BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Domestic intelligence operates just like the police do.

Domestic intelligence does require the collection of information, but this is not fundamentally different from a standard police investigation. The differences are minor when we have national security at stake. Furthermore, the rights, duties and powers of a domestic intelligence service are carefully restricted by law. For example, under Dutch law, the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) is only allowed to wiretap someone after permission granted by the Minister of Interior Affairs (the UK situation is very similar).[1] Generally speaking, for every surveillance action the domestic intelligence can take, it needs to weigh whether the action satisfies the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, meaning that the invasiveness of a surveillance method should be proportional to the risk the person poses, and that the method chosen should be the least invasive of all possible methods. [1] van Voorhout, Jill E.B. Coster, ‘Intelligence as legal evidence’, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 2 Issue 2, December 2006, http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/29/29, p.124
There is sufficient political and judicial control over intelligence service

Even if not every citizen can control exactly what the intelligence service does, there is sufficient political and judicial control. An example of this is a recent case involving the Dutch AIVD, which started wiretapping journalists after they had found a source within the AIVD to leak about the run-up to the Iraq War. The journalists were wiretapped but when the case came to court, the court judged that the AIVD was in error, should stop harassing the journalists, and must delete the files on the journalists immediately. Such cases show that the intelligence agencies, and those involved domestically in particular, have judicial and political oversight to make sure they remain within bounds.[1]  Democracy is therefore not threatened as there is democratic oversight. [1] Webber, Liz, Netherlands: De Telegraaf journalists win suit over secret service phone-taps, World Editors Forum, 27/07/2009 http://www.editorsweblog.org/newspaper/2009/07/netherlands_de_telegraaf_journalists_win.php
Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that is capable of performing counterintelligence

Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that is capable of performing counterintelligence. They have the capacity and the authority to detect foreign spies in the national jurisdiction, and experience with local surveillance and investigation. Part of the job of domestic intelligence is to maintain a network of informers and agents, and this can be used to find and track foreign intelligence services on a mission – these functions can’t be easily performed by the military or foreign intelligence so an independent domestic intelligence agency is necessary.
The government does not have the right to spy on its citizens

The government should not want to spy on its own citizens – that is the mark of a totalitarian regime. If some citizens disagree with the current government or current form of government, it is their fundamental democratic right to do so, and the government has no right to judge their different political preferences as ‘dangerous’. Experience shows that elected governments are not always able to control their domestic intelligence services, which may develop their own views of what constitutes subversive behaviour. In the 1970s MI5 kept files upon Labour Party MPs, including ministers in the UK Government. Elsewhere, fragile democracies such as Pakistan and Turkey have seen military coups launched against elected governments with the involvement of the domestic intelligence services which were supposed to be guarding them.  In Turkey despite a coup against army leaders in 2008 the domestic intelligence agencies remain very strong and are supported by the national police.[1] Whenever there is a domestic intelligence service it is potentially very powerful due to the information it controls which could be used in support of other groups like the military to undermine or overthrow the government. It is better to keep intelligence focused outward. [1] Cagaptay, Soner, What's Really Behind Turkey's Coup Arrests? Foreign policy, 25/02/2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/25/whats_really_behind_turkeys_coup_arrests
Domestic intelligence agencies cannot be controlled

There are no effective ways of controlling the activities of a domestic intelligence agency. With an information request, an investigated citizen has no way of being sure what the intelligence service in question actually does with the information, once it has gathered it, and whether the service actually upheld the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as they should, because the methods used are not given out. Also, the intelligence service might promise to delete a file after a court honoured a request, but no one can ever be sure that the intelligence service didn’t make an extra, secret copy.
Intelligence agencies inflate threats.

Having domestic intelligence agencies creates suspicion and fear, and ultimately resentment. Domestic intelligence agencies are created in response to war and external threats, for example MI5 was created in the build up to world war one, and Australia’s intelligence service was created in response to the discovery of a soviet spy ring within the Australian government.[1] Having any such service involved in more than simply counter-intelligence against foreign services shows that the government does not trust its own people. The United States has until very recently not had a domestic intelligence exactly because it was considered that the FBI could do everything that was required without creating undue suspicion. Bureaucracies inflate threats so as to gain more resources, MI5 is a good example, it was given more resources than it needed to engage in counterintelligence against Germany so expanded its role to surveillance of elements such as pacifists and organised labour.[2] More recently the head of MI5 announced there were 1600 Britons plotting terror, which may simply be threat inflation, something which not only makes everyone fearful for no reason.[3] An agency which is equally focused on criminal investigation would have much less reason to inflate dangers in order to maintain or increase funding. [1] Jackson, Brian a. ed., ‘Considering the Creation of a Domestic Intelligence Agency in the United States’, Rand, 2009, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG805.pdf p.15 [2] Wikipedia, ‘MI5’, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI5 [3] Kayyem, Juliette, and  Posner, Richard A., ‘Does the United States Need a Domestic Intelligence Agency?’ CFR, 17 November 2006, http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/does-united-states-need-domestic-intelli...
Intelligence is necessary for the safety of the public.

Even if it is protecting lives the scale of the intelligence gathering is undemocratic. By allowing interception, widespread tracking of public records, unfair legal treatment, we erase the trust between citizens and the government in return for very occasionally preventing a terrorist attack. As shown by 7/7 terrorists still get through despite intelligence even when the bombers have already been noticed.[1] When all your library patrons can be seized and all your browsing logs checked just on a claim that they are relevant to intelligence information, as initially happened under the patriot act, too much liberty is being given up in the name of very little extra security.[2] [1] BBC News, Special Report London Attacks ‘The bombers’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/investigation/... [2] Strossen, Nadine, ‘Safety and Freedom: Common Concerns for Conservatives, Libertarians, and Civil Libertarians’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 1, Fall 2005, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_Strossen.pdf p.78
Domestic intelligence operates just like the police do.

For intelligence to be effective, the government will need to collect personal information, like bank transactions, emails, phone records, and more, without the citizen in question knowing this. However, democracy works on the assumption that each citizen has a private sphere, separate from the public sphere, of private information, thoughts and opinions, and that the citizen decides who to let into that sphere. Put differently, the citizen has control over when to release private information, and when not. Investigating them without their knowledge means taking away that control, and that is a violation of the right to privacy. Police investigations, on the other hand, are legitimate and not invasive of democracy - the police are generally obliged to inform a citizen when he or she is subject to a criminal investigation, and can generally only investigate a citizen without their knowledge after seeking specific permission from the judiciary, not just by a minister signing off a whole batch of requests as it’s done with domestic intelligence.
There is sufficient political and judicial control over intelligence service

The AIVD example shows exactly that judicial and political control is not enough: the judicial control is control after the fact, so it didn’t prevent the AIVD from listening in to journalists conversations in the first place. Moreover, a regulatory committee judged that the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is supposed to be the a priori control, had given permission too easily, which is to be expected when a Minister faces a lot of requests like this, and has to decide in between the regular work of actually governing.[1] It is the lack of initial oversight which is anti-democratic, citizens expect their government and courts to prevent the intelligence agencies from infringing on privacy not simply demand an apology later when the intelligence agency is found out. How many more cases are there which are not caught? [1] NIS News Bulletin, ‘Press Sector Sues State for Eavesdropping Telegraaf Journalists’ 9/07/2009 http://www.nisnews.nl/public/090709_1.htm
Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that is capable of performing counterintelligence

The military or foreign intelligence or just as able to conduct counterintelligence, because the potential targets for foreign intelligence services are well known. But even if a domestic intelligence service is best placed for counter-intelligence, this is just an argument for limiting their functions to counter-intelligence, where they won’t harm citizen’s privacy as much. The arguments above deal with the other work a domestic intelligence does, and that work is illegitimate.
The government does not have the right to spy on its citizens

Some citizens don’t just have political differences with the current government, but are fundamentally opposed to the democratic state and are willing to use violence against state and society. Such is the case with Germany’s far-left party where the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) could continue to observe Bodo Ramelow, leader of the Left Party in the eastern state of Thuringia.[1] Or where domestic intellegence agencies are necessary to monitor home grown terrorist organisations like the IRA. To protect itself, society and most importantly, the lives of other citizens, it’s necessary for a government to sometimes want to keep a close eye on some of their own citizens. A democratically elected government has both the authority and the legitimacy to order such surveillance, and can be held accountable for the way in which it uses its powers. [1] Der Spiegel, ‘Is Germany's Left Party a Threat to Democracy?’ 22/7/2010 http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,707888,00.html
Domestic intelligence agencies cannot be controlled

It is quite possible to put checks on the power of a domestic intelligence agency in order to prevent abuse of authority. An important way, in which individual citizens can actually control the intelligence service, is through lodging an information request at the domestic intelligence service. In a democracy, the service is obliged to share if it has a dossier on that citizen, and if it’s unfounded, can request the deletion of it. Of course, the dossier will not include specific intelligence gathering methods used nor mention sources, but overall, it will provide a good picture of what the intelligence service has been investigating so far.
PRC is clearly the China that matters

The Chinese civil war is over, and it is clear that it is the People’s Republic that has won. The 1992 consensus (though the term was coined later) between Taiwan and the PRC is that there is “one China, Different Interpretations” about who controls that China.[1] If there is only one China then it is clear which of the two China’s that one is. The PRC is 266 times larger than RoC, has 58 times the population, and its economy is 13.7 times bigger (by purchasing power parity).[2] States should be recognising the PRC as the “one China”. [1] Kan, Shirley A., ‘China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy – Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei’, Congressional Research Service, 26 August 2013, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30341.pdf, p.47 [2] All figures from The World Factbook, China and Taiwan pages https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html
Economically beneficial

Switching diplomatic recognition to China can be economically beneficial. A country that changes recognition is both likely to be given a reward for the change and then be much capable of engaging in joint economic projects with the PRC. Malawi for example cut its ties with Taiwan at the end of 2007. PRC offered a $6billion financial package for the defection.[1] Malawi has since benefited from large amounts of Chinese investment; Chinese companies have been involved in building vital infrastructure such as schools and roads, and even a new parliament building.[2] And trade between China and Malawi has been booming with growth of 25% in 2010 alone.[3] Even the Chinese believe that recognition occurs as a result of the economic incentive the Chinese envoy to Malawi having been quoted calling Malawi beggars.[4] [1] Hsu, Jenny W., ‘Malawi, Taiwan end 42-year relations’, Taipei Times, 15 January 2008, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2008/01/15/2003397305 [2] Ngozo, Claire, ‘China puts its mark on Malawi’, theguardian.com, 7 May 2011, http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2011/may/07/china-puts-mark-malawi-presence [3] Jomo, Frank, ‘Malawi, China Trade to Grow 25% on Cotton, Daily Times Reports’, Bloomberg, 15 December 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-15/malawi-china-trade-to-grow-25-on-cotton-daily-times-reports.html [4] ‘Chinese Envoy's Remarks on Malawi Breed Resentment’, Voice of America, 1 November 2009, http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2008-03-28-voa36/403299.html
Should not ignore the will of 1.3billion

A small African country should not ignore one sixth of the world’s population. To recognise a tiny country of 23million over one of 1.3billion is being unjust to a huge portion of humanity. When there is such an imbalance in population it is clear that the democratic path is to recognise the side with the greater population. When all the states that have recognised Taiwan finally transfer recognition to the PRC Taiwan may finally recognise that it would be best off returning to China. By changing its recognition São Tomé and other small countries can do their bit to ensure peace in East Asia.
Cannot avoid dealing with a UNSC member

The PRC is a member of the United Nations Security Council and as such is one of the key members of the UN. It is therefore difficult for countries to avoid dealing with it. The Pacific island of Tonga’s switched recognition because it feared the PRC would veto its membership of the UN.[1] São Tomé is already a member but that does not mean the PRC can’t cause problems in the international body; it clearly has the ability to scupper any initiative São Tomé wishes to pursue. Similarly in other international institutions while the PRC does not wield as much power as it does in the UN it still has considerably more influence than Taiwan; this includes over some organisations that provide aid such as the World Bank and IMF. São Tomé therefore must deal with the PRC, this being the case it should not let recognition get in the way. [1] Fossen, Anthony Van, ‘The Struggle for Recognition: Diplomatic Competition between China and Taiwan in Oceania’, The Journal of Chinese Political Science, Col.12, No.2, 2007, http://www.researchgate.net/publication/29465883_The_Struggle_for_Recognition_Diplomatic_Competition_Between_China_and_Taiwan_in_Oceania, p.4
Should recognise a democracy

São Tomé is a multiparty democracy and has been since 1995 with free and fair elections.[1] The country is eleventh on the Ibrahim Index of African Governance.[2] It should therefore be supporting its fellow democracy; Taiwan. As a country that was a colony of Portugal for five hundred years having only secured independence in 1975 São Tomé should not wish to support a country that colonises others such as Tibet and Inner Mongolia, seeks to colonise Taiwan, and engages in aggressive actions to seize small islands in nearby seas. [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Sao Tome and Principe’, U.S. Department of State, 2012, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2012&dlid=204158 [2] ‘The Ibrahim Index of African Governance’, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/iiag/ accessed 10/2/2014
There is a truce in the diplomatic conflict

There is a truce between Taipei and Beijing on the issue of recognition. Neither is currently aiming to poach countries from the other. China has refused advances from El Salvador and Honduras that have said they wish to change their recognition to the PRC.[1] When Gambia terminated its ties with Taiwan Hong Lei a spokesman for the PRC Foreign Ministry said “We learned the relevant information from the foreign media. Before that, China was not in contact with The Gambia.”[2] The truce has been maintained and Gambia has been left essentially not recognising either China.[3] [1] Cole, J Michael, ‘Is China and Taiwan’s Diplomatic Truce Over?’, The Diplomat, 18 November 2013, http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/is-china-and-taiwans-diplomatic-truce-over/ [2] Enav, Peter, ‘Beijing was in dark about Gambia's broken ties with Taiwan: China official’, The China Post, 16 November 2013, http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/foreign-affairs/2013/11/16/393759/Beijing-was.htm [3] Atkinson, Joel, ‘Gambia’s Break with Taiwan’, The Diplomat, 2 December 2013, http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/gambias-break-with-taiwan/
Receive much greater interest from Taiwan

There are benefits to being one of only twenty-two countries that recognise another country; you are lavished with attention. The President of the RoC visited São Tomé in January 2014,[1] he was last intending to visit only two years before but cancelled as President Manuel Pinto da Costa was overseas.[2] Visits also regularly go the other way; in a four month period from October 2010 São Tomé’s President, Minister of Finance, and Prime Minister all made separate trips to Taiwan.[3] The PRC being recognised by many more countries could never provide the same level of attention. As one of the poorest countries in the world without the question of recognition the PRC would have practically no interest in such a small African state. [1] ‘Ma vows to strengthen ROC-Sao Tome relations’, Taiwan Today, 27 January 2014, http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=213957&ctNode=420 [2] Hsiu-chuan, Shih, ‘Ma’s trip canceled due to scheduling conflict: Sao Tome’, Taipei Times, 5 April 2012, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/04/05/2003529559 [3] Martins, Vasco, ‘Aid for legitimacy: São Tomé and Principe hand in hand with Taiwan’, IPRIS Viewpoints, February 2011, http://www.ipris.org/php/download.php?fid=376
Economically beneficial

The PRC does not ignore countries that do not have diplomatic relations with it.  São Tomé is a case in point; PRC is opening a trade mission in the country despite not change in diplomatic recognition. This is in part because the Chinese are taking part in a $400million deep-water port development.[1] Not engaging in diplomatic relations with the PRC does not damage economic relations. [1] ‘China to open mission with tiny Sao Tome, despite its Taiwan links’, Reuters, 14 November 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/us-china-saotome-idUSBRE9AD0CJ20131114
Should not ignore the will of 1.3billion

While the PRC may have more people the rights of its people to consider themselves Chinese is clearly recognised the world over. It is Taiwan however whose rights are quashed by its lack of recognition; it can neither be recognised as China or exercise its right to self-determination as Taiwan as China has threatened invasion if it declares independence.[1] This would be unjust. Changing recognition to ensure ‘peace’ would not change the Taiwanese position so rendering the change meaningless. [1] Hutzler, Charles, ‘China Threatens War Over Taiwan’, Washington Post, 21 February 2000, http://www.taiwandc.org/wp-2000-01.htm
Should recognise a democracy

Democracy and history have little to do with recognition; PRC is recognised by many democracies around the world. The PRC is also on the side of former colonies having itself suffered a ‘century of humiliation’. The PRC is an observer of the Non Aligned Movement which contains almost all countries that have been colonies.[1] [1] ‘The Non-Aligned Movement: Background Information’, Government Communications South Africa, 21 September 2001, http://www.nam.gov.za/background/background.htm
There is a truce in the diplomatic conflict

That there is a truce at the moment does not mean that diplomatic relations with Taiwan should not be dropped. Taiwan is not China so Sao Tome should not be recognising Taiwan even if the PRC will not accept recognition at the moment. The PRC is also unlikely to keep the truce for long – any countries changing diplomatic recognition will be able to formally recognise the PRC as soon as the PRC finds it politically expedient to needle Taiwan.
Receive much greater interest from Taiwan

China is interested in African states; for decades many African states were seen as ideological partners, and now they are economic partners.[1] A President’s first overseas visit is always symbolic; President Xi’s firs visit was a four country tour taking in Russia and three African countries; Tanzania, South Africa, and Republic of Congo.[2] This shows how important Africa is to Beijing. [1] Qichen, Qian, ‘Ten Episodes in China’s Diplomacy’, HarperCollins, 2006, Chapter 8 pp.191-230 [2] Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, ‘Africa: China's New President Concludes First Foreign Visit With Fruitful Results’, allAfrica, 1 April 2013, http://allafrica.com/stories/201304011181.html
Danger to students

Hate speech poses a clear danger to students and other members of the campus community. Often, the hatred is directed towards minority groups that are easily identifiable based on skin colour, clothing, or behaviour. Because these minorities are easy to identify, they can be targeted by those swayed by the speaker’s message. Every hate crime is a tragedy and an attack against the principles of WLDs. Even when the message doesn’t provoke violence, it can have a deep emotional harm on members of the targeted community. As such, the government has a duty to intervene to ensure that individuals are safe.[1] [1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/quick-debates/protecting-free-speech-...