Question:
Holocaust Denial

Speech acts lead to physical acts. Thus pornography, hate speech and political polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection.

Both scientific creationism and Holocaust denial have serious, and dangerous, hidden agendas. Deniers of the Nanjing Massacre believe that the Japanese did nothing wrong in the Second World War and continue to claim that it was a war of liberation against western colonialism - feeding Japanese militarism today. Holocaust deniers, in claiming that a Jewish conspiracy is responsible for the widespread belief that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, are closely allied to anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism. We should not allow such views the legitimacy which being debated gives them.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

The Japanese have no intention of offending South Korea or China with their textbooks and these countries should not be taking offense over such minor issues. While it is regrettable that a tiny minority of students may get a biased view of history from the New History Textbook the actual harm is miniscule. No individuals are directly insulted by a sin of omission, and no one comes to physical harm. Even those who were victims of the Japanese would probably be better off attempting to get formal apologies for the actual crime rather than attacking misrepresentations that will be seen by so few.

For the most part this is an issue whipped up by the two governments who wish to use Japan’s WWII past to try and force concessions today and to direct nationalist ire away from the government. In China according the Edward Friedman, an expert on Chinese nationalism, “anti-Japan nationalism became a great legitimating glue to hold the society together”. [1]

[1] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘Nationalism in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 23 April 2008, http://www.cfr.org/china/nationalism-china/p16079

This policy will not be a public statement of anything other than Western attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of others. It is also a powerfully hypocritical message; many democracies have libel laws that prevent libel and misrepresentation and authoritarian states should be allowed to have the same laws which will sometimes impact on bloggers. [1]

[1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party?page=6

It is a massive overstatement to say that recent events are equivalent to the privatization of language. Were people to be charged every time they used the word “Olympic”, say, that would look like the privatisation of language, this is merely sponsors protecting the association with an event that they paid for in the first place.

Additionally, to portray this as a conspiracy raises the question of, “To what end?” Government works with major organisations as partners all the time, precisely because it saves the taxpayer money to do so. Although the taxpayer has footed a significant bill for the games, it would have been that much larger without sponsors and it is the taxpayer, not the sponsors, who receive the infrastructural benefits, which is what they paid for. The sponsors receive promotion for their brands, which is what they paid for. It’s a simple quid pro quo. Other companies trying to muscle in on the act have paid for nothing – and that is just what they should get. [i] .

[i] London 2012. Olympic Legacy Website.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Individual Liberty outweighs any potential harms

Whatever the potential harms that may arise from unrestrained free speech; they pale in comparison to the harm that arises from banning an individual from freely expressing his own mind.

It is a matter of the upmost individual liberty that one’s thoughts and feelings are one’s own, and that individuals are free to express those thoughts and feelings openly. A prohibition on this liberty is a harm of incalculable value – it strikes right to the core of what it means to be in individual person.

Liberty is an intangible right – restrictions on liberty can be equally intangible and entirely transitory based on the circumstances.

What we know though is that real harm is derived from defaming an individual’s reputation, broadcasting racist abuse and shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. It is wrong to ignore real, tangible harm in favour of preventing fanciful and intangible harms.

Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

The Japanese have no intention of offending South Korea or China with their textbooks and these countries should not be taking offense over such minor issues. While it is regrettable that a tiny minority of students may get a biased view of history from the New History Textbook the actual harm is miniscule. No individuals are directly insulted by a sin of omission, and no one comes to physical harm. Even those who were victims of the Japanese would probably be better off attempting to get formal apologies for the actual crime rather than attacking misrepresentations that will be seen by so few.

For the most part this is an issue whipped up by the two governments who wish to use Japan’s WWII past to try and force concessions today and to direct nationalist ire away from the government. In China according the Edward Friedman, an expert on Chinese nationalism, “anti-Japan nationalism became a great legitimating glue to hold the society together”. [1]

[1] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘Nationalism in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 23 April 2008, http://www.cfr.org/china/nationalism-china/p16079

This policy will not be a public statement of anything other than Western attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of others. It is also a powerfully hypocritical message; many democracies have libel laws that prevent libel and misrepresentation and authoritarian states should be allowed to have the same laws which will sometimes impact on bloggers. [1]

[1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party?page=6

It is a massive overstatement to say that recent events are equivalent to the privatization of language. Were people to be charged every time they used the word “Olympic”, say, that would look like the privatisation of language, this is merely sponsors protecting the association with an event that they paid for in the first place.

Additionally, to portray this as a conspiracy raises the question of, “To what end?” Government works with major organisations as partners all the time, precisely because it saves the taxpayer money to do so. Although the taxpayer has footed a significant bill for the games, it would have been that much larger without sponsors and it is the taxpayer, not the sponsors, who receive the infrastructural benefits, which is what they paid for. The sponsors receive promotion for their brands, which is what they paid for. It’s a simple quid pro quo. Other companies trying to muscle in on the act have paid for nothing – and that is just what they should get. [i] .

[i] London 2012. Olympic Legacy Website.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Free speech allows challenges to orthodox beliefs

Free speech is not merely a ‘nice thing to have’, it is a mechanism which brings real, tangible benefits to society by allowing people to challenge orthodoxy. States that do not allow orthodox beliefs to be challenged stagnate and decline.

Reducing restrictions on free speech to ‘special exceptions’ frustrates the whole point because it is precisely those special exceptions where established truth needs to be challenged. This is not restricted to matters of pure opinion – the modern scientific process relies upon professionals being able to vehemently disagree on matters of crucial fact. “Real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge.” [1]

[1] Sarewitz, Daniel, ‘The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree’, Nature, Vol 487, No.7, 5 October 2011,

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

The Japanese have no intention of offending South Korea or China with their textbooks and these countries should not be taking offense over such minor issues. While it is regrettable that a tiny minority of students may get a biased view of history from the New History Textbook the actual harm is miniscule. No individuals are directly insulted by a sin of omission, and no one comes to physical harm. Even those who were victims of the Japanese would probably be better off attempting to get formal apologies for the actual crime rather than attacking misrepresentations that will be seen by so few.

For the most part this is an issue whipped up by the two governments who wish to use Japan’s WWII past to try and force concessions today and to direct nationalist ire away from the government. In China according the Edward Friedman, an expert on Chinese nationalism, “anti-Japan nationalism became a great legitimating glue to hold the society together”. [1]

[1] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘Nationalism in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 23 April 2008, http://www.cfr.org/china/nationalism-china/p16079

This policy will not be a public statement of anything other than Western attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of others. It is also a powerfully hypocritical message; many democracies have libel laws that prevent libel and misrepresentation and authoritarian states should be allowed to have the same laws which will sometimes impact on bloggers. [1]

[1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party?page=6

It is a massive overstatement to say that recent events are equivalent to the privatization of language. Were people to be charged every time they used the word “Olympic”, say, that would look like the privatisation of language, this is merely sponsors protecting the association with an event that they paid for in the first place.

Additionally, to portray this as a conspiracy raises the question of, “To what end?” Government works with major organisations as partners all the time, precisely because it saves the taxpayer money to do so. Although the taxpayer has footed a significant bill for the games, it would have been that much larger without sponsors and it is the taxpayer, not the sponsors, who receive the infrastructural benefits, which is what they paid for. The sponsors receive promotion for their brands, which is what they paid for. It’s a simple quid pro quo. Other companies trying to muscle in on the act have paid for nothing – and that is just what they should get. [i] .

[i] London 2012. Olympic Legacy Website.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
There is ample precedent in the form of other “sin” taxes

A sin tax is a term often used for fees tacked on to popular vices like drinking, gambling and smoking. Its roots have been traced back to the 16th century Vatican, where Pope Leo X taxed licensed prostitutes. [1]

More recently, and with greater success, US federal cigarette taxes were shown to have reduced consumption by 4% for every 10% increase in the price of cigarettes. [2]

Given the success achieved with uprooting this societal vice, which on a number of counts is similar to the unhealthy food one - immense health costs linked to a choice to consume a product – we should employ this tried and true strategy to combat the obesity epidemic.

In fact, a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine followed 5000 people for 20 years, tracking food consumption and various biological metrics. The report states that “Researchers found that, incremental increases in price of unhealthy foods resulted in incremental decreases in consumption. In other words, when junk food cost more, people ate it less.” [3]

Thus leaning on the successful tradition of existing “sin” taxes and research that points out the potential for success of a similar solution in this arena, it should be concluded that a fat tax is an important part of a sensible and effective solution to the obesity epidemic.

[1] Altman, A., A Brief History Of: Sin Taxes, published 4/2/2009, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889187,00.html , accessed 9/12/2011

[2] CDC, Steady Increases in Tobacco Taxes Promote Quitting, Discourage Smoking, published 5/27/2009, http://www.cdc.gov/features/SecondhandSmoke/ , accessed 14/9/2011

[3] O'Callaghan, T., Sin taxes promote healthier food choices, published 3/10/2010, http://healthland.time.com/2010/03/10/study-sin-taxes-promote-healthier-food-choices/ , accessed 9/12/2011

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, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-roberts/why-junk-food-is-ok-for-kids_b_858326.html , accessed 9/12/2011

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

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.

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.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

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?

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.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

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.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
A fat tax levels out the playing field for healthier food

An important reason why people continuously turn to unhealthy, fat, sugar and salt laden food, is the simple fact that it’s often cheaper than a more wholesome meal comprised at least in part of fresh produce.

A study done at the University of Washington found that “when they compared the prices of 370 foods… junk foods not only cost less… but junk food prices are also less likely to rise as a result of inflation.” [1]

A similar conclusion was reached by a group of Australian researchers, who found that the prices of healthy food have risen 20 per cent above inflation, while the harmful counterpart have actually dropped below inflation – as much as 20 per cent below. [2]

Noting that obesity is more prevalent in groups of lower socioeconomic status, we find that the price of food is a substantial incentive for consumption.

Thus it is only reasonable to levy a tax against unhealthy, fatty food in order to give healthy food a fighting chance.

[1] Parker-Pope, T., A High Price for Healthy Food, published 12/5/2007, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/ , accessed 9/12/2011

[2] Burns, C., The rising cost of healthy foods, published 10/16/2008, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-10-15/the-rising-cost-of-healthy-foods/542604 , accessed 9/12/2011

While the tax might level out the playing field, it does so to the detriment of those that would need our protection the most.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, we would make all foods less accessible – a truly nonsensical and harmful situation that we should do our utmost to avoid. Moreover, given that many individuals in lower socio-economic groups will have become used to eating “junk” food, when prices rise they will not necessarily move to the healthier alternative. It is likely that they will stick to what they know, and end up paying more from their limited budgets for it. The end result is likely to be that these people will still buy junk food first but will pay more and thus will not be able to afford any healthier foods.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

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.

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.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

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?

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.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

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.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter

The obesity epidemic is taking an enormous toll on global medical costs. In the US alone the health care costs attributable to either direct or indirect consequences of obesity have been estimated at $147bn. [1] Put into context, this amounts to roughly 9% of the health spending in the US. [2]

The figure might seem excessive, but we need to remember that obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension, to name just a few.

We also need to realize that many of the diseases on this list are chronic in nature, requiring lifelong pharmacological therapy, which often follows complex and expensive diagnostic procedures, frequent medical specialist consultations, and not infrequent emergency interventions. [3]

Adding to the list is the value of income lost due to decreased productivity, restricted activity, and absenteeism, not to mention the value of future income lost by premature death.

Thus it becomes increasingly clear that due to the substantial cost obesity presents to the society, individual choices that might lead to excessive weight gain, can no longer be considered as solely individual in nature. [4]

Therefore the government is legitimate in its action to introduce a form of a fat tax in order to try to dissuade the population from becoming obese and cover the increasing societal costs the already obese individuals are responsible for.

[1] CDC, Obesity: Economic Consequences, published 3/28/2011, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html , accessed 9/12/2011

[2] RTI international, Obesity Costs U.S. About $147 Billion Annually, Study Finds, published 7/27/2009, http://www.rti.org/news.cfm?objectid=329246AF-5056-B172-B829FC032B70D8DE , accessed 9/14/2011

[3] The Council of State Governments, Costs of Chronic Diseases: What Are States Facing?, published in 2006, http://www.healthystates.csg.org/NR/rdonlyres/DA24108E-B3C7-4B4D-875A-74F957BF4472/0/ChronicTrendsAlert120063050306.pdf , accessed, 9/14/2011

[4] Los Angeles Times, Should there be a 'fat tax'?, published 4/11/2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/11/opinion/la-ed-obesity-20110411 , accessed 9/12/2011

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, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112902182.html , accessed 9/12/2011

[2] The HMS Family health guide, Red meat and colon cancer, published in March 2008, http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml , accessed 9/12/2011

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

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.

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.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

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?

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.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

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.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
A tax is not an effective instrument to fight obesity

There are very legitimate concerns whether artificially increasing the cost of fatty food by specifically targeting it with a tax would have a significant effect on the obesity trend.

In fact, research shows that a fat tax would produce only a marginal change in consumption – not the dramatic shift in public awareness the proponents of the fat tax are hoping for. The reason, LSE researchers believe, is simple: “those on the very poorest diets will continue to eat badly.” [1]

Other than the economic reasons for such behavior, it could be argued that is also a thing of habit and culture: fast fatty food is quick, accessible and tasty. [2] Thus while a tax might be useful in reducing things such as the use of cigarettes – which are at heart an unnecessary “luxury” and thus more easily affected by the price – eating food, whether junk or not, is necessary. It also seems that the fast fatty kind of food is fulfilling a specific need, a need for a quick, tasty and filling meal, something people consider worth paying good money for.

The fight against obesity ought to be multifaceted, complex and well thought out – and a fat tax is none of those things. We should approach the issue with more cunning and introduce other programs: such as increasing the availability of healthy food by introducing healthy vending machines; [3] increasing the amount of physics exercise by requiring it in school, improving possibilities for recreation and access to public transportation thus encouraging people to burn more calories [4] and, most importantly, proper education on the topic if we want to create lasting change. [5]

[1] Tiffin, R., Salois, M., A fat tax is a double whammy for the poor – it will do little to prevent obesity in those on lower incomes, and will hurt them financially, published 9/2/2011, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2011/09/02/fat-tax-will-do-little-to-prevent-obesity-amongst-the-poor/ , accessed 9/12/2011

[2] Hitti, M., Top 11 Reasons For Fast Food's Popularity, published 12/3/2008, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/03/health/webmd/main4644837.shtml , accessed 9/14/2011

[3] Yara, S., Best And Worst Vending Machine Snacks, published 10/6/2005, http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/05/vending-foods-health-cx_sy_1006feat_ls.html , accessed 9/14/2011

[4] CDC, Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States, published 7/24/2009, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5807a1.htm , accessed 9/14/2011

[5] Bunce, L., ‘Fat tax’ solutions ignore wider social factors driving junk food habits, published 8/16/2010, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/563765/fat_tax_solutions_ignore_wider_social_factors_driving_junk_food_habits.html , accessed 9/12/2011

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.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

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.

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.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

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?

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.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

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.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
A fat tax infringes on individual choice

Introducing such a tax would constitute an overstepping of the government’s authority. The role of government in a society should not expand further than providing basic services such as education, legal protection, i.e. only the services necessary for a society to function and for the individual’s rights to be protected.

Such a specific tax is completely uncalled for and very unreasonable in the context of a fair society with a government that knows its place in it.

Protecting the individual should go no further than the protection against the actions of a third person. For instance: we can all agree that governments should put measures in place to protect us from thieves, scammers, etc. But should it also protect us from frivolous spending? Limit us in the number of credit cards we can own? Tell us how we can invest our money?

Of course not. But what this tax does is exactly that – it is punishing the citizens for a specific choice they are making by artificially inflating its cost.

Thus it is clear that levying such a tax against a specific choice an individual should be able to legitimately make is a clear overstepping of the government’s authority. [1]

[1] Wilkinson, W., Tax the fat, not their food, published 7/26/2011, http://www.economist.com/node/21524522 , accessed 12/9/2011

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.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

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.

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.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

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?

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.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

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.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
It hits the most vulnerable part of society hardest

The practical consequence of an additional tax on what the government considers fatty unhealthy food will disproportionately affect the poorest part of the population, who often turn to such food due to economic constraints.

These were the concerns that stopped the Romanian government from introducing a fat tax in 2010. Experts there argued, that the countries people keep turning to junk food simply because they are poor and cannot afford the more expensive fresh produce. What such a fat tax would do is eliminate a very important source of calories from the society’s economic reach and replace the current diet with an even more nutritionally unbalanced one. Even the WHO described such policies as “regressive from an equity perspective.” [1]

Clearly, the government should be focusing its efforts on making healthy fresh produce more accessible and not on making food in general, regardless if it’s considered healthy or not, less accessible for the most vulnerable in our society.

[1] Stracansky, P., 'Fat Tax' May Hurt Poor, published 8/8/2011, http://www.nationofchange.org/%E2%80%98fat-tax%E2%80%99-may-hurt-poor-1312817364 , accessed 9/12/2011

Even if this policy might cause some families to spend more on their food – even more than they feel like they can afford – it still is more important to start significantly dealing with the obesity epidemic. We feel that nothing short of forcing these low income families – which are also the ones where obesity is most prevalent – to finally change their eating habits will make a dent in the current trend.

But there is a silver lining here. These are also the families that are afflicted most by obesity related diseases. Thus spending a couple dollars more on food now will – necessarily – save them tens of thousands in the form of medical bills.

Reducing obesity will also make them more productive at work and reduce their absenteeism, again offsetting the costs of this tax. [1]

We should look at this tax as a form of paying it forward – spending a little time and effort now and reap the benefits for the individual and the society in the future.

[1] ACOEM, Obesity Linked To Reduced Productivity At Work, published 1/9/2008, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/93402.php , accessed 9/14/2011

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

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.

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.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

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?

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.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

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.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Improving health care for mother and child

Private-sector investment will provide crucial training for health professionals, infrastructure, and resources to improve maternal and child health care. Providing affordable maternal care acts as a means for promoting gender equality, and empowerment.

Jacaranda Health [1] operate on a business model, meeting the demand, and need, for affordable and high-quality maternal care in East Africa. Through mobile clinics and new maternity hospitals Jacaranda Health is empowering women and children. Within the first year Jacaranda Health provided care for 4,000 women, and changed the lives of 20,000 families.

Additionally, free maternal care holds negative side-effects. As Burundi shows, the social policy ideas implementing ‘free’ maternal health care resulted in overburdening the health resources and understaffed facilities; and putting vulnerable children at greater risk (IRIN, 2013).

[1] See further reading: Jacaranda Health, 2013.

Quercioli et al (2012)’s study on the relationship between investing in private health care and mortality does not come to clear conclusions about the best course [1] . The results show investments in public sector health services is associated with a 1.47% reduction in ‘avoidable’ mortality. Investing in the public-sector is more cost-effective, and achieves faster results. The rate of return from private investment is slower.

Privatisation is not necessarily best for maternal care.

[1] The research was carried out in Italy.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

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.

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.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

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?

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.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

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.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Alleviating rural-urban disparities

Private health is enabling improved access to health services in neglected areas and reducing disparities in access to health.

In Sub-Saharan Africa rural-urban disparities in health-care have received increasing attention. Private investment is bringing services to remote locations. The potential role of technology companies bringing healthcare to areas without it is showcased in Samsung’s investment in mobile solar-powered clinics in rural South Africa [1] . Mobile technology is providing crucial innovations [2] ; used as tools by private investors, mobiles mean individuals can be updated on health status and preventative practices without physical access to doctors, or nurses.

[1] See further readings: All Africa, 2013.

[2] See further readings: Deloitte, 2013, Graham, 2012; Knapp et al, 2010.

Although mobile technology is introducing innovative approaches, location and physical access is still often required. Disparities cannot be alleviated until the private actors are willing to invest in remote areas. Not all health problems can be dealt with by a mobile conversation with a doctor.

Further, it remains debatable as to whether rural environments receive worse health-care. Debates have been raised as to the extent of an urban bias - do urban populations hold an advantage or penalty in health [1] ? Frequently neglected by private-investors, the urban poor have been identified as vulnerable groups. Investment, planning, and intervention, is required within slums and for the urban poor.

[1] See further readings: Goebel et al, 2010;

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

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.

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.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

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?

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.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

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.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim