BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New START treaty helps Russia more than the US

The New START treaty does not help Russia more than it does the United States. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued at the time the Russians are currently “above the treaty limits. So they will have to take down warheads.”[1]  If there really is undercounting of missiles on bombers then it affects both sides equally – as Romney says “While we currently have more bombers than the Russians”, so this too should not be a worry. Russia does not currently deploy rail-mobile ICBMs and neither does the United States, explain why the definitions are not there. However the State Department argues that “If a Party develops and deploys rail-mobile ICBMs, such missiles, their warheads, and their launchers would be subject to the Treaty.” As the definitions of ICBM launchers would include them.[2] Finally we should recognize that we do not know that Russia would have reduced its bomber and missile forces without a new treaty, while Russia has more difficulty maintaining its nuclear forces than the United States so has more incentive to reduce them, but without a treaty it might even increase its forces due to a desire to keep parity with the United States while the US has a big lead in conventional weapons.[3] Furthermore, any agreement made between Russia and the US needs to be one that benefits both parties, it does not matter if someone is getting more than the other. Getting an agreement that meets the needs of both countries is far more important, because it will be upheld more so than one that simple gives both countries the same. Fair and efficent does not mean spilting a pie in half, if one only wanted the crust, and the other only wanted the filling.  [1]Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,  http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/rebuttals_to_arguments_against_new_start/ [2] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘Rail-Mobile Launchers of ICBMs and their Missiles’, U.S. Department of State, 2 August 2010,  http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/145557.htm [3] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,  http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/rebuttals_to_arguments_against_new_start/
The New START treaty sets a bad approach for a changing world

Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.”[1] If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States. [1]Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz,  George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ;  Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120104598.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Problems with Verification.

The verification requirements of New START have satisfied not only the Obama Administration but also a large number of foreign policy experts. A panel including Henry Kissinger argues that New START “emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal."[1]  Howard Baker argues that: "President Reagan was famous for his adage about dealing with the old Soviet Union: “Trust but verify.” Since the last START treaty expired in December 2009, we’ve had no right to conduct inspections of Russian nuclear bases, and thus no way to verify what the Russians are doing with their nuclear weapon systems. For us veterans of the Cold War, that’s an alarming fact and a compelling reason to ratify this New START treaty without further delay."[2] When the allegations are gone through individually they do not stand up to scrutiny. On the telemetry issue the treaty does not limit throw-weight so the data is not needed; the number of warheads per missile can be verified by other means. There are less facilities being inspected, but more inspections and the decline in Russia’s nuclear forces means that not so many facilities need to be inspected.[3] There is no reason to be worried about the numbers of missiles as there will be a database detailing all the weapons both sides have and inspections to confirm this,[4] this will also mean that there are unique identifier tags on each missile, launcher and bombers so helping inspectors in their counting.[5] Mobile launchers are much less of a problem than they were as we already know the base number the Russia has whereas when START was originally negotiated the US did not know. Technology to track such mobile launchers has also become much more powerful. Finally if worried about the verification of the elimination of delivery vehicles both sides will have the right to inspect the debris and to demand demonstration of the procedures.[6] Neither side will be able to get around the new START’s verification regime.   [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz,  George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ;  Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120104598.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 [2] Baker, Howard. "Dangerous if we reject New START." USA Today. http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=65289 [3] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010,  http://csis.org/blog/nothing-fear-new-start-verification [4] Woolf, Amy F., ‘The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions’, Congressional Research Service, 24 October 2011, p.3,  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf [5] ‘Verification of New START’, Union of Concerned Scientists, 13 July 2010, http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/nuclear_weapons/technical_issues/verification-of-new-start.html [6] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010,  http://csis.org/blog/nothing-fear-new-start-verification
Quebec would not be able to be economically viable on its own.

Many countries in the world have bad economies; this is not a reason to not be an independent country. Economic circumstances can change and be improved through different economic initiatives; this simply isn’t a good enough reason to not secede from Canada. Furthermore, there is significant economic evidence that suggests that smaller states, such as that of Quebec, have a higher chance of thriving economically than larger states such as Canada.[1] Therefore, this argument not only does not justify the opposition case, but also is entirely speculative and likely incorrect. Quebec’s economy could very well benefit significantly from detaching its economy from Canada. [1] Price, Adam, „Small Is Cute, Sexy, and Successful: Why Independence for Wales and Other Countries Makes Economic Sense“, Harvard Kennedy School Review, 2011, <http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k74756&pageid=icb.page414660>
This is not the will of the people of Quebec.

Quebec is in a unique position as the homeland for French-speaking Canadians and therefore has a very different mandate than a normal state or province. Quebec has an obligation to the rights of French Canadians as a group due to its unique position, and just because Anglo-Canadians have migrated to Quebec does not mean that the primacy of this special obligation has disappeared because the mandate’s representation within its territory has been diluted.
Quebec needs to be independent to retain its distinct language and culture.

The only way to ensure that Quebecers get to retain their distinct culture is to gain independence as a country and remove themselves from the Canadian federation. A very big issue for certain Quebecers is the threat that an overwhelmingly English-speaking country has on their pocket of distinct French-Quebecois culture[1]. The unrestricted immigration of English-speaking Canadians to Quebec has diluted the culture of the Quebecois and has set off the process of cultural-loss and the highly feared loss of their language[2]. Moreover, whenever Quebec has tried to put in place provisions to protect their culture and language, such as with Bill 101[3], Quebec is called racist and Canadian Federal Courts try to strike down their laws to stop their “discrimination” against English-speaking Canadians in their province[4]. The only way that Quebec can protect its language and culture is to be able to stop the unrestricted flow of English-speaking immigration into its territory and gain complete control over its own law and cultural policy. The only way to do this is to gain independence from Canada. [1] "Only Quebec independence can protect French language: PQ strategist." CBS News Canada 26 Nov 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2007/11/26/accommodation-he.... [2] "Only Quebec independence can protect French language: PQ strategist." CBS News Canada 26 Nov 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2007/11/26/accommodation-he.... [3] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0.... [4] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0....
Quebec has the right to self-determination.

All people have the right to determine their own form of government and representation and Quebec has been systematically denied this right. Quebec has historically been denied the right to determine its own form of governance systematically and therefore the Canadian government has no right to claim legitimacy over Quebec and cannot stop it from leaving the federation. The Canadian Constitution was patriated in 1982 in a backroom deal known as the Meech Lake Accord[1] where Quebec was explicitly excluded from the negotiations and their issues were ignored. Specifically, Quebec was attempting to entrench recognition of their special status and needs as a distant society within Canada[2] and this was denied. To this day, Quebec has refused to sign the Canadian constitution as it feels it doesn’t adequately represent its interests and needs[3]. Therefore, Quebec has the right to independence as its sovereignty was illegitimately taken from it and it is systematically denied adequate representation in Canadian politics. [1] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=260>. [2] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=260>. [3] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=260>.
International Law Mandates Quebec be allowed Independence

International law recognizes Quebec’s right to self-determination and denying them self-determination is therefore a violation of international law. International law recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination. The international community has decided that it is oppressive to individuals to live under a government that is systematically incapable or unwilling to protect them and their interests.[1] The Quebecois have been systematically denied adequate representation in the federal government of Canada. Quebecois legislation protection their basic rights to retain their language and culture have been met with contempt[2] and legal action by the federal Canadian government and courts.[3] This is but one example of the very clear denial of basic representation and self-governance that afflicts the Quebecois in Canada. Therefore, Quebec has the legal right to self-determination and independence in international law. [1] „Reference re Secession of Quebec“, Supreme Court of Canada, 1998, 2 S.C.R. 217, <http://scc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr2-217/1998scr2-217.html> [2] “Maxime Bernier on Quebec law: ‘We don’t need Bill 101’”, The Canadian Press, 4 February 2011, <http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110204/bernier-law-110204/> [3] Hudon, R., „Bill 101“, The Canadian Encyclopedia, <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000744>
Quebec would not be able to be economically viable on its own.

Quebec independence simply will not work because Quebec would not be financially viable as an independent economy. Quebec has been financially dependent on the rest of Canada for years[1] specifically being dependent on “have” provinces such as Alberta to prop-up its economy as a “have-not” provinces through equalization payments[2]. Moreover, all financial indicators point to the situation staying as it is or worsening, with no signs of improvement in the economy visible[3]. If Quebec were to gain independence, it simply would not be able to sustain itself as an independent country. Quality of life would necessarily have to drop for all those living in Quebec and the economy would only crash further as confidence in it would dwindle once you remove the credibility the support of the Canadian government and economy that currently gives it. Therefore, Quebec should not secede from Canada as it would only serve to harm their economy and the livelihoods of the people they supposedly are there to protect. [1] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://business.financialpost.com/2011/08/30/no-progress-in-quebec-prosp.... [2] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://business.financialpost.com/2011/08/30/no-progress-in-quebec-prosp.... [3] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://business.financialpost.com/2011/08/30/no-progress-in-quebec-prosp....
This is not the will of the people of Quebec.

Secession from Canada would not be a fair or adequate representation of the will of the people of Quebec. The most recent referendum and all current polling data suggest that an overwhelming majority of Quebecers are opposed to Quebec seeking independence from Canada[1]. The government of Quebec pursuing such a policy is only representative of a very small minority of people in Quebec, and therefore is undemocratic in nature. Moreover, this policy explicitly denies consideration or enfranchisement for the very large populations of Anglophone Quebecers who also deserve representation, and whose interests are being wholly discounted to pursue this one policy on behalf of the Francophones in their province. Therefore, pursuing secession is both wholly undemocratic, but also specifically disenfranchises a very large portion of the population entirely in a trade-off for one specific policy that doesn’t appeal strongly to anyone beyond a very small minority of citizens. [1] Chung, Andrew. "Sovereignty "outmoded," Quebec poll indicates." Star 19 May 2010, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.thestar.com/news/quebec/article/811132--sovereignty-outmoded-....
Quebec needs to be independent to retain its distinct language and culture.

Although it may be true that traditional Quebecois culture is under threat, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Cultures change and evolve to reflect the rich history of a territory and its peoples and the interaction with Anglophonic Canadians is a very important part of that history that should be reflected in Quebecois culture. Moreover, Quebec is more than able to institute language laws and cultural policy, as they were able to continue the vast majority of the provisions in Bill 101[1] after it was struck down once they stripped out the parts that explicitly discriminated against English-speaking Canadians and once they enacted the Constitutional not-withstanding clause that the Canadian constitution has in place to help accommodate Provincial diversity such as this. Further to this, Canada is officially a bilingual country, and thus the linguistic and cultural rights of the French are constitutionally protected by the Federal government not only within Quebec but in wider Canadian society. It is simply fallacious to claim that the Canadian government does not recognize or protect the distinct culture and language of French Canadians. [1] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0....
Quebec has the right to self-determination.

Although there have been flaws in the way that Canada has dealt with Quebec in the past, it simply isn’t true that it is currently denied its right to self-determination. First of all, it is not the will of the people to become an independent nation, shown by the results of the most recent referendum on the issue and recent polling figures[1]. Therefore, it is the will of the Quebecers to be governed as part of Canada and becoming independent would in fact violate this right to self-determination. Second, there have been large steps taken to rectify these past issues of exclusion of the Quebec voice such as in 2006 where Prime Minister Harper’s recognition of Quebec as a distinct nation within Canada[2]. [1] Chung, Andrew. "Sovereignty "outmoded," Quebec poll indicates." Star 19 May 2010, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.thestar.com/news/quebec/article/811132--sovereignty-outmoded-.... [2] "Harper: Quebec a nation... within Canada." Canada.com 22 Nov 2006, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=75d27ce4-94d9-495e....
International Law Mandates Quebec be allowed Independence

The right to self-determination does not necessitate independence, but rather determination of their own governance. This principle is widely seen as not being about sovereignty, but rather the right to control local governance for their peoples, a right already extended to the Quebecois. The International Court of Justice, the most important court of international law, has recognized the right of self-determination as being adequately fulfilled by devolved governance.[1] Moreover, as explained in counterargument one, there is no basis for the Quebecois to claim that they are systematically denied adequate representation, making the international legal precedent on self-determination irrelevant. [1] Van der Vyver, Johan D., „Self-Determination of the Peoples of Quebec under International law“, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, Vol. 10, No. 1, <http://law.fsu.edu/journals/transnational/vol101/vyver.pdf>, p.11
If any art is to be taught in schools, it has to be Poetry, for poetry is the only artistic form of a core subject.

It is an enjoyable way to teach the core subject of home language and literature written therein; interesting and obscure concepts hold the learner's interest when studying their home language and its landmark literature, while simultaneously expanding vocabulary and improving spelling. Poetry offers a fun method of teaching subjects that can otherwise easily be exhaustive and repetitive For examples; Shirley Hughes' poems for young readers such as Best friends introduce young readers to the vowel sounds of their home language. The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson teaches the reader about a great historical landmark. The war poetry of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon et al teaches students about the First World War and the horrors thereof. Zoe's Earrings by Kit Wright teaches pre-GCSE students about accents.1 1 Wright, Kit, "Zoe's Earrings", BBC Learning Zone, accessed 1 September 2011
It is important to honour the memory of the men who fell in the wars in the defence of their nation. War poetry is a fundamental tool to this end.

War poetry, although foreign to our own experiences of peacetime, enables us as readers to gain insight into the minds of the terrified men who fought for our freedom. Wilfred Owen suffered from shellshock as a result of fighting in the war. In his poem Mental Cases, he describes his time and experiences at Craiglockhart psychiatric hospital in Scotland, where he and Siegfried Sassoon (another WW1 poet) were treated for the condition; "Who are these? Why sit they here in twilight? Wherefore rock they, purgatorial shadows" (lines 1-2)1In our time of peace, we will never be able to fully empathise with their terrifying experiences, or successfully decode every observation, but we must read some of their poetry in order to appreciate the true and full horrors of war. We must do this out of respect for those who died for our freedom, and as such war poetry must be taught in schools. 1 Owen Owen, Wilfred, "Mental Cases", Wilfred Owen,accessed 1 September 2011.
Poetry is art, art is inseparable from education; art is what makes us human, and that which makes us human is certainly to be taught in schools.

It is fundamental that education teaches students about the human condition in order to enable an understanding of humanity. High school students must therefore gain awareness of not only human ideas but also an awareness of how humans choose to express these ideas, which means they must learn about art. One of the ways in which humans choose to express their emotions is through literature, language and speech- poetry. For example, many Victorian poets such as William Wordsworth and Sir Walter Scott, who spent much time in the Lake District, turned to writing nature poetry, such as Wordsworth's famous poem Daffodils, because they wanted to "see into the life of things",1 and the best way to both investigate and express this was through nature poetry. 1 Lefebure, Molly, The Illustrated Lake Poets, Windward, 1987, p. 144
Not teaching poetry in schools opens the gate to eradicating all artistic and creative subjects from the curriculum, which means the entire population would be Spartan and philistines.

We want cultured people to graduate from high schools. It is undesirable that all high school graduates, who are an educated group of people, will have no knowledge of art and no desire to ever immerse themselves in anything cultural such as a museum, or art gallery. This is what will happen if poetry and other art subjects are not respected in schools. As it is, English literature is the only cultural subject that is compulsory at GCSE level. Because it is the only obligatory cultural GCSE subject, as much culture must be channelled into it as possible i.e. novels and much poetry.