Question:
Funding solutions to combat disease

Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 24% of the global disease burden; but only 1% of global health expenditure and 3% of the world’s health workers (McKinsey and Company, 2007). $25-30bn is required to invest in healthcare assets in the next decade to meet needs (McKinsey and Company, 2007). Public resources are not available, so the private-sector is critical.

The private sector can help fill this funding gap; private-sector actors - including Actis - are planning to invest $1.2bn into Adcock Ingram to provide and supply drugs [1] . The investment will provide key funding to enable research; and the availability for ART [2] within Adcock Ingram’s Anti-Retroviral Portfolio. To combat HIV, and other diseases, investors are required for R&D and the distribution of drugs. In 2012, only 34% of the people living with HIV in low and middle-income countries had access to ART showing how necessary such investment is [3] . Furthermore, the private-sector have established partnerships to implement training programmes, improving qualified treatment for HIV, TB and malaria [4] .

[1] See further readings: Private Equity Africa, 2013.

[2] ART (Anti-Retroviral Treatment) involves drugs which prevent the progression of HIV; reduce transmission and mortality.

[3] According to the WHO 2013 guidelines of people eligible for ART. See further readings: UNAID, 2013.

[4] See further reading: AMREF USA, 2013; AMREF, 2013.

In order to combat disease equality needs to be a central component. Drug distribution, new training schemes, and facilities, targeting disease prevention and treatment are influenced by market economics and feasibility. Treatments by Anti-retrovirals should not just be for those who can afford private healthcare.

Further, when considering health care private actors need to broaden horizons. Although funding remains uneven and below target, the specific inclusion of HIV, TB and Malaria within the MDG has distorted the focus on disease. Investment is required in neglected tropical diseases and non-communicable diseases something the private sector has yet to be willing to invest in.

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

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


Question:
Unregulated health-care

With the incorporation of a diverse range of private actors, both formal and informal, can health-care still be regulated? Quality and staff need to be regulated, with standards and prices set, but who will enforce regulation and how can we ensure rules are followed? Just treatment is required. Public-sector delivery protects patients from poor, dangerous, treatment.

When looking at regulation in health care, the relationship between private healthcare provision, efficiency and quality is variable. Outcomes depend on the institutional settings (economic, political, and social) and what private actors are involved. Private health providers have a profit incentive to cut corners and provide the cheapest care they can while charging high prices. The theory of a virtuous cycle is far from the reality.

Being part of a brand ensures investors maintain a standard, and ensure infrastructure, drugs, and medical practices are met. Building franchises for health-care ensures familiarity and is setting standards to follow. Blue Star is a case in point. The Blue Star Network has been rolled out across Africa, and the franchise provides family planning resources and training on sexual and reproductive health. Once the private clinics have completed training, Blue Star recognition is awarded [1] .

Including the private sector in health care provision means a structural shift in the model of care: improved efficiency, quality and methods of care.

[1] See further readings: Marie Stopes International, 2013.

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

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


Question:
The missing MDG: inequality

Privatising health care cannot be discussed without raising concern over inequality. The privatisation of health care promotes exclusive health care, and is failing to bridge the gap between accessible care for low-income groups and the elite. The model remains unaffordable for many, and therefore ineffective. Even where affordable options are available the quality of care deteriorates. Quality assurance, and affordable care, is needed.

For example, taking the case of South Africa. Health care is provided through both public and private systems. However, the pricing of private health care: whereby better facilities and speed of treatment are found, leaves a majority out-of-pocket and excluded (All Africa, 2013). Prices need to be controlled and affordable options made available. Although formal employers have been involved in supporting access and coverage to health insurance schemes, to prevent a two-tier health system, a majority work within formal employment. If everyone has a ‘right’ to adequate health care, privatisation neglects their rights to health [1] .

[1] See further readings: War on Want (2013).

In seeking to make private health care affordable new models are being introduced. The new models introduced tackle issues over affordability from a demand and supply perspective.

First, multiple health financing schemes have been rolled-out across Sub-Saharan Africa. A range of financing and insurance options are being built, from investing in health providers [1] to including bottom-up approaches. Community based health insurance, as found in Rwanda and Ghana, are ensuring a move towards universal coverage (see USAID, 2012).

Secondly, in tackling supply issues, low-cost private clinics models are being constructed. In Kenya, the Avenue Group provides a positive example working to provide affordable private health care. Risk-pooling, by members, is accepted as a method of payment. Costs are reduced by working with patients, whilst a regular payment source is provided for the caregiver (see Avenue Group, 2013).

[1] The IFC recently announced a $4mn investment in AAR East Africa, expanding out-patient care (see AVCA, 2013).

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

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


Question:
Ideas and interests in a neoliberal model

The ideas driving private health need to be deconstructed. 65% of expenditure received for health care was from the for-profit sector (USAID, 2012). Health care is not a business or market - patients become customers and needs become sidelined by competition when in the private sector. Private health care involves adopting a neoliberal approach to care; competition is central and markets volatile. The market logic focuses on what is a good investment, will the elderly be included when they are a high risk population? This is why even in private systems like in the United States the elderly need public funding.

The privatisation of basic services, across Sub-Saharan Africa, has been shown to be a failure [1] . Access to health care should be based on need, rather than ability to pay.

[1] See further readings: UNDP (2007).

Having the government only paying for some health care for those who can’t afford private healthcare is still better than the government paying for all. Competition between both public and private will help raise standards in both.

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

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


Question:
Being vegetarian helps the environment

Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation

At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1]

The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2]

As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1.

The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6]

With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat.

[1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center

[2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 .

[3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009.

[4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997.

[5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003

[6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004

You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production.

British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.”

He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2]

[1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010

[2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

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


Question:
Vegetarianism is healthier

There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron.

[1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009

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

[1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

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


Question:
It is immoral to kill animals

As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food.

Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself.

[1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008

[2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989

There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.

Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

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


Question:
Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning

Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1]

Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.

[1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009

Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2]

Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3]

Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way.

[1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010.

[2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth.

[3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

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


Question:
There are problems with being vegetarian

A vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment.

[1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,

The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that "There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores". [2]

[1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010.

[2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

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


Question:
Humans can choose their own nutrition plan

Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.

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

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

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


Question:
Survival of the fittest

It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence as is shown by Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. [1] The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. The concept of survival of the fittest may seem outdated but it is still the defining order of nature. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.

[1] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life., Literature.org

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

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

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


Question:
Schools are best places to ensure good nutrition

Education is universal from 5 or 6 to 16 years old in most countries, 58% of children worldwide attend secondary school, [1] with even poor countries providing education for all from 5 to 12 years old. As a result giving breakfast at school will mean that all children between these ages receive it.

[1] Unicef, ‘58: The percentage of children of secondary school age worldwide who attend secondary school is 58’, Unicef global databases, 2008, http://www.unicef.org/factoftheweek/index_50244.html

Schools already have enough pressures just to educate their students, they do not need additional pressure from having to ensure their nutrition as well. In the UK kitchen improvements cost £200 million and many local councils found they needed to take money from other budgets such as school maintainance budgets showing the increase in pressure on schools. [1]

[1] BBC News, ‘Q&A; Free school meals for infants’, 2 September 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28981684

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

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

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

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

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

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

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

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

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

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

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

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

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