BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Self-determination is a fundamental right that must be afforded to a native or national group. The ...

Self-determination is a fundamental right that must be afforded to a native or national group. The UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (The Declaration Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), the Helsinki Act and the African Charter of Human Rights all assert that self-determination is an important right. Without the ability to actively partake in citizenship activities – primarily voting for their own government - indigenous peoples are oppressed.
The oppression and abuse of native peoples by (primarily) colonial powers has lead to claims for rep...

The wrongs of the colonial powers are not the fault of the new governments. In the post-Cold War Era we are moving away from nationalist ideology. The international community has frowned upon the rise of ethnic nationalism in Europe. The breakdown of Yugoslavia is indicative of how dangerous and destructive ethno-nationalism can be. Nationalism is about difference, which flies in the face of the idea of the global citizen. Nationalist causes are often pursued by violent terrorist organisations that ought not to be rewarded for their disregard of human life. By trying to recognise minority rights governments run the risk of treating people differently and giving minorities preferential treatment at the expense of the majority. National borders are becoming less significant definers of identity; Irish Americans, British Muslims, Catholic Africans and French-Speaking Arabs are all cogent identities. Boundaries are not the solution to the fear of the threat of cultural dilution or oppression.
The oppression and abuse of native peoples by (primarily) colonial powers has lead to claims for rep...

The oppression and abuse of native peoples by (primarily) colonial powers has lead to claims for reparations. The native American Cree population in Quebec is seeking monetary compensation for the destruction of forest land that was cleared to make way for a Hydro-Electric Dam. In Africa European colonists exploited the mineral resources such as copper and diamonds. Land was effectively stolen from Native peoples; Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that they were unfairly treated and their proprietary rights abused. The recognition of minority rights protects cultural identities that risk being diluted. The activities of terrorist groups should not undermine the political agendas of nationalist parties and the protests of minority groups. The violence is testament to the emotive nature of nationalism.
The state borders drawn (particularly in Africa) by colonial empires took no account of native fault...

The re-drawing of state boundaries is hardly the best way to promote stability in newly independent states. The 1964 Organisation of African Unity (OAU) stated in the Cairo Resolution that it would accept the boundaries drawn by colonial powers. Governments ought to concentrate on bolstering states with civic identities. Federalism is one government structure that can accommodate self-determination within national boundaries. For example, in Canada, Quebec has relative autonomy including some native courts.
Self-determination does not always mean independence, in Gibraltar the people are campaigning for th...

Determining who represents a 'native' may make it difficult to decide who is being afforded the right to choose. Should all of Spain be allowed to vote in the fate of Gibraltar? Should the British mainland have the vote? Who has the right? What makes you a native or a national? The broader international context may mean that other interests or legal agreements must take precedence (e.g. in returning Hong Kong to China after 100 years under British rule).
Reducing the number of foreign players would be good for the national team. At the moment many Euro...

Reducing the number of foreign players would be good for the national team. At the moment many European countries have so many foreign players in their top League that they outnumber the locally-born footballers. This means that only a few domestic players get a chance to compete at the highest level, and the national side suffers as a result. So while English clubs with many foreign players have done very well in the Champions League recently, the English national team has performed badly. Limiting the number of foreigners would give more local players a chance to develop, and so improve the quality of the national side.
Competition would also improve if foreign players were less common. At the moment the richest clubs...

Competition would also improve if foreign players were less common. At the moment the richest clubs can buy up all the best global players and so dominate domestic competitions – often no more than two or three teams have a real chance of winning the big European leagues. This makes tournaments predictable and boring, while clubs become the playthings of billionaire owners. Even international club competitions like the European Champions League are now dominated by just a few teams – in 2008 three of the four semi-finalists and both finalists were English. Forcing clubs to develop home-grown talent would level the playing field, make money less vital, and give more teams a chance to compete for top honours.
This plan would be good for world football. At present poorer nations (e.g. in Africa or South Amer...

This plan would be good for world football. At present poorer nations (e.g. in Africa or South America), or those where football isn’t as well developed (e.g. Australia, the USA), lose all their best players at an early age to the rich European leagues. This weakens their own leagues and can lead to the public losing interest in football. Poor quality games and loss of public support for domestic clubs also means little money comes into the game from ticket sales, television or sponsorship, so nothing goes into grounds, training or youth systems. It is also hard to put a good national side together when the best players hardly ever spend any time in their own country.
The six-plus-five plan is not necessarily banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop...

The six-plus-five plan is not necessarily banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now.
UEFA’s plan has its own drawbacks, which make the FIFA idea better. There is already a problem with...

UEFA’s plan has its own drawbacks, which make the FIFA idea better. There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The UEFA plan will make European clubs recruit far more of these teenagers, in the hope that some of them will turn out well, and so will make a bad situation much worse.
The EU doesn’t understand sport and should be made to change. Sport isn’t a business like any other...

The EU doesn’t understand sport and should be made to change. Sport isn’t a business like any other - it is a competition within agreed rules. If football worldwide chooses to change these rules for the benefit of the game, then that is none of the EU’s business. The EU should be pushed by national governments into changing its rules so that the normal labour laws do not apply to football and other sports.
Limiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a ti...

Limiting the number of foreign players will weaken the quality of domestic football. Seeing many of the best footballers from around the world competing against each other every week raises the standard of the whole game. Fans want to see their team playing exciting football and winning games – they don’t care whether the players are local boys or not. Youngsters are inspired by foreign heroes and work hard in order to follow in their footsteps, no matter where they were born.
Reducing the number of foreign players would be good for the national team. At the moment many Euro...

Reducing the number of foreign players would be bad for the national team. The top sides field many overseas players because they think they are better than most homegrown ones. So those local players at the top clubs have had to fight hard for their places. They are playing against some of the best footballers in the world every week and their game improves as a result. It should be easy to pick 11 of them to form a strong national side. The fact that the England football team has done badly has much more to do with poor management and coaching than the large number of foreigners in the Premier League. If you removed some of the best foreigners and replaced them with less good local players, it will weaken both club football and the national team.
This plan would be good for club football. Once the local team was a real source of local identity,...

Local loyalties went out of the game years ago – it isn’t just overseas players who change clubs often in search of higher wages. Everyone agrees that when teams were only full of local boys the standard of play was worse. And strong local loyalties aren’t always good – they used to spill over into hooliganism as the fans from rival clubs fought. More overseas players in football, many with different colour skins, have helped reduce nationalism and racism in society.
Competition would also improve if foreign players were less common. At the moment the richest clubs...

This plan would be bad for club football by lowering the standard of games. It is also unnecessary – Manchester United is one of the most successful club sides and often fields more locally-born players than its rivals. Most big clubs are working hard to build strong football academies to bring talented youngsters through. In any case, money will still remain vital to success – this plan would mean that the richest clubs will simply pay silly sums of money to buy up all the best local players.\ Really the FIFA proposal is just an attack on English football clubs as they have been so successful recently. The issue wasn’t raised previously when Italian and Spanish club sides dominated European competitions.\
This plan would be good for world football. At present poorer nations (e.g. in Africa or South Amer...

In practice this plan will do nothing for football in countries outside Europe. Already many overseas players have dual nationality (which is especially easy to obtain for South American players wanting to play in Spain or Portugal). Other players are from countries (e.g. South Africa, Caribbean states) with labour agreements with the EU and can work freely in European countries. Both groups would be able to claim that they didn’t count as overseas players under the FIFA plan, so little would change. One danger is that many good players will completely switch nationality in order to play overseas, and so not be qualified for their original country at all in future. \ And what FIFA plans to do about the many Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish footballers playing for English teams is very unclear. Would they be banned from playing in their own country?
The six-plus-five plan is not necessarily banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop...

FIFA’s plan is illegal under European Union rules. These say that you can’t discriminate against people from other EU countries on the grounds of their nationality - exactly what the six-plus-five plan would do. And the EU has agreements in place allowing people from non-EU European countries like Switzerland and Norway to work freely in EU states, plus a lot of countries in Africa and the Caribbean as well. This means most of the overseas players currently with European clubs would be able to take FIFA to court if it tried to put its plan into practice. And if six-plus-five won’t work in Europe, there is no point applying it elsewhere.
UEFA’s plan has its own drawbacks, which make the FIFA idea better. There is already a problem with...

Although FIFA’s plan to limit the number of foreign players is against European Union law, UEFA has another proposal which has gained EU support. This would mean clubs would have to play more “home-grown” players, meaning those who have had at least three years of training between the ages of 15 and 21 in the same country. Because football academies train youngsters from many countries, this would not break EU rules.
The EU doesn’t understand sport and should be made to change. Sport isn’t a business like any other...

Football is a big business, a branch of the entertainment industry. Many European clubs have an income of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Players are well paid but can easily get injured and end their careers at an early age, so they deserve the same protection from unfair treatment as other workers. Freedom of movement is one of the most important principles of the EU and should not be given up lightly.\ In any case, there are other ways to raise quality and improve competition. A salary cap could be introduced (as in rugby league) to prevent rich clubs from buying up all the best players. Or revenue for money-spinning competitions like the Champtions League could be distributed much more evenly. At the moment the most successful clubs get almost all the money, allowing them to buy all the best players and so ensure they stay on top in the future.
Limiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a ti...

Limiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a tiny handful of the best native players will get a chance to play for top clubs. This means that talented young players see no reason to work hard and develop their game, because it is so unlikely they will get a chance to play at the top level. And clubs don’t have a reason to seek out local youngsters and train them, as it is easier to buy a fully trained player from abroad. Limiting the number of foreign players would create incentives for both players and clubs to make the most of their talents.
The continuing statelessness of the Kurdish nation is an indictment of modern international politics...

It would take a huge financial investment to ensure the viability of a new Kurdish nation-state. Wasting large sums of money on the creation of a new bureaucratic structure is as needless as it is callous. Instead, work should be done within the already existent bureaucratic structures of Turkey, Iraq and Iran to improve the economic, social and political situation of Kurdish people. The narrow-minded pursuit of 'sovereignty' is throwing good money after a hazy, outmoded concept that does nothing by itself to improve the material conditions of Kurdish people.
The Kurds are the fourth largest nation in the Middle East. They are nearly 30 million people with ...

The Kurds are the fourth largest nation in the Middle East. They are nearly 30 million people with a culture distinct and separate from the Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian nation-states that surround them. They satisfy whatever criteria one cares to set for nationhood. They have a distinct ethnicity, culture, language and history. They also live in ethnically homogenous areas. On the principle of national self-determination - a principle that has underpinned modern international relations and international law - the Kurds deserve a nation-state of their own.
Multicultural states are a nice idea, but the history of Kurds living within Turkey, Iran, Iraq and ...

Multicultural states are a nice idea, but the history of Kurds living within Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria is characterised by oppression and discrimination. It is insensitive, given the history and intensity of discrimination, to expect Kurds to remain a stateless nation. A national homeland is exactly what is needed: a space in which all Kurds are free from discrimination and can determine their own lives. Israel as a Jewish homeland is an obvious historical precedent.
The statelessness of the Kurdish nation is a hangover of colonialism. It was the European imperial ...

The statelessness of the Kurdish nation is a hangover of colonialism. It was the European imperial Powers that consigned the Kurdish nation to statelessness when drawing up the borders in the Middle East after the First World War. The European Union thus has a historical obligation to support the Kurdish nation in its desire for a national homeland. The USA too owes the Kurds a debt of gratitude for their revolt against Saddam Hussein in 1991 and continuing commitment to his overthrow. These developed nations would also gain practical benefits, as an independent state would greatly reduce the large numbers of Kurdish asylum-seekers from Iraq, Turkey and Iran with which they presently have to cope.
The creation of a Kurdish national homeland would have a good effect on regional stability. The lar...

The creation of a Kurdish national homeland would have a good effect on regional stability. The large, centralised Iraqi state has been a destabilising and militaristic presence for many years. By affirming the principle of national self-determination for the Kurds, one lends support to the cause of the Shi’ites in the south of Iraq. The division of Iraq into ethnographically more representative, smaller, individual nation-states would diffuse much tension in the region by removing one big obstacle to peace and stability in the region.
The continuing statelessness of the Kurdish nation is an indictment of modern international politics...

The continuing statelessness of the Kurdish nation is an indictment of modern international politics. The Kurdish cause has a low level of political visibility in Western nation-states. For this reason, it does not have a high political priority for any Western government. To preserve moral credibility, governments must judge the Kurdish case on its genuine merits rather than on its domestic political significance (or lack thereof).
The Kurds are the fourth largest nation in the Middle East. They are nearly 30 million people with ...

We can concede that the Kurds are a separate and distinct nation without taking the further, different step of proclaiming the need for a sovereign, Kurdish nation-state. The needs of a national culture can be accommodated without the existence of full sovereignty, e.g. Wales within the UK or Quebec within Canada. Indeed, many Kurdish politicians do not call for a national homeland but instead for greater Kurdish autonomy within existing nation-states.
Multicultural states are a nice idea, but the history of Kurds living within Turkey, Iran, Iraq and ...

The principle of ethnic nationalism is one of the biggest causes of tension in international relations. And particularly in the Middle East and the Balkans, one can observe that the foundation of 'national homelands' all too often leads to a polarisation of nations into hostile antagonism with each other. It is far better to accommodate different groups within the same sovereign state in order to foster a spirit of trans-national community. This is especially true at a time when political change in Turkey and Iran (and potentially in Syria and Iraq as well) is bringing greater democratic choice and human rights to Kurds.
The statelessness of the Kurdish nation is a hangover of colonialism. It was the European imperial ...

The relevance of the nation-state as a model for self-determination is rapidly receding. Modern international society is characterised by trans-national finance and trade, which erode the autonomy of the traditional nation-state. The nation-state is increasingly unviable and is giving way to multinational economic unions and political federations, such as NAFTA, ASEAN and the European Union. National “sovereignty” means less and less. Instead, stateless nations like the Kurds should acknowledge the changing nature of global politics and seek autonomous spaces within economically more robust federal states, as Iraqi Kurds have recently recognised in US-backed discussions by anti-Saddam groups on Iraq’s possible post-Saddam future.
The creation of a Kurdish national homeland would have a good effect on regional stability. The lar...

The encouragement of ethnic separatism would severely damage the region. Any support for the Kurds would encourage the Shiite minority in Iraq to rebel, as it did after the Gulf War, and may revive the Kurdish separatist rebellion in Turkey, dormant since 1999. Many Arab states have sizeable Shiite and other minority populations. Ethnic separatism could have unpleasant, destabilising and state-destroying consequences in what is already a dangerously unstable region. It could also turn Turkey against the west, and damage improving relations with Iran and (potentially) a post-Saddam Iraq.
Because the whole of society benefits from giving children the best possible start in life, the gove...

Many women actually have no choice about whether to work or stay at home full time. Either because of poverty or because they are single parents, or both, women find they must work to earn enough money to provide for their family. Regardless of the supposed benefits to children of having a mother at home in their early years, studies have found clear evidence to show that childhood poverty has a lasting negative impact upon children. Expecting mothers to stay at home will also make them more dependent upon their partners, making it harder for women to escape from abusive relationships.
Many childcare options are poor quality with one adult looking after many children at once. This can...

Many forms of childcare can be beneficial and complimentary to the care provided by parents. For many centuries it has been traditional for extended families to participate in raising families and older generations such as grandparents have had hands on experience with young children before. Childcare professionals have similar experience and have often taken courses on child development that make them more knowledgeable than a first time parent. Similarly playing with other children is just as important for improving children’s social skills as contact with their parents. Nurseries and childminders can be good places to expose children to other children.
Many religions and culture view a women’s place as being in the home. Within this sphere they are r...

Focusing on the mother neglects the responsibilities of the father, other family members and the state in raising the child. Even when state aid to stay at home is offered to either parent, traditional cultures can enforce this role on the mother, reducing any chances that a job may provide to increase the personal freedom of women from restrictive cultures. Women who do not have children will also suffer, as prejudice that defines motherhood as the most important role for women will also deny them equal opportunities in other areas.