BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Increased global security

The presence of US military equipment and counter-terrorism forces in Africa will result in greater security for the rest of the world. Many of the terrorist groups which have existed in the ‘ungoverned’ spaces of Africa have an international agenda. Al-Qaeda and other groups have used Africa as a base to plan attacks against the West, such as the 2004 Madrid bombing[1]. The disruption and eradication of these groups is therefore beneficial as it will prevent these groups from acting freely on the international stage. [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.2
Many Africans do not prioritise counter-terrorism

The US focus on terrorism has detracted attention away from the more pressing issue of domestic crime. High rates of murder, manslaughter, rape, corruption and the illicit drug and small arms trades are of greater importance than counter-terrorism to many Africans. The misplacement of funds by USAID in states like Kenya, has detracted attention away from the major threats to citizens. Hills commented in 2006 that ‘their (Kenyans) concerns focus on the ineffectiveness of the country’s criminal justice system in the face of rising crime’ and claims that the counter-terrorist training received by them does little to improve domestic crime rates[1]. [1] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.637
Militarisation of US policy in Africa

The broadening of USAID to accommodate counter-terrorism assistance has detracted from long term development goals. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the change of USAID’s focus, the agency transformed from one of development to one of a ‘quasi-security’ nature[1]. Since 2001, USAID has been forced go beyond its traditional humanitarian role. Development goals, which are crucial dealing with the root causes of terrorism such as poverty and poor state-citizen relationships[2], are being sacrificed for short term military objectives. The military training of police has actually served to detract from development, as police financially exploit citizens with their newly gained power[3]. Africa’s urgent need for development suggests that the expansion of USAID’s role is disadvantageous for the continent. [1] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.629 [2] Gast,E., ‘U.S. Counterterrorism in the Sahel’ [3] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.638
Props up authoritarian regimes

The USA has helped solidify the rule of several oppressive regimes in Africa through its counter-terrorism assistance. In an effort to prevent terrorism from gaining a foothold in Africa, US policy has supported states which have poor human rights records, allowing them to continue brutal regimes. The training and equipping of counter terrorism units by the US has been linked to increased repression and unaccountability from police forces[1]. This approach strengthened the Sudanese regime, who committed atrocities in Darfur while simultaneously received aid from the USA[2]. US support on the continent could backfire if highly trained but repressive forces become prominent.    [1] Hills,A., ‘Trojan Horses? USAID, counter-terrorism and Africa’s police’ pg.638 [2] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.13
Disrupts international relations

US counter-terrorism support of certain African states has resulted in the indignation of their rival states. Africa’s complex history of conflicts has created enmity between states. The selection of some states for counter-terrorism support has weakened relations between these states and the United States. Eritrea, for example, has been hostile towards the United States due to the latter’s support of Ethiopia, who fought a war with Eritrea from 1998-2000. Eritrea accused the US of supporting Ethiopian occupation of Eritrean lands and caused the state to withdraw from US regional counter-terrorism plans[1]. [1] Lyman, P. N., ‘The War on Terrorism in Africa’ pg.7
Specialism of the United States in counter terrorism

The use of US Special Forces does not guarantee success in counter-terrorism operations. These forces have made mistakes in the past, as demonstrated by the failure in the battle of Mogadishu. Despite two years in the field, the US assisted African forces have still not found Joseph Kony (leader of the LRA) which puts the Special Forces’ usefulness in to question. There is also the issue of sending the ‘right man for the job’. Military advisors who are female or lower ranked are often not respected by the forces they train[1]. [1] Metrinko,M.J., ‘The American Military Advisor’
African states can’t afford the full cost

Africa has witnessed significant economic growth since the inception of the ‘War on Terror’, and it is predicted that between 2013 and 2023 there will be an annual increase in GDP of 6% a year[1]. This implies that US military assistance to help counter-terrorism activities will not be needed in the future to same extent. In addition, the emergence of the African Union’s composite peacekeeping force has created an army with counter-terrorism abilities. This force draws from multiple countries which reduces the cost for each member, creating an economically viable African force. [1] The Economist, ‘Africa rising: A hopeful continent’
There are few alternatives

Other actors are gaining strength in the counter-terrorism scene. Despite its weaknesses, the AU has participated successfully in counter-terrorism actions such as that of Darfur and Somalia. Other Western actors have also presented themselves as an alternative. In 2012 France intervened in Mali and prevented extremist Muslim and Tuareg separatists from gaining control of the state. The US’ response to this same incident was limited in contrast demonstrating numerous alternatives to AFRICOM.
Many Africans do not prioritise counter-terrorism

The rise in terrorist activity in Africa since 2006 has reshaped this priority. Following the Kenyan example, the Nairobi mall massacre and the subsequent attacks have acted to change the prioritisation of terrorism in some countries. In early 2014, Kenya’s Defence Secretary Raychelle Omamo stated that there was going to be a greater focus on counter-terrorism in the future[1], this event has shown many Africans that terrorism is an issue that requires serious attention. [1] Otieno,B., ‘Kenya: China to Help Kenya Safeguard Territory’
Militarisation of US policy in Africa

Counter-terrorism helps ensure security, which is closely linked to development. Before it is possible to improve health care, education, poverty and other development factors, it is necessary to have a secure environment[1]. The action to broaden USAID’s development agenda is therefore taking a more practical approach towards ensuring that long term growth can occur in a stable environment. [1] Beswick,D. & Hammerstad,A., ‘African agency in changing security environment: sources, opportunities and challenges’ pg.476
Props up authoritarian regimes

The US Congress has taken steps to reduce security assistance to states which have committed mass human rights abuse[1]. In October 2013, President Obama announced cutbacks in military aid to Egypt after a military coup and crackdown on protestors[2]. In addition to these penalties, there are also good governance programmes run by USAID in unison with counter-terrorism policies to ensure a healthier transition to democracy, reducing the risk of repression[3]. [1] Ploch,L., ‘Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S. Response’ pg.38 [2] Gordon,M.R., ‘In Crackdown Response, U.S. Temporarily Freezes Some Military Aid to Egypt’ [3] Ploch,L., ‘Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S. Response’ pg.55
Murdoch is morally unfit to run a powerful media company.

It is unfair to blame the culture in a newspaper, only one among many in Murdoch’s empire, on Rupert Murdoch. With hundreds of publications to control Murdoch would never be able to set corporate culture for every paper. Nor is it correct to accuse Murdoch of running his papers in pursuit of power rather than profit; Murdoch has been unusual in succeeding in recent years in still making profits from selling news. Murdoch is clearly willing to sometimes make losses, as at the Times which loses £42million a year, but this is not because it maximises his power but because it has international prestige as tabloids don’t.[1] [1] Northedge, Richard, ‘Will Murdoch quit Britain?’ Prospect, 20 July 2011.
Lack of control

The head of no large corporation has complete control of their operations. The head of the BBC almost certainly does not know all the policies and everything that is happening in the BBC’s Persian language division. While the head of the company is ultimately responsible it is unrealistic to believe that they will have such day to day control as everyone seems to believe Murdoch had. Murdoch himself explains “the News of the World is less than 1% of our company. I employ 53,000 people around the world” and points out that in such a big organisation he has to rely on senior managers.[1] This very lack of control is itself a good thing; it ensures that there is decentralisation with most control at the local level with the individual editors of newspapers and programmes. [1] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.64
There was a lack of transparency in News Corp

News organisations cannot be completely transparent if they are to do their job properly and News International is no exception. Such organisations cannot for example reveal their sources as this may sometimes put their sources at risk and would mean that others would not come forward. As part of this news companies need to keep secret how they obtained information. While an attempt by a newspaper to cover up crimes is regrettable this one newspapers actions should not tar the whole company and its other papers.
Having powerful media companies shields them from interference by governments.

Just as with any method of control there need to be checks and balances on the media itself in order to ensure that the media remains honest. As Lord Justice Leveson put it in his opening remarks “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?”[1] Murdoch has presided over a media company and newspapers that have not remained honest and have been too close to the politicians they are meant to be holding in check. [1] ‘Background’, The Leveson Inquiry.
Murdoch does not seek to influence politics.

We should not take Rupert Murdoch’s word for it that he does not seek to influence politicians and does not influence the editorial line of his newspapers. Andrew Neil, a former editor of the Sunday times argues Murdoch "had a quiet, remorseless, sometimes threatening way of laying down the parameters within which you were expected to operate ... stray too far too often from his general outlook and you will be looking for a new job."[1] This may not be complete control of the editorial line but it is certainly influencing it. [1] Barr, Robert, ‘Praise, scepticism for Murdoch in UK newspapers’, Associated Press, 26 April 2012.
Murdoch is morally unfit to run a powerful media company.

Those running media corporations should be morally upright people who control their media companies in the public interest as these are organisations that potentially have a lot of influence through their control of information. This is however not at all how Rupert Murdoch ran News Corp or his newspapers. Murdoch has been running his empire in pursuit of power and to advance a right wing agenda.[1] His influence was such that even naturally left wing parties such as New Labour under Tony Blair stuck to right wing or wing orthodoxies in order to keep the support of the Murdoch press.[2] Murdoch was therefore pushing narrow interests rather than the public interest. Murdoch’s News Corporation has shown their lack of moral scruples not just by engaging in industrial scale hacking but also by its determination to use its contacts to close down investigations by parliament or the police as well as being willing to destroy evidence and lie when giving evidence. Tom Watson MP has gone so far as to accuse Murdoch of being “the first mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise”.[3] The attitude of the person at the top towards how their company and its staff should conduct themselves informs how they do conduct themselves and engage in their business. It is the owners and the management that create the corporate culture which in Murdoch tabloids meant profits at all costs and doing anything to get a story.[4] [1] Puttnam, David, ‘News Corporation has sought to undermine elected governments’, guardian.co.uk, 28 April 2012. [2] Holehouse, Matthew, ‘The Blairs and the Murdochs: a special relationship’, The Telegraph, 22 February 2012. [3] The Economist, ‘Stringfellows: A British MP’s long-awaited account of investigating the Murdoch empire’, 28 April 2012. [4] Grayson, David, ‘Phone hacking: what corporate responsibility could have done to stop it’, Guardian Professional, 25 July 2011.
Lack of control

Rupert Murdoch has an immense empire and if we believe his testimony obviously did not have as much control over his publications, or take as much responsibility for them, as he should have done. Murdoch himself has claimed “someone took charge of a cover-up we were victim to and I regret that." This was a cover up within the News of the World and News International that kept Murdoch out of the loop and misinformed on phone hacking, showing that he was unable to keep control over his businesses when he was the one with ultimate responsibility for the actions of that company.[1] The commons culture committee concluded that Murdoch was essentially negligent "at all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications."[2] [1] BBC News, ‘Leveson Inquiry: Murdoch admits missing hacking ‘cover-up’, 26 April 2012. [2] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.70
There was a lack of transparency in News Corp

The Media’s role is to increase transparency and bring others to account. Murdoch himself in his testimony to Leveson said "If we're a transparent society, a transparent democracy, let's have it out there" yet he has been exactly the opposite in terms of accountability and transparency.[1] The House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has published a report in which it concludes that the culture of the publication, News of the World, was “throughout, until it was too late, was to cover up rather than seek out wrongdoing and discipline the perpetrators, as they also professed they would do after the criminal convictions.”[2] The strategy was to blame individuals and when such a containment strategy failed to shut down the News of the World so as to protect top bosses.[3] News International was clearly not living up to high standards of transparency. [1] Porter, Henry, ‘We are rid of Murdoch and that is worth celebrating’, guardian.co.uk, 28 April 2012. [2] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.84 [3] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.67
Murdoch is effective at selling news

The first criteria for fitness to control a media company should be the ability to bring people the kind of content that they want to consume at a price they are willing to pay. Murdoch is undoubtedly good at this. When he took over the Sun in 1969 the sun was selling just over a million copies a day but by 1976 circulation was up to 3.7 million.[1] Murdoch has been very successful at selling newspapers, a declining industry, and has been supportive of both down market tabloids and quality broadsheets. That the News of the World up to its closure and The Sun have remained Britain’s most popular newspapers shows Murdoch is an effective media proprietor and fit to bring news to the people. If he was not customers would vote with their money. [1] ‘The newspaper industry’, Monopolies and Mergers Commission, 1985, p.5
Having powerful media companies shields them from interference by governments.

An independent media is vital for democracy as it is a necessary check on over powerful politicians and government. The ‘fourth estate’ has a vital oversight function over government ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oath of office and really represent those who elected them.[1] In order for the press to be able to remain independent and able to carry out this function it needs to have powerful backers itself. Murdoch is one such backer. Multinational companies with large holdings spread across numerous countries can much easier resist government pressure than national or local newspapers without such backing as they can continue attacking a government regardless of the pressure an individual government puts upon it as the owners. Murdoch by making politicians dance to his tune was doing exactly what the press is supposed to do; preventing governments from being too powerful by appearing to have some power to bring the government down if necessary. If this translated into too much influence this was the fault of politicians not Mr Murdoch.[2] [1] Center for Democracy and Governance Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research, ‘The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach’, U.S. Agency for International Development, June 1999, p.3 [2] Wolff, Michael, ‘Rupert Murdoch before the Leveson inquiry’, guardian.co.uk, 23 April 2012.
Murdoch does not seek to influence politics.

It is a myth that Rupert Murdoch influences politics or seeks to get his way with powerful politicians. As Murdoch himself said in the Leverson Inquiry "I've never asked a prime minister for anything.” Instead it is politicians who go out of their way to impress people in the press. Even when it comes to the editorial lines of his newspapers Murdoch did not always influence them, he controlled the Sun but not the stance of the Times.[1] [1] Holton, Kate and Prodhan, Georgina, ‘Murdoch denies playing puppet master to British elite’, Reuters, 25 April 2012,
Hand Guns Are Required For Self Defence.

Firstly, the deterrence effect created by guns disappears if the use of guns is considered normal behaviour among the populace. Many violent and opportunistic crimes are committed out of necessity. They are not based on a rational calculus of the sort that side opposition discusses. In a society where gun use is normalised, criminals are more likely to view death as a hazard of their occupation, similar to arrest and imprisonment. In these circumstances, the deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership will quickly abate, overridden by desperation. Further, if crimes are being committed by gangs then often, need for respect from the gangs or fear of reprisal will simply override any beliefs regarding deterrence. Finally, criminals are very careful to pick actors who aren’t likely to be well armed and to do so in secluded places. As such, it is incredibly unlikely that they will be deterred from crime. Secondly, people are likely to have guns holstered. This means that should they be mugged by a criminal they will be unable to retrieve their weapons from their holsters because any movement toward the holster will likely result in them being shot. As such, any concept of a parity of power between actors simply does not exist under the status quo
Handguns are Required For Symbolic Reasons As A Defence Against the State Monopoly of Power

The right for Americans to bear arms used to be important for symbolic reasons. However, now such a symbol does not serve to act in the same way that it once did. It was once realistic that American citizens would be able to counteract the monopoly of violence that the state has. However, in this age of modern warfare, such power simply does not exist in any real form any more. Weapons as symbols in this way are just symbolic of the loss of power that the citizens of the U.S. have undergone over time and further are symbolic of a fruitless endeavour in resistance of the state through violent means. The fact that the citizens of America feel the need to resort to violence as a symbol for the ability to stand up to the state harms what the state stands up for now, which is change through peaceful and democratic protest. Further, even if the right to bear arms was still symbolic in a positive way, the good feeling such a symbol gives simply does not compare to the number of lives lost to things such as gun violence year on year.11
The DC Handgun ban is inconsistent with other legislation in the U.S.

Democracy is designed to be a flexible mechanism that can change based on different circumstances and at different times. The American constitution should provide a legal basis for all citizens of the U.S. However, the reason such a legal basis exists is such that citizens in the U.S. are fairly treated under the law and thus benefit through the stability that such fairness creates. However, it is also feasible that at certain points, part of the constitution could work out very badly for the state in some areas. This is why a system of amendments to the constitution exists. As such, it is feasible that the constitution should also be able to deal with transitional periods where certain areas should be allowed different rights under the constitution because each area requires different laws in order to work properly that cannot be created on a state level. Whilst this might cause some tension, most people in DC, particularly the non-criminals would probably understand the reasons behind a ban on handguns in their area, and indeed did when handguns were initially banned there.13
Individuals Should Not Have the Right to Bear Arms in DC

Under the status quo the state exists to protect the security of its citizens. It does so by maintaining a monopoly of violence with the consent of its citizens. US citizens have been allowed to bear small arms as a symbolic representation of their ability to rise up against state oppression should it ever occur. That is, to keep a check and balance upon the monopoly of violence that the state has. It is important to note that the state has the monopoly of violence such that it can protect its citizens in the best possible way. In the same way, the right to bear arms exists such that citizens can protect themselves and prevent harm. This means that should the state visit harm upon the citizens of the state then its right to claim a monopoly on violence is revoked and the citizens can fight against the state. In a similar fashion to the above, should the citizens of the state use their right to bear arms to visit harm upon one another, it seems reasonable that in the same way that the state’s monopoly on violence is revoked, the citizens should have their right to bear arms revoked. Given that this does not occur in every single part of the U.S. it also seems reasonable to isolate the ban to areas where the spirit of the right to bear arms is being significantly violated. In this case the ban is limited to DC however it could potentially extend to other areas in the U.S. which suffer similar problems.2