BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The current regional FTAs undermine poor countries' bargaining power

“The Pros and Cons of Pursuing Free-Trade Agreements” , Economic and Budget Issue Brief, July 31, 2003 - "Some critics worry that FTAs might divert the world away from multilateral trade liberalization and lead to the development of large, competing trading blocs--the United States and the Western Hemisphere, the EU and nearby countries, and Japan and its trading partners in Asia and the Pacific Rim--a result that would be inferior to multilateral free trade. Critics also note that the large size of the U.S. economy and its consequent desirability as a market give the United States a great advantage in negotiations with individual countries, especially small developing ones. The same is true for FTAs negotiated by the EU or Japan. The result of such unequal bargaining power can be that significant trade restrictions by the large countries remain in place that would more likely be eliminated under circumstances of more-equal negotiating power."
Free market economies self-regulate socially, ethically, and morally

Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works?. Yale University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-300-10777-3. pp 53. - "Intelligent critics are prepared to accept that a sophisticated market economy works far better than any other economic system. But they would proceed to complain that markets encourage immorality and have socially immoral consequences, not least gross inequality. These views, albeit common, are largely mistaken...All complex societies are unequal. In all societies people (generally men) seek power and authority over others. But, among sophisticated societies with an elaborate division of labour, societies with market economies have been the least unequal and the inequality they generate has been the least harmful."
Free trade promotes peace and stability internationally

Daniel Griswold, presented at the Peace Through Trade" Conference”, in Oslo Norway three main reason for which free trade promotes peace. He uses the democratic peace theory to support the fact that democracies do no fight each other. Since free trade enhances democracies it enhances peace between states. He also believes that free trade promotes more economic integration, which constrains the out-break of war by making it highly economically costly. Lastly, he argues that free trade promotes wealth acquisition by mutually beneficial transactions, contrary state economic models that have emphasized territorial expansion, which often incites war.[2]
Free trade leads to foreign dependencies in vital resources

Patrick J. Buchanan. "Free Trade is Not Free, Mr. President". The American Cause. May, 2001 - "Have we forgotten? Hamilton created the 'American System' to end our reliance on England and Europe, because he and Washington believed economic independence was necessary for political independence. If we did not depend on Europe, they knew, we could stay out of Europe’s wars. Is all that Made-in-China junk at the mall worth the loss of our economic independence?"
Free trade creates more jobs (and better ones) than it destroys

Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, At the Montana Economic Development Summit 2007, Butte, Montana, May 1, 2007 " The U.S. jobs created by trade also tend to offer higher pay and demand greater skill than the jobs that are destroyed--although a downside is that, in the short run, the greater return to skills created by trade may tend to increase the wage differential between higher-skilled and lower-skilled workers and thus contribute to income inequality (Bernanke, 2007). The effects of trade on employment must also be put in the context of the remarkable dynamism of the U.S. labor market. The amount of "churn" in the labor market--the number of jobs created and destroyed--is enormous and reflects the continuous entry, exit, and resizing of firms in our ever-changing economy. Excluding job layoffs and losses reversed within the year, over the past decade an average of nearly 16 million private-sector jobs have been eliminated each year in the United States, an annual loss equal to nearly 15 percent of the current level of nonfarm private employment.6 The vast majority of these job losses occur for a principal reason other than international trade (Kletzer, 2001; Bernanke, 2004). Moreover, during the past ten years, the 16 million annual job losses have been more than offset by the creation of about 17 million jobs per year--some of which, of course, are attributable to the direct and indirect effects of trade. Truly, the U.S. labor market exhibits a phenomenal capacity for creative destruction"
Globalization is not rampant, remaining fairly limited in scope globally

Globalization and free trade are in their infancy. The fact that it is not widespread, and that many developed countries continue protectionist policies, is actually the source of many problems for developing and poor countries. These poor countries could use more free trade at this moment, and to attribute the existence of free trade as the cause of these countries' current plight, would be to misunderstand how limited globalization actually is today.
Firms often threaten with outsourcing unions demanding higher wages

Robert E. Scott. "The high price of 'free' trade". Economic Policy Institute. November 17, 2003 - "'threat effects' arise when firms threaten to close plants and move them abroad while bargaining with workers over wages and working conditions. Employers' credible threats to relocate plants, outsource portions of their operations, and purchase intermediate goods and services directly from foreign producers can have a substantial impact on workers' bargaining positions."
Globalization involves positive imitation of cultures

Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works?. Yale University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-300-10777-3. pp 102. - "It is true that, today, that western ideas of democracy and the market economy, including business culture (and the intellectual counterculture to business culture) are spreading quite rapidly across the globe. But it was always so. Human beings imitate, or are absorbed by, the ideas of others on what to believe and how to live."
Free trade does not sufficiently protect worker rights

Adrian Boutureira. "The Hidden Costs of Free Trade". The Boston Globe. November 5, 2007 - "This week, the Democratic-led Congress will have its first vote on the Bush administration’s latest NAFTA-like expansion, the US-Peru bilateral free trade agreement[...]Like many workers in Latin American countries, Peruvians face constant threats to their labor rights. Violations include discrimination against union organizers, illegal firings, and forced overtime without pay. Further, the new system of fixed-labor contracts and subcontracting radically undermines workers’ rights because it does not guarantee a 44-hour work week or labor standards. The new, much-talked-about labor language added to the US-Peru agreement does not solve this or many other key labor rights issues."
Free Trade enables people to specialize and benefit from global productive skills

Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, at the Montana Economic Development Summit 2007, Butte, Montana, May 1, 2007 - "At the most basic level, trade is beneficial because it allows people to specialize in the goods and services they produce best and most efficiently. For example, we could conceivably all grow our own food and provide our own medical care. But because farming and medicine require special knowledge and skills, a far more efficient arrangement is for the farmer to specialize in growing food and for the doctor to specialize in treating patients.
2006 S. Ossetia referendum only exacerbated tensions

Sean McCormack. "State Department Press Statement". Sean McCormack, Spokesman for the US State Department. 8 Nov. 2006 - "The United States rejects the "independence referendum" and concurrent so-called "presidential" elections scheduled for November 12 in Georgia’s South Ossetia region. These actions will only serve to exacerbate tensions and divert attention from the need to peacefully resolve the conflict."
South Ossetia has as much claim to independence as Kosovo

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2007. Most Western scholars consider this to have been a legitimate claim. A comparative analysis reveals that South Ossetia has an equally legitimate claim to independence as Kosovo. Both have populations that overwhelmingly support independence (over 90%). Both have a population with a distinct ethnic, national, and linguistic identity. Both have governed themselves autonomously for some time. And, both have been oppressed by the governments that make a claim to have sovereign rights over their territory. Both are very small, landlocked states. There appear to be more similarities between Kosovo and S. Ossetia than dissimilarities. Therefore, Kosovo's independence sets a strong precedent for South Ossetia also declaring independence.
South Ossetia has a right to self-determination

The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: "All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right". By this measure, South Ossetia has the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and any suppression of that right should be seen as a human rights violation.
S. Ossetia legitimately gained independence at break-up of USSR

"Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia". Speech at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. 18 Mar. 2008 - "State Sovereignty of the Republic of South Ossetia After Georgia declared its independence, the Republic of South Ossetia was acting in strict conformity with the Law of “Order of Settlement of the Withdrawal Problems of Union Republics from the USSR” and gained its independence as the result of a national referendum in compliance with all legal norms and procedures under the control of observers from foreign states."
S. Ossetia's case is different than Kosovo's case.

There are significant differences between South Ossetia and Kosovo that make South Ossetia a less legitimate prospect for independence. South Ossetia has only 70,000 residents, whereas Kosovo has over 2,100,000. This makes Kosovo thirty times as populous. This is a major difference. Kosovo suffered much more egregiously under Serbia. Serbia engaged in clear cases of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. It is much less clear that Georgia engaged in such behavior against South Ossetia.
99% of South Ossetians voted for independence in 2006

In 2006, South Ossetia held a referendum that found over 99% of its population of over 100,000 desire independence from Georgia. 95% of the the population turned out to vote. The referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers. These facts are the core of the case for South Ossetian independence. It demonstrates that South Ossetians are entirely unified and enthusiastic in their desire for independence. The strength and unity of these calls for independence are almost unprecedented and cannot be ignored by the international community. And, certainly, the percentage of a population that desires independence is of relevance to assessing the legitimacy of the call and a country's right to self-determination. By this standard, South Ossetia's right to self-determination is highly legitimate.
Name Ossetia has history independent of Georgia

Chapter 4 of "The Georgian - South Ossetian Conflict" - "Ossetian historians dedicate much effort to show that the name South Ossetia was not an invention by the Soviet Union, but used much earlier; this they demonstrate by using Russian, Armenian, Western and Georgian sources. They state that the first written source mentioning the name South Ossetia is in the early middle ages by Armenians (as for example in Gagloiti)."
S. Ossetians will not accept reintegration with Georgia.

It is important to recognize that South Ossetia has been de facto independent for some time. If it does not achieve independence, the proposed alternative is that it re-integrate into Georgia. Yet, %99 of South Ossetians have made it clear that they will not accept this. The only possible course of action, therefore, would be to force over 100,000 South Ossetians to live under the tyranny of the majority of the Georgian state. This is a clear violation of self-determination and basic democratic principles.
Ossetians migrated to Georgia; Georgia did not annex Ossetian land.

Under Mongol rule, Ossetians were pushed out of their medieval homeland south of the Don river in present-day Russia and part migrated towards and over the Caucasus mountains, to Georgia, where they formed three distinct territorial entities. Digor in the west came under the influence of the neighboring Kabard people, who introduced Islam. Tualläg in the south became what is now South Ossetia, part of the historical Georgian principality of Samachablo, where Ossetians found refuge from Mongol invaders. S. Ossetians, therefore, came to and settled in Georgian territory. This demonstrates that Georgian territory existed prior to a population of S. Ossetians coming to that territory to settle. Georgia, therefore, has a greater claim to the integrity of its territory than S. Ossetia does to its existence in a certain territory.
Modern Georgia never really controlled S. Ossetia.

South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia shortly after Georgia gained independence from the disintegrating USSR in 1991. South Ossetia has maintained de facto independence ever since. Goergia, therefore, cannot really claim to have had sustained, legitimate sovereign control over South Ossetia in modern times. Therefore, its only real claim to South Ossetia must extend back nearly a century, before the time of the Soviet Union. This significantly weakens Georgia's claim over South Ossetia.
Self-determination is not absolute; S. Ossetia does not qualify.

Self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination. Much of the below case outlines these criteria and why S. Ossetia fails to meet them satisfactorily.
Russia agreed in 1917 S. Ossetia was part of Georgia

Chapter 4 of "The Georgian - South Ossetian Conflict" - "After the collapse of the Tsarist Empire in 1917 (of which Georgia had been part of since 1801) Georgia declared its independence. Georgia formed the Democratic Republic of Georgia, led by the Georgian social democrats - the so-called Menshevics. The country was recognised by several Western states (Sakvarelidze 1993, p.27). On 7 May 1920, a treaty of friendship was signed between Georgia and Russia in which, according to Georgian sources Russia recognised South Ossetia as an integral part of Georgia. It was named as Tiflis Gubernia and included the district Shida Kartli, therefore including what was to become the South Ossetian Autonomous Region (Oblast)"
The Ossetian people have a divided, non-contiguous history.

The Ossetians are originally descendants of the Alans, a Sarmatian tribe. They became Christians during the early Middle Ages, under Georgian and Byzantine influences. Under Mongol rule, they were pushed out of their medieval homeland south of the Don river in present-day Russia and part migrated towards and over the Caucasus mountains, to Georgia where they formed three distinct territorial entities. Digor in the west came under the influence of the neighboring Kabard people, who introduced Islam. Tualläg in the south became what is now South Ossetia, part of the historical Georgian principality of Samachablo where Ossetians found refuge from Mongol invaders. Iron in the north became what is now North Ossetia, under Russian rule from 1767. Most Ossetians are now Christian (approximately 61%); there is also a significant Muslim minority.
S. Ossetia 2006 referendum should be recognized

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the 2006 referendum as a "free expression of the will of South Ossetia’s people through democratic procedures. Many countries in Europe and America could only envy the level of organization and democratic transparency [in South Ossetia]."[1] Denying the legitimacy of this democratic referendum is to deny the South Ossetian people the right to self determination. That the international community refuses to recognize
It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability.

The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was "unhelpful" and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia.
S. Ossetian independence will help avoid future conflict.

Alan Dzhusoev, head of Club Open Society, a leading South Ossetian non-governmental organization. - "A failure to recognize South Ossetia will turn Tskhinvali [South Ossetia's de facto capital] into Beirut, with unending militarized clashes and tensions in the region."[5] This is confirmed by the fact that the history of Georgia and S. Ossetia is one of unending conflict. This will only continue into the future, unless S. Ossetia obtains independence.
South Ossetia has an effective democratic government

"Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia". Speech at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. 18 Mar. 2008 - "The organized government carries out an effective control over the territory and the population. The Republic has its own Constitution accepted by the referendum of 2001, the Army, the National flag and the Hymn. The status of the citizen is certified by the passport given out by the state. The president and Parliament are elected by general voting. The Republic of South Ossetia is a legally valid democratic state. The Republic of South Ossetia held all the elections without exception, all the procedures of delegation of powers to the President, Parliament, and the Government in strict accordance with the constitutional order. The Republic has independent legal procedure, army and militia and security service. The state levies taxes, provides property rights and social service – public health services, provision of pensions, public safety, power and road and transport services, etc."
If S. Ossetians renounce violence, no future conflicts will occur.

S. Ossetian militant separatists argue that, if S. Ossetia is not given independence, that future violence and chaos will result. Yet, this is only the case if S. Ossetian separatists continue to resist Georgia's sovereignty violently. If S. Ossetians renounce the use of force and their separatism, there will be no future conflicts. This is an equally valid solution as independence.
South Ossetia was wrong to hold elections under conflict conditions.

In 2006, South Ossetia can be said to have been in 8 conflicts with Georgia when it held its 2006 referendum on independence. Holding referendums under such conflict conditions is generally illegitimate because the results of the elections are skewed by the conflict, threats, and the various risks for the voters involved. This caused David Bakradze, the chairman of a Georgian parliamentary European Integration Committee, to comment, "Under conflict conditions, you cannot speak about legitimate elections."[2]
Russia's involvement corrupted the 2006 S. Ossetian referendum

Vladimir Socor. "MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM". 15 Nov. 2006 - "On November 12 the Russian-installed authorities in South Ossetia held a referendum and “presidential” election in the portions of territory under their control. The balloting returned the de facto president, Eduard Kokoiti, to office for another term and produced a “yes” answer to the question: “Do you agree that the Republic of South Ossetia should retain its current status as an independent state and be recognized by the international community?”"
S. Ossetia is economically unviable as a state

South Ossetian GDP was estimated at US$ 15 million (US$ 250 per capita) in a work published in 2002. Daria Vaisman wrote in a 2006 Christian Science Monitor article that South Ossetia is "lacking...the basic economic necessities for autonomy."[3] Indeed, a $15 million GDP would make South Ossetia one of the poorest nations in the world. Following a war with Georgia in the 1990s, South Ossetia has struggled economically. Employment and supplies are scarce. The majority of the population survives on subsistence farming. Virtually the only significant economic asset that South Ossetia possesses is control of the Roki Tunnel that links Russia and Georgia, from which the South Ossetian government reportedly obtains as much as a third of its budget by levying customs duties on freight traffic. The separatist officials admitted that Tskhinvali received more than 60 percent of its 2006 budget revenue directly from the Russian government.
Term limits counter hierarchy, ensure equality, among politicians

"Hear some arguments in favor of term limits.": "Our legislature is designed to be made up of politicians of equal importance, but under the current system lawmakers who have served for a long time are able to dominate. This is true for a number of reasons. First, their experience gives them more political savvy. Second, more time spent in Washington allows them to establish many important connections. Additionally, the near-inevitability of reelection allows them to operate with little concern for the opinions of their constituencies. Most importantly, seniority determines who holds important positions like chairmanships of Congressional subcommittees. The problem with concentrating power in senior politicians is that while such inequality is often good for their constituencies - powerful congressmen can help ensure that a lot of federal funding goes into plans that help their district - it is often detrimental to the country as a whole."
Term limits ensure politicians understand private sector

In the introductory essay in The Politics and Law of Term Limits, coauthors Ed Crane and Roger Pilon wrote, "implicit in our founding vision is the idea that most human affairs take place in what today we call the private sector. That sector--and this is the crucial point--is primary: government comes from it, not the other way around. When we send men and women to Congress to `represent' us, therefore, we want them to understand that they represent us, the overwhelming number of Americans who live our daily lives in that private sector."[12]
Term-limits prevent switching parties to stay in power.

Paul Jacob, president of Citizens in Charge, recently used "Common Sense'", said in response to news of Arlene Specter switching to the Democratic Party in 2009: "What most interests me, now, is that Specter's affiliation change shows how difficult it is to change currents in government. The old guard can flip, stay in power, and the power brokers switch chairs from friend to foe and vice versa. If senators served under term limits, this whole issue -- and the problem it reveals -- would not even come up."[5]