BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public insurance would not waste money on advertising

Signe Wilkinson. "Unhealthy arguments against public option" Philadelphia Daily News. July 14, 2009: "JUST IMAGINE: "Fireworks Night" at the Phillies' game brought to you by . . . Medicare. Would you wonder why the federal government was spending beacoup bucks on pyrotechnics and a huge sign saying "Choose . . . the Public Option"? [...] Yet the fireworks shows at Citizens Bank Park last Thursday and Friday were brought to the sellout crowds by Independence Blue Cross. When the lights were dimmed to better view the display, one huge sign stayed lit: 'Choose Blue.' [...] Blue Cross and other major health-care insurers are among the most vocal opponents of a robust "public option" in the health-care reform legislation being negotiated in Congress; they say it won't work because government is congenitally wasteful. But it's a cinch that government-run health insurance wouldn't spend money on fireworks or advertising."
Public insurance bureaucracies are better than private ones

Paul Waldman. "The Public Option and the Hope of Health Care Reform". American Prospect. December 23, 2008: "There is no doubt that the insurance companies and their Republican allies in Congress will fight the inclusion of a public option with every bit of power they can muster. They'll call it 'socialized medicine' -- but by now we should all have realized that Republicans will call any health care reform Democrats propose 'socialized medicine' (that's what they said about Clinton's 1993 health plan, whose chief cost containment measure was enhancing the role of HMOs). They'll scream about 'government bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor.' But anyone who has tried to get reimbursement for a medical service from an insurance company that didn't want to provide it knows that government bureaucrats are pussycats compared to insurance company bureaucrats."
Public insurance would not waste money on lobbying

Signe Wilkinson. "Unhealthy arguments against public option" Philadelphia Daily News. July 14, 2009: "government-paid insurance surely wouldn't be forking over the estimated $1.4 million per day that the health insurance industry is spending to lobby members of Congress to block competition from a government plan - and, with it, more choices for Americans. The army of lobbyists includes 350 former government staff members who - before they took the revolving door for a spin - worked for the very same committees that are writing the legislation."
Insurers should not be trusted with sole control of health insurance

Jacob Hacker. "The case for public plan". The Institute for America's Future: "As health policy expert Jeanne Lambrew puts the point, the question is not why nonelderly Americans without secure workplace coverage should have the same choice that seniors do: enrolling in a public or private plan. The question is: 'Why should policymakers give private insurers the exclusive right to cover Americans? If private insurers can better meet our goals for the health system, why object to a level competition with public plans?'"
Palestinians were forced to leave, have a right to return.

Nizar Sakhnini. "Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing." Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. July 12th, 2004: "Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing were an Integral Part of Herzl's Colonial Project. His real intentions and full extent and scope of the colonial settlement that Herzl was after were reflected in the draft-agreement of The Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC) 'for the purpose of settling Palestine and Syria with Jews' that Herzl lobbied for approval from Sultan Abdulhameed in Istanbul in 1901. According to article I of the draft, the JOLC would be granted 'A special right to purchase large estates and small farms and to use them for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and mining. On these areas (the JOLC) may build all installations, roads, bridges, buildings and houses, industrial and other facilities, which it considers appropriate. The JOLC is further entitled 'to drain and utilize swamps (if there are any) by planting or in any other way, to establish small and large settlements, and to settle Jews in them.' Article III gives the JOLC the right to deport the native populations, an act aiming at legitimizing ethnic cleansing, by granting "The right to exchange economic enclaves of its territory, with the exception of the holy places or places already designated for worship. The owners shall receive plots of equal size and quality procured by it (the JOLC) in other provinces and territories of the Ottoman Empire."
More of a right to leave than right to return.

According to Alexander Safian, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not guarantee a right of return because the clause "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" was meant to guarantee the right to leave. According to its legislative history, Article 13 was aimed at governments which imprisoned certain subgroups of their own nationals by preventing them from leaving. According to its sponsor, the mention of a "right to return" was included to assure that "the right to leave a country, already sanctioned in the article, would be strengthened by the assurance of the right to return.[2]
Right of return is individual, not group, right (so is stronger).

On March 15, 2000, a group of 100 prominent Palestinians from around the world expressed their opinion that the right of return is individual, rather than collective, and that it cannot therefore be reduced or forfeited by any representation on behalf of the Palestinians in any agreement or treaty. They argued that the right to property 'cannot be extinguished by new sovereignty or occupation and does not have a statute of limitation.'
Jews expelled from Arab countries have no right of return.

Some critics of the Palestinian "right of return" also argue that it is not supported by international precedent, drawing attention to the 758,000-866,000 Jews were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, with property losses of $1 billion. These critics argue that since these refugees were neither compensated nor allowed return—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders or international legal authorities—the international community had accepted this migration of Jews as fait accomplish, and thereby set legal precedent in the region against a right of return.
Right of return is individual right, not collective for Palestinians.

Stig Jagerskiold in 1966, in which he argues that the right of return was intended as an individual and not a collective right: "...[it] is intended to apply to individuals asserting an individual right. There was no intention here to address the claims of masses of people who have been displaced as a by-product of war or by political transfers of territory or population, such as the relocation of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe during and after the Second World War, the flight of the Palestinians from what became Israel, or the movement of Jews from the Arab countries."[4]
Palestinians forced out, did not leave on own will.

The traditional Israeli point of view arguing that Arab leaders encouraged Palestinian Arabs to flee has also been disputed Palestinians, who have presented evidence indicating Arab leaders' will for the Palestinian Arab population to stay put. Historians such as Benny Morris, Erskine Childers, and Walid Khalidi state that no evidence of widespread evacuation orders exists, and that Arab leaders in fact instructed the Palestinian Arabs to stay put. According to Morris, whatever the reasons driving many into flight, temporary evacuation under local orders, contagious panic, fear of Jewish arms, or direct expulsion manu militari, the 700,000 odd Palestinians who did become refugees acquired that status as a result of compulsory displacement or expulsion, since they were not permitted by Israel to return. In any case, even if the 1948 exodus had not been caused by Israel, the claimed right of return is not contingent on Israeli responsibility for the displacement of refugees.
Arabs instigated 1948/1967 wars; no Pal. right of return.

Israeli official sources, foreign press, and officials present at the time, and historians such as Joseph Schechtman have long claimed that the 1948 refugee crisis was instigated by the invading Arab armies, who ordered Palestinian civilians to evacuate the battle zone. Opponents of the right of return, such as Efraim Karsh say that Israel is therefore not obligated to compensate Palestinians or allow them to return. Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion.
Denying right of return is a prejudiced Zionist objective.

Nizar Sakhnini. "The Core Issue" Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right to Return Coalition. 11 July 2004: "Theodor Herzl, who presided the 1st ZC, had provided the ideological underpinnings of the Zionist movement in his pa pamphlet, Der Judenstaat, which was published in 1896. In a nutshell, Herzl called for a colonial project for the exclusive benefit of the Jews and suggested that Der Judenstaat would 'form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.' Efforts of the Zionist political movement to implement their project, with the support of the Imperialist Great Powers, in complete disregard to the Palestinian rights and human reality in Palestine, were responsible for initiating and prolonging the conflict in and around Palestine. Establishment of an exclusive Jewish State in a country where the majority of its people were not Jewish meant transplanting Jews from all corners of the world and bringing them to Palestine. Simultaneously, it meant dispossession and ethnic cleansing for the Palestinians. This was, and still is, the core issue in the conflict. All else was derivative."
Palestinian flight from Israel was voluntary, not forced.

According to some sources, Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. Many Arab leaders encouraged and even ordered Palestinians to evacuate the battle zone in order to make it easier for the Arab armies and fedayeen to demolish the newly found Jewish state and Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion. Karsh states that most Palestinians chose their status as refugees themselves, and therefore Israel is therefore absolved of responsibility.
Unlimited spending fosters voices from all sides

Mitch McConnell and Floyd Abrams. "No: Free speech, no matter the speaker, is what our Constitution protects." The Atlanta Journal. January 27, 2010: "Citizens United’s orientation is sharply to the right. On the left, BCRA required advertisements for Michael Moore’s anti-Bush documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” to be pulled off the airwaves as the Republican Convention of 2004 approached. And as the national election approached that year, the ACLU was required to avoid mentioning President Bush in advertisements it was publishing denouncing the Patriot Act. [...] Given the court’s ruling, corporations and unions will now be free to participate in the political process to a greater degree than had previously been possible. The suppression of speech by both not-for-profit and for-profit corporations is over, and short of a constitutional amendment Congress may not reimpose the current speech ban or anything like it."
Unlimited spending allows corps to intimidate candidates

Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis), co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, said to the Washington Post in January of 2010: "Oil companies, with virtually no harm to their balance sheets, can now try to "take out" members of Congress who don't toe their company line on energy policy. Foreign-owned companies ¿ even those owned and controlled by other governments ¿ are free to underwrite the candidates of their choice."[21]
Corp election spending limited by transparency laws

Kenneth Gross. Leads the political law practice at Skadden Arps; former associate general counsel of the Federal Election Commission. Wrote in a January 24, 2010 Washington Post piece[12]: "Also, many corporations have already signed on to transparency agreements regarding political spending. So, funding by publicly held corporations of groups trying to disguise their mission will be few and far between. This may not be the popular, prevailing view of the implications of the Citizens case -- but it is likely to be at least the short-term reality."[13]
Corporate spending breaks media power in elections

Cleta Mitchell. "Partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law; filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Citizens United, on behalf of two advocacy organizations opposing the ban on corporate expenditures: "The Supreme Court has correctly eliminated a constitutionally flawed system that allowed media corporations (e.g., The Washington Post Co.) to freely disseminate their opinions about candidates using corporate treasury funds, while denying that constitutional privilege to Susie's Flower Shop Inc."[25]
Unlimited corporate spending forces candidates to fundraise more

"A Bad Day for Democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. January 22, 2010: "The fear factor of unlimited corporate political spending this decision creates will now fuel a rapidly escalating fundraising arms race in Congress. With big firms now free to spend jaw-dropping sums to oppose or intimidate them, elected officials will feel compelled to spend more and more of their time raising money, thereby further distracting Congress from the pressing issues of the day."
Spending limits protect voter voices from being priced-out

Karen Finney. Democratic consultant and commentator; former spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, wrote in a January 24, 2010 Washington Post piece: "In a decision that supposedly ruled on the side of free speech, the court actually put a price tag on that speech. A price tag that could result in the voices of individual Americans being priced out of their ability to actually be heard, as millions of dollars from multinational corporations can now be spent to tip the scales in an American election."[7]
Unlimited spending frees up advocacy groups in elections

Cleta Mitchell. "Partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law; filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Citizens United, on behalf of two advocacy organizations opposing the ban on corporate expenditures: "The real victims of the corporate expenditure ban have been nonprofit advocacy organizations across the political spectrum. After the 2004 election, the Sierra Club paid a $28,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission for distributing pamphlets in Florida contrasting the environmental records of the two presidential and U.S. Senate candidates. Because the Sierra Club is a corporation, the FEC charged it with making an illegal corporate expenditure."[26]
Unlimited spending engenders corporate-sponsored candidates

Anna Burger. Secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, wrote in a January 24, 2010 piece: "There can be no doubt: The voice of everyday working Americans in the political process will be muted. How can they compete for airtime with the deep pockets of multinational corporations? The court's decision has said loud and clear that Mr. Smith has no business in Washington -- that seat's been sponsored by Wal-Mart."[22]
Citizens United decision does not allow spending on campaigns

Jon Witold Baran. "Stamped Toward Democracy." Washington Post. January 25, 2010: "Will corporations and unions be able to give money to candidates or political parties? No. Federal law, which regulates campaigns for president, the Senate and the House, prohibits such contributions. The ban was left untouched by the Supreme Court. Can corporations spend money in cahoots with candidates and political parties? No. The Supreme Court decision addressed only 'independent expenditures,' which are, by definition, 'not coordinated with a candidate.' Monies spent in collaboration with candidates or parties are treated as contributions — and are still banned."
Unlimited corporate spending kills small-donor candidates

Greg Palest. "Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections." OpEdNews. January 23rd, 2010: "Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding. [...] Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new 'citizens' such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation."
Unlimited corporate spending favors Republicans

"The Court’s Blow to Democracy." New York Times. January 21, 2010: "The Citizens United ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-to-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections."
Tech makes limits on speech unrealistic

Supreme Court majority January 21, 2010 opinion on Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission: "3) The Government’s asserted interest in protecting share-holders from being compelled to fund corporate speech, like the anti-distortion rationale, would allow the Government to ban political speech even of media corporations. The statute is underinclusive; it only protects a dissenting shareholder’s interests in certain media for 30 or 60 days before an election when such interests would be implicated in any media at any time."
Citizens United favors Dems as much as Republicans

David Kirkpatrick. "Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Financing". New York Times. January 22, 2010: "As Democrats vowed to push legislation to install new spending limits in time for the fall campaign, Republicans disputed the partisan impact of the decision. They argued that Democrats had proven effective at cultivating their own business allies — drug companies are spending millions of dollars to promote the administration’s health care proposals, for example — while friendly interest groups tap sympathetic billionaires and Hollywood money."
Spending limits harm speech of advocacy groups & unions

Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman wrote: "If corporate advocacy may be forbidden as it was under the law in question, it's not just Exxon Mobil and Citigroup that are rendered mute. Nonprofit corporations set up merely to advance goals shared by citizens, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association, also have to put a sock in it. So much for the First Amendment goal of fostering debate about public policy."[23]
Unlimited spending allows special interests to dominate elections

President Barack Obama called the Supreme Court's Citizens Union decision in his 2010 January State of the Union address: "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. "[14]
Corps focus on profits, not eligible for rights

Tom Stites. "How corporations became persons." UU World: "Democracy expresses the collective consciences of citizens. However noble or flawed its message, this is how our nation's moral voice is heard. [...] Corporations express the collective investment goals of shareholders. The legal stricture known as fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit in inherently amoral economic competition, corporations are by their nature amoral as well. Despite image-enhancing claims of corporate citizenship, they have no consciences to express, only earnings per share. They differ from people not only in form and size but, most importantly, in their fundamental character: People including corporate executives, employees, and shareholders—have inherent worth and dignity; corporations in and of themselves do not."
Unfair to free corporate spending, while limiting campaign fundraising

Cleta Mitchell. "Partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law; filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Citizens United, on behalf of two advocacy organizations opposing the ban on corporate expenditures, wrote in a January 24th, 2010 Washington Post article: "Campaigns, corporations and unions can all now spend as much as they want on campaign ads. But campaign finance laws dramatically limit how much candidates (though not corporations or unions) can raise and from whom. Generally, candidates may only accept contributions up to $2,400 per election from individuals and up to $5,000 per election from PACs. In contrast, Citizens United allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums attacking or supporting candidates. So picture this: An interest group makes a single phone call to raise $250,000 for attack ads in the waning days of a campaign. The candidate must find more than 100 willing donors, able to give the maximum permissible $2,400 contribution, to answer those ads with an equivalent buy. [...] One solution is for Congress to repeal the limits on how much and from whom candidates can raise money. However, those who see the court's opening of the doors to unlimited corporate spending as a problem are unlikely to see unlimited corporate contributions to candidates as the solution. Rather, Congress should repeal the limits on how much national political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, which might restore some balance to the system."[27]
Citizens United frees unions too, but corps are richer

While it is true that the Citizens United vs the Federal Election Commission does free non-profits and unions to spend freely, just as it does for corporations, the difference of course is that corporations (particularly the titans like big-oil companies Exxon Mobil and the big financial firms like Goldman Sachs) have far, far more money. Unions and advocacy groups are already maxing out on the spending front, so freeing them up won't result in much if any of an increase in their spending. Major corporations, however, will be able to increase their spending dramatically as a result of this ruling. It is not fair to say, therefore, that the ruling benefits both groups. It clearly favors corporations.
Corporate free speech protects govt of/by/for people

Karen Finney. Democratic consultant and commentator; former spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, wrote in a January 24, 2010 Washington Post piece: "At the very moment Americans' mistrust of big corporations, big government and large institutions has reached a fever pitch, the Supreme Court moved to replace a government of, for and by the people with a government that can be bought and paid for by just about any major corporation -- from Exxon to Russian-owned Lukoil to China's CPC Corp."[15]