BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Showing Africa can solve its own problems

Countries desire to have influence among the international community. States gain this influence in all sorts of way; economic wealth, high technology, charismatic leaders, or a military power. Having an AU standing army would help provide Africa with influence; it would show the unity of the continent and its willingness to work together. A lot of influence is about perception and this is something that an AU army can change; Africa will no longer be a continent that cannot act for itself even on its own soil but will instead be taking the burden off more established peacekeeping countries. This is an important gain as influence is gained by being able to bring something to the table. Having an AU force means the AU will always be able to bring resources and capabilities when there is a crisis in Africa. The default position will no longer be to look to the UN, or even to France and the UK for peacekeepers when there is a crisis in Africa but to the AU itself. But an AU army would have other benefits too as the continent would be a better investment opportunity if there is an army guaranteeing security and ensuring peace. The continent’s economic influence may also therefore expand as a result.
There is no need for an AU force

Western countries have military systems far more efficient than their African counterparts, so it is clear that their involvement would be much more efficient than any AU-lead intervention.  UN has already embarked on a mission to end conflict throughout the world and help the continent reach prosperity. Therefore, it would be much more effective for Africa to concentrate and invest in other issues and let the international community handle security.  France’s recent intervention in Mali is a testimony of the western world’s devotion when it comes to African security. The mission‘s ultimate objective is, in President François Hollande’s words, to “restore Mali’s territorial integrity”(1) and an AU army would be no better at doing this. The first point is obviously costs. The cost of a large effective army is very high, especially equipping it for any eventuality. This is very problematic especially when a lot of African countries have poor economies, extremely high illiteracy rates, bad healthcare and virtually no modern infrastructure. It would be much more cost effective for them to concentrate on handling these issues while using UN peacekeepers to maintain peace. There are currently over 15 UN peacekeeping mission in Africa, and if needed, this number can increase.(2) (1)    “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, Jan 24th 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21570718-french-action-mali-seems-be-workingso-far-sand-their-boots (2)    “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, 2013, http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/un-peacekeeping/missions/africa.html
Action would require UN approval

The AU’s powers will be at odds with those of the UN. While the United Nations accepts and even encourages regional organisations engaging in “pacific settlement of local disputes” the point of an army is to be able to intervene with more than just negotiations. “But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council” so any potential intervention of the AU in crisis zones will be conditioned by UNSC approval or not.(1) If it will, it’s very easy to see how the creation of this standing army will be more or less in vain as it will either be prevented from intervening or act as a subsidiary to a better equipped UN force. The AU could choose to ignore the UNSC. However this option is also problematic as it would undermine the legitimacy of the operation and encourage the creation of regional organisations that try to keep the United Nations out of the region. (1)    United Nations, ‘Charter of the United Nations Chapter VIII: Regional Arrangements’, un.org, 1945, https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter8.shtml
An AU force will be inexperienced

An AU force won’t just be keeping the peace but it may also be involved in defeating rebel forces. One of the most important prerequisites for winning and ending such a conflict is experience.   When it comes to fighting insurgencies there are many countries that have experience fighting insurgencies; the French in Mail, NATO in Afghanistan, the British in Sierra Leone etc. In each of these national armies have gathered experience and learned counter insurgency techniques. This now makes them best able to solve conflicts. On the other hand, when looking at the military campaigns of the AU or African countries, there has been little success. AMISOM (African Mission in Somalia) has been in place since 2007, yet Al-Shabaab is still in power in many regions including the capital city, Mogadishu, and the ending is nowhere near (1). As a result, we should choose the ones with the most experience to handle such crisis rather than a newly created and unprepared AU force. (1)    Smith, David, “Al-Shabaab rebuilds forces in Somalia as African Union campaign stalls”, The Guardian, 28 October 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/al-shabaab-somalia-african-union
The international community cant be relied upon

On this point, there are two main reasons why the AU will actually do a poorer job as far as security in concerned. First of all, there are no assurances that African countries have the necessary expertize or financial capacity of supporting a well trained and always prepared military force. Only one country has a top military, Egypt,(1), and this is largely because African states cannot support big militaries of their own so how would they additionally support an AU force? On the other side, we have seen the international community engaging successfully in peacekeeping missions, helping local governments defeat rebel groups. There are currently have 15 UN peacekeeping missions(3) in Africa and French troops are helping to stabilise Mali and the CAR(4). Moreover, the institutional drawbacks that apply to the UNSC unfortunately apply to AU as well. The AU has 53 members and for an intervention to be accepted they would need a two-thirds approval rate. These alleged military interventions might get stuck in the same institutional gridlock as in the status quo. There even are some cases, like Congo, where other states (Rwanda and Uganda) actively supported anti-government Congolese rebel groups(2). (1)    Global Fire Power http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp (2)    “DR Congo's M23 rebels: Rwandan support 'falling'”, BBC, 5 July 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23198141 (3)    “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, 2013, http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/un-peacekeeping/missions/africa.html (4)    “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, 24 January 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21570718-french-action-mali-seems-be-workingso-far-sand-their-boots
African forces will be trusted by Africans

In many cases, an impartial third party can be more effective.  If we look at peace negotiations as an analogy and look at, for example, those between FARC guerillas and the Colombian government they began in Oslo, Norway,(1) not in Colombia or any other South American country. This happens as in order for a conflict to be mediated, you need to have a neutral third party which no party can influence and has no preference. The same can be equally true of peacekeepers. Due to African membership, the AU is unlikely to be considered impartial putting troops between them African factions. Of course, those African countries are part of the UN too, but due to the sheer number of countries in the UN, it is clear that the influence is much more diminished. (1)    Rueda, Manuel, ‘The Ultimate Guide to Colombia’s Peace Negotiations’, Fusion, 17 October 2012, http://fusion.net/justice/story/colombia-peace-talks-ultimate-guide-farc-guerillas-17955
Showing Africa can solve its own problems

In a world which has been constantly militarizing for the past century it is very hard to believe that Africa will be capable of building, from scratch, such an army capable of impressing the developed world. Any AU army will be small; the US has a military budget about 15 times all the African countries combined(1)(2), China’s military budget is growing at a double digit rate and many other countries have vasty superior armies when compared to the best in Africa.  An AU force is always going to be severely limited by its low budgets and capabilities. It may win plaudits and influence for its help within Africa but it will have no role beyond the continent as it will never be a force used to project power. Changing a perception that Africa can do nothing on its own is one thing, it is quite another to gain influence outside the continent. (1) Simmins, Charles, “Defense Spending in Africa Increasing”, Clearance Jobs, September 6, 2013 http://news.clearancejobs.com/2013/09/06/defense-spending-africa-increasing/ (2) ’Military expenditure’, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, April 2012, http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2012/04
There is no need for an AU force

It would be only beneficial to Africa to take matters into its own hands and not depend on some foreign country to save the day when they are in need. Even though at a diplomatic level, all big western liberal democracies are “committed” to helping Africa, it is clear that this may not always be the case. The West has become fatigued by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as proven by the opposition to a proposed intervention in Syria. Prior to this, the West has failed to intervene efficiently, such as in Rwanda where the response to genocide was too late (1).Moreover the African Union is often much faster to respond to crises in Africa and is the ‘first resort’ while the UN or foreign troops is a last resort. Thus in the Central African Republic AU troops were deployed four months prior to the French intervention. Intervention by western powers will only happen when the crisis is serious, and putting a UN force together can take a long time. This is a very big drawback on the side of the international community and it most often translates into lost lives and increased damages. (1)    Usborne, David, ‘UN pilloried for failure over Rwanda genocide’ Independent, 17 December 1999, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/un-pilloried-for-failure-over-rwanda-genocide-739072.html
Action would require UN approval

The Security Council will be most unlikely to obstruct a recognised regional security organisation from doing its role. Any veto would be extremely costly for the power that did so as they would incur the ire of most of Africa. Most of thesituations which the AU will want to intervene in are not of a high enough priority for the international community to devote significant resources to, but which are still big enough to seriously damage African countries. There will be no reason to veto. Moreover, there will be times when the world will be just too ignorant and too slow at some urgent matters which need immediate attention. A well-prepared standing army would have been able to stop the Rwandan genocide. As a result, even though this policy is not perfect it would help the current situation in Africa improve.
An AU force will be inexperienced

In such a situation, past war experience counts for little as every conflict is different. First of all, African armies on the other hand are familiar with the territory, conditions and people. It is true that Nigeria never sent troops to Iraq, but by battling Boko Haram every single day, it is fair to assume that the strategies and the military techniques used by the army are improving constantly, as they are forced to improve them by the growing threat. Secondly, The West has been forthcoming when it needs to share military counter insurgency techniques for example of training foreign armies. Through the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan (1) numerous soldiers have been trained and thus the Afghan security situation dramatically improved. Even if African armies are be under experienced, by participating in joint military exercises with military experts from the western world,  they could improve their capabilities quickly (1)    ‘NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan’, International Security Assistance Force, 5 November 2013, http://www.isaf.nato.int/subordinate-commands/nato-training-mission-afghanistan/index.php#Mission
Genetic testing ensures the best quality of life for children vulnerable to heritable diseases

We have a duty to the child to give it the best possible start in life, and if the technology is available to determine whether a baby is brought into the world with or without a genetic neurological disease such as Huntington’s, cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, we should exercise that right. A child that has Cystic Fibrosis (CF) produces too much fluid and mucus in the lungs, pancreas and passage ways, which then become thick, sticky and hard to move. This means that germs get stuck in the mucus and the child suffers from a lot of infectious diseases. Thus lead to reduced life expectancies (1). For the gene detectable blood disease Thalassemia in its moderate and severe forms children may need very frequent blood transfusions, which over time lead to damage of heart, liver or other organs. Or may need stem cell transplants (bone marrow transplants) in order to get these transplants children will usually need to undergo radiation and need to have the luck of a well matched donor (2).  Congenital malformations, deformations, chromosomal abnormalities are the leading causes of 20% of infant deaths in the US. More than 6,000 single-gene disorders - which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births - such as cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis or sickle cell anemia. Dr. Gregor Wolbring (University of Alberta in Canada) sees embryo selection as "a tool for fixing disabilities, impairments, diseases and defects"(3). If we have ways to prevent children from such suffering and can manipulate only with those genes so that they do not have to suffer, we should do so. 1.      KidsHealth, http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/lungs/cf.html#, accessed 05/21/2011 2.      Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/thalassemia/DS00905, 05/21/2011 3.      MedicineNet.com http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2820, accessed 05/23/2011
Parents have a right to acquire and act upon medical information

This argument comes from the idea, that a body is the property of its owner, as well as a fertilized egg is the property of the couple that created it whom also have parental rights a) Self-determination Some proponents of genetic screening might go as far to create the distinction between an embryo and a child: considering an embryo not to be a living being, but rather just a mass of cells, makes it possible to avoid entirely considering the "screening" process as a selection process between living human beings. Rather, it could be interpreted merely as a selection between different organizations of cells that have differing potential to become healthy "life". b) Parental rights Currently we allow couples to choose not to have children due to their own genetic deformations. We allow them to tie their tubes, get sterilized due to their own decision not to have children with genetic defects or children at all.  Experts suggest, that due to the sanctity of parental rights, the principle decision making should be in the hands of the parents, also regarding the power over the future of their DNA.  With this, the society respects the principal decision making right of the individual to control their family and the destiny of their offspring (1). Mainly making it a next step in deciding what their course of action regarding children will be. 1 Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=wmjowl, accessed 05/23/2011
Liberal societies have a duty to minimise avoidable suffering that might affect their members

Some of the genetic diseases tested include great suffering for the individual, one of them is the Tay Sachs syndrome. Where nerve cells become fatty from reoccurring infections.(1) This is a disease, where even with the best of care; a child dies at the age of 4. Another is also Down Syndrome, where half of the sufferers have heart defects, increased risks of types of leukemia and high risks of dementia. Physical and mental limitations are also a feature of such a defect which causes many children to die early. (2). So it is the duty of any society to prevent such sufferings for both child and parents at any cost or method. A similar view is shared among the Jewish community, who has problems with a high prevalence of Tay Sachs syndrome. They believe that due to the psychological and physical repercussions of the birth of a child with the genetic disorder it is better to screen and choose a healthy embryo (or abort the present pregnancy). (3) So because such diseases cause great distress for the involved parties and we could prevent it, it is morally right for society to engage in genetic screening.      1. National institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/taysachs/taysachs.htm, accessed 05/24/2011 2.Medline Plus 10/18/2010, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000997.htm, accessed 05/24/2011    3. Daniel Eisenberg, A Jewish perspective on issues related to screening Tay-Sachs disease, http://www.aish.com/ci/s/48909807.html., accessed 05/24/2011
Genetic screening may lead the marginalisation of those living with genetic disorders

Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable. That life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1)   1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-pregnancy, accessed 05/24/2011
A screening culture may lead to the value of human life becoming distorted

Genetic engineering treats embryos like commodities: “if the product isn’t sufficiently equipped, doesn’t produce the desired results – we will not launch it”. Even if we weren't considering embryos to be "human life", it is inappropriate to treat them as commodities with an "option to purchase". This cheapens at least the potential life-forms these embryos can become. Views of doctors and also future parents regarding the value of their unborn children’s lives are changing. In a survey taken in New England (USA), there was a substantial majority in favor of genetic screening for a wide range of disorders. About 11 per cent of the couples have also admitted to wanting to abort a child that was genetically predisposed to obesity. A condition with which it is possible to live a good lifestyle (1). With allowing more and more genetic screening and abortions / manipulations based on genes we are making life more of a commodity.   1.Jim Leffel, Genetic Technology, Engeneering Life: Human Rights in a Postmodern Age,  http://www.equip.org/articles/genetic-technology, accessed 05/23/2011
Genetic screening may lead to the pooling and centralised storage of genetic information

Most diseases people will not have heard of. Such tests can be used also to store DNA in a database. The hotly debated idea of a DNA database has received much criticism. By framing the question of the ethics of a DNA database in this light is much more positively received by the public, and this is a way governments and insurance companies will change the public perception of a DNA database. Health insurance companies in America and life insurance companies in Britain will be very keen in the use of this data in order to give higher premiums to those who show positive for certain diseases. Such genetic screening then may lead to companies demanding information about clients before ensuring them. This fear of insurance in the US being denied due to genetic predispositions is not groundless. A study conducted by Georgetown University Health Policy Institute in 2008 proves a similar point. In 7 of 92 underwriting decisions, insurance providers (hypothetical cases) decided, they would deny coverage, charge more or exclude certain conditions from coverage based on genetic test results (1).   1.   Amy Harmon, Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests, 02/24/2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/health/24dna.html?pagewanted=1, accessed 22/05/2011
Genetic destabilisation

Natural selection is the process whereby people mate, have children and those children enrich the gene pool – if they survive. Occasionally genetic mistakes are made in that reproduction. As long as the result is not fatal, that mistake can begin to infiltrate the gene pool. More people may come to have this mistake in built into their genome. Whilst we may see it as a mistake in our current living conditions, that mutant gene may be a defense to future conditions. For instance, the spread of sickle cell anemia in Africa. This disease causes red blood cells to carry less oxygen due to the squashed nature of all the red blood cells. This condition causes people to die younger, in 1973 life expectancy for a sufferer was 17, and it is now 50 and above. However, sickle cell anemia is a natural immunity against malaria. The life expectancy for someone with malaria is far lower.[[Sickle cell disease, QualityHealth, 13th January 2011, http://www.qualityhealth.com/health-encyclopedia/in-depth-reports/sickle-cell-disease accessed 25/05/11]] We need different genes in the human gene pool even if we do not see the benefit of them now.
Genetic testing ensures the best quality of life for children vulnerable to heritable diseases

The genetic test does not prevent or cure anything. It merely asserts whether someone is a carrier of a genetic disorder. The testing would be paid for by couples to see if they are both carriers of this disorder. The decision then a couple can make based on the screenings is then to:       a) not have children together The idea of these tests preventing people from marrying is mental. In our liberal society surely it is love that counts in a relationship, not how well your genes fit together to make the perfect child.       b) choose in vitro fertilization In order to make them prevent the disease, so that the defected genes (in some cases) can be manipulated.        c) abort the present fetus We pressurize and take away choices of the parents, by giving them the knowledge, regarding their children.  A professor of Law at Harvard University, Paul Freund also takes up the position that an unborn child has the right to random genes.  Freund states, 'The mystery of individual’s personality, resting on the chance combination of ancestral traits, is the basis of our sense of mutual compassion and at the same time, of accountability." Professor Freund suggests that the ethical approach to advances in genetic technology allows the random assortment of genes to take effect, thereby protecting the sanctity of the human individual (1). Further on with the advances in medicine genetic conditions and disorders no longer present such a burden on the children and enable them to live a good lifestyle and have high survival rates.  1. Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=wmjowl, accessed 05/23/2011