Question:
Bullfighting is an art-form and an important cultural tradition

Ernest Hemingway said about bullfighting that it is "a decadent art in every way [...] if it were permanent it could be one of the major arts."(9) Bullfighting should thus not be understood as simply a 'bloodsport' with some cultural connotations but rather as an inherently cultural art form. The poet Garcia Lorca said in the 1930s that bullfighting is "the last serious thing in the modern world".(10)

In many ways the seriousness of watching a life-and-death struggle in the arena is nothing short of poetic and this significance is perceived not only by the audience and the bullfighting community but in the wider culture of the nations which currently permit bullfighting. Robert Elms argued in 2010 that, in nations which do not practice bullfighting, “Our squeamishness means that we prefer death which is mechanical and invisible, while the Spanish understand that it is part of a cycle.[...] It is a public celebration of death (a subject we prefer to hide from in Britain) which, when it is done well, becomes a celebration of life. The man charged with the task of delivering a fine end to this fierce and powerful creature will dance with it along the way, laying his own life on the line to create a swirling symbiosis."(10)

Hemmingway echoed this, arguing that bullfighting promoted an understanding of violent death: "The only place where you could see life and death, i. e., violent death now that the wars were over, was in the bull ring and I wanted very much to go to Spain where I could study it. I was trying to learn to write, commencing with the simplest things, and one of the simplest things of all and the most fundamental is violent death."(9)

This is why Madrid and other places have protected and recognized bullfighting as an art form, not just a sport.(1)

The understanding and cultural value in the bullfighting nations stems from their long history of the practice. Bullfighting traces its roots to prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice. The killing of the sacred bull (tauroctony) is the essential central iconic act of Mithras, which was commemorated in the mithraeum wherever Roman soldiers were stationed. The oldest representation of what seems to be a man facing a bull is on the celtiberian tombstone from Clunia and the cave painting "El toro de hachos", both found in Spain.(8)

The continuity of the modern bullfights with these ancient commemorations is shown by the fact that in Spain, many youth idealize bull fighters for their strength, grace, and wit in outmaneuvering bulls.(10)

This is valuable in inspiring and compelling success in future generations. Bullfighting is a genuinely popular and enjoyed cultural art form in many nations: Spanish bullrings are not kept alive by tourists. Rather, despite the economic recession which has hit Spain especially hard, the bullfights are still thriving, its top practitioners are huge stars, and its fan are intensely devoted, because it is still the very soul of this dark and complex country. Bullfighting thrives because its local fans are dedicated, and they are dedicated because they perceive its poetry and value to the culture.(10)

Thus bullfighting has a cultural value which trumps misplaced concerns regarding 'animal rights', especially as 'animal rights' are simply a concept created by each culture and defined in different ways. Culturally, it is acceptable in the West to eat meat, and so this is legal even though it causes cows to suffer and die. Similarly, the culture of the bullfighting countries places a value upon the bullfight, thus privileging it above the 'rights' of the animal. To allow the moral qualms of other non-bullfighting cultures to dictate cultural practices in Spain or Mexico would be to privilege these other cultures' values above those of bullfighting nations, and deprive them of part of their uniqueness. As Robert Elms argues, if the bullfight dies out due to the pressure of other cultures' moral qualms, bullfighting nations will become "more like everywhere else, dominated by gaudy globalism and neutered by the homogenising forces of technology and accepted taste."(10)

Many traditions have been defended for their cultural, traditional value. Stoning women for immodesty is one of them. Such tradition-for-tradition's-sake arguments do not actually prove anything, as cultures are constantly evolving and changing -the ban on bullfights can be just one more such change.(11)

The bullfighting tradition is based on cruelty to bulls, and so simply being 'old' and 'traditional' is not enough of a justification. Cruelty is cruelty no matter where in the world it happens. Our understanding of animals has improved a great deal in recent times. There is no place in the 21st century for a ‘sport’ which relies on animal cruelty for ‘entertainment’. Moreover, people need not see a bull die in order to understand death. Video, pictures, books, and news reports all make it possible for individuals to learn about and understand death. It's occurring around us naturally all the time. It is completely unnecessary, therefore, to artificially produce death in the bullfighting arena in order to create an appreciation of the cycle of life and death, etc. Nature watching is also a good alternative. Or even hunting or fishing, in which an individual generally attempts to quickly and decently kill an animal that they will then eat. Torturing a bull for entertainment is unnecessary when compared to these outlets for understanding life and death. Furthermore, majorities in bullfighting states oppose it as well. Recent polls have shown that in Spain 67% are not interested in bullfighting, and in France, 69% of people oppose public funding for bullfighting.(3)

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

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


Question:
Bullfighting is economically important for some regions

"The ban will be economically disastrous for Catalonia, and not just because of direct losses," the head of Spanish bullfighting lobby group Mesa del Toro, Eduardo Martin Penato, told the online edition of daily newspaper Publico in January of 2010. Following the ban in Catalonia, sector representatives could demand as much as 400 million euros in damages in courts to compensate for losses caused by the ban, including to hotels, restaurants and other establishments.(12) A conservative lawmaker in the Catalan parliament noted that this "is enough to build six hospitals, 100 schools or fight against unemployment."

Top Spanish matador El Juli said about the Catalonia ban that it "would cause big losses for an important economic sector, which provides a livelihood for many families." The bullfighting sector directly employs about 40,000 people in Spain, according to some sector estimates. International accounting network BDO has also estimated that bullfighting generates about 2.5 billion euros a year for the Spanish economy, drawing 14 million spectators last year.(12) This sort of economic harm would be mirrored across bullfighting nations, as they would also lose out on tourist revenue which brings in vital foreign capital. These benefits to the economies of these (often poor) regions far outweigh any harms to the bulls.

Tourists will visit Spain and other bullfighting countries regardless of whether or not bullfighting exists, and as people become more ethically aware and act accordingly while on holiday, tourist attendance at the shows looks set to fall even further. Indeed, a poll commissioned in April 2007 found that 89% of the British public would not visit a bullfight when on a holiday.(11)(3) Therefore the loss of tourist income will be minimal, as bullfighting does not even appeal to most tourists.

Those profits which do ensue from bullfighting generally end up in the hands of a small bullfighting elite, not the general population. Moreover, almost everywhere bullfighting requires significant government subsidies to function. The subsidies that prop up this declining industry take money away from serious social problems such as access to public health, education, infrastructures, the elderly, public safety, social housing and environmental policies.(11)

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

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


Question:
Speciesism is wrong

Just as racism is wrongful discrimination against beings of a different race and sexism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different gender, speciesism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different species. Wrongful discrimination occurs when there is no other reason for the discrimination except the mere fact that the being is of the race, sex, or species that they are. For example, if an employer refuses to employ a black woman over a white woman because she has an inferior qualification this is justified discrimination whereas if he refuses to employ the black woman simply because she is black then this is wrongful discrimination. Human beings are speciesist towards animals because we sacrifice their most important needs for our trivial desires: their life for our enjoyment of a burger.

You might think that we are allowed to have special relationships to people that are similar to us but there is a difference between special relationships and being active cruel and discriminatory. Our evolutionary instinct to protect our own species may not be ethically correct in contemporary society.

Similarly, we ought not to 'put down' animals who are too expensive to care for. We do not allow human beings to kill off their children when they experience financial difficulty because we believe that human beings value their lives. It would be justifiable to kill off something that has no interest in living, such as a plant, but since we believe that animals do have an interest in living it would be speciesist to kill off a puppy simply because it is not human. We know that society believes animals have an interest in living sometimes because there is outcry when baby seals are clubbed or when elephants are poached for their ivory. Yet at other times we are happy to eat animal flesh and wear leather. This is a contradictory stance. We ought to be consistent in our views and to condemn speciesists.

Refusing animals rights is speciesist. Speciesism is wrong. Therefore, it is wrong to deny animals rights.

We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

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


Question:
Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights

Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being.

We do not analyse human beings on a case by case basis but rather by what distinguishes human beings as a whole, as a species. Infants have the potential to become rational and autonomous etc. The profoundly retarded represent flawed human beings. Retardation is not a human characteristic just as being 3-legged is not a characteristic of a dog though there are both retarded humans and 3-legged dogs.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

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


Question:
Animals are equal to human beings.

It is true that animals and human beings are different. It is also true that men are different from women and children from adults. Equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are unable to have an abortion. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe all human beings have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support animal rights.

Equality does not mean that beings all deserve the exact same treatment. It means rather that we consider equally the equal interests of animals and humans. If we deem amount A to be the maximum amount of suffering a person be allowed to endure, then that should apply equally to an animal, though humans and animals may suffer different amounts under different circumstances.

The principle of equality advocates equal consideration, so it still allows for different treatment and different rights. Equality is a prescriptive rather than a descriptive concept. What’s important is that beings should ONLY be treated differently where there is a morally relevant difference between them. For example, we can justifiably deny dogs the right to vote because there is a relevant difference in intelligence between dogs and humans. However, there is no justification for battery-farming chickens who have a capacity to suffer. There is evidence that they experience fear, pain and discomfort. Although chickens may be less intelligent and unable to speak , these differences are not morally relevant to whether or not they should be placed in these conditions.

We ought to consider animals equally to the way we consider humans. If we were to do so we would give animals rights. We ought therefore to give animals rights.

Equality requires that two beings are actually equal on some fundamental level. Human beings have certain essential similarities that make them equal. These do not stretch to animals. Human beings are able to distinguish right from wrong while animals have no notion of ethics. We are thus able to consider what kind of a society we want to live in and we are affected when we feel that there is social degradation. Animals, however, do not have this sense. We have fundamental dignity which animals do not. This is clear in the fact that animals do not experience shame or embarrassment, desire respect, or have a notion of self. Furthermore, human beings can consider their future and have particular desires about how they want their life to play out. These are different for every individual. This is why we are concerned with choice and protecting individualism and religion. Animals on the other hand are concerned only with immediate survival. They have only instincts, not individual desires and wants.

For these reasons, we can't consider animals to be equally morally considerable. As for the propositions standard of relevance for the criteria which distinguish animals from humans in any given case, we would argue that the fundamental individuality and humanity of our species is relevant in every case because it makes animal life fundamentally less valuable.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

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


Question:
Animals are intrinsically worthy of rights because they are sentient

Sentience is the property of being conscious. Sentience brings with it the ability to experience. There is a massive difference in the way that we treat sentient and non-sentient beings instinctively. We see nothing wrong with forming relationships with one’s pets but we tend to deem people with emotional relationships to objects mentally ill. Here we are talking about something more than sentimentality but rather the kind of relationship in which one is concerned with the other party’s emotional wellbeing. We even feel concerned about the wellbeing of sentient beings which whom we do not have a personal connection. For example we may feel upset when we see a dog run over on the road. This would be a very difficult reaction to how we might feel if we see an object crushed by a car. We feel moral outrage at the clubbing of seals.

The instinctive way which we differentiate between these two categories relates to the type of value they have. Whilst objects have value because of how they affect us - e.g. they are useful or remind us of a good time or person – we believe that animals have intrinsic value.

This means that a sentient being must never be treated as a means rather than an end in and of itself. Animals are sentient. Therefore, animals must not be treated as a means to an end but as intrinsically valuable.

First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow.

People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals.

Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration.

In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

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


Question:
Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights.

We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights.

First of all, animals have an equal capacity to experience pain. While we are unable to know exactly what other humans or animals are experiencing, we can make inference from what we observe. According to Peter Singer: “Nearly all the signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...The behavioural signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on”. [1]

In addition we know that animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in a circumstance in which we would feel pain—an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than basic impulses, emotions, and feelings. These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds.” Animals therefore have the capacity for physical and emotional suffering, and so should be granted rights.

[1] Singer, Peter. "All Animals are Equal." Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002

Even if animals are able categorize images in photographs and learn sign language, they are still phenomenally less intelligent than human beings. They will never study philosophy or perform brain surgery or even invent a wheel. Furthermore, intelligence does not prove the ability to self-actualise. Mourning others does not prove that animals value their own lives. Perhaps it implies that animals enjoy company but whether they consider the value of their companion's life and their future potential is questionable. Without the ability to value one's own life, life itself ceases to be intrinsically valuable.

The farming of animals does involve death but it is difficult to prove that death is intrinsically a harmful thing. Pain is certainly a harm for the living but animals are farmed are killed very quickly and they are stunned beforehand. Animals on farms do not know that they will be killed so there is no emotional harm caused by the anticipation of death.

There is no evidence that the painless killing of animals should carry any moral weight.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

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


Question:
Most rights have no bearing for animals

The right to dignity would mean nothing to an animal. Animals are incapable of being humiliated and are not harmed by being reduced to human servitude. A dog is not ashamed of its nudity or having to eat out of a bowl and wear a leash. Animals happily copulate and defecate in front of humans and other animals. What exactly an undignified action might be for an animal it is difficult to say.

The right to education, to vote, to fair trial, to be innocent until proven guilty, to privacy, marriage, nationality, religion, property, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, workers rights and shelter all seem impossible to apply to animals.

If we specially tailor rights to animals then how is that different to the status quo where we have certain laws protecting animals?

There is no reason why the rights we grant animals need be the same rights that we grant human beings. There may be laws that protect animals but these will be taken more seriously as rights because of the status we give to rights. Furthermore there are several rights that do apply to animals: the right to life, freedom of movement and the right not to be subjected to torture.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

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


Question:
Animals are not moral agents

It makes no sense to give animals rights because they cannot makes decisions about what is right and wrong and will not try to treat us in an ethical manner in return. Why make them a moral agent by giving them rights?

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

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


Question:
Animals have no interests or rationality

Some philosophers argue that only beings that are able to make rational choices can have moral rights because the function of rights is to protect choice. Animals are not able to make rational choices because they can only follow instinct, they cannot follow logic.

Some philosophers believe that the function of rights is to protect interests. An argument from R.G. Frey argues that animals do not have interests because they do not have language. In order to desire something one must believe that one does not currently have that something and therefore believe that the statement ‘I have x’ is false. One cannot have such a belief unless one knows how language connects to the world. Animals can’t talk so they certainly are unable to know what it is that the sentence ‘I have x’ means in the real world. Therefore animals cannot have desires. Without desires animals cannot have interests. If the function of rights is to protect interests then animal rights serve no purpose. [1]

[1] Frey, R,G. "Rights, Interests, Desires and Beliefs." Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002

If only rational beings should be protected by rights then we should not protect babies or profoundly retarded people; but this is absurd. Animals do make choices according to their preferences e.g. lions choose a mate and dogs choose a spot to lie in the sun One is able to have interests without language because it is easily possible to be aware of a desire and understand that desire even if one does not think of that desire in words. Furthermore, there is some evidence that animals have languages of their own e.g. dolphins, birds.The challenger can also reject either theory of rights in favour of the other.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

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