BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Accountability

While distasteful, sometimes cutting deals with perpetrators is necessary to bring a quick end to the human suffering that conflicts cause[1]. In advocating prosecutions, justice can simply ignore victims. Atrocities are more than likely to have been committed by more than one side in a conflict. As those leaders do not want to be prosecuted, justice can act as a bar to peace. Moreover if people are responsible and accountable to society then that society should be able to agree to forgo justice in order to create peace if it is deemed necessary. [1]               Grono, Nick and O’Brien, Adam, “Justice in Conflict? The IOCC and Peace Processes”, Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa, 2008, available at http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationalDevelopment/research/crisisStates/download/others/ICC%20in%20Africa.pdf, chapter 2
Justice is needed to help end denialism.

Holocaust denial does still exists today despite the Nuremburg trials and immense amounts of evidence. Also, Japanese denialism over forced prostitution in the Second World War is part of mainstream politics[1]. Despite ICTY convictions, denial of atrocities in the Yugoslav wars continue. [1]               See Honda, Masakazu and Takada, Makoto, “LDP Pressure led to cuts in NHK show”, The Asahi Shimbun, 12 January 2005, http://www.asahi.com/english/politics/TKY200501120160.html
Peace has occurred without justice

Argentina did not prosecute for a long time after the collapse of the junta[1], a 1986 law, commonly known as the Full Stop Law (also known by its number, Law 23492), prohibited prosecution of those involved in the dirty war which resulted in up to 30,000 deaths. However, Argentina managed to build a lasting peace, and society without prosecutions. [1]               Kersten, Mark, “The Fallacy of Sequencing Peace and Justice”, Opinio Juris, 29 September 2011, http://opiniojuris.org/2011/09/29/the-fallacy-of-sequencing-peace-and-ju...
Justice can harm peace.

Dayton worked despite not inviting Karadzic and Mladic. Both of those are currently on trial for the most serious crimes imaginable – Karadzic for, amongst other things, his alleged role in ordering the Srebrenica massacre, and Mladic for Srbrenica and the Siege of Sarajevo. These prosecutions have not caused problems for peace in the Balkans and Croatia, one of the participants in the conflict, has joined the European Union. Similarly, despite the ICC indictment, coupled with better results obtained by the Ugandan military, has lead towards the prospect of surrender by the LRA, despite their leaders such as Joseph Kony being indicted[1]. [1]               BBC News, “LRA leader Joseph Kony ‘in surrender talks’ with CAR”, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25027616
Justice is needed for a lasting peace

By prosecuting perpetrators, justice creates a deterrent. The deterrent effect, as accepted in criminal law generally, is likely to make the peace more long standing and stable in the future – it will make those minded to perform atrocities think again. If those who committed atrocities ‘get away with it’ they will be much more likely to plunge the country back into violence. The career of Laurent Nkunda is a good example of this; he fought in the Tutsi group that took control of Rwanda in 1994 ending the genocide and then was a rebel commander in both Congolese civil wars in which he was accused of atrocities before launching his own rebellion, only now after 14 years as an army commander is he under arrest.[1] Clearly Nkunda being locked up at some stage would have been better than regularly negotiating with him to try and create peace. [1] BBC News, “Profile: General Laurent Nkunda”, 23 January 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3786883.stm
Accountability

It is a fundamental principle of morality that individuals should be held responsible for their crimes – that is the reason why we, as societies, have criminal law. Prosecuting people – holding them responsible for their crimes – is a moral imperative.  We all wish to live in  a society where everyone is equally accountable when they commit crime as one in which not everyone is held to account is fundamentally unjust; it creates one rule for the powerless and another for those who are ‘needed’ to help create peace. This would simply incentivise people to try to make themselves indispensable strongmen – not a sustainable basis for a peaceful society.
Justice is needed to help end denialism.

By creating a historical record through the investigations and trial proceedings[1], International justice can create a narrative that helps fight denialism over events in the past. It creates an accepted version of events where both victim and accused have had their say. Denialism can be dangerous because it is likely to create perceptions that are likely to make conflict more likely again. For example the post-First World War Dolchstoßlegende (stab in the back myth) was used by the political right in Germany after WWI implied that the German Army had not lost but Germany had only done so due to the civilian leadership. This not only encouraged a belief that Germany could win in another war but also as the accusation was levelled particularly at socialists and Jews helped pave the way for the holocaust.[2] [1] Goldstone, p422 [2] Holocaust Encyclopedia, ‘Antisemitism in history: World War I’, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 10 June 2013, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007166
Justice can harm peace.

Former ICTR chief prosecutor, Richard Goldstone, argued that the indictments of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic prevented them from attending the Dayton peace talks. The Russian government tried to get those indictments suspended, but Goldstone informed them that he did not have the power to do so. Slobodan Milosevic, the representative of Serbia also represented Republika Srbska.[1] In 2006 thyere was an agreement by the Lord’s Resistance Army to a ceasefire but before they would negotiate towards a final peace the LRA demanded the suspension of the ICC indictments.[2] Even six years on none of the LRA leadership have been caught – had peace been put first it might have occurred then rather than intermittent conflict continuing for years. Peace is a valid goal. However, an overzealous pursuit of justice may impede negotiations. [1]               Goldstone, Richard, “Peace versus Justice”, Nevada Law Journal, 2006, http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1367&context=nlj&sei-redir=1 at p421-p322 [2] Otim, Michael, and Wierda, Marieke, ‘Justice at Juba: International Obligations and Local Demands in Northern Uganda’, in Waddell and Clarck eds., Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa, pp.21-28 http://www.issafrica.org/anicj/uploads/Waddell_Clark_Courting_Conflict.pdf
Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard

Cell phone use within cars is consistently linked with an increased chance of an accident. This is because if a driver only has a single hand on the wheel he lacks the ability to control the car properly. Further, with both hands free and normal sets, the driver has their hearing incredibly impaired by the phone call, reducing their ability to react to certain hazards. Dialling the phone itself results in an even worse outcome as it takes the concentration of the driver away more, by forcing them to look at the phone instead of the road. Estimates indicate that such phone use has led to the death of 2,600 drivers annually in the U.S. Further, having a cell phone in the car and fumbling for it when it rings often causes accidents due to the distraction that it presents, firstly psychologically because of the noise going off, secondly due to the fact that both hands again would not be on the steering wheel to control the car.[1] [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395
Cell Phones are worse than other distractions

Cell phones in cars, unlike a variety of other distractions, can be regulated easily. They are an object which can easily be identified, and with phone bills it is possible to find out if a person is lying when they are caught for using cell phones in cars. As such the fact that other distractions exist, even if they are as harmful as cellphones, is no reason to not to ban their use. Further, other sources of potential distraction, such as passengers or car radios, may provide a net gain in utility to road users and other stakeholders in mass transit systems. Being able to carry multiple people in cars for example helps society through a reduction in carbon emissions as well as simply through a reduction in traffic. To take this argument further, there are many people who cannot drive but require use of cars. For example, children might require their parents to drive them to school. Car radios are somewhat more controversial and principally if they prove to be as bad a distraction as a mobile phone then proposition would have no problem with banning them. However, things such as news and traffic updates are probably more useful to a driver than the use of mobile phones. Whilst they may be distracting, given the huge benefit they cause for society it is legitimate for them to be allowed. Even if the benefit that they confer is the same as that of phones however, it is legitimate within our mechanism that we would ban them as well if required.[1] [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395
Cell Phone Use is not necessary in vehicles.

In the past the economy has not had to deal with mobile phones in cars and has been fine without their use in cars. There is no great loss in liberty or freedom when you are unable to make a mobile phone call. In fact, if you do have a pressing need to make a call, all you need do is pull over and park the vehicle, which is often not a great problem. Further, people adjust and will adjust to the inability to use phones in cars. When the restriction was implemented in California, people were simply able to give up their phones because it emerged that they were not truly necessary.[1] [1] “Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain.” Examiner. 3/07/2008
The State Does Not Have the Authority To Limit Citizens in This Way

The state places rules upon its citizens for the overall betterment of society. However, whenever possible the state also affords citizens liberty. This is the case because the state sees that when people are free to do what they want they are able to make better decisions for themselves and further are able to interact with the state better. They do this because they feel that the state is allowing them to make their own decisions and as such the state is showing its trust in its citizens. This bond of trust between the state and the citizens as well as the state giving the citizens their own responsibilities means that citizens respect the state for the fact that it does not limit them. To examine this from a point of view that does not rely on moral consequentialism and a utility based principle, it is possible to say that the state should afford people liberty and freedom because the starting point of any rational moral calculus should be the admission that an individual is the best judge of what is in his own interest. To not give people choice is ultimately an idea that dehumanises people. As such, the only time where freedoms should truly be restricted is when allowing the freedom results in a greater level of dehumanisation among the people. So for example, we prevent murder because allowing people to kill one another results in allowing some people to entirely remove other people’s ability to choose on purpose.
The Ban is Unenforceable

This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws.[1] [1] Miller, Craig. “Laws Limiting Car-Phone use Tough to Enforce.” NPR. 08/2007 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13781479
Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous

Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger. Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle.[1] [1] Stuckey, Mike. “Hands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.” MSNBC. 13/5/2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/#.TtwFTfJVO90
Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard

Firstly, it has been found by some studies that cell phone use does not have a statistically significant impact in the reduction of car wrecks.[1] This might be plausible because being able to call ahead to work for example and tell them that you will be late reduces the chance that people will speed on the roads.  It also reduces the chance that you will attempt to weave between traffic to increase your speed even where acceleration might not be possible. Further, given the societal benefits from cell phone use in cars, such as better organisation for the entire population, it seems that a ban on the use of cell phones should not be implemented because the cost of doing so is too great when compared to the benefits allowing phones would confer.[2] [1] Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414 [2] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414
Cell Phones are worse than other distractions

Many other things such as radios within cars are just as distracting as mobile phones. Although it is easy for police and prosecutors to prove that a mobile phone was in use during a particular period of time, it is difficult to monitor the use of mobile phones in most situations. Enforcing a ban on mobiles would be as impractical as a ban on arguing with a spouse. Further, the point of the ban on mobile phones is to minimise distractions. However, a simple ban on mobile phones is likely to create a false sense of security among road users. Objects similar to cell phones are not subject to bans, despite the fact that they might be distracting as well. For example, a tablet PC in the passenger seat would not be under this ban, but could easily be as distracting. This false sense of security could practically cause drivers to be less conscious of distractions and thus hurt in the long run. Whilst the law might incorporate these bans into the system, the prevalent message that will get to the people will typically be centred on a mobile phone ban. This is because mobile phones are the single most prevalent item that would be banned under the proposition. As such, even though the law covers all distracting goods, it might still breed complacency in people, causing them to ignore other items in the car that might be distracting and assume that they are legitimate.[1] [1] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414
Cell Phone Use is not necessary in vehicles.

Some studies have placed the economic cost of a ban on cell phones in cars at around $25 billion in total economic losses, including deaths and injuries set to cost $4.6 billion.[1] The reason for this is explained in the first opposition counterargument. Being able to call and manage business on the fly is a valuable convenience, given the frantic nature of competitive business in the world today. As such, more transactions at a faster rate leader to a much more powerful economy.[2] [1] “Editorial: No Strong Case for Ban on Driving With Cell Phones.” Hlbr.com 16/07/2002 [2] ibid
The State Does Not Have the Authority To Limit Citizens in This Way

The logical extent of opposition’s argument is a strongly libertarian society that does not legislate on almost any issue because it fears taking away people’s ability to choose. It is important to note that when someone causes a death through ignorant driving they have resulted in the dehumanisation of a person through the removal of their ability to choose. However, more so, the resulting society where people are free to do what they want ignores the fact that often people lack full information to make their decisions in an informed way. It also fails to understand that as time goes on people often regret decisions that they once made. As such, people are often happy to and do make the choice to give up some of their freedoms and allow the state to make those decisions for them. Given then that people consent to having the “humanity” taken away from them, it seems legitimate that the state can make decisions that they might not immediately agree with, under the assumption that the state, as a composite of a large number of different people has a level of oversight that the individual doesn’t. The state has the advantage of being able to take a step back and have a broader perspective. Individuals will make decisions that impact them in a positive way but this does not mean that those decisions will not have a negative wider impact on society. The state uses this broader perspective under the mandate to protect society as a whole looking at what is best for the group not the individual.
Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous

Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impair concentration and reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned. Further, "Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed.[1] [1] Healy, Melissa. “Hands-Free cellphone use while driving won’t make the roads safe, studies show. Why? Brain Overload.” 30/06/2008 http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story
Any country that fulfils the accession criteria should be allowed to join

Turkey first applied to join the EU back in the 1960s but there is no document where EU leaders have promised unconditionally to include Turkey in the future. In a decade of candidacy Turkey has managed to satisfy less than half of the chapters, and these are only the minimum prerequisites. Even if they had, past declarations (as opposed to treaties) cannot be held to bind today’s leaders in weighing both their own national interest and the wider European interest. The possibility is therefore a long way off. The possible negative impact of Turkish EU membership upon existing members must be considered. The recent rise of far-right anti-immigration politicians, such as Marine Le Pen, Jorg Haidar and Pym Fortuyn, point to a dangerous public reaction to more open borders and unchecked migration.
Turkey is a highly unstable democracy in an unstable part of the world

Turkey does not have a stable democracy. The military has intervened three times to remove governments of which it disapproved in recent decades, most recently in 1997[1]. The nature of the struggle between Turkey's generals - who try and keep the country as secular as possible (arguably at the expense of the right of the people to decide for themselves which party best represents their views) - and the increase in votes and influence for conservative Islamic political views paves for an unstable political environment which is vulnerable to extremism[2]. Turkey has some dangerous neighbours and its inclusion within the EU would expose Europe to a greatly increased risk of crisis and conflict. The Caucasus is very unstable, with some of its nations looking to Turkey for support for religious and cultural reasons. A Middle Eastern border would heavily involve the EU in the Israeli-Arab conflict and give it a border with an aggressive and unstable Iraq (and Iran), with whom it would share an assertive Kurdish minority seeking statehood. Turkey even has major disputes with Greece, a current EU member, over territory in the Aegean and over the divided Island of Cyprus, where it alone recognises and backs the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, preventing a settlement. [1] http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7508 Map of Freedom in The World: Turkey [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/opinion/01tue2.html ‘Secularism and Democracy in Turkey’, Editorial New York Times, 1st May 2007
Turkey would be an unstable Muslim state in a traditionally Christian union

Turkey is not a Christian country but a Muslim one, unlike all the current or prospective EU states, which have been shaped by a shared legacy of Christian values, history and culture. Turkeys AK party has brought on many changes that are interpreted as being non-secular or rooted in Islam. Indeed Turkey’s history represents a clear rejection of any Christian tradition, from the centuries-long Ottoman Muslim conquest of Byzantine Christian territories, to the early twentieth-century population exchange with Greece which removed millions of long-established Christian families from Turkish territory. Most recently, Turks have several times elected to government a party with Islamist roots, suspected of wishing to undermine the country’s secular constitution[1]. Turkey is not as moderate a country as it would seem. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10288919 ‘Turkey denies break with Europe’, BBC 10th June 2010
Turkey has precedents, such as Romania and Bulgaria, both of whom were accepted into the EU

Romania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records, were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them.