage in sexual conduct, they may not allow them to use armaments or certain drugs before a certain age. Because these things cause harm to the child and that is a breach of the duty of care entrusted to the parent by wider society. The same is true of denying them medical treatment.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con01a", "score": 0.6978121399879456, "text": "Self-preservation is our primary moral duty Many people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02b", "score": 0.6973287463188171, "text": "Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con04b", "score": 0.6967675089836121, "text": "The specific circumstances of every case need to be taken into account. In this case someone will definitely lose their life and one’s decision is to decide how to minimize the damage done. It is wrong to suggest that this is an act of killing; instead it is an attempt to reduce the number of deaths in a tragic situation. Pulling the lever is not an act that the person would do if the five people were not tied down and so it is very different from an act of intentional murder.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-law-lgplhbssbco-pro03b", "score": 0.6959507465362549, "text": "Society can perfectly well spread the message that suicide is not a valid life choice without criminalizing and punishing those that have tried and failed to perpetrate it. Moreover, we have grave doubts about the practical use of anti-suicide legislation. It is highly dubious that people who are driven to contemplate suicide will be dissuaded by the knowledge that they would be breaking the law. The spectre of punishment only awaits those who fail to commit suicide. These people have already decided that their lives are not worth living; branding them criminal and punishing them is hardly likely to make them reconsider their decision.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-education-eghbpsbhrt-con01b", "score": 0.6929468512535095, "text": "The “parental responsibility” argument is a good counter here. An appeal to the fact that some lax parents clearly raise spoiled children can also be effective in building intuition about the notion that parents are imposing a cost through their actions.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-pro03b", "score": 0.691705048084259, "text": "We fully accept that children are treated differently in the eyes of the law. However, the very fact that proposition allows for that exceptionalism must require them to acknowledge that the role of the parent is given a status different from any other in society. We acknowledge their right to make decisions in the stead of their child, fully accepting that those decisions have enormous implications. We accept that parents take life and death decisions for their children on a regular basis and we must trust them to do so. Society respects the rights of parents to keep their children safe in no end of perilous situations, and when their judgement is wrong, it is a matter for regret, not legislation.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-politics-eppghwlrba-pro04b", "score": 0.6912018656730652, "text": "There are substantial exceptions to that correlation, for example Japan has the world’s 5th highest suicide rate but very low gun ownership. [1] As the proposition concedes, the availability of firearms is not a direct cause of suicide and thus the restriction of availability of firearms can only have a marginal effect on the suicide rate. [1]", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-con02b", "score": 0.6907287240028381, "text": "Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances – those who end their own lives are not seen as evil. It seems odd that it is a crime to assist a non-crime. The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are unable to die without assistance. For example, in March 1993 Anthony Bland had lain in persistent vegetative state for three years before a Court Order allowed his degradation and indignity to come to a merciful close. [1] It might cause unnecessary pain for people if they make an attempt at suicide themselves and subsequently fail. Rather than the pain-free methods that could be available through doctors and modern medicine. [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 (accessed 6/6/2011)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro05b", "score": 0.7169897556304932, "text": "It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02b", "score": 0.6772794723510742, "text": "Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con06b", "score": 0.6575464606285095, "text": "Firstly, it may well be the case that we are indeed morally obligated to donate all of our disposable to charity; the longer one considers how many people could be saved with the money one spends on a flat screen television, the less acceptable the purchase becomes. However, there are also meaningful distinctions between the thought experiment and donation to charity. In the thought experiment, there is no one else who can possibly come to the aid of the five. This is distinct from the complexities of a global economy where there are other possible moral saviors and the path to saving lives is far less clear.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro04a", "score": 0.6540863513946533, "text": "We should preserve the person with greater quality of life We have to be able to measure quality of life relatively. There might be many cases where a relative is terminally ill, yet not dead yet. This person, with a survival prospect of maybe half a year of suffering and medication, might have a perfectly functional organ. [1] It is very rational, both for this person and for society as a whole to allow him or her to undergo euthanasia at an early stage to save the other person. [2] Furthermore, a person might sacrifice his or her life to provide an organ for a specific individual, yet their other organs can still be used to save others, of whom the donor might not have been aware. It is sad that a person has to die, but as this is the only option [3] , it is a good thing that several people might live when one sacrifices their life. [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301. [2] Wilkinson, Dominc and Julian Savalescu. “SHOULD WE ALLOW ORGAN DONATION EUTHANASIA? ALTERNATIVES FOR MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION.” Bioethics 26.1 (2012): 32-48. [3] ibid", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "validation-society-fyhwscdcj-pro02b", "score": 0.6535618305206299, "text": "Whilst it is important for people to remember the terrible troubles people have surviving in very poor countries, we must also remember that direct sponsorship is perhaps not the best way to help people out of poverty - there are a lot of downsides [7]. Would it not be better to hear of how an entire community was improved rather than just a single child or family? Ultimately you can’t force people to give to charity, and at times like these when even in wealthy countries people have trouble getting enough money it must be expected that charitable giving will drop.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02b", "score": 0.651211142539978, "text": "This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04a", "score": 0.648597776889801, "text": "People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro04b", "score": 0.6459840536117554, "text": "This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings. As to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs. [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro01a", "score": 0.6452052593231201, "text": "A Practical Solution There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented. The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors. Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled. For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them. The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied. What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable). Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro01b", "score": 0.6403653025627136, "text": "The controversial part of this plan is how the status of “donor” is determined. Each standard that could be used has massive, and sometimes monstrous, negative ramifications. If the requirement is that recipients be donors for a certain number of years beforehand, then people who have been donors for a substantial but still inadequate time are being perversely punished simply for not having been doing their civic duty long enough (see also “past decision they cannot now undo” point below). If the standard is simply that they must have been a donor for any amount of time, however small, prior to needing the organ, this perversely encourages patients to hide their need for an organ long enough for them to register as donors and then collect their organ; any attempt to solve this would require doctors to report on their patients’ need for organs, eroding patient privacy and turning the doctor-patient relationship adversarial. The last of the proposed standards, that the recipient only need to sign up to be a donor in the future, causes all the alleged benefits of this to policy evaporate; the average person will not sign up to become a donor, as they know that they can always sign up later in the event that they need an organ. This plan only gets any benefit whatsoever if healthy people are signing up to be donors as a cautionary measure, rather than a small group of sick and likely elderly people who only sign up when they need organs. In addition to reducing the pool of donors, such a standard which calls for people to be donors from the time of their need onwards would require a massive breach of body rights to enforce. In order to make it binding (and prevent people from de-registering as donors once they no longer need organs), the state would have to say that they can no longer withdraw their consent to be donors, which amounts to the state laying claim to their organs.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b", "score": 0.6391447186470032, "text": "The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.6377500295639038, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.6348440647125244, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02b", "score": 0.6339397430419922, "text": "Given that we don’t know anything about these individuals all we have to work with are the numbers. If you take five random people and one random person then there is a greater chance that among the five people there is a life saving doctor. The only time this is not true is if the average person has a negative effect on the world. However, if this is the case we would always have to act in a way that fewest people survived which is absurd.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-cpiahwdwf-con03a", "score": 0.6268318891525269, "text": "There are other more urgent things to be spending money on Money should be spent where it can make most difference. The cost of many methods of adapting to climate change is high compared to the gain. The developed world should focus aid on areas that can do most good rather than on adaptation. Even those who argue that climate change will be very costly and deadly implicitly agree that there are more worthwhile things. In Climate Vulnerability Monitor’s estimates of deaths the vast majority, 3.1million, are due to indoor smoke. [1] This however is something that is not solved through adaptation to climate change but through mitigation; by providing $25 cooking stoves. [2] [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, , p.17 [2] Aroon, P.J., ‘Secretary Clinton is promoting cookstoves to save the world. Seriously’, ForeignPolicy.com, 22 September 2010,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con01b", "score": 0.6261967420578003, "text": "The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them. The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs. The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily. Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right. Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04b", "score": 0.6248815059661865, "text": "Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-health-ahwba-pro03b", "score": 0.6243541836738586, "text": "First of all alcohol abuse (excessive amounts of alcohol) contribute only to a small percentage of all alcohol use in society. Even in Germany, where prices of beer are very low in comparison to other beverages, the data shows, that only 1.7 million (in a country of more than 80 million) use alcohol in a harmful way. [1] So why force people to give up something, just because a minority is not sure how to use it. Further on, even if it was a concerning amount of people whose health is impacted by alcohol abuse, campaigns and information have very effectively reduced the death rate for cirrhosis. During a 22-year period, death from cirrhosis: dropped 29.8% among black men, 15.3% among white men, 47.9% among black women and 33.3% among white women [2] [1] Ryan R., The Highs and Lows of Germany's Drinking Culture, published 11/18/2006, , accessed 08/18/2011 [2] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York, , accessed 08/18/2011", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con04b", "score": 0.6239544153213501, "text": "In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con02b", "score": 0.6239215731620789, "text": "That is exactly right: we cannot know who will be most valuable to the world, and to think otherwise is “playing god.” However, this is a point for side proposition; given that we don’t know who the really valuable people are, we ought to save the greater number because it statistically increases the chances that they will be saved. The only time this would not be true is if the average person had a net negative effect on the world, but if this were the case it would commit us to the implausible position that we ought to act in a manner so that the fewest people survive, which is absurd.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro03b", "score": 0.6222837567329407, "text": "The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01b", "score": 0.7397288084030151, "text": "Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04a", "score": 0.7016939520835876, "text": "People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-pro03b", "score": 0.6993147730827332, "text": "We fully accept that children are treated differently in the eyes of the law. However, the very fact that proposition allows for that exceptionalism must require them to acknowledge that the role of the parent is given a status different from any other in society. We acknowledge their right to make decisions in the stead of their child, fully accepting that those decisions have enormous implications. We accept that parents take life and death decisions for their children on a regular basis and we must trust them to do so. Society respects the rights of parents to keep their children safe in no end of perilous situations, and when their judgement is wrong, it is a matter for regret, not legislation.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-con02b", "score": 0.6985946893692017, "text": "Parents have every right, if the technology is present, to choose the gender make-up of their family. Guaranteeing (or improving the chances of) a child being of the gender they want means that the child is more likely to fit into the family's dreams. He or she is, bluntly, more likely to be loved. Talk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense. 'All babies are, to some extent, designed. Individuals do not procreate randomly: they choose their partners, and often choose the time of conception according to their own age and prosperity' 1. Parents give so much to children. They invest years of their lives and a large amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn't it fair that in return, they get to decide something like this if they want to? This is an extension of reproductive rights. 1. Meek, J. (2001, July 5). Baby Blues. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Guardian:", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro03b", "score": 0.6984424591064453, "text": "Society routinely accepts that the state has a role in balancing the desires of some with the threats those pose to others. For every reasoned, unpressured decision that can be presented by prop, we can offer a situation in which the decision to die was coerced, or at least was not devoid of financial of self-serving interests on the part of others. The only way to prevent those negative outcomes is to deny the palatable ones through a complete moratorium. Such actions may not become routine yet even one death through compulsion is too many. However it is equally likely that once a right to die becomes established it comes to be seen as normal that someone who is particularly ill or frail will exercise the right to die. Once this is normalised then it becomes easier and easier for the boundary to slowly slip as it is an arbitrary line, either those exercising the right slowly become less and less ill or frail. Alternatively there is a slide into coercion as it becomes normal it begins to be seen as expected that the right will be exercised. [i] [i] Young, Robert, \"Voluntary Euthanasia\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con02b", "score": 0.698154091835022, "text": "In 2006 already Baroness Ruth Deech, the former chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK explained, that it is far more ethical to choose an embryo before implantation, than getting pregnant, deciding there’s something wrong with the baby and then aborting it. Mainly it is the duty to impose the right restrictions that would enable a distinction on what is necessary for a normal lifestyle and where to draw the line for genetic predispositions (so for example to not abort or not implant babies with genes for obesity). Also it is in the human nature to abort fetuses from the uterus if they are not healthy, it is a help to the natural process. Because during every cycle of a sexually active female fertilized eggs if not found to be healthy enough to survive get aborted naturally (1). 1. Head to head: Genetic screening, 05/10/2006, , accessed 05/23/2011", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-health-hgfhwbhc-pro04b", "score": 0.6974155902862549, "text": "When people resort to talking in wholly empty abstract terms about ‘human dignity’ you can be sure that they have no evidence or arguments to back up their position. It is difficult to understand why the act of sexual intercourse that leads to sexual procreation is any more ‘dignified’ or respectable than a reasoned decision by an adult to have a child, that is assisted by modern science. The thousands of children given life through IVF therapy do not suffer a lack of dignity as a consequence of their method of procreation. The Catholic church regards every embryo from the moment of existence as a living person. This position is not shared by most Western governments, and it would deny not only cloning, but IVF and all the medical knowledge and benefits that have accrued from embryo research.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-education-eghbpsbhrt-pro05b", "score": 0.6965916752815247, "text": "Children are too young to internalize and understand broad philosophies of responsibility. A small child refrains from stealing a cookie out of fear of being caught, not out of some grand regard for a morally just universe in which his actions must be scrutinized. Later on, as the child gets older, his/her understanding can mature.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-pro03b", "score": 0.6965441107749939, "text": "First, note that the reason for the existence of the placebo arm is to determine if the drug is more effective than placebo, so in some cases the drug will not be, and nothing will have been lost! Second, for this point to stand, it has to be shown why the present generation should be prioritised above all future ones: the consequences of giving the present patients a slightly increased chance of survival is to negatively impact patients in the future in a myriad ways (see opposition arguments). Third, there are a number of reasons to doubt that this is, in fact in the present patient’s best interest: it is not the case that terminally ill people have ‘nothing to lose’ and can therefore be used as human guinea pigs (providing there is an, as yet unspecified, probability of survival). The large-scale provision of un-trialled drugs may well result in side-effects denigrating the quality of the patient’s remaining years. Finally, the practical consequence considered can be sidestepped through a) better supervision of trials and b) improved doctor-patient relationships (a particular problem during the AIDS crisis). Further, note that the case of AIDS is something of an anomalous one: AIDS patients were more numerous and politicised than any other group before or since, thus enabling this sort of trial-breaking behaviour.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-con02b", "score": 0.6963631510734558, "text": "Parental responsibility is a duty, not a right. Society trusts parents to act in the interests of their child but does not do so unreservedly. Where those actions lead directly to a provable harm, we consider it either neglect or abuse of the child and the parental privileges are revoked. No matter how earnestly the parent may believe it is in the child’s best interest, they may not send them out to work in injurious conditions, they may not allow or encourage them to engage in sexual conduct, they may not allow them to use armaments or certain drugs before a certain age. Because these things cause harm to the child and that is a breach of the duty of care entrusted to the parent by wider society. The same is true of denying them medical treatment.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro02b", "score": 0.6942122578620911, "text": "We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con04b", "score": 0.6940248012542725, "text": "Side proposition are not suggesting that natural selection would not still occur, but that seriously debilitating genetic diseases would no longer lead to the death of many infants, or the poor quality of life. In 1973, we did not have the technology to prevent malaria which we have now. With the technology we have today we can manage and treat many more illnesses than previously thought possible.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-religion-wcprrgrhbmi-con03a", "score": 0.693759560585022, "text": "Parents have the right to use their best judgment, in the light of medical advice, as to what is in the best interest of their child There is compelling evidence that shortly after birth is the best time to perform this operation and that the rate of complications at this age is generally agreed to be between 0.2 and 0.4 percent. When performed later in life the risk of complications increases ten-fold to between two and four percent. In the light of this it is appropriate to recognize the rights of parents to approve a procedure that would be riskier if elected later in life on behalf of their child [i] . [i] Michael Benatar. \"How Not to Argue About Circumcision\". The American Journal of Bioethics. 2003", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02a", "score": 0.6920835971832275, "text": "We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-culture-mrrtdnsnhpc-pro04b", "score": 0.6919644474983215, "text": "Individuals are the best actors to determine for themselves what causes they are willing to make sacrifices for. This is why we allow individuals to volunteer for wars they believe are just, to serve as humanitarian aid workers in impoverished countries, or for any number of unpleasant and potentially dangerous things. If they wanted to, no one can tell the editors and cartoonists that they were wrong to take the actions they did on account of personal safety. But anyway, it is clear that they did not comprehend the scale of the risk they were running by publishing the cartoons, so they cannot be blamed for bringing this upon themselves.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro03b", "score": 0.6918237805366516, "text": "We do not always choose the most rational course of action. If we do not know anything about who we are in the situation we still know that if the one person is killed then their life has been unfairly ended. If the five people die then we know that this is an accident. Therefore we might still choose to allow the five people to die. This is because we can still decide the right or wrong of the situation and choose not to make the decision based on self interest.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-hgfhwbhc-pro03b", "score": 0.6915016174316406, "text": "This argument is wholly unsuited to the modern age. Society freely allows single people to reproduce sexually, whether by accident or design. Existing lawful practices such as sperm donation allow deliberate procreation without knowledge of the identity of the father. Surely it is preferable for a mother to know the genetic heritage of her offspring, rather than accept sperm from an unknown and random donor? Moreover, reproductive cloning will allow lesbian couples to have children genetically related to them both. It might be better for the welfare of the child for it to be born into a happy relationship, but the high rates of single parenthood and divorce suggest that this is not always possible.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con05a", "score": 0.6914456486701965, "text": "Doctors should not be asked to take the moral burden of people who want to commit suicide It is not fair to ask doctors who have committed their lives to preserving health to act as an instrument of killing a person. The doctor will then have to live with the doubt as to whether the act of assisting in the donation was just or not. In other words, if the person who wanted to die for another did not do so voluntarily, the act of killing him or her is morally wrong and the doctor becomes complicit. In order to carry out this scheme, the individual moral autonomy of doctors will be violated. [1] [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-hgfhwbhc-pro02b", "score": 0.6913591623306274, "text": "This argument assumes that we know God’s intentions. Evidently, there is no biblical statement on the ethics of human cloning. Who is to say that it is not God’s will that we clone ourselves? Hindu thought potentially embraces IVF and other assisted reproduction technology (ART). [1] Moreover, every time that a doctor performs life-saving surgery or administers drugs he is changing the destiny of the patient and could be thus seen as usurping the role of God. Furthermore, we should be very wary of banning something without being able to say why it is wrong. That way lie all sorts irrational superstition, repression, fundamentalism and extremism. [1] Tierney, John, ‘Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion’, The New York Times, 20 November 2007,", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro04b", "score": 0.6909446120262146, "text": "We do not need to justify the moral value of severely cognitively disabled persons, although if we wanted to, we could invoke notions of kinship, and family as providing a justification for acting in an apparently specieist manner. [1] Rather, it is sufficient to highlight the point, that experimenting on humans of any cognitive function, carries with it certain negative externalities. Such persons are likely to have relatives who would be harmed by the knowledge that their loved ones are being used in medical experiments for example. Even in the case of such a person who lacks any relatives, broader society and disabled rights groups could be harmed by a policy that allows treating some disabled persons differently to the rest of our moral community. Such externalities would make experimenting on animals, rather than such persons, both preferable and morally consistent. [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01b", "score": 0.6906014680862427, "text": "The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident. By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered. When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right. Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others. Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty? If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro03b", "score": 0.7759952545166016, "text": "Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated." } ]

[ { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro02b", "score": 0.7369043827056885, "text": "Excluding cases of rape, the woman exercises any right to choose in causing conception initially. Afterward, even if a woman has a right to her body and to \"choice\", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-law-ilppppghb-con02a", "score": 0.7327060103416443, "text": "The rise of universal human rights makes self-determination increasingly irrelevant. Across the developed world, modern nation states are bound into a complex network of treaties and international organisations which together go a long way to guaranteeing citizens very similar rights wherever they live. These supra-national rules make it less and less important on what side of an international boundary you happen to live. What matters is not so much self-determination as whether or not an individual citizen is able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those of the majority culture. For example, EU citizens enjoy many common rights, common European citizenship, freedom of movement between member states and so on. Minorities who fifty years ago might have taken up arms to \"free\" themselves from an oppressive nation state – such as Catholics in Northern Ireland – don’t need to do this now, because they have new rights against discrimination, guaranteed and enforced by international treaty.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con01b", "score": 0.730199933052063, "text": "The logical extent of opposition’s argument is a strongly libertarian society that does not legislate on almost any issue because it fears taking away people’s ability to choose. It is important to note that when someone causes a death through ignorant driving they have resulted in the dehumanisation of a person through the removal of their ability to choose. However, more so, the resulting society where people are free to do what they want ignores the fact that often people lack full information to make their decisions in an informed way. It also fails to understand that as time goes on people often regret decisions that they once made. As such, people are often happy to and do make the choice to give up some of their freedoms and allow the state to make those decisions for them. Given then that people consent to having the “humanity” taken away from them, it seems legitimate that the state can make decisions that they might not immediately agree with, under the assumption that the state, as a composite of a large number of different people has a level of oversight that the individual doesn’t. The state has the advantage of being able to take a step back and have a broader perspective. Individuals will make decisions that impact them in a positive way but this does not mean that those decisions will not have a negative wider impact on society. The state uses this broader perspective under the mandate to protect society as a whole looking at what is best for the group not the individual.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-law-ilppppghb-con02b", "score": 0.7278046011924744, "text": "Many minorities live in states where international human rights law is applied inconsistently or indeed not at all. It may not make a life-changing difference to a French-speaking Belgian which side of the France – Belgium border they happen to be born, but to a Palestinian in the West Bank or a Tamil in Sri Lanka, their right to self-determination is absolutely crucial, because other rights may well be denied to them through direct or indirect state discrimination. It is relatively easy for states to explain away individual human rights breaches, since these occur in all nations from time to time. It is much harder for them to justify denying an entire people their right to determine their own futures.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01b", "score": 0.7273147106170654, "text": "The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident. By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered. When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right. Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others. Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty? If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-education-eghhwmvc-con01a", "score": 0.727207601070404, "text": "Compulsory vaccination violates the individuals’ right to bodily integrity In most countries and declarations, one of the most basic human rights is the one to bodily integrity. It sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your body without consent. The NHS (National Health Service) explains: “You must give your consent (permission) before you receive any type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding to donate your organs after your death. If you refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected.” This comes from the principle, that if a person has the capacity to consent to treatment and is making an informed decision (based on pros and cons of the treatment), the decision must be respected. The NHS explains further on: “If you have enough capacity and make a voluntary and informed decision to refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected. This applies even if your decision would result in your death, or the death of your unborn child.” [1] In the case of vaccination this principle should be also applied. Even though we recognize that children are not able to fully comprehend the consequences a refusal would have, the parents should be there to decide on behalf of children over such decisions. The state has no right to stick a needle into a child just because they see fit doing so. It might be contested that in case of life endangering illnesses, the state should override the individuals’ rights. But rejection of vaccinations is not life endangering. So it is the judgment of the individual that is important and should not under any case be violated, just because someone might get an illness that in today’s modern world is easily curable. [1] National Health Service (NHS), Do I have a right to refuse treatment ?, , accessed 29/05/2011", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-law-ilppppghb-con01a", "score": 0.7259200811386108, "text": "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.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-digital-freedoms-aihbiahr-con01b", "score": 0.7245016098022461, "text": "Human rights are meant to protect the individual from the state rather than being dependent upon the state. The state cannot decide what these human rights are and can only constrain human rights if it is necessary to protect the human rights of another. [1] Human rights are necessary precisely because states ignore the freedoms of their citizens so often. The sources of international law are irrelevant when referring to human rights as these are a higher law natural law that overrides a system of international law that has been created only over the last couple of hundred years. [1] Brown, Chris, ‘Human rights’, in John Baylis and Steve smith The globalization of world politics 2nd ed Oxford University Press 2001, pp.599-614 p.604", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro02a", "score": 0.7244855165481567, "text": "Women have a right to choose Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-law-ilppppghb-pro03b", "score": 0.7235638499259949, "text": "The principle of self-determination might seem a straightforward one but in practice it is rarely that simple.Firstly, in many countries, majority and minority groups live side-by-side, rather than in distinct territories. Upholding the right of such a minority to self-determination may not be possible without affecting the rights of the other inhabitants of that area. This damage might be direct – for example, if the people of Catalonia decide to secede from Spain, what will happen to the Spanish inhabitants of Catalonia? – or it may be indirect, as in the example of Palestine, whose independence has long been resisted by Israel on the grounds that it would constitute a threat to Israeli security. Second, it is often difficult to agree, particularly in disputed areas, who falls under the definition of a “native” whose right to self-determination must be respected. For example, should people in Ireland have a say over the future of Northern Ireland, given that most of them consider it an integral part of their own country? Does the right of self-determination for Israelis extend to Jews who live in other countries, given that they have the right to settle in that nation if they choose to? Does it extend to non-Jewish Israelis, and if not, why not? These questions are hard to answer neutrally; to answer them involves making difficult judgements.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-con01a", "score": 0.722652792930603, "text": "Personal autonomy Like many other debates, this simply boils down to personal autonomy. Individuals should be free to take actions, even ones harmful to them as long as they do not harm others, at least not without good reason. Thus things that are almost entirely harmful such as smoking are allowed. It is a matter of personal choice – to suggest otherwise non-white women do not have the capacity to make that choice.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro01a", "score": 0.7221570611000061, "text": "Every human being has a right to life Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. [1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. [2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death. [1] Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005, (accessed 4/6/2011) [2] Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008, (accessed 6/6/2011)", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro01a", "score": 0.7217996716499329, "text": "As humans we try to save as many people as possible There exists a basic right to life which, as humans, we try to follow. Killing others is outlawed because we generally believe that every person has the right to live their life and no one else has the right to take that life away. In the situation with the train there are two possible outcomes which both lead to life being cut short. Due to the fact that we place such value on life we have a duty to reduce the number of people who die. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and this is to kill the one and save the five.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con01b", "score": 0.7188061475753784, "text": "Personal autonomy arguments sound reasonable, but often ignore the wider consequences. Public health is a key issue – the state has a role in stopping people harming themselves – they may be harming themselves but the cost often falls on government through public healthcare, and therefore on all taxpayers. Moreover smoking also harms others through passive smoking, this is particularly true in public places that are enclosed.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01a", "score": 0.714141309261322, "text": "The human right to life compels us to save as many as possible We have good reasons to value keeping people alive: it allows people the opportunity to enjoy their time on Earth and effect changes to everyone’s benefit, even if that simply means being around for our loved ones. Most people would even go so far as to say that, by virtue of being conscious creatures, human beings deserve to live. That is to say, they have a right not to suffer an untimely death. This is the reason that we normally abhor killing: it cuts short human life. However, in this thought experiment, the inescapable reality is that someone’s right to life will be violated. Either the one or the five will die, and all the horrible results attached to the cessation of a human life will inevitably befall one of the groups. In light of this fact, our moral obligation is to reduce the number of people whose right to life is violated and maximize the number for whom that right is actualized. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and that is to kill the one and save the five.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-iilepphbf-con03b", "score": 0.7122420072555542, "text": "The labelling of a right as 'fundamental' ensures it is protected against opportunistic or populist attacks which may not fully consider the long term. As long as we limit our definition of 'fundamental rights' to those things needed and desired by all humans universally, we should avoid enshrining 'rights' which are only needed in some times and places.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con02a", "score": 0.7114369869232178, "text": "Once the moral absolute is broken, there is no other credible point before the right to use becomes standardised. It is easy to say that this social move would not lead to healthy thirty year olds walking into emergency rooms and asking to end it all because they had just broken up with their partner or been sacked. However, it’s rather difficult to see why it should not. Proposition says that all this would do is extend the right to commit suicide to those currently incapable of performing the act themselves but that isn’t so. It also extends the surety of success and of a medically painless procedure that is not available to the teenager with a razorblade or the bankrupt with a bottle of pills and another of vodka. For the sake of exactly the equality of approach, it seems only fair to do so. Proposition are attempting to pick the easy bits of the case but, by doing so, they leave contradictions in their case, why shouldn’t the right to die be universal? They know the reason; society would reject the idea out of hand, regardless of its merits. As a result they draw an arbitrary line simply because it is difficult to argue this right as a response to poverty or grief or addiction. They could argue that all of those things “might” get better. Well similarly a cure for cancer “might” be invented. The only consistent argument is either a universal ban or a universal acceptance. Anything else is an argument about where to draw the line; such approaches tend to lead to a gradual, slippery descent away from the original intentions of legislators. Whatever the initial legislation, it would likely be a matter of days before the court cases started.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-law-lgplhbssbco-pro04b", "score": 0.7107808589935303, "text": "Suicide is different from abortion or cloning or euthanasia in the important respect that it involves only one individual and his choice about the way he lives (and by extension, when he dies). So we can deny any link to these other phenomena. In addition, we can defend suicide on the same basis as one might plausibly and robustly defend all the others: on the basis of the value of individual autonomy. Human dignity is a value that is inextricably linked to the free exercise of individual autonomy; it is the absence of autonomy and the domination of another man over the slave that makes slavery a clear violation of basic human dignity.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-pro02a", "score": 0.7105708718299866, "text": "Parents have a right to acquire and act upon medical information This argument comes from the idea, that a body is the property of its owner, as well as a fertilized egg is the property of the couple that created it whom also have parental rights a) Self-determination Some proponents of genetic screening might go as far to create the distinction between an embryo and a child: considering an embryo not to be a living being, but rather just a mass of cells, makes it possible to avoid entirely considering the \"screening\" process as a selection process between living human beings. Rather, it could be interpreted merely as a selection between different organizations of cells that have differing potential to become healthy \"life\". b) Parental rights Currently we allow couples to choose not to have children due to their own genetic deformations. We allow them to tie their tubes, get sterilized due to their own decision not to have children with genetic defects or children at all. Experts suggest, that due to the sanctity of parental rights, the principle decision making should be in the hands of the parents, also regarding the power over the future of their DNA. With this, the society respects the principal decision making right of the individual to control their family and the destiny of their offspring (1). Mainly making it a next step in deciding what their course of action regarding children will be. 1 Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998, , accessed 05/23/2011", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro03b", "score": 0.7101190090179443, "text": "Equality requires that two beings are actually equal on some fundamental level. Human beings have certain essential similarities that make them equal. These do not stretch to animals. Human beings are able to distinguish right from wrong while animals have no notion of ethics. We are thus able to consider what kind of a society we want to live in and we are affected when we feel that there is social degradation. Animals, however, do not have this sense. We have fundamental dignity which animals do not. This is clear in the fact that animals do not experience shame or embarrassment, desire respect, or have a notion of self. Furthermore, human beings can consider their future and have particular desires about how they want their life to play out. These are different for every individual. This is why we are concerned with choice and protecting individualism and religion. Animals on the other hand are concerned only with immediate survival. They have only instincts, not individual desires and wants. For these reasons, we can't consider animals to be equally morally considerable. As for the propositions standard of relevance for the criteria which distinguish animals from humans in any given case, we would argue that the fundamental individuality and humanity of our species is relevant in every case because it makes animal life fundamentally less valuable.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro04b", "score": 0.7804593443870544, "text": "This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings. As to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs. [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013)." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.7353976368904114, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04b", "score": 0.7346972823143005, "text": "If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02b", "score": 0.7309847474098206, "text": "Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04a", "score": 0.7279298305511475, "text": "People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro02a", "score": 0.7057259678840637, "text": "Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future agead of them The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control’ their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994. [1] [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 (accessed 6/6/2011)", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b", "score": 0.6991739869117737, "text": "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro05b", "score": 0.6991281509399414, "text": "It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro02a", "score": 0.6907030344009399, "text": "Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that. We now live longer than at any time in the 100,000 years or so of human evolution and longer than the other primates [i] . In many nations we have successfully increased the quantity of life without improving the quality. More to the point, too little thought has been given to the quality of our deaths. Let us consider the example of the cancer patient who opts not to put herself through the agony and uncertainty of chemotherapy. In such a circumstance, we accept that a person may accept the certainty of death with grace and reason rather than chasing after a slim probability of living longer but in pain. All proposition is arguing is that this approach can also apply to other conditions, which may not be terminal in the strict sense of the world but certainly lead to the death of that person in any meaningful sense. The application of medical science to extend a life, long after life is ‘worth living’ or would be possible to live without these interventions cannot be considered a moral good for its own sake. Many find that they are facing the prospect of living out the rest of their days in physical pain or are losing their memory. As a result, some may see ‘going out at the top of their game’ as the better, and more natural, option. [i] Caleb E Finch. Evolution of Human Lifespan and the Diseases of Aging: Roles of Infection, Inflammation, and Nutrition. Proceding of the National Academy of Sciences of the united States of America. 12 October 2009.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b", "score": 0.688431441783905, "text": "The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04b", "score": 0.6868063807487488, "text": "Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02a", "score": 0.6800109148025513, "text": "We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro02b", "score": 0.6797818541526794, "text": "To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01a", "score": 0.6790297031402588, "text": "It is a natural thing to do We are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer. [1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less. They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost. [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01b", "score": 0.679024338722229, "text": "The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident. By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered. When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right. Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others. Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty? If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro02a", "score": 0.6787986755371094, "text": "A utilitarian approach will result in a decision that saves the largest number of lives possible. Every time a life is extinguished, some amount of present and future good vanishes from the world. All the good things that that person would have experienced – joy, accomplishment, delight – will no longer occur. Similarly, all the beneficially effects they will have one other people, from productively working to loving their family, will also not occur. True, people also experience unhappy times, and they sometimes negatively affect others, but in all but an exceptionally small number of cases, the net contribution of a human life to total utility is positive (indeed, if it weren’t, we probably wouldn’t consider death to be bad). Even though there will be some fluctuations in how much each life contributes to total utility – a happy doctor probably adds more utility than a miserable meter maid – it is overwhelmingly likely that saving the five lives will result in a situation of greater utility than preserving the life of the one.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02a", "score": 0.67784583568573, "text": "The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed. [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con01a", "score": 0.6771087646484375, "text": "Self-preservation is our primary moral duty Many people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro04a", "score": 0.6717907190322876, "text": "The harms related to a death extend beyond the loss of life Every person who dies leaves behind people whose lives are made dramatically worse by the loss of a loved one. The average person, by continuing to live, helps those around them in a multitude of ways: love for their family, productive enterprise, and any philanthropic behavior in which they may engage. Out of sheer sympathy for the loved ones of the dead, and others who depend on their continued survival, one ought to minimize the number who die, and thus save the five.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro02b", "score": 0.6709069609642029, "text": "Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-con03b", "score": 0.6697354316711426, "text": "Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own life, it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction' [1] . If we accept the proposition that only God can give and take away life then medicine should not be used at all. If only God has the power to give life then medicines and surgeries to prolong people's life should also be considered wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest that medicine can be used to prolong life but it cannot be used to end someone's life. [1] David Hume, Of Suicide, cited in Applied Ethics ed. Peter Singer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) p.23", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02b", "score": 0.8189815282821655, "text": "Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.7513006329536438, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b", "score": 0.7324080467224121, "text": "The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "training-health-mchdhgwhwff-pro01b", "score": 0.7289088368415833, "text": "Life is more important than dignity. None the less there is a significant difference between someone who is in an emergency condition being treated without their consent and someone who has previously refused treatment being forced to have treatment. Patients are allowed to make decisions doctors believe are unwise. [1] [1] Patients.co.uk, ‘Consent To Treatment (Mental Capacity and Mental Helth Legislation)’ 2009,", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04b", "score": 0.7133315205574036, "text": "If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con05a", "score": 0.7103279232978821, "text": "Doctors should not be asked to take the moral burden of people who want to commit suicide It is not fair to ask doctors who have committed their lives to preserving health to act as an instrument of killing a person. The doctor will then have to live with the doubt as to whether the act of assisting in the donation was just or not. In other words, if the person who wanted to die for another did not do so voluntarily, the act of killing him or her is morally wrong and the doctor becomes complicit. In order to carry out this scheme, the individual moral autonomy of doctors will be violated. [1] [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-economy-epeghwrar-pro01b", "score": 0.7099462151527405, "text": "This creates freedom of choice for the donor, but at the same time takes it away from the recipient. Recipients, whether governments or NGOs, will no longer have the money to spend. They will no longer be able to target that funding towards those areas that need it most instead the money will bypass them.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro03b", "score": 0.7082002758979797, "text": "Society routinely accepts that the state has a role in balancing the desires of some with the threats those pose to others. For every reasoned, unpressured decision that can be presented by prop, we can offer a situation in which the decision to die was coerced, or at least was not devoid of financial of self-serving interests on the part of others. The only way to prevent those negative outcomes is to deny the palatable ones through a complete moratorium. Such actions may not become routine yet even one death through compulsion is too many. However it is equally likely that once a right to die becomes established it comes to be seen as normal that someone who is particularly ill or frail will exercise the right to die. Once this is normalised then it becomes easier and easier for the boundary to slowly slip as it is an arbitrary line, either those exercising the right slowly become less and less ill or frail. Alternatively there is a slide into coercion as it becomes normal it begins to be seen as expected that the right will be exercised. [i] [i] Young, Robert, \"Voluntary Euthanasia\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02b", "score": 0.7073913812637329, "text": "This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro03b", "score": 0.7045875787734985, "text": "The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con04b", "score": 0.7030234932899475, "text": "Obviously nobody is going to compel doctors or others in the medical profession to undertake a procedure of which they do not approve. Indeed doctors are routinely required to give independent advice - so that a patient is aware of the available options - without being required to perform a procedure themselves. The same is true with relatives or friends. There are many issues in life, where we may disagree with someone’s decision but we respect their right to make that decision just as they respect ours to check that they have considered all the implications. In the case of the doctors this is simple professionalism, in the case of loved ones, respect.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro03b", "score": 0.7026903033256531, "text": "Demanding that family take part in such a decision can be an unbearable burden: many may resent a loved one’s decision to die, and would be either emotionally scared or estranged by the prospect of being in any way involved with their death. Assisted suicide also introduces a new danger, that the terminally ill may be pressured into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to support them through their illness. Even the most well regulated system would have no real way to ensure that this did not happen.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03a", "score": 0.701258659362793, "text": "Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive. For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-sport-ehcpssohwpup-con02b", "score": 0.7005292773246765, "text": "There is no such thing as a forced decision. Everyone has complete control over their own body and their own decisions. Everyone has an absolute right to possession of one’s own body. If you own your body then you can choose what to do with it, and any exchange, such as money to an employer in exchange for use of your body (labour) is justified, because it was a voluntary exchange and you still possess yourself. If you choose to take drugs, you have not been forced into it no matter the peer pressure you may be under or that other having taken the drugs may make you uncompetitive.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con01b", "score": 0.6973977088928223, "text": "This argument is selfish and ignores how love might push a person to make great sacrifices. We might have imperfect information about our importance, but whatever information we have, gives us an idea of how to assess complicated situations. If we were to follow this logic, self-determination would be impossible", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-health-hpessghwgt-pro03a", "score": 0.6957405805587769, "text": "It is unethical to force a ‘volunteer’ to take the chance of being randomised onto the placebo arm of a trial Under the status quo, someone with a terminal illness is offered two choices: death, or to join a trial (where such trials exist). However, when they join a trial they face the possibility that they will be given a placebo, not the drug. Whilst this is probably in the best interest of future patients (a good clinical trial will determine the efficacy of the new treatment), it rides roughshod over the rights of the current patients (not to be sacrificed for future generations) and the duty of physicians to act in the best interests of their present patients. There are two consequences here: the first is that it is morally dubious to use the present patients as mere means to an end, rather than acting in their own best interests, especially where, if randomized to the placebo arm the outcome of death is a certainty. The second consequence is a practical one: compliance with the trial is lessened at the point at which patients can take alternative measures to increase their chance of survival. This was best documented during the early stages of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, where there was evidence of ‘cheating’ during the trials1. People lied or bribed their way into clinical studies; and shared drugs to dilute the ‘risk’ of being on placebo. This has the obvious impact of casting doubt on the scientific results of the trials: you can no longer be sure who has taken what, and what other conditions they may have. 1 Schüklenk, Udo, and Lowry, Christopher, ‘Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: reviewing the ethical arguments’, British Medical Bulletin, Vol.89, 2009, pp.7-22,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.6954649090766907, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro03b", "score": 0.6937733888626099, "text": "Behind the veil of ignorance, human beings may not in fact side with what gives them the statistical greatest chance of survival. As Rawls himself notes, people are naturally risk-averse, and thus will select the rules that protect them from the worst possible situations, even if that sacrifice would help many others. Most people find the prospect of being actively killed by the conscious action of another human being worse than simply dying in an accident, and would seek to protect themselves against that worse outcome.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con05b", "score": 0.6936526894569397, "text": "This is easily solved. Similarly to doctors who assist in cases of abortion or even executions doctors must have the option of opting out. However, once it is proven that this model is ethically good, it is likely that there are doctors who will realise the potential of this method and who will want to participate. After all, this is a motion that relates to the exceptional cases, so even if most doctors opt out there will still be doctors who will be willing to operate under this scheme.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro05b", "score": 0.6934579014778137, "text": "It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro01b", "score": 0.69293612241745, "text": "There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Arguments from pro-life groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated. [1] If they had been treated for depression as well as pain they may not have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral. [1] Herbert Hendin, M.D., Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients, and Assisted Suicide (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998): 34-35. (accessed 4/6/2011)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con05b", "score": 0.7297956347465515, "text": "This is easily solved. Similarly to doctors who assist in cases of abortion or even executions doctors must have the option of opting out. However, once it is proven that this model is ethically good, it is likely that there are doctors who will realise the potential of this method and who will want to participate. After all, this is a motion that relates to the exceptional cases, so even if most doctors opt out there will still be doctors who will be willing to operate under this scheme." } ]

[ { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02a", "score": 0.6928229331970215, "text": "We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con04a", "score": 0.6922651529312134, "text": "The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself. Even setting aside the religious concerns of many in this situation [i] , there are solid secular reasons for accepting the sanctity of life. First among them is the impact it has on the survivors. The relative who does not want a loved one to take their own life, or to die in the case of euthanasia. It is simply untrue that others are not affect by the death of the individual – someone needs to support that person emotionally and someone has to administer the injection. Because of the ties of love involved for relatives, they are, in effect, left with no choice but to agree regardless of their own views, the law should respect their position as well. It further gives protection to doctors and others who would be involved in the procedure. Campaigners are keen to stress that doctors should be involved in the process whilst ignoring that, pretty much whenever they’re asked doctors say they have no desire to have any part of it [ii] . Indeed it would be against the Hippocratic oath which while it is no longer always taken still sums up the duties of a doctor which includes doing no harm and includes \"And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel.\" So ruling out euthanasia. [iii] Presumably, the very case that is so keen on the voluntary principle would also observe this compelling rejection by a group critical to the plan. [i] Joint letter to the Telegraph. The terminally ill need care and protection – not help in committing suicide. The Most Rev Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster. Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi. [ii] Ella Pickover. Doctors Reject Assisted Suicide. The Independent. 28 June 2012 . [iii] Sokol, Dr Daniel, ‘A guide to the Hippocratic Oath’, BBC News, 26 October 2008 ,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01a", "score": 0.6912391185760498, "text": "It is a natural thing to do We are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer. [1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less. They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost. [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con06a", "score": 0.6910589933395386, "text": "Utilitarianism is morally demanding If we recognize a duty to actively go out of our way (and indeed, carry the burden of killing another person) to save another person just because it’s in our power, then all sorts of new obligations open up. For instance, we are now obliged to donate all of our disposable income to charity because we could do so and each save dozens of lives a year. The reason why some religious institutions canonize people is precisely because their philanthropy is exceptional and beyond what could be expected of the average person: people like Damien of Molokai, who traveled to an island to help people suffering from leprosy, knowing that he would eventually contract the disease in the process [1] . While such actions may be praiseworthy, it is implausible that they would be morally obligatory. [1] Donadio, Rachel, ‘Benedict Canonizes 5 New Saints’, The New York Times, 11 October 2009,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02b", "score": 0.6862091422080994, "text": "There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con03b", "score": 0.6859732866287231, "text": "This risk can be mitigated by making it clear that the elderly, disabled, and others who may feel a burden are genuinely wanted as a part of society but that the right to die is there if they feel it is too much. Any right to die being allowed is not going to be as simple as going to the doctors and getting an injection. In any system there would be checks and balances put in place. There would probably be some form of application process, checks to see if there is any coercion and that it is what the individual really wants as well as probably some form of cooling off period after which the checks would probably be redone before they finally have their chance to exercise their right to die.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04a", "score": 0.684371292591095, "text": "People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-health-mchdhgwhwff-pro04b", "score": 0.6842084527015686, "text": "When it comes to hunger strikes the World Medical Association says that “Forcible feeding is never ethically acceptable.” [1] While there are obviously differences in terms of the objective when it comes to the consent of the patient there is no difference. In both cases the patient does not want to be force fed and understand what the consequences may be. [1] World Medical Association, ‘WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers’, 2006", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02a", "score": 0.6841544508934021, "text": "The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life It is not fair to ask of a parent to live with the guilt of having been able to save their child and not doing so. Believing that they are guilty of their child’s death can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, which in turn is a major cause of suicides. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro02b", "score": 0.683214008808136, "text": "To weigh up human lives in this calculated manner inherently strips them of dignity and reduces them to mere numbers. This “aggregative” ethical standpoint, in which a loss of utility to one person can be compensated for by gains in utility to other people, fails to respect “the separateness of persons” [1] . We are all different people, and we do not all share in the alleged benefits to maximizing total utility. For this reason, our moral intuitions reject out-of-hand many variants on “killing one to save five”; for instance, we would think it abhorrent to abduct a random person and harvest their organs in order to save five dying people, even in the absence of side effects like people now being afraid of having their organs taken. Also, see “different lives weigh differently” argument below. [1] Richardson, Henry S., ‘John Rawls (1921-2002)’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 18 November 2005,", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro04b", "score": 0.683001697063446, "text": "This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings. As to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs. [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con04b", "score": 0.6818807721138, "text": "The specific circumstances of every case need to be taken into account. In this case someone will definitely lose their life and one’s decision is to decide how to minimize the damage done. It is wrong to suggest that this is an act of killing; instead it is an attempt to reduce the number of deaths in a tragic situation. Pulling the lever is not an act that the person would do if the five people were not tied down and so it is very different from an act of intentional murder.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con05b", "score": 0.6798753142356873, "text": "All the same harms apply if the moral agent lets the five die. They still must cope with the knowledge that their decision resulted in deaths, in fact, more deaths. Indeed, PTSD is brought on by experience with horrific death regardless of whether or not the sufferer caused the death [1] . [1] Martynowicz, Daniel, ‘Afghanistan PTSD Worse Than Vietnam’, News By The Second, 1 July 2010,", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01b", "score": 0.679823637008667, "text": "The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident. By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered. When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right. Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others. Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty? If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con06b", "score": 0.6787608861923218, "text": "Firstly, it may well be the case that we are indeed morally obligated to donate all of our disposable to charity; the longer one considers how many people could be saved with the money one spends on a flat screen television, the less acceptable the purchase becomes. However, there are also meaningful distinctions between the thought experiment and donation to charity. In the thought experiment, there is no one else who can possibly come to the aid of the five. This is distinct from the complexities of a global economy where there are other possible moral saviors and the path to saving lives is far less clear.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-con03b", "score": 0.6784792542457581, "text": "Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own life, it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction' [1] . If we accept the proposition that only God can give and take away life then medicine should not be used at all. If only God has the power to give life then medicines and surgeries to prolong people's life should also be considered wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest that medicine can be used to prolong life but it cannot be used to end someone's life. [1] David Hume, Of Suicide, cited in Applied Ethics ed. Peter Singer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) p.23", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03a", "score": 0.6760730147361755, "text": "Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive. For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con04b", "score": 0.6753421425819397, "text": "The moral agent’s decision will not necessarily have such wide-ranging consequences. In many cases, the matter will remain fairly quiet (even if it is reported to the police). Furthermore, this is only dubiously a “killing” if one does not adopt a deontological take on the action; it’s simply a weighing of the benefits of who can be saved. In another sense, branding it as making “killing” acceptable is misleading, because this is not a moral license to commit wanton murders, but instead a sacrifice in a situation with no bloodless answer. Moreover, even if the decision becomes public knowledge, and is defined as killing, people will recognize that the circumstances of having to make this decision were truly exceptional.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con01a", "score": 0.6741974949836731, "text": "Self-preservation is our primary moral duty Many people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02b", "score": 0.6739627718925476, "text": "This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04b", "score": 0.7612963318824768, "text": "If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012," } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro02b", "score": 0.7042428255081177, "text": "Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-con04b", "score": 0.6994128227233887, "text": "However, the idea that we should not kill is not absolute, even for those with religious beliefs — killing in war or self-defence is justified by most. We already let people die because they are allowed to refuse treatment which could save their life, and this has not damaged anyone's respect for the worth of human life. Concerning the notion that legalised voluntary euthanasia might lead to involuntary euthanasia being carried out, there is no evidence to suggest this. As Ronald Dworkin states, 'Of course doctors know the moral difference between helping people who beg to die and killing those who want to live.' [1] [1] Ronald Dworkin, stated in The case against, available at (accessed 4/6/2011).", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03a", "score": 0.6958028674125671, "text": "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04b", "score": 0.6954666972160339, "text": "Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-con02b", "score": 0.6951653361320496, "text": "Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances – those who end their own lives are not seen as evil. It seems odd that it is a crime to assist a non-crime. The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are unable to die without assistance. For example, in March 1993 Anthony Bland had lain in persistent vegetative state for three years before a Court Order allowed his degradation and indignity to come to a merciful close. [1] It might cause unnecessary pain for people if they make an attempt at suicide themselves and subsequently fail. Rather than the pain-free methods that could be available through doctors and modern medicine. [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 (accessed 6/6/2011)", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro03b", "score": 0.6931251883506775, "text": "Society routinely accepts that the state has a role in balancing the desires of some with the threats those pose to others. For every reasoned, unpressured decision that can be presented by prop, we can offer a situation in which the decision to die was coerced, or at least was not devoid of financial of self-serving interests on the part of others. The only way to prevent those negative outcomes is to deny the palatable ones through a complete moratorium. Such actions may not become routine yet even one death through compulsion is too many. However it is equally likely that once a right to die becomes established it comes to be seen as normal that someone who is particularly ill or frail will exercise the right to die. Once this is normalised then it becomes easier and easier for the boundary to slowly slip as it is an arbitrary line, either those exercising the right slowly become less and less ill or frail. Alternatively there is a slide into coercion as it becomes normal it begins to be seen as expected that the right will be exercised. [i] [i] Young, Robert, \"Voluntary Euthanasia\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-con01b", "score": 0.6923551559448242, "text": "At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide. [1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org (accessed 4/6/2011)", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-con01a", "score": 0.6890817284584045, "text": "It is worse to actively participate in a death then to simply allow an individual to die While people die all the time, it is exceptionally rare for one human being to intentionally cause the death of another, even for a perceived “greater good.” The difference is that when one actively kills, one causes the killing. They bring about something that would not otherwise have happened, and they set it in motion. What is key is the moral actor’s role in the very inception of the threat to the life of another person. Their responsibility for the resulting death is far greater than had they committed the same non-action as every other person who wasn’t present to make the decision at all.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con04a", "score": 0.6864087581634521, "text": "The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself. Even setting aside the religious concerns of many in this situation [i] , there are solid secular reasons for accepting the sanctity of life. First among them is the impact it has on the survivors. The relative who does not want a loved one to take their own life, or to die in the case of euthanasia. It is simply untrue that others are not affect by the death of the individual – someone needs to support that person emotionally and someone has to administer the injection. Because of the ties of love involved for relatives, they are, in effect, left with no choice but to agree regardless of their own views, the law should respect their position as well. It further gives protection to doctors and others who would be involved in the procedure. Campaigners are keen to stress that doctors should be involved in the process whilst ignoring that, pretty much whenever they’re asked doctors say they have no desire to have any part of it [ii] . Indeed it would be against the Hippocratic oath which while it is no longer always taken still sums up the duties of a doctor which includes doing no harm and includes \"And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel.\" So ruling out euthanasia. [iii] Presumably, the very case that is so keen on the voluntary principle would also observe this compelling rejection by a group critical to the plan. [i] Joint letter to the Telegraph. The terminally ill need care and protection – not help in committing suicide. The Most Rev Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster. Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi. [ii] Ella Pickover. Doctors Reject Assisted Suicide. The Independent. 28 June 2012 . [iii] Sokol, Dr Daniel, ‘A guide to the Hippocratic Oath’, BBC News, 26 October 2008 ,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "training-health-mchdhgwhwff-pro04a", "score": 0.6852434277534485, "text": "In the first instance, doctors should always act to keep a patient alive Medical ethics say that a doctor has a responsibility to keep the patient alive to administer treatment. In the UK Diana Pretty was denied the right to die by the House of Lords even though she consistently requested it. The Israeli Courts ordered the force- feeding of political hunger strikers arguing that in a conflict between life and dignity, life wins. India prosecuted a physician who allowed a hunger striker to die. The medical profession take their responsibility for life very seriously on a global level.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con01a", "score": 0.682414710521698, "text": "Killing is worse than letting someone die People die in accidents and by natural cause all of the time. However, it is much rarer for a person to be actively involved in another person’s death. If one chooses to pull the lever and change the course of the train then one is actively participating in the death of the one person. The other option involves no action; it simply allows a set of events to run their course. There is, therefore, a greater responsibility involved in being actively involved in the death of another.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04a", "score": 0.6820791959762573, "text": "People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02a", "score": 0.6816868782043457, "text": "We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro03b", "score": 0.6816328763961792, "text": "Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con01b", "score": 0.6800588369369507, "text": "Choosing not to act in the situation is still a choice and does not remove the responsibility in the situation. If someone stands by and watched as another person drowns, even though they could have rescued them, then they are no better than the murderer who participates in a person’s death. The idea that active killing only relates to taking action to cause death is wrong. When one has the ability to prevent death then one is actively involved in the situation whether one chooses to accept it or not.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro05b", "score": 0.6797974109649658, "text": "It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con01a", "score": 0.6788490414619446, "text": "Self-preservation is our primary moral duty Many people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-law-lgplhbssbco-pro03b", "score": 0.6788175702095032, "text": "Society can perfectly well spread the message that suicide is not a valid life choice without criminalizing and punishing those that have tried and failed to perpetrate it. Moreover, we have grave doubts about the practical use of anti-suicide legislation. It is highly dubious that people who are driven to contemplate suicide will be dissuaded by the knowledge that they would be breaking the law. The spectre of punishment only awaits those who fail to commit suicide. These people have already decided that their lives are not worth living; branding them criminal and punishing them is hardly likely to make them reconsider their decision.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-health-dhpelhbass-pro02a", "score": 0.6765257120132446, "text": "Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future agead of them The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control’ their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994. [1] [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 (accessed 6/6/2011)", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "validation-philosophy-ehbidachsb-pro01a", "score": 0.6763738393783569, "text": "The right to live to regret The primary duty placed on doctors, by society and themselves, is the preservation of life. In pursuing this goal they use not only medicines and scalpels but, first and foremost, their judgement. In many countries practising medics swear an oath to this effect; although these vary greatly in detail, they are well encapsulated by the Declaration of Geneva [i] , the critical clause of which for the purpose of this debate is “The health of my patient will be my first consideration”. Asking doctors to take other considerations into account is not only a breach of their professional integrity, it also poses grave risks for society. They are being asked, in this situation, to allow the opinions of a third party take precedence over the wellbeing of their patient. If this were a younger relative with their eye on an inheritance or a distant sibling seeking to settle an old score, the dangers would be all too apparent. In this instance, the motivation may be well-intentioned but it is no more reasonable. Allowing relatives to say “well, what I think you should do is X” in defiance of medical opinion is fraught with dangers. If a relative decided on behalf of a patient to reject chemotherapy in favour of prayer or expressed their preference for Shamanic rituals rather than medication, why not let them. After all their intent is just as compassionate and their reasoning as solid. [i] There are several forms of the declaration some of them, including the modern one in most common usage, can be found here .", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b", "score": 0.8409956693649292, "text": "The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4." } ]

[ { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03a", "score": 0.7712885141372681, "text": "Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive. For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04b", "score": 0.7705309391021729, "text": "If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b", "score": 0.7669585347175598, "text": "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04b", "score": 0.7656521201133728, "text": "Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con03b", "score": 0.7620636820793152, "text": "Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro03b", "score": 0.7586623430252075, "text": "Society routinely accepts that the state has a role in balancing the desires of some with the threats those pose to others. For every reasoned, unpressured decision that can be presented by prop, we can offer a situation in which the decision to die was coerced, or at least was not devoid of financial of self-serving interests on the part of others. The only way to prevent those negative outcomes is to deny the palatable ones through a complete moratorium. Such actions may not become routine yet even one death through compulsion is too many. However it is equally likely that once a right to die becomes established it comes to be seen as normal that someone who is particularly ill or frail will exercise the right to die. Once this is normalised then it becomes easier and easier for the boundary to slowly slip as it is an arbitrary line, either those exercising the right slowly become less and less ill or frail. Alternatively there is a slide into coercion as it becomes normal it begins to be seen as expected that the right will be exercised. [i] [i] Young, Robert, \"Voluntary Euthanasia\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02b", "score": 0.7577604055404663, "text": "Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02a", "score": 0.7516087293624878, "text": "The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed. [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro04b", "score": 0.7452309131622314, "text": "This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings. As to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs. [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con03b", "score": 0.7412376999855042, "text": "This risk can be mitigated by making it clear that the elderly, disabled, and others who may feel a burden are genuinely wanted as a part of society but that the right to die is there if they feel it is too much. Any right to die being allowed is not going to be as simple as going to the doctors and getting an injection. In any system there would be checks and balances put in place. There would probably be some form of application process, checks to see if there is any coercion and that it is what the individual really wants as well as probably some form of cooling off period after which the checks would probably be redone before they finally have their chance to exercise their right to die.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro03b", "score": 0.7377219200134277, "text": "Behind the veil of ignorance, human beings may not in fact side with what gives them the statistical greatest chance of survival. As Rawls himself notes, people are naturally risk-averse, and thus will select the rules that protect them from the worst possible situations, even if that sacrifice would help many others. Most people find the prospect of being actively killed by the conscious action of another human being worse than simply dying in an accident, and would seek to protect themselves against that worse outcome.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro04a", "score": 0.7367941737174988, "text": "People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro05b", "score": 0.7364517450332642, "text": "It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro04a", "score": 0.7357606887817383, "text": "We should preserve the person with greater quality of life We have to be able to measure quality of life relatively. There might be many cases where a relative is terminally ill, yet not dead yet. This person, with a survival prospect of maybe half a year of suffering and medication, might have a perfectly functional organ. [1] It is very rational, both for this person and for society as a whole to allow him or her to undergo euthanasia at an early stage to save the other person. [2] Furthermore, a person might sacrifice his or her life to provide an organ for a specific individual, yet their other organs can still be used to save others, of whom the donor might not have been aware. It is sad that a person has to die, but as this is the only option [3] , it is a good thing that several people might live when one sacrifices their life. [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301. [2] Wilkinson, Dominc and Julian Savalescu. “SHOULD WE ALLOW ORGAN DONATION EUTHANASIA? ALTERNATIVES FOR MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION.” Bioethics 26.1 (2012): 32-48. [3] ibid", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro02b", "score": 0.7344575524330139, "text": "There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-pro03b", "score": 0.7331392765045166, "text": "The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hdond-con02b", "score": 0.7310607433319092, "text": "This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02a", "score": 0.7284822463989258, "text": "We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro01b", "score": 0.720137894153595, "text": "It is the mark of a civilised society that we accept the inconvenience of laws in some circumstances because we also require their protection in others. To take a trivial example we take away the choice for people to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else. Here the protection offered by a full moratorium on killing requires that we accept all of its implications. The challenge is to use medical science to make it a moot point. Proposition has therefore made a powerful argument in favour of better painkillers and more research into mentally debilitating illnesses. Many of those developments have come about as a result of the very human attributes prop is so keen to cite. Realising that they have an opportunity of future free of pain and illness, humans have found ways of delivering it. It is precisely because death can now be managed that the process of self-imposed triage prop suggests is increasingly unnecessary; a fact to be applauded, not discarded", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elhbrd-con03a", "score": 0.7198357582092285, "text": "There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved. By far the biggest worry is that a right to die will create a silent form of coercion that cannot be detected. In the West’s increasingly elderly society the role of older people in that society, their value and their continuing contribution is all too likely to be masked by the issue of the cost placed on those of working age. Even where older people do not face pressure from their families, society needs to be aware of this wider narrative. Such a narrative will slowly create a norm where the elderly feel that they are a burden and it is expected that they will exercise their right to die. The ‘choice’ will remain and they will even think it a choice free of coercion but will exercise their right not because they really want to die but because they feel it is what they ought to do, once the right to die is completely normalised those exercising it may not even consider that what they are doing is not really of their free will. Perceiving oneself as a burden is already a common cause of suicide [i] and would certainly increase if it were to no longer be considered taboo. Not having a right to die will not stop arguments about the burden placed on the working members of society by the elderly but it will stop this going any further towards the creation of a culture where individuals consider it normal that they should die when they feel they are a burden. [i] Joiner, Thomas E. et al., ‘The Psychology and Neurobiology of Suicidal Behaviour’, Annual Review of Psychology, 10 September 2004, p.304 .", "topk_rank": 19 } ]