BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
[Response to rebuttal] Rainforests are global resources.

Status quo is far different from what the oppostion imagines it to be. There are now lack of initiatives into reducing demand for goods. If there is intensive propaganda and investment in to alternatives through encouragement of the government to reduce demand, the deforestation problem can be solved quite quickly. The government contradicts itself by now saying that Brazil is trying to destroy its rainforests for development. The UNSC and other countries should reduce demand of goods instead of providing them money as the proposition says. This will bring no sudden and destructive shift in the economy and at the same time, the Brazilian government will have no reason to continue deforestation. Effective change is better brought without harsh and hard to control-side effects. Sanctions are not that kind of effective solution.
Introduction

The proposition has proposed that the UNSC should pass a resolution to impose trade sanctions on countries that destroy rainforests for quick development and then in the second phase, they subsidization of people who will be affected by this by both governments and private industries. Then they have explained how rainforests are the base of earth's survival and that they are global resources. We the opposition agree with them in that the rainforests are indeed vital for our survival and that we cannot afford to lose them to deforestation. However, we completely oppose the way in which they want to halt the deforestation. In our case we will not only point out how their case has loopholes that may well prevent it from being an effective solution, but we will also show that these sanctions will give rise to whole new range of problems that have not been considered by them. The fact that they are trying to subsidize the people who will be affected by this is outrageous. The examples that they have given are miniscule when compared to the industries releated with the rainforests products. For example, Indonesia and Malaysia, provide 86% of the world's biofuel supply[[Borneo's Moment of Truth, National Geographic Magazine, November 2008]], the market of which is estimated to be around of 33 billion euros, with a double digit annual growth rate. Most of the biofuel produciton in Indonesia and Malysia takes place on deforested land[[Same as first]].
The use of landmines in war time or a tense environment is a totally separate issue to cleaning them...

The use of landmines in war time or a tense environment is a totally separate issue to cleaning them up in peace time; efforts to blur the two together by pro-ban commentators should be resisted. The latter can be fixed without banning the former. The proposition completely accepts that the consequence of keeping land mines legal is an obligation on the part of those that use them to fund clean-up efforts, and the USA is indeed doing this in many troubled countries. The attention of the very humanitarian organisations calling for a ban will ensure this obligation is met.
The ban has an asymmetric effect: it only stops nations that obey the law from using landmines. Mos...

The ban has an asymmetric effect: it only stops nations that obey the law from using landmines. Most nations contemplating invasion will ignore it, deploying them aggressively to defend captured territory. On the other hand, many nations that would use landmines defensively for themselves, or for multinational defence of another vulnerable nation or people, will observe the ban and thus weaken themselves and expose those they guard. The landmine should in fact be a primary tool of the United Nations efforts to protect those in its care. \ Nations that want to use landmines will do so regardless of the position taken by the USA (or any other nation) - as demonstrated by the current prolific use of mines despite the mass of signatories to the Ottawa convention. And if we might one day face an enemy deploying landmines, we must expose our soldiers to their use in training so that we do not expose them to serious harm.
The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can dea...

The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can deactivate themselves and can self-destruct. America only manufactures smart mines, and since 1976 the USA has tested 32,000 mines with a successful self-destruction rate of 99.996 per cent. The ban also fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible users. Under American deployment, only smart mines are used, and they are used responsibly, being set and removed in a methodical manner.
Landmines do great harm to people that trigger them – but so do all weapons of war. They are not u...

Landmines are a terrible and immoral tool of war. America should neither practise nor condone this kind of warfare. Unlike other weaponry, landmines remain hidden in the ground long after conflicts have ended, killing and maiming civilians in some of the world’s poorest countries years, even decades later. Even if other weaponry has similar effects, it doesn’t mean landmines are acceptable – it means they are bad, too. But we must start somewhere – we can make a difference by capitalising on the global movement against landmines, and we should.
The defence of South Korea from Communist aggression depends upon the thick belt of landmines that l...

The defence of South Korea from Communist aggression depends upon the thick belt of landmines that lines the demilitarized zone. Without it, North Korea’s million man army could easily cross into South Korea and take Seoul before defences could be organised. South Korea is a key ally of the USA and to join in the ban on landmines would be to betray that ally. The failure of the Ottawa Convention to grant an exception for the Korean peninsula was the key reason for USA non-participation.
The usefulness of landmines is significantly over-represented. They are easily removed by quite low...

That is true if we are discussing a single tripwire or booby trap. But the argument avoids the real point of landmines – blanket deployment over very wide areas, making them impassable for military units in the short term, and deadly for the indigenous population in the long term. Nobody rigs up a thousand pressure plates. Removing landmines from the available military options would mean that this kind of deployment would become impossible – it would mean the end of the mine field.
The use of landmines in war time or a tense environment is a totally separate issue to cleaning them...

It is absurd to suggest that there are two separate issues about landmines, use and post-conflict removal: the two are inextricably interlinked. Most nations that deploy landmines, including those manufactured by the United States, never clear them afterwards. As demonstrated by decades of inaction on the part of nations after determined lobbying by passionate activists, it is folly to rely on goodwill or trust to remove landmines. It is simple – if they are manufactured and deployed, innocent people inevitably die. The USA should not dirty its hands by the trade in these wicked weapons.
Banning landmines disproportionately punishes small, underdeveloped countries unable to develop the ...

Landmines provide a false sense of security. They are often purchased and placed by nations that are fearful of their surrounding neighbours, rather than entering into diplomatic arena to improve relations. They are the symbol of exactly the wrong approach to international affairs. Small, underdeveloped countries should channel their efforts into improving their economies – they should not be encouraged (or frightened by scaremongering) by the USA into buying the USA’s military equipment.
The ban has an asymmetric effect: it only stops nations that obey the law from using landmines. Mos...

It is obviously true that only those nations that obey laws will obey the law. That is a rationale for never passing any law. There will certainly be some nations that seek to ignore the ban – but as it gains stature and is embedded in the world’s view as a concrete rule that should never be broken, such nations will eventually come around, especially if the diplomatic and moral might of the United States is seen to be behind the ban. For examples, foreign officers trained at US Military Colleges will increasingly view the use of mines as unacceptable. Even if they do not, at least usage will have been vastly reduced by all those nations that do obey the terms of the Convention.\ Moral pressure is felt by the ruling regimes of almost all countries – setting an example will increase pressure on others to do the same. Even if they don’t, doing the right thing in and of itself is very important. \ Ultimately, this is about what kind of global society you want to live in. Do you wish to live in a society that tries hard to stop the use of such horrible weapons, and occasionally fails, or one that never even bothers to try?
The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can dea...

Faith in these so called ‘smart’ mines is hugely misplaced. Conditions under testing will always vary from those in the field, where all is confusion and areas of deployment are often not properly recorded or marked. Even if they work as claimed, there is no guarantee that regimes that use them will wish to deactivate them upon ceasefire, if left in the territory of a neighbour or enemy with whom a dispute still smoulders. The equipment required for deactivation may be lost or destroyed. The best way to ensure that these weapons aren’t left in the soil is never to put them there in the first place. That some users might be responsible is not good enough, since if anyone has landmines everyone will.
These mines, used in peacekeeping initiatives, protect US troops and present little danger to civili...

It is absurd to suggest that landmines are the prime protector of US forces, or even an important one. It is well known that the principal benefit the USA’s troops (as opposed to those of other nations) have in peacekeeping is the threat of the deployment of overwhelming force if they are defied. Landmines are nothing to do with it. US troops have not been pinned down in the way the proposition suggests since World War Two, except in Iraq: and there, as elsewhere, the damage done to relations with the civilian community would far outweigh any narrow military benefit garnered from landmine deployment.
The defence of South Korea from Communist aggression depends upon the thick belt of landmines that l...

North Korea has an extensive tunnel network under the DMZ that will facilitate the circumvention of the largest minefield on Earth, if the North Koreans were ever stupid enough to attempt invasion (and there is nothing to suggest that they are going to). This fact demonstrates the uselessness of landmines – the world’s biggest minefield is militarily redundant, a danger only to those that will live in this area in future years. The USA knows this – the defence of South Korea is a hollow, false excuse offered in defence of landmines – the real reason is the unwillingness on the part of the military machine to relinquish the capability of any weapon, no matter how horrible. Of course, there is a healthy profit to be made in their distribution, too.
Landmines are an excellent way of defending a wide area for very little money. They permit the defe...

Landmines are an excellent way of defending a wide area for very little money. They permit the defence of an area without requiring large numbers of personnel. This is a legitimate aim both in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians, and in poor countries during peacetime, who would rather invest in their infrastructure than funding the military capacity that would otherwise be required to defend the same ground. \ In the future, landmines may not be needed. However, whilst armies still depend on conventional weapons and movement – moving tanks and large infantry groups – and borders are weak, the defensive tactic of landmines is highly appropriate: it is cheap, affordable, and maintains borders. Their existence can slow or stop an advance, delaying or even halting conflict; they can deter invasion in the first place. By guarding wide areas from swift armed advance on civilians, they can prevent genocide.
Goes Against Wider US Policy

So far the prop has framed this debate as being one with a massive problem of immigration, and catching and deporting all of the illegal immigrants as a solution, with racial profiling as the method of doing that. Not only is this not going to be effective, but it is not even necessarily desirable to get rid of all the current illegal immigrants in the US. We agree that stopping future illegal immigration is crucial, but this can be achieved through tighter border control and creating a better situation back in Mexico. A better way of dealing with current illegal immigrants is the 'path to citizenship' proposed by Barack Obama [[http://www.economist.com/node/12321563?story_id=12321563]]. The essential idea is that the immigrants would turn themselves in in return for an amnesty and the opportunity to become citizens by paying a fine, learning English and gaining or continuing employment. As so many of the immigrants are already employed, this third issue isn't a problem. It would also create better circumstances for them, allow them to go to the police for protection (reducing their reliance on crime and gangs as an alternative) and also allow them to integrate more with American society. The route to citizenship is also cheaper than having more police and expensive prisons to detain the immigrants. It doesn't matter whether will provide a greater incentive to people wanting to try to immigrate illegally, when the threat of deportation and being shot at the border currently makes no difference. The prop's motion and the route to citizenship are directly conflicting. Racial profiling paints a picture of these people as evil, illegal aliens when really many of them are working hard to sustain themselves, it puts people off turning themselves in, and it is aimed towards detaining these people and eventually removing them from the country. This aim contradicts the aim of allowing them to stay within the country and try to become good American citizens.
The problem of illegal immigration has to be tackled thoroughly

A very important axis of the immigration problem is the responsibility that the state has towards the rights of its citizens. Illegal immigration directly violates some of these rights because of the fact that illegal aliens are being granted of unjustified privileges such as jobs, and moreover they are being given security, schooling, health care and other services financed by the taxes of Americans, which we think is unfair. In this sense, we believe that the state's obligation is to provide these rights to its legal citizens before any other group of individuals. Illegal aliens in the U.S have taken away a considerable quantity of jobs and services to Americans, only in 2008 an estimate of 7.7 million illegal immigrants were employed in the U.S[[numbersusa.com/content/files/pdf/Putting%20Americans%20Back%20to%20Work(2).pdf]]; these jobs could actually be jobs granted to residents of the country and also to legal immigrants in the U.S; which pay taxes and demand their legitimate right to have these jobs. This fact not only affects unemployment for the poor sector of the population that needs it, but also to the wages of formal workers, the cheap labor of illegal immigrants and poor immigrants caused a 44% decrease in wages among the poorest Americans from 1980 to 1994, as specified on a study by the American Academy of Sciences in 1997[[cis.org/node/759]]. In addition, there are situations where illegal aliens receive medical treatment or have a home and use all the public services which the citizens finance with their taxes; such as public transportation and schooling. As shown, the rights of the citizens are being violated and their situation deteriorates with the expansion of the problem. The question is: Why are we giving the illegals these privileges while they take away employment, wages and services to the people who have the legitimate right to them? That is why we believe it is fair to end the problem with this measure and grant corresponding rights.
It is racist

We believe that racism is never justified. This is because we recognise that every human has the fundamental right to be free from discrimination and not be judged on the colour of their skin. We believe that any policy that is racist is inherently unethical and therefore should not be passed into law. Almost all countries recognise that racism is wrong, and have laws which protect people from discrimination. The reason this policy is racist is due to the fact that race can now be a factor in deciding whether to question someone. For example, if a Mexican person was questioned in the street and asked for identification whereas a white person was not (and both were doing the exact same thing), it is an example of racism. This is wrong, and we have not had sufficient justification from the proposition for why this is okay. Even if statistics say that people of Mexican ethnicity are overrepresented in illegal immigrant numbers, it is still not justified. On an individual level, Mexican people who are legal immigrants (or even US-born citizens) are not “more likely” to be an illegal immigrant because other people of the same race are. They are exactly the same as a legal European immigrant or a white US-born citizen. Just because a higher proportion of people that share their race are illegal immigrants, does not mean that they should be subject to a stereotype which has no effect on their potential to be a criminal The fundamental individual right to freedom from discrimination is far more important than any small gain in the arrest of illegal immigrants. This is because it is fair. All people are equal, and we think that they should all have equal rights and equal status under the law.
Even more benefits of decreasing illegal immigration

Illegal immigration brings several security problems with it. National security comes first, so why should the government even tempt their heart not to deport these aliens who have violated the American laws since the very first moment they set a foot on that country? According to the center for Immigration Studies, “Those who violate the immigration norms are also known to have significant share in criminal activities in the country. 40 percent of the illegal aliens in the US had a history of violent crime.” Other issues such as kidnapping have also increased in a direct proportion with the increase of illegal immigration. A clear example of this is Arizona, whose illegal population now is five times what it was on 1990, and in the same period of time it has become one of the most insecure cities of the US, averaging a kidnap per day. Also, drug cartels and dangerous gangs such as the MS-13 and the Cholos, have been responsible of brutal violent acts. The MS-13, is one of the most violently dangerous gangs in the US. Their penchant for violence is renowned. MS-13 often leaves behind dismembered corpses, complete with the decapitated head, at the scene of their murders. MS-13 has carved fear among society, refusing to back down even from high profile authorities. Similarly, the Cholos have been responsible of many crimes, specifically in California. They have gotten to the extreme of performing a black ethnic cleansing in Watts, Highland Park, East LA, Harbor Gateway. These are just some of the facts that occur in our everyday life, we have just been blinded because we just see what we want to see. Illegal immigration is a great threat to security of American citizens, and it is a matter that can be solved now if we give the police the tools to reduce the number of illegal aliens in the US. 1. Rivera, Geraldo. Hispanic [[http://altereddimensions.net/crime/ms13gang.aspx]] [[http://endillegalimmigration.com/Illegal_Immigration_Facts_&_Statistics/index.shtm
Negative effects on Policing.

Racial profiling, contrary to what the Prop may argue is bad for the police. Racial profiling is when a person’s ethnicity is used to cause suspicion of criminal activity. The prop have uses flawed examples of profiling; militant Islamic sects and street gangs, these examples cause obvious breaches of the law and incur the appropriate police activity UNDER THE STATUS QUO. All that racial profiling would allow is justification in thinking that any Arabic like person could be a terrorist, it would ingrain in public opinion that Latin Americans are just stereotypically gang members and illegal. Racial profiling sends the dehumanizing message to our citizens that they are judged by the colour of their skin and harms the criminal justice system by eviscerating the trust that is necessary if law enforcement is to effectively protect America[[http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/racial_profiling_fact_sheet.pdf]]. As touched upon by the prop profiling harms the image of the police, the image is essential because while racial profiling has a dodgy success record, community policing has been proven to work, the more comfortable a community is with the police the more likely it is that they will cooperate with investigations[[http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/tp/Against-Racial-Profiling.htm]], but this is based upon trust! Racial profiling alienates minorities, if police are viewed as biased towards a ethnicity, say because they were justified in assuming all Latino’s were possibly illegal, then this sabotages community policing efforts because there is not trust between the ethnic community and the police so less support for policing efforts in fact as John Ashcroft said “racial profiling creates a "lose-lose" situation because it destroys the potential for underlying trust that "sh"should support the administration of justice as a societal objective, not just as a law enforcement objective” [[http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/]]
A measure that gives greater rights to who deserve them

We proved how rights of citizens are being violated by illegals, being a burden on welfare and unemployment. Opp tries to mislead the debate, saying under the status quo illegals work under bad conditions and lowly paid but there is no relevance since they are willing to take the risk and it is better to have low payment and welfare in USA than no payment and no welfare in México so they have the cake (Opp acknowledges that in the rebuttal of our 2nd point). Then Opp said illegals don't receive welfare but in a year USA spent 4-6 billions without including normal government costs as roads or security![[ judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/mar/county-spends-600-mil-welfare-illegals]] With a deficit of 26 billion that’s a heavy burden! We pointed 7.7 million illegals taking jobs of US citizens (suspicion of 15 million) so Opp said that it would only be a problem with 7.7 million citizens to take the job and the fact is that there are more than 30 millions unemployed in US so yes, there are and by far[[tradingeconomics.com]] and the most affected are the poorest, who would be doing those jobs and whose wages decrease. We’re in favor of legal workers, who are paid at least minimum wage and compete fairly with citizens, unlike illegals who are paid less, creating an unfair competition. Those benefits that Opp supports to employers are unethical and illegal. We showed this system would add benefits such as eliminating part of the violence of that right now cannot be detained since the cops don’t have the tools even when obvious suspicion but they can’t detain Salvadorans of MS-13 on basis of race/suspicion under status quo. Clarifying the statistic: 40% of the detained illegal immigrants had violent background (known after detained) and as said, this wouldn’t be a new measure to get criminals but an added benefit of having less illegals: 25% of prison inmates in USA re illegal aliens, why cite one case?[[usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summar