BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It would be easier to protect the rights of religious minorities within a united Ireland

There is no evidence that the Catholic population today suffers a bias in the current political system, except for that which they make for themselves. As of 2010 the Catholic representation in the House of Commons is 5 Sinn Fein and 3 SDLP against 8 Democratic Unionists,* it is only the fact that the Sinn Fein members do not take up their seats that make things uneven. In the NI Assembly things are slightly more skewed. As of 2011 there are 55 Unionists and 43 Republicans.** Attacks against Catholics are not based on religious lines. Unionist attacks are only focused on those Catholics that are Republicans. In general Catholics are perfectly safe in Northern Ireland. Additionally in united Ireland, the Protestants would become the marginalized minority. Abortion is illegal in the Republic of Ireland***, for example, which will inhibit the freedom of non- Catholics. Such laws are likely to stay because of the overwhelming Catholic majority. *Parliament.uk, 2011, http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/state-of-the-parties/ **Northern Ireland Assembly, 2011, http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/members/breakdown.htm ***Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
Uniting Ireland would bring about an end to sectarian violence

We are at peace now. The Good Friday Agreement has created stability, with the exception of occasional outbreaks but nothing like the horror of The Troubles. We do not need re-unification to have stability. In fact, the positive outcome that might happen is unsure and not a reason worth gambling on. It is likely that there will be conflict in the beginning. Such a huge move will come to Unionists as a shock and without knowing how much power they will have, having to answer to Dublin, it is likely that paramilitary activities will flare up again. This will, of course, spark off IRA and other Republican attacks. If escalations get worse, the British may intervene as well as the Irish army and there may be an entire repeat of The Troubles.
Integrating women into male combat units can cause men to behave badly

Many men who join the army maintain traditional gender roles. This may lead them to act foolishly to protect women in their combat units, endangering themselves and everyone else in the unit. In a recent review on the possible introduction of mixed-gender combat units, the British Ministry of Defense cited this as an issue.[1] At the same time, the sudden presence of women in a masculine subculture, can lead to resentment and incidents of abuse. Sexual harassment and assault may become more prevalent. Any bad male behavior will create tensions, affect morale and weaken the military. For example, at the three US service academies, one in seven women report being sexually assaulted, and half have been sexually harassed.[2] Integrating into combat unites is not likely to help these statistics. [1] Norton-Taylor, Richard, ‘Women still banned from combat roles after Ministry of Defence review’, guardian.co.uk, 29 November 2010. [2] ‘One in Seven Attending Military Academies Report Being Sexually Assaulted’, Feminist Majority Foundation, 21 March 2005.
Pregnancy affects military readiness

Women who become pregnant are not available to be deployed into warzones. This reduces military readiness. Additionally, pregnancy means that women need to take time off work, which can have worse effects in military units than any other workplace.[1] This effect has been observed in army and navy forces in the past. An increased number of women in the military would make the problem worse.[2] In 1985 up to 10% of active duty women personnel in the US armed forces were unavailable for call-up and duty due to pregnancy.[3] Pregnancy could potentially be a means of avoiding call-up. This is likely with national guard soldiers, who are usually permanently stationed at home and often build lives and families there, not expecting to be deployed abroad. This tactic was used during the Vietnam war by some men. In 1965, the decision to expand the military draft to include married men without children was made.[4] [1] ‘Sexes: The Military Is Pregnant’, Time, 8 October 1979. [2] Harrell, Margaret C., and Miller, Laura L., ‘New Opportunities for Military Women’, RAND, 1997. [3] UPI, ‘10% of Army Women Pregnant at Any Time’, The New York Times, 7 July 1985. [4] Seelye, Katharine Q., ‘Cheney’s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue’, The New York Times, 1 May 2004.
Differences in physical strength can be overcome

If we use ‘gender-blind’ recruitment and training, some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. The small number of suitable female candidates set against the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integrating them, mean that integration is not worthwhile. For example, one test of American army officer candidates showed that "only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men”[1] Some roles such as those of sniper and combat aviator clearly require less physical strength than most active combat roles. Many tasks that combat soldiers must accomplish require high muscle density, which women do not naturally possess.[2] Examples would include carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain. Older and more senior soldiers make up for their reduced physical strength with an increased amount of experience. The same cannot be said for new female recruits. [1] Gerber, Bradley, ‘Women in the Military and Combat’, Family Problems and Social Change, 1998, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011 [2] ‘Israeli women won’t see combat’, WND, 20 October 2003.
Battlefield Rape is a concern

A prevalent theme in many nationalist conflicts is both sides attempting to extinguish the bloodlines of the enemy culture. This ethnic cleansing often leads to systematic rape of women and mass murder of men. For example, in the Bosnian Wars of the early 1990s, systematic rape was carried out against all ethnic groups, but particular by ethnic Serbs against Bosnian Muslims.[1] This could present a problem in the modern interventionist or peace-keeping activities of many military forces, third party combatants are often sent to the battlefields of conflicts that involve just this kind of ethnic cleansing. While it is unlikely that anything will happen to peacekeeping units if one side does turn on the peacekeepers it is likely that female soldiers will be treated the same as women from the enemy side if the rape mentality has been set in the minds of the soldiers. [1] Osborn, Andrew, ‘Mass rape ruled a war crime’, The Guardian, 23 February 2001.
Allowing women to serve in combat increases the pool for recruits

There is no immediate pressing need for an increased pool of recruits for the army in developed countries. The late-2000s recession has led to an increase in military recruitment; particularly in the U.S.[1] This is as a result of there being many more people searching for work which makes the military a relatively more attractive career. The number of recruits and their talent pool can also be increased in other ways. For example military service can be better promoted and greater incentives to enlist can be offered. For example, educational funding provided to U.S. army veterans under the post-9/11 G.I. bill is a major incentive which has increased recruit numbers in recent decades.[2] [1] Bender, Bryan, ‘Down economy boosts military’, The Boston Globe, 1 March 2009. [2] ‘G.I. Bill’, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Accessed June 2nd, 2011
There should be equality between men and women.

This does not mean that women should have to serve in combat. The alternative is that it is possible to change the promotion policies in armies to give women a fair chance at career advancement.  Men and women are both given opportunities to join the army, but with the understanding that different roles require different physical, emotional attributes. This should mean in turn that there are multiple routes to promotion so that women have equal opportunities without having to fight take part in combat operations.
There is a relatively higher female Injury rate

It is possible to calibrate recruitment and training standards to women. Extra pre-training for muscle building can also be used to reduce female injury rates.[1] As for the increase of females being discharged in the 1990’s, it is obvious that with an increase of people, the amount of those injured with also proportionally rise, whether male or female. In order to accommodate to more females in the military, rather than integrating women into male combat units, all-female combat units could be created. These would engage in activities designed to suit women’s capabilities. [1] Gemmell, Ian M. M., ‘Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation’, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, Vol.95, No.1, January 2002, pp.23-27.
Female P.O.W.s (prisoners of war) are a liability

The treatment of P.O.W.s is influenced by many factors, including their captor nation’s adherence to the Geneva Convention, discipline within the ranks of their captor army, whether the P.O.W. is expected to possess useful information and whether the captor army is concerned with their public image. The gender of the P.O.W. is likely to have a very small influence compared to these other factors. Upon entering the army, each applicant, male or female are aware of the risks and the possibility of being captured, even if that possibility is small, and are aware of what may occur while in captivity. By deciding to join, each person therefore agrees to understanding these risks and thus making a statement of acceptance. Stories of P.O.W.s are compelling. They are likely to be used in propaganda campaigns whether or not female soldiers are involved. Had Jessica Lynch not been captured, the male soldiers probably would have been at the center of a similar campaign.
Differences in physical strength can be overcome

Militaries can use ‘gender-blind’ recruitment and training processes, treating all candidates the same regardless of gender. This is 100% fair and some women will certainly succeed in entering combatant roles and will prove themselves the equal or better than the men. For example, several Soviet women have distinguished themselves as snipers and combat aviators.[1] Alternatively, militaries can calibrate recruitment and training to suit female candidates. There is a precedent for this in the U.S. military’s A.P.F.T. (army physical fitness test), which has variations for age.[2] If the test standards can be lowered for older men, they can also be lowered for women. In the modern high technology battlefield, technical expertise and decision-making skills are often more valuable than physical strength. For example, in the American army, performance targets are regularly calibrated for age and position.[3] A forty year-old senior  N.C.O. (non-commissioned officer), faces a much easier set of targets than his 20 year-old subordinate, yet both are deployed in an active combat role. [1] ‘Women in the Russian and Soviet Military’, Wikipedia, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011 [2] Casey L., ‘Women in Combat’, 1997, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011 [3] Powers, Rod, ‘Physical Fitness Test’, about.com guide, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011
Allowing women to serve in combat increases the pool for recruits

Volunteer military forces face low recruitment and retention rates as a result of it being a tough and stressful job where workers cannot work for as long as they do in many civilian jobs.[1] Injuries and trauma caused by fighting also add to the turnover rate of soldiers. As a result it is necessary to widen the applicant pool in order to be able to ensure there are more candidates for the army. Allowing women to serve in combat effectively doubles the possible talent pool available for the military to recruit for delicate and sensitive jobs which require interpersonal skills that not every soldier possesses. The result will be better and more diplomatic soldiers who will be particularly useful in L.I.C.s.[2] [1] Cogan, James, ‘US military recruitment crisis deepens’, World Socialist Web Site, 1 June 2005. [2] DeGroot, Gerard J., ‘Women as Peacekeepers’, Toronto Star, 25 July 1999.
There should be equality between men and women.

There is a fundamental principle that men and women should be considered equal in all walks of life; and as such should both have an equal role in the military, including being in combat. Not allowing combat roles for women has an unfortunate side effect of increasing inequality in terms of ranks. Combat duty is necessary or highly beneficial for promotion to senior officer positions in many armies.[1] If women cannot serve in combat, very few will ever reach the highest ranks of the military; this creates a glass ceiling that will be very hard to break without this change to allowing women to serve in combat. Women have to be given the same opportunities as men, in the army in order to have the same opportunities they have to be exposed to the same risks. [1] Jones, Melissa, ‘Combat Women’, iVillage.co.uk. Powers, Rod, ‘What the Recruiter Never Told You’, About.com guide, Accessed June 2nd, 2011
There is a relatively higher female Injury rate

If militaries use gender-blind recruitment and training, women will suffer a high rate of injury as a result of physical differences. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves. For example, when the U.K. military began using gender-blind training in the 1990s, the rate of medical discharge of female recruits jumped from 4.6% to 11.1%.[1] In addition, regardless of recruitment and training standards, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men’s capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this. For example, armies march according to the male stride length of 45 cm, rather than the shorter female stride length of 38 cm. Women marching at the male pace are therefore at increased risk of stress fractures in pubic bones.[2] [1] Gemmell, Ian M. M., ‘Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation’, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, Vol.95, No.1, January 2002, pp.23-27. [2] ibid
Female P.O.W.s (prisoners of war) are a liability

In wars, soldiers are often captured and become P.O.W.s. Male P.O.W.s are sometimes tortured or raped. Many societies around the world value women less than men. This misogyny may make female soldiers more likely to be tortured or in particular raped than male soldiers if they are captured.[1] At the same time this threat or reality may lead male soldiers, captured alongside female soldiers, to crack more easily under interrogation.[2] Female P.O.W.s are also more likely than male P.O.W.s to be used in propaganda campaigns at home. This may have an effect on the nation’s commitment to the war effort. For example, the story of Jessica Lynch, an American marine captured in Iraq, was widely reported in the American media, affecting national morale. The media paid little attention to the male soldiers captured at the same time.[3] [1] Cook, Gretchen, ‘POWs likely to endure sexual assault’, Women’s Enews, 2002. ‘Women in Combat Frequently Asked Questions’, Center for Military Readiness, 22 November 2004. [2] Brown, Steve, ‘Female POWs Spark Calls to Reassess Military Role for Women’, CNSNews, 4 April 2003,  Accessed June 3rd, 2011 [3] Lynne, Diana, ‘Spin behind Jessica Lynch story?’, WND, 6 May 2003.
Some combat roles are better suited to women than men

Women can carry out many of these tasks without serving in combat roles in the army. For example, female medical staff or female military police can be sent to give medical assistance or conduct bodily searches. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, female U.S. military police officers have searched local women for explosives.[1] If female soldiers are perceived as less threatening than male soldiers, there could potentially be worrying side effects such as a reduction in the deterrent effect of the military presence in an L.I.C. [1] Schult, Marie, ‘Female Soldiers Assist with Cultural Sensitivities’, Defend America, March 2003.
Integrating women into male combat units can cause men to behave badly

Clearly, training will be required to facilitate the integration of women into combat units. Cultures change over time and the masculine subculture can evolve too. Many previously masculine professions have been successfully opened to women over the past century – some of them, such as working in factories and many other roles as a result of war. People involved in combat will attempt to protect  each other, this is natural, and sometimes this kind of act is foolish. But this is something that already happens, involving women in the combat role will not make much difference. In addition, men can be informed that acting foolishly to protect women is unacceptable and reprimanded just as any soldier acting foolishly for any other reason would be. Soldiers can be taught what constitutes sexual harassment and abuse and how to react if they witness it or are victimized. Armies already take such incidents seriously and disciplinary procedures can be put in place to deal with any increases in such incidents in the short term as a result of the change. There would be no difference in uniform or in how males and females would be treated, other than the different physical practice tasks, in order to encourage integration. The change to incorporating women in combat unites would mean that men and women would be given the same treatment so that they would come see each other as equal members of the military.
Pregnancy affects military readiness

Male soldiers generally take just as much time off as female soldiers, in large part due to their greater alcohol and drug use.[1] Of course this problem can be easily anticipated. Statistics on the number or female soldiers not available for call-up due to pregnancy can be used to factor in the phenomenon so that the military has enough personnel to deploy at any one time. This is already done for male soldiers not available for call-up due to injury.[2] Moreover this should not even be considered as not all women can or want to have children. In western states, it is more common for women to become career women and leave having children to later on in life; this would just as likely be the case with women in the military. Women, who choose to become active combat soldiers, are unlikely to shirk their duty by becoming pregnant after a call-up as these women have willingly joined the army. [1] ‘Sexes: The Military Is Pregnant’, Time, 8 October 1979. [2] ibid
Battlefield Rape is a concern

No woman will be working by herself. Military units work together, and if a woman were, for example, on patrol by herself, she is armed and can legitimately defend herself against an attacker. In fact, women are a better presence in situations where rape is being used as a weapon of war. Local women are not going to trust male soldiers so easily as women, because one man in a camouflage uniform looks much like another. If a woman has been raped, or seen/heard about someone from their neighborhood being raped by an armed militia, or by the army, that woman is in a state of fear already. She will not be able to distinguish between soldiers in her panic. However, a female soldier is not going to rape the local women. This means there is a greater bond of trust between the two parties and they can work together in things like delivering aid, rebuilding infrastructure post-conflict. Local women will also feel more comfortable to come forward to report a crime of rape to another woman, than she would to a man.[1] [1] Carvajal, Doreen, ‘A Female Approach to Peacekeeping’, The New York Times, 5 March 2010.
Some combat roles are better suited to women than men

Modern warfare involves many L.I.C.s, where the battleground is as much “hearts and minds” as it is physical combat. In a conflict where hearts and minds are important delicate handling of local people is required in order gain their support. In L.I.C.s, women are often better suited to intelligence gathering, medical assistance, policing and mediation than men. They are often perceived as less threatening and more understanding.[1] In addition, they would be better placed to deal with women in the local population. For example, the job of many of the female U.S. marines killed and injured in June 2005 in Iraq was to search women for explosives at checkpoints to avoid the near-universal sense of humiliation engendered by a member of the opposite sex conducting an intimate bodily search.[2] [1] DeGroot, Gerard J., ‘Women as Peacekeepers’, Toronto Star, 25 July 1999. [2] Reuters, ‘The Female Fallen’, PTSD Support, Accessed June 2nd, 2011.
All modern military roles are combatant anyway

Many modern conflicts are L.I.C.s which involve terrorist groups using guerilla tactics. In these situations, there are no clear ‘front-lines’, and no clear difference between combatant and non-combatant roles. All women serving in the military are exposed to “front-line risks”.[1] Attacks on soldiers are as likely to occur on the military’s bases themselves as they are when the soldiers are out on patrol. For example, in late June of 2005 in Iraq, two women marines were killed and about a dozen injured in a pair of suicide attacks.[2] That frontline combat operations are not always much more dangerous than other roles can be shown by the casualties in Iraq comparing the initial invasion and reconstruction phases. The United States lost very few casualties in the invasion phase of the war up to President Bush’s declaration of victory on 1 May 2003 with only 138 dead,[3] compared to an overall death toll of 4422.[4] If men and women are already in practice facing the same risks and as women and men are equal, there should be equality when it comes to being considered being in frontline combat service. [1] Clark-Flory, Tracy, ‘Should women fight on the front lines?’, Salon, 5 November 2010. [2] Glanz, James, et al., ‘Iraq Bombing Kills 4 U.S. Women, a Record Toll’, The New York Times, 25 June 2005. [3] ‘U.S. Casualties in Iraq’, GlobalSecurity.org. [4] ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) U.S. Casualty Status Fatalities As Of: July 24 2012’, Department of Defense.
Length of occupation

The primary means of acquiring title to territory is through the effective exercise of the functions of a state within that territory. This means that Britain has a right to the territory under either ‘occupation’ (if Argentina is not considered to have occupied previously) or ‘prescription’ if it has.[1] The ICJ has stated that the claim must be I, the possession must be exercised in the character of a sovereign II, the possession must be peaceful and uninterrupted III, the possession must be public IV, the possession must endure for a certain length of time.[2] Britain would not have difficulty arguing that it has continuously exercised sovereignty for over 170 years. It has also been peaceful (no attacking native tribes, no unrest etc). It would seem silly to transfer sovereignty to Argentina on the basis of Argentina having only occupied the islands for at most five years compared to the long period of British occupation both after and before the Argentine colony. [1] Dixon, Martin, Textbook on International Law, 6th ed., Oxford, 2007,  p.155, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aS2fv32rvMcC&printsec=frontcover#v=on... [2] International Court of Justice, ‘Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)’, 23 December 1999, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/98/7577.pdf p.62/1103