BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tibet has made enormous strides under Chinese rule

Contrary to the impressions forwarded by the proposition, Tibet has made enormous strides under Chinese rule. The urban population has increased seven-fold since 1950,[1] literacy has increased from the teens to being as high as 95%,[2] and the average life expectancy has increased from the low 30s to the 60s. Furthermore, with few natural resources and the economy in Han hands, there is a need for investment capital, and that capital can only come from China. Even the Dalai Llama acknowledged this in 2006, suggesting that a relationship with China similar to that between EU countries would be ideal.[3] [1] European Space Agency, ‘The Himalayan region’, esa.int, 18 February 2010, http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Eduspace_Environment_EN/SEM9VP0SAKF_2.html [2] Literacy rate among young people climbs in Tibet, People’s Daily Online, 31 July 2008, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/6464183.html [3] Liu, Melinda, ‘Fears and Tears’, Newsweek, 19 May 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/03/19/fears-and-tears.html
Tibet is almost 50% Han Chinese and they dominate the economy. Expelling them would be catastrophic

Whatever the reasons or the moral legitimacy behind the move, Tibet is a very different place today than it was in 1950. According to the 2000 census, 2.3 million of Tibet’s 7.3 Million citizens are Han Chinese, and if temporary residents are added the numbers nearly double. In the event Tibet achieves independence it is likely that these Han residents will face discrimination if not open pogroms. Already they are a constant target of riots launched by Tibetan Nationalists, events that often end in the destruction of Han businesses and property. Such an outcome would not only be morally abhorrent – it would also be catastrophic for Tibet’s economic and political position. This minority plays a key role in the Tibetan economy, and their departure would create a vacuum that could lead to an economic  collapse. Furthermore, any mistreatment of the Han Minority would likely push Chinese opinion, already of the view that the Tibetans are coddled according to Faread Zakaria, into support for military intervention. The Economist’s James Miles remarked of the 2008 riots that "What I saw was calculated targeted violence against an ethnic group, or I should say two ethnic groups, primarily ethnic Han Chinese living in Lhasa, but also members of the Muslim Hui minority in Lhasa."[1] [1] ‘Transcript: James Miles interview on Tibet’, CNN, 20 March 2008, http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/tibet.miles.interview/
China has viewed the last century and a half as non-stop efforts by Westerners to divide China. This looks like another.

The last century and a half of relations between China and the West have from the Chinese perspective been one long period of national dismemberment. In 1842 the British took control of Hong Kong after the first Opium war, and after its sequel,  China lost control of Shanghai and its own customs service. Efforts were made to sever Manchuria, Taiwan from China in the 20th, and Korea and Vietnam were fully removed from Chinese authority. As a consequence the Chinese are quite paranoid about outside efforts to divide Chinese territory, and support for the Tibetan Independence, due to the fact that the West has no clear interests in the region, is interpreted chiefly as an effort to divide and weaken China.[1] As a consequence, western condemnation tends to be counterproductive, leading to public sentiment in China turning far nastier towards legitimate Tibetan demands. These sorts of views on the part of the Chinese Public are far from unwarranted given the likely consequences of Tibetan independence, namely the creation of a Pro-Western, anti-Chinese state on their borders, and the Chinese are therefore likely to respond to future moves in favour of Tibetan independence the same way Americans would have reacted to Pro-Confederate moves on the part of Great Britain or France during the US Civil War. [1] II. Origins of So-Called ‘Tibetan Independence’, http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/tibet/9-2.htm
Tibet could never be a viable independent state and would either become a Chinese puppet or a launching pad for American and Indian power against China.

Given the realities of geography, Tibet has little prospect of real independence. Landlocked, with few natural resources, and no clear way to get any resources it does have out, Tibet would be poor, and overshadowed by its much larger neighbours, China and India. It would be faced with the choice of either becoming a prize to be fought over between those two powers or aligning itself with one or the other, most likely India given its difficult recent history over the last few decades. The consequence would be that rather than giving the Tibetans greater freedom, independence would render them pawns, and rather than reducing tensions in the region, it would likely increase those between India, Pakistan and China. Tibet would be in the same position it was at the end of the 19th Century when it was a weak power at the mercy of the British and Chinese having to toe the line for whichever neighbour was stronger at the time. Its hard to see how the United States could avoid being drawn into such a geopolitical quagmire, with likely negative consequences for the Sino-American relationship as well. The US having played a key role in gaining freedom for Tibet could hardly stand aside if that freedom was threatened, and the Chinese in turn would view any US influence in a free Tibet as further evidence of the existence of an American hand behind the Tibetan Freedom Movement.
Tibet is a distinct nation with a distinct history that China illegally invaded

In order for Tibet to have traditionally been viewed as part of the Chinese nation, there is no requirement that it have been under Chinese rule continuously. Like many other parts of “China”, it was ruled by China during times of imperial strength, and when governments weakened, so too did central authority. In this sense Tibet has a lot in common with Manchuria, another region that tended to drift towards autonomy during times of dynastic weakness. One thing however has been clear – the variation in sovereignty in Tibet has been between autonomy and Chinese sovereignty. Even in the 9th century when Tibetan armies were outside the gates of the Tang Dynasty Capital of Chang’an, the Tibetans remained nominally the Emperor’s subjects as proclaimed by a monument from 823 stating “their territories be united as one”.[1] Tibet’s independence between 1904/11 and 1950 was consistent with this cycle. Tibet gained autonomy when China weakened, and this autonomy was as much a product of British influence as it was of any Tibetan desires themselves. In 1950, with China reunited under a strong government, Chinese sovereignty returned. It was undoubtedly the case that the local elites who were displaced resented this change, just as their predecessors did the previous times throughout history when Chinese sovereignty was restored, but this does not justify independence, especially when Tibetan independence in the past has always been a product of the dual factors of Chinese weakness and the strength of foreign powers in the region, neither of which is operative right now. [1] China Daily, ‘From dynasty to republic’, 9 April 2008 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-04/09/content_6601917.htm
Tibetans are rapidly becoming a minority in their own country

Migrations for economic reasons is part of the modern global economy. Tibet in 1950 was massively underdeveloped with very low literacy rates, and little modern economic infrastructure. Given the determination of the Chinese government to modernize Tibet, the importation of workers was vital. Educated Chinese were needed to run the administration in the absence of qualified local elites willing to work with them, while Chinese teachers were needed to run the schools.  In turn, they brought their families, and a host of businesses followed. By the same token, teaching Mandarin is not an issue. There are 6 million Tibetans surrounded by 1 billion Chinese who speak Mandarin, teaching the language of commerce is an effort to integrate the Tibetans. And integration is what the Chinese are after, as while no exact figures are published, it is overwhelmingly clear that Tibet is a net loser financially for them, and has been consistently since the 1950s. The costs of subsidizing a largely unemployed populous along with educational and infrastructure improvements has cost far more than the revenue coming in. If Tibet is a colony, China is not in it for the money.[1] [1] Coonan, Clifford, ‘Behind the façade of Chinese rule in Tibet’, The Intependent, 3 July 2010, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/behind-the-facade-of-chines...
Public Decency

Freedom of Speech is something that is highly valued, particularly in a country such as South Africa, where it was in short supply for a large part of its history, but surely for such speech to be worthwhile, it has to be able to convey a message that actually enriches the public domain. Such messages can be critical of government, but it must be best if they do not cause widespread offence in the process. The problem with ‘The Spear’ is that is causes widespread offence with the graphic depiction of the male genitalia. As a result, the underlying message that Brett Murray is trying to convey is lost in the offence image of the exposed penis, causing needless controversy in the process. [1] The utilisation of an exposed penis in ‘The Spear’ breaches all notions of public decency, not only causing offence in the public domain, but also personal offence, by depicting President Zuma in such a lewd manner. As such, it is right to ask for the removal of the artwork from public display to prevent further offence from being caused. [1] Robins. P, ‘The spear that divided the nation’, Amandla, 2012, http://www.amandlapublishers.co.za/special-features/the-spear-and-freedom-of-expression/1290-the-spear-that-divided-the-nation--by-professor-robins
Masculinity

The problem with leaving the painting, the spear, up is that to many young men President Zuma symbolises what excessive wealth can ‘buy’ you. He is the figure head of the nation, the pinnacle of capitalism and masculinity, of which the penis and sex are instrumental in this image. By leaving the painting up, it encourages hyper-masculinity (which is inherently violent),[1] because it assumes there is an inherent link between power and the penis. This is unhelpful, both for women and men who are trying to live in equity. [1] Scheff, Thomas J., ‘Hypermasculinity and Violence as a Social System’, Universitas, Vol.2, Issue 2, Fall 2006, http://www.uwf.edu/dearle/cold%20war/hypermasculine.pdf
Artistic Freedom

While public art is valuable, it can serve a purpose to educate and send a message, influencing discourse. Criticism of a political figure, when expressed via an art form, can change perceptions of that figure, particularly when their policy is under scrutiny. However, the image portrayed in ‘The Spear’ does not do these things. It does not focus on the policies of President Zuma, but rather relies on innuendo surrounding the President’s personal life, graphically represented by Zuma’s exposed penis, which is a prominent feature of the painting. While artists have a right to criticise those in authority and galleries have a right to display any art it wants, such rights are balanced by responsibilities over how such artists conduct themselves when they choose to enter political discourse. A provocative image such as ‘The Spear’ flouts those responsibilities by relying upon graphic innuendo instead of policy criticism to get the point across. This is damaging for a number of reasons specific to the South African context which will be explained in the Opposition Arguments.
Pluralism and Political Interference

Just because groups and individuals have a Freedom of Expression, does not mean it can be used without proper consideration of whom maybe hurt and offended by connotations implied in the image. A White artist portraying the Black leader of the country and the ANC as someone who leads with their genitals goes someway to dehumanising him, launching into character assassination that fails to actually examine policy. Pluralism can exist without needlessly causing offence in the way Murray has done in this painting. The Constitution protects Freedom of Expression; however the grave offence causedto many people by dehumanising President Zuma in this way can justify the protests against the artworks installation and replication in the news media. No constructive criticism is meted out in the painting, thus justifying counter-protests against it. While there were supporters of the ANC and COSATU, who are allied with the government, who took part in protests, it is a stretch to suggest that this is political overreach in action. The image attacked the President in ways that evoked previous allegations against him that were later disproven in court. The President took legal action in a personal capacity, whilst other exhibits created by Murray which highly critical of the ANC were not targeted in this manner, hinting at there being a free platform for criticism and satire in South African Political discourse.
Racialised Opposition

To somehow state that racism is the motivation to criticisms of ‘The Spear’ is fanciful and far-fetched. People were massively offended by the piece and as such used their right to protest to demonstrate the fact. The artwork itself was vulgar, displaying images that would be offensive to anyone, regardless of race. No-one is accusing Murray of being in favour of restoring Apartheid; indeed his early works in the 1980’s attacked the government of the day, highlighting their crimes. But when a public gallery and a newspaper releases an image that is seen as offensive to many people on many levels, provoking angry responses in the process, then it is only right that such images are removed to prevent further protest and controversy for those involved. It is also erroneous to accuse the ANC of race-baiting. It is a multi-racial organisation and has had prominent non-Black members leading the organisation during the struggle. If any criticism of White Opponents including the Democratic Alliance is seen to be racialised, then it is probably a reflection upon the DA’s ineffectiveness in gaining the support of poor black voters, remaining a party for privileged whites as a result. Criticism of Murray was not based on race, rather the shocking and offensive artwork that hurt so many people, not least the President himself.
Defamation

Jacob Zuma had a right to sue, which he made use of before dropping his claim for defamation. However, for his supporters inside and outside the ANC to attack The Goodman Gallery, City Press and Brett Murray personally is irresponsible and stifles debate over the credibility of Jacob Zuma for the office of President. Zuma has done controversial things before and during his time in office that are worthy of criticism and ‘The Spear’ amongst the rest of the exhibition reflects this. No one should be above criticism, especially if their actions will have an impact upon many people.
Infantilisation and Prejudice

To attach historical abuses to the symbolism of ‘The Spear’ is outlandish, irresponsible and fully indicates the way in which the ANC and its supporters use the past to excuse its poor record in government. ‘The Spear’ followed a theme criticising Zuma and his actions as a public figure. Criticism of the piece is welcome as part of debate based on facts, not emotion like what was seen during the controversy. Maintaining ‘The Spear’s display is part of this, triggering a debate over ANC policies in the here and now, as opposed to referring to past injustices. Removing ‘The Spear’ prevents that rational debate and instead sends a message that merely shouting down opponents is a suitable solution to an argument, harming South African political discourse in the long term.
Public Decency

What is termed a decent or otherwise is largely subjective and depends on an individual’s viewpoint. Those who use the cause of ‘public decency’ to call for ‘The Spear’s removal fail to understand the point of the artwork. Murray created such a visceral image in order to trigger debate and cause South Africans to look at the political class and their antics. Such a debate over Zuma’s fitness for office would not have been possible without an image that brought home the seriousness of the personal accusations against him and whether such allegations make him incompatible with the office of President. Murray was free to depict an image that at best a plurality of people would disagree with, and given the subject matter, that image was appropriate to use.
Masculinity

The painting should remain hanging as a reminder to young men that society is noting the particularly high prevalence of cases of rape, that are committed by all peoples within society, from the bottom to the top. This is not to argue that the President has ever necessarily raped anyone, although his defence in his rape-trial in 2005 was flimsy and without doubt he abused his power, as the girl he is supposed to have had consensual sex with was like a daughter to him. It is to critique his infidelity, and his lack of support in the AIDS pandemic. Just because he is the president does not mean he should be above being publically ridiculed for putting his own sexual desires above the safety of others.
Artistic Freedom

A core principle of art is that it should be free from any form of inhibition, as the particular artwork is an expression of the particular views and ideals of the artist. The subject matter in many instances is their own choice; therefore they have the right to say what they want about the subject matter, safe in the knowledge that is their opinion alone being portrayed. The artist that painted ‘The Spear’, Brett Murray, created the piece as part of an exhibition that reflected his own discontent at the lack of major progress since the ruling African National Congress took power in South Africa after the end of Apartheid in 1994. Murray used his work to promulgate an idea that he has, allowing for others to see the art work for themselves and make up their own minds about President Zuma and the ANC.[1] Art Galleries have a right to display any artist they feel will attract visitors as well showcase the forms of art that they believe is suitable. The Goodman Gallery saw no issue with Murray’s work to the extent that they prevented any particular works from being displayed. As it was their venue which was the setting for ‘The Spear’s display, The Goodman Gallery had the right to take decisions independently of external pressure. The removal of the exhibit sets a dangerous precedent whereby government can unduly censor artworks, threatening the free actions of artists and the galleries that display their work in turn affecting plural, democratic discourse.[2] [1] Du Toit, ‘Artist Brett Murray explains why he painted ‘The spear’, 2 Ocean’s Vibe, 2012, http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2012/05/25/artist-brett-murray-explains-why-he-painted-the-spear [2] Robins. P, ‘The spear that divided the nation’, Amandla, 2012, http://www.amandlapublishers.co.za/special-features/the-spear-and-freedom-of-expression/1290-the-spear-that-divided-the-nation--by-professor-robins
Pluralism and Political Interference

The removal of ‘The Spear’ from the Goodman Gallery and the City Press also hints at a threat to pluralism, especially when one considers the political nature of the campaign to have such images removed. While Jacob Zuma attempted to have the image banned in a personal capacity, the intensive campaigning by both the ANC and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) against both the Goodman Gallery and City Press[1] hints at a dangerously political action taken by those with close access to power over the South African state.    This should be cause to worry. Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa, in place since 1997, protects freedoms such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.[2] The intimidation of Art Galleries and Newspapers threatens the free exchange of ideas that occurs in these areas, as well sending an implicit image by its supports that criticism of the Government cannot be tolerated. If neither the Gallery nor City Press removed the image of ‘The Spear’ from public view, then a clear message would have been sent that the principles of Free Speech, Free Association and Freedom of Intimidation outlined in the Constitution is to be upheld at all times, regardless of who may take offence at what is being said. It is important in the South African context to protect the right to criticise the government and voice opinions that vary from the ideals of the majority. It is worrying what kind of message is sent by those close to the South African Government that intimidation seems to be the appropriate response to criticism such as this rather than asking why such criticism is there in the first place. [1] Mthembu, Jackson, ‘ANC calls on all South Africans to boycott buying City Press Newspaper and to join the protest match to the Goodman Gallery’, African National Congress, 24 May 2012, http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=9629 [2] ‘Constitution of the Republic of South Africa’, Statutes of the Republic of South Africa, 4 February 1997, http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/a108-96.pdf