BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A moral imperative to intervene

In the case of Syria these conditions have not been met; the evidence has not yet been provided – the weapons inspectors have yet to report, there have been very few peace talks to try to reach a peaceful solution or attempts at peaceful coercion such as sanctions. Will the attacks be proportionate? They will simply cause more damage and unless they are very large will not stand a chance of halting the violence.   Moreover in general terms it is difficult to see whether a responsibility to intervene really exists. There does not seem to be much agreement that humanitarian distress and the need for urgent relief allows unilateral action if the state that is in need of relief does not want it. There is certainly very little state practice (well not since 19th century imperialism anyway) where it has happened.[1] Even in the last decade there have been failures to intervene against states killing their own civilians in Chechnya, North Korea[2] and Uzbekistan.[3] It is notable that this was very much scaled back from a more general doctrine of humanitarian intervention. This doctrine does not allow for any nation to take it upon itself to ‘protect’ another’s civilians rather it provides an opportunity for the United Nations to do so.[4] “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter” this simply provided a mandate for the UN Security Council to intervene in such situations. [1] Booth, Robert, ‘Syria: legal doubt cast on British government’s case for intervention’, theguardian.com, 29 August 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-legal-doubt-british-intervention [2] Ryall, Julian, ‘Up to 20,000 North Korean prison camp inmates have 'disappeared' says human rights group’, The Telegraph, 5 September 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10288945/Up-to-20000-North-Korean-prison-camp-inmates-have-disappeared-says-human-rights-group.html [3] ‘Uzbekistan: No Justice 7 years after Andijan Massacre’, Human Rights Watch, 12 May 2012, http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/05/11/uzbekistan-no-justice-7-years-after-andijan-massacre [4] Thakur, Ramesh, ‘Is America now becoming an international outlaw?’, The Japan Times, 3 September 2013, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/09/03/commentary/is-america-now-becoming-an-international-outlaw/
Disarming illegal weapons

The only precedent for this is the disastrous Iraq war where the reason for the invasion was given as disarming Saddam of Weapons of Mass Destruction he turned out not to have. Most countries would therefore be justified in being skeptical of any country claiming the right to disarm another of WMD. Additionally when this is done by the major powers the action is likely to be seen as being hypocritical. In the case of Chemical Weapons the United States does not have a particularly clean record. The United States used less deadly chemical weapons, Agent Orange, in Vietnam in order to clear foliage, and in Iraq it used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon. The United States has so far failed to decommission its own Chemical Weapons and instead keeps getting extensions.[1] Similarly both Russia and the United States had Biological Weapons programs, and although these have ended still maintain large smallpox supplies. [1] Monbiot, George, ‘Obama’s Rogue State’, monbiot.com, 9 September 2013, http://www.monbiot.com/2013/09/09/obamas-rogue-state/
Current International law on the use of force no longer matters

Current international law does still matter, each time a state takes such action without consent other states object, they are simply not powerful enough to prevent it but this does prevent any norm being created by the aggressor. If however international law does no longer matter then any war is legal, or rather at least not illegal. This potentially means going back to a situation where any state has a sovereign right to engage in conflict for almost anything it sees as an infringement of its sovereignty. The best we might hope for would be that states could agree that while war might be legal it has to be under the conditions of launching a just war under jus ad bellum. There are six requirements: just cause – defence of oneself, allies, or innocents or punishment for wrongdoing right intention – no ulterior motives beyond the stated cause Proper authority and public declaration – must be open and done publically Last resort – have expended all peaceful alternatives Proportionality – must create more good than evil so that the action is worth the costs Probability of success – there must be some likelihood of making a difference and concluding the conflict quickly.[1] In most cases military action would not meet all of these requirements. [1] Orend, Brian, "War", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/ Also see the debatabase debate ‘This House believes there can be such a thing as a just war’
There is no point in defending some norms at the costs of breaching others

An international norm is being breached one way or the other the only question is which one is to be breached. Those in favour of intervention consider that lives saved is worthwhile compared to the problems the breach of a norm against humanitarian intervention might create. All of these norms are there with the intention of saving lives; that is what a norm of preventing any infringement of sovereignty without UN approval is supposed to prevent – conflict and the lives lost this causes. But Internal conflict and genocide has since become much more the problem than aggression between states requiring a rebalancing of which norms are kept.
A moral imperative to intervene

When a massacre is about to happen it is legal to intervene to prevent that massacre. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ which was accepted by the UN in 2005. Resolution 60/1 at the 2005 World Summit stated, there was international responsibility “to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner.” Though this will only happen “should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations”.[1] This is most certainly the case in Syria where the national authorities are the ones doing much of the killing. It must be proved that the Syrian regime is responsible for the attacks; the US and UK say there is such evidence but so far the link is not crystal clear. Even the UK government accepts that there must be “convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief”.[2] As the doctrine states peaceful means must have been tried – and in Syria after two years of conflict we can safely say a peaceful resolution is not in sight. And the use of force must be proportionate – which since there is no plan for a full scale invasion in Syria it will be. [3] [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’, Resolution 60/1 2005, p.30 http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/World%20Summit%20Outcome%20Document.pdf#page=30 [2] ‘Chemical weapon use by Syrian regime – UK Government legal position’, gov.uk, 29 August 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235098/Chemical-weapon-use-by-Syrian-regime-UK-government-legal-position.pdf [3] Cassese, Antonio, ‘Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community?’, EIJL, Vol.10, 1999, http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/23.full.pdf
Disarming illegal weapons

A second possible justification for intervention is when the state that is intervening against is itself breaking international law such as the Chemical Weapons Convention or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The intervention would then be to force compliance of the treaty; this would mean forcible disarmament of illegal weapons. In the case of Syria the country could be deemed to have violated its own legal obligations due to its having broken the 1925 Geneva Protocol[1] that bans the use of chemical weapons. Since manufacturing and possession of these weapons is banned if it is considered that having such weapons is a ‘gross violation of international law’ then a limited use of force to destroy these weapons could be considered to be legal.[2] This could be considered to be analogous to the police stepping in to confiscate a banned weapon, with no police internationally other states have to be the ones to step in. [1] 1925 Geneva Protocol, League of Nations, 17 June 1925, http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Bio/1925GenevaProtocol.shtml [2] Dr Wolff Heintschel, ‘Viewpoints: Is there legal basis for military intervention in Syria?’, BBC News, 29 August 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23847169
Current International law on the use of force no longer matters

The international prohibition on the use of force has always been honoured in large part in the breach leading to the question of whether it should really be considered to be binding international law at all. Almost every major country has launched an illegal offensive action at some point; The USA has been involved in Kosovo and Iraq, the UK and France in attacking Egypt in 1953, China in attacking Vietnam in 1979, and Russia (as the USSR) in attacking Afghanistan also in 1979. In each instance of unilateral offensive action there will be justifications and a ‘smoke screen’ to make the conflict appear to be legal when in fact it is not. Major powers should simply admit that they do not regard the prohibition of the use of force as binding on them. Even without admitting it because international law is based upon state behaviour the use of force is legal as Michael J Glennon suggests “The consent of United Nations member states to the general prohibition against the use of force, as expressed in the Charter, has in this way been supplanted by a changed intent as expressed in deeds.”[1] [1] Glennon, Michael J., ‘How War Left the Law Behind’, The New York Times, 21 November 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/opinion/how-war-left-the-law-behind.html
Military action is only legal with UN Security Council approval

Traditionally (by this I mean since 1945!) there are only a couple of ways in which a war is legal. The first is simple; self defence. The UN charter allows “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”[1] but this does not fall into that category. Assad is attacking his own people, not another state that is entitled to self defence. No state is able to claim the right to provide self defence for those who Assad is attacking. A much more viable proposition is to go through the UN Security Council. The charter allows that “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace… Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 [sanctions and other non-forceful methods of applying pressure] would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” So the UN Security Council certainly could authorise the use of force. Unfortunately a Security Council member, Russia, has already effectively ruled out authorizing military action with its foreign minister urging the US not to repeat “past mistakes” (i.e. Iraq and Libya) and warning “It’s a very dangerous slippery slope that our Western partners have gone on before. I hope common sense prevails.”[2] [1] United Nations, ‘Chapter VII: Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression’, Charter of the United Nations, 1945, https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml [2] Meyer, Henry, ‘Syria Is Headed for Western Strike, Russia Says’, Bloomberg, 26 August 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/russia-warns-u-s-against-regional-fallout-of-syria-intervention.html
The proposition policy will interfere with current government policies

Prop's plan is not only redundant with some current government programs but is also wasteful of worthwhile government funds. For example, the plan pays for the education of young girls up through the high school level. This is targeting a problem that has been addressed with significant success. Currently, the rates for primary school enrolment among young girls and young boys are 94% and 97% respectively in 2007. This is a drastic change from the year 2000 when it was 77% and 94%, a 17% disparity.[1] Additional policies in the same area are inefficient and the additional bureaucracy risks disrupting this positive trend. There are currently at least 27 ministries in the Indian government (account for almost 5% of total budget expenditure) that are allocated to providing programs for female empowerment, and of these most are taking a targeted approach that identifies actual needs within communities.[2] [2]Side Prop does not tell us how their plan will be different than any of these existing plans. At best, Prop's plan is likely to be redundant when combined with existing policy and therefore a waste of money. At worst, it will work against established, valuable programs and actively cause harm. More importantly, the fact that girls are attending schools in these numbers and yet a sex-ratio imbalance exists and has in fact worsened proves that better education for women does not solve or improve the problem of sex selective abortion. Therefore, prop’s policy of providing education grants is redundant. [1] World Bank, ‘Adjusted net enrolment rate. Primary’, data.worldbank.org, http://databank.worldbank.org/ [2] Ministry of Women and Child Development, ‘Gender Budgeting in India, http://wcd.nic.in/gbman/powerpoint/third.ppt
Autonomy (Please note that this argument cannot be run in conjunction with argument four as they are contradictory)

42% of the Indian population is under the international poverty line and it is they that contribute the most to imbalanced sex ratio due to economic concerns.[1] Offering a financial incentive for people to produce female children will undermine the autonomy of parents. In order for there to be autonomy, the individual needs to be able to make a rational, unforced decision. When someone is extremely impoverished, as many people are in developing economies like those of China and India, financial incentives are an offer that cannot be refused. Proposition would have you believe that we offer the parents an autonomous choice between having a female child and receiving money or not having the child and not receiving money. Of course they will take the money! Poverty removes the possibility of choice. In this way, poor parents are being forced to have female children to ensure their own survival and the survival of their already existing family. Why is this problematic? Firstly, we believe choice is intrinsically valuable because the freedom to make choices is recognition of our fundamental humanity and individuality. If we cannot determine our own futures we are slaves. We value choice so much that we sometimes allow it when it risks causing wider social problems. For example, we allow people to smoke or eat unhealthily even though this may cost the health system a lot of money. Secondly, people have the most empirical information about themselves and are therefore able to make the best choices for themselves. For example, a family may know that they do not have the space in their home or the time to raise another child. They may know that a boy will be better able to support the family financially later on because he will be more likely to get a job and in some cases this may even override the financial benefits offered by government. These are all important considerations that only individual families are able to take into account. A government is unable to know each family’s individual situation and therefore is not well suited to make this decision in place of the family.  [1] Poverty in India.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
The policy will help alleviate the social problems arising from the imbalance

First off, it is quite possible the gender ratio imbalance is not as large in China as it is thought to be because many families do not register their female children in order to circumnavigate the one-child policy. Proposition thinks that trafficking will decrease under their policy. We would argue that it would increase or at the very least not decrease. These atrocities take root when a society finds more value in women as economic objects than as people. The cash transfer scheme does little to increase women’s value as people but explicitly and dramatically increases their value as economic objects. This plan does not reduce or create any disincentive for exploitation of women or girls, but it does guarantee a revenue stream from doing so In some traditional cultures, women are used as tender to settle debts, through forced marriages, or worse. Presumably the cash transfers are to the families, not the girls themselves. This reinforces the powerlessness of women relative to their families and only reinforces their families' potential gain from economic exploitation. With the addition of cash, there would be an increased incentive reason to exploit this renewable resource. We on side Opp feel that this behaviour is dehumanizing and deplorable and the risk of increased objectification and exploitation is, by itself, sufficient reason to side with the Opposition.  A higher female birth rate is not a good in of itself if these women are likely to be mistreated worse than the current female population as it is not only life we value but quality of life and it is surely unethical to set policies that will increase the number of people being born into lives of discrimination.
Abortion

We do not disagree that abortion is a generally undesirable thing. Even those who believe that abortion is ethical feel it would be preferable not to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. It may be very distressing for mothers if they have not made an autonomous choice to go through with the abortion but the proposition is wrong to assume that they have not. Cultural biases towards male children are often internalised by women. It makes sense that both mothers and fathers would be concerned about who will care for them in old age – not just men. Men and women from the same socio-economic and cultural background are also likely to have similar ethical views and therefore are unlikely to disagree on their ethical standpoint on abortion. Therefore, it is not the case that women suffer because they are forced or coerced into abortions. Furthermore, this is not a problem exclusive to gender selective abortion. Whilst there is a greater prevalence of abortions of female babies, there are a lot of abortions of male babies as well. Assuming that abortion does cause women a lot of distress, this harm will not be removed by encouraging parents to have girls because they will continue to abort male foetuses. The solution for this problem is to educate people about alternative methods of contraception so that unwanted pregnancies do not occur and also to empower women in their marital relationships by encouraging them to have their own income and so on. This can be better targeted by self-help women’s groups and the like.
Financial incentives do not break down cultural bias

The German example is incomparable to the countries we are discussing. It’s most likely the case that the policy in Germany did not work because the population is too wealthy to be motivated by a financial incentive. Germany is a developed country with GDP per capita 40,874 US dollar and a “luxury” state welfare system. High education, no financial worries about the life after retirement and the fact that women pursue careers all contribute to a low birth rate. India, on the other hand is a developing country with only GDP per capita 2,941 US dollar and poor state welfare system. Moreover, 42 percent of the Indian population is under the international poverty line. Hence a financial incentive is far more effective in these Asian nations. Unlike in India, Europeans tend to regard children not as investments but as an opportunity for emotional fulfilment. They are unlikely therefore to make a decision about child rearing based on financial reasons. Furthermore, the sense of community culture that exists in Asian nations (for example the practise of age-old traditions and the lack of cultural westernisation) is not present in Germany and so the example does not take into consideration the strength of culture in effecting decisions. Lastly, we would argue that you cannot compare a programme which encourages people to have children at all to a programme that encourages people to have female rather than male children. The incentives of the parents are different and the goals of the policies are different. We would argue that this policy is far better suited to India than it is to Germany and that the comparison does not hold.