BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hate is a learned attribute; no individual is born hating.

Hate crime laws can teach society that hatred is highly condemnable and mold society into a streak away from racism, sexism, etc. Government has already taken this turn with the advent of segregation laws, discrimination laws, etc. Government would not be a despot, if so, then all the rulings banning discrimination, segregation, racism, and even slavery are wrong. But if by chance, these previously mentioned stances of government are deemed correct and just, then so is increased hate crime enhancements.
Hate crime is a major problem, requiring a state response

As described above, hate crimes can cause serious apprehensions between communities. These fears and the lack of state intervention to mitigate the cause of these fears has the potential to create serious damage to the fabric of society. Hate crimes are, therefore, a societal threat, as much as a threat to individual victims. Such threats to society require state responses that include not only the intent to punish the assailant, but also to correct the root cause of the social problem. One major feature of hate crime enhancements is that they assign an appropriately negative value to hate crimes; a value proportional to how society should view hate crimes. Hate crime laws, therefore, are a tool for a government to guide social values on hate in a direction we can all agree is desirable.
Translocation often places Kangaroos in a threatening environment

Translocation often thrust Kangaroos into a new environment in which new predators exist and in which the vegetation and diet is unfamiliar to them. This can lead great anxiety and certainly starvation and death of kangaroos. In the end, therefore, it may not save any additional Kangaroos - as compared to culling - and it might also be equally or even more inhumane as culling them in the first place.
Kangaroo culling to fight overpopulation cannot be compared with whaling

Japan and other whalers are typically killing a scarce population of whales, that has only recently emerged from the threatened species status. The killing of whales is for "scientific purposes" and for their meat. The problem is, first, that whales are scarce worldwide, making each additional death of these animals marginally worse than the death of a Kangaroo that is culled because of overpopulation. Second, there is a difference between opting to kill whales for "scientific purposes" and for commercial sales of their meat, and being forced to kill Kangaroo because they are overpopulating a country. This is why Australian Agriculture Minister Tony Burke calls these "different circumstances."[3]
Culling kangaroos is inhumane when humane alternatives exist.

There seem to be good alternatives to a culling that would be a more humane alternative to a culling. One alternative is to move Kangaroos from effected areas to other areas that can easily accommodate them. Some argue that this would be inhumane because it would traumatize Kangaroo. But, it cannot be argued that culling Kangaroo is a more fair and humane option for kangaroo than moving them. The ability of Kangaroo to continue living is obviously better and more humane than merely traumatizing them.
Culling Kangaroo will reduce their consumption of Australian crops.

Kangaroos are breeding quickly and faster than they are dying. They are over-populating, and are running out of food in their natural habitats. This means that they are frequently resorting to Australian crops as a means of sustenance. Culling Kangaroo populations will decrease the resource depletion occurring in their natural habitats, will enable Kangaroos to survive on their natural habits alone and sustainably, and will decrease the necessity of Kangaroos to consume crops as a means of survival. This will save farmers crops, increase their productivity and returns, and generally increase GDP across Australia.
Kangaroo culling undermines Australia's case against Japanese whaling

"Japan's outrage at kangaroo cull." News.com.au. March 16th, 2008: "JAPAN is using the slaughter of hundreds of eastern grey kangaroos in Canberra to undermine Australia's anti-whaling crusade. [...] Japanese television and radio yesterday covered a small protest over the culling of as many as 500 kangaroos in the northern suburb of Belconnen. [...] Tokyo Broadcasting System reporter Hiroki Iijima said Japanese people would regard the kangaroo cull as hypocritical."
A Kangaroo culling would humanely prevent a population crash

"Burke defends kangaroo culling". ABC News. Apr 4, 2008: "Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has defended the culling of hundreds of kangaroos, saying the animals would starve to death if numbers are not reduced. 'If they are not culled, there will be many more than 400 facing death from starvation,' he told reporters during a trip to Japan."
Commercial use of kangaroo meat and leather is unethical.

The sale of Australian-Kangaroo Adidas shoes was actually banned in California, USA for 37 years, as well as some other places around the world. These bans are based in a strong case for objecting to the commercial killing of Kangaroos for their meat and for their pelts. The case centers on the notion that Kangaroos are an exceptionally intelligent animal, with a certain historical kinship to humans, that deserve exceptional human compassion.
In this case, the aboriginal interest must be placed on the back burner.

"Farmers have a very different view. They say parts of Australia are in the grip of a 'roo plague after an "explosion" in numbers. Jonathan McEwen, the chief executive of the New South Wales Farmers' Association, says the state has seen its population of these unique marsupials leap from eight-million to over 13 million in just one year . . . An organised campaign of slaughter, says Jonathan McEwen, is the only way to help farmers and stop the kangaroos breeding themselves out of existence." The interests of modern society unfortunately must come first.
Translocating Kangaroos is not too difficult or impractical.

Given the size of Australia and range of wildlife and habitats to choose from, translocation can be achieved relatively easily. While it is true that care must be taken to pick the right environments for Kangaroos, this can be continually planned for with a running list of prospective areas into which Kangaroos can be moved. The natural habitats and conditions for the varieties of Kangaroos present in Australia are well documented, and so are the matching characteristics of habitats that don't currently have substantial Kangaroo populations. Connecting the dots should not be that difficult.
Kangaroos can be culled humanely through sedation then euthanasia

Cullings can involve dart sedation first, and then euthanasia with lethal injection. Of the many ways to cull an overpopulated animal population, this is the most humane, subjecting Kangaroos to very little physical violence and destructive force. Instead of firing a bullet through the head of a Kangaroo, a gruesome prospect, euthanasia involves darting the animal and than peacefully euthanizing it. By subjecting the Kangaroo to far less physical trauma, Euthanasia is a far more dignified and thus humane process. While the question of the level of pain between cullings that involve shooting Kangaroo and cullings that involve dart/euthanasia can be debated, the question of the dignity of the processes is far less debatable. Blowing a hole through a Kangaroos head is obviously much more violent and less dignified than a dart entering their side and than injecting a poison into them, which keeps the Kangaroo's body fully intact.
Kangaroos are not terrorizing wheat crops

SaveTheKangroo.com - "Other justifications for the kill are that kangaroos are pests who destroy wheat crops and compete with livestock for grazing. The largest study of kangaroos ever conducted, carried out by the University of New South Wales, found that the presence of kangaroos has no negative effects on sheep farms whatsoever. A study carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation found that 95 per cent of wheat crops are never visited by kangaroos and furthermore, Gordon Grigg, one of the most avid supporters of kangaroo slaughter and author of Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia, the kangaroo industry’s bible, recently stated that kangaroos’ grazing requirements may have been over-estimated by as much as 500 per cent."
Kangaroos have been part of Aboriginal culture for millenia.

Kangaroos are native to Ausralia and special to Aborigines. Aboriginal Australians are totally opposed to the cull and have protested to the point that they are camping on the proposed culling site. Aboriginals cannot take a loss like this and really, Europeans invaded their land and now they are trying to kill the animals native to Aboriginal country. That is not the way white Australians should respect the people whose land they took over.
Sterilization is not an effective response to Kangaroo over-population

Emeritus Professor Gordon Grigg - University of Queensland. "Kangaroos on defence lands - another view". March 18th, 2008 - "Sterilisation has also been suggested, and that is worth considering proactively, when a population is small, in order to head off the problem before it arises. Sterilisation is a waste of time once the population is large enough to be causing land degradation, because the sterilised individuals will still be there continuing to feed for years to come. Perhaps some selective sterilisation would be worth considering in Canberra after the culling has reduced the numbers sufficiently." Without culling, sterilization is ineffective to help prevent the problem kangaroos pose in Australia.
The meat and skin of culled Kangaroos will not be wasted.

The meat would be utilized for human consumption and pet food, and the pelts for soft toys and other items. These Kangaroos will not simply be killed and wasted. Their lives, meat, and pelts will be put to a use, and this will give meaning to the lives of these kangaroos, making the culling, at least, more humane than if these resources were simply thrown away.
Kangaroo culling by dart-euthanasia can be inhumane

Kangaroo culling by darts for sedation and then with poison to euthanize Kangaroos can actually lead to severe distress, pain, and suffering among individual Kangaroos and groups of Kangaroos. First, due to the lower accuracy of darts, a sharp shooter must be much closer with darts than with bullets, which often disturbs the Kangaroo herd. Second, darts do not kill Kangaroos immediately, nor do they immediately sedate them, creating the potential for the thrashing around of a Kangaroo which results in their injury, suffering, and the general distress of neighboring Kangaroos. Third, a human has to promptly approach the sedated Kangaroo and perform the euthanasia, which distresses and disturbs the Kangaroo herd, often resulting in their thrashing around in distress. This argument need not be seen as a justification of culling Kangaroos by shooting them, but can be read to mean that both shooting and dart/euthanizing Kangaroo populations are inhumane, and so neither should be pursued.
Sterilization vaccines can be used instead of killing Kangaroos

Kangaroo Culling on Defence lands – Fact Sheet" - "Defence is implementing an experimental form of fertility control at the fenced Belconnen Naval Transmitter Station, based on research by a partnership involving the University of Newcastle and ACT Parks, Conservation and Lands. The research is aimed at developing a species-specific, orally delivered immunocontraceptive vaccine for eastern grey kangaroos. The vaccine is expected to provide sterility for at least three years." Sterilizing kangaroos is the most humane way to curb population growth.
Kangaroo shooting may be preferable to culling by dart-euthanasia

Emeritus Professor Gordon Grigg - University of Queensland. "Kangaroos on defence lands - another view". March 18th, 2008: "Darting followed by lethal injection sounds simple and humane, and is probably a good option for small numbers of animals. For animals at high density, because you have to be close to shoot the dart and because it takes time for a dart to take effect, the proximity of the shooters and the odd behaviour of the darted individual all contribute to a stressful situation for the other kangaroos which will hop about frantically in great distress."
Kangaroos are native to Australia., balanced with ecosystem.

The kangaroo is native to Australia and does not damage the environment. Kangaroos have evolved as Australian animals and have existed in Australia for 16 million years. Their grazing impact is only a fraction of a sheep's and they have co-evolved to be perfectly adjusted to Australian native grasses and biodiversity. They are not an environmental threat. Kangaroos have a part to play and their feet are gentle on the soil, they help fertilize the land and their needs are frugal. They do not threaten other native species. It seems that Darwin and evolution can be just thrown out the window when inconvenient so that native species can be vilified. The real threat is the number of sheep and cattle in Australia, and our export of meat and dairy products. It was the coming of the European that damaged species and habitats.
Kangaroos sometimes attack people.

Kangaroos attack people in Australia on a statistically regular basis. Because Kangaroo are actually stronger and more powerful than humans, they are both willing to engage in a fight and able to inflict crippling damage and even death. Because over-population increases instances of encounters between Kangaroos and humans, mainly because habit-depletion can force Kangaroo to seek food in urban areas or on farmlands, over-population can actually increase the risk posed by Kangaroos to humans. As such, a culling is capable of reducing the risk Kangaroos pose to humans.
Kangaroo culling is for housing development, not species protection.

The case to slaughter kangaroos for the 'to protect lowland native grasslands and threatened species, such as the grassland earless dragon, the striped legless lizard, and golden sun moth' in Belconnen, ACT has now shown to be a sham. The kangaroos were slaughtered to make way for a housing development and the way they were killed 'lethal injection' was to cover up that the ground was contaminated.
Splitting Michigan and Florida delegates would avoid pitfalls of allotting them according to January's results.

The main problem with using the January, 2008 results is that the candidates did not really campaign there. This means that the candidates did not necessarily represent themselves sufficiently and that the voters may have been somewhat uninformed. Additionally, there is the problem that many Floridians and Michigan voters may have simply not voted, due to their understanding at the time that their vote would not count. All of this invalidates the original results to some extent. Splitting the results would give the state its delegates and a semblance of representation, while avoiding the above pitfalls.
Without candidate campaigns in Michigan and Florida primaries, voters were uninformed.

In order for citizens to cast an informed vote, they must be aware of the platform and character of a candidate. This requires, to some extent, that voters are campaigned to by presidential candidates. In both Florida and Michigan, due to the unseating of their delegates, presidential candidates did not wage serious campaigns. Subsequently, the voters were uninformed of the choices confronting them. Their vote, therefore, should not be counted, as it was not as informed as otherwise would be the case. If a re-vote is possible, then the candidates could wage real campaigns there, the voters could become fully informed, and the ultimate re-vote could be viewed as more fully informed and thus legitimate.
Florida and Michigan's infractions threaten to damage the election process and so warrant severe punishments

The reason that these states deserve to be punished is because these rules are essential to preserving the integrity of the primary system. The rules ensure there is not an endless leap-frogging effect between states to move their primary elections earlier in the calendar to presumably achieve greater attention in the election process. If Florida and Michigan were not punished, other states would find the idea attractive to move their elections up in the calendar. The credibility of the DNC would be diminished and a chaotic, unstable, and damaging election process could result. In so far as Michigan and Florida's actions threaten to cause such damages, they deserve to be punished severely for their infractions.
It is unclear who should pay for mail re-votes in Mich and Florida

The costs for a mail-in ballot are not small. At the low end, estimates for a Florida mail-in-ballot range from $4 million to $10 million. At the high end, there is an estimate of a total $30 million for both Michigan and Florida. Who's going to pay for this? Both the states and the DNC do not want the bill.[3]
The Michigan and Florida elections were not valid and the results should not be used

Valid elections require that certain democratic standards be upheld. One of these standards is that the rules are clear from the beginning. An election in which the candidates and voters are led to believe won't count, but that is later changed to count, violates this basic rule. Similarly, the most basic election standards demand that the candidates are all fairly and equally represented on their respective ballots. Michigan's primary violated this principle in that Obama's name did not appear on the ballot, while Hilary's did.
Splitting the delegates would not give Floridians and Michigan voters any say.

The extent to which Floridians and Michigan voters are given a voice in any election, is the extent to which their will is given power. This means that if these voters favor a candidate with 63% of their votes, that their delegate numbers reflect this, and that this has some impact on the outcome of the primary elections. Splitting the delegates does not recognize the specific will of the people for one candidate or another. Moreover, it does not give any power to these voters, as it gives them absolutely not influence over the outcome of the elections. In this way, it provides no power to the collective state democratic parties.
Raising money for a 2008 mail-in re-vote in Florida would not be difficult

A re-vote would cost roughly $6 million. Howard Dean had DNC lawyers look at the idea, and they felt that a mail-in primary could be run and paid for by the party without breaking any laws. The Florida Democratic Party, under state law, could accept unlimited donations from people, campaigns, unions or companies to pay for it. NPR reported on March 12, 2008, "The Democratic governors of two other states, Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Jon Corzine of New Jersey, say they're willing to raise half the money — as much as $15 million. Both governors support Hillary Clinton in the nomination race. Getting the money shouldn't be a problem. Democrats have already contributed hundreds of millions for this presidential contest — more than anyone thought possible."[1]
Allotting delegates according to popular vote would help end deadlocked elections.

The presidential race was deadlocked in early 2008. Many believe that this is bad for the Democratic party, as it means that the election will drag on, more attacks will be waged between the candidates, and this will give fuel to the Republican candidate in the general election. One way to solve this current deadlock is to allot the Michigan and Florida delegates according to popular will. This would give momentum to the candidate that is currently in the lead, would subsequently help end the election, and would do so in a way that reflects most closely the national will.
A 2008 mail-in re-vote in Michigan and Florida would be democratically inclusive.

A mail-in ballot is democratically inclusive because every Florida and Michigan voter will receive a ballot in the mail, including those voters whom are abroad or in different states in America. This means that it is a very inclusive process, and is sure to be more representative than the first, meaningless elections that took place in these two states. The results are much more likely to be accurate and their is a much lower chance of vote-count problems. The will of the people would be very clearly expressed and then represented in the allotment of delegates. This would be good for Florida and Michigan voters' sense of their voices being heard, as well as for the strength of the Democratic process in general.
A mail-in ballot risks disenfranchising poor, more transient voters

A mail-in system depends on ballots being received by voters. One of the problems, however, is that poor voters are frequently transient or without permanent or up-to-date addresses. This means that poor voters are uniquely disadvantaged and disenfranchised by a mail-in ballot system. A walk-in caucus or primary, conversely, does not depend on voters having permanent addresses, and is subsequently more accessible to poor voters.
Another re-count in Florida in 2008 will re-kindle old American wounds.

Florida played a pivotal role in the 2000 Presidential elections, with its courts deciding on the critical issue of whether a recount would be conducted. It was widely seen in America as having a disproportionately large and undue impact on the outcome of the elections. This has caused resentment, and the notion of Florida having another re-count in the 2008 presidential elections re-kindles these resentments.
Florida Democrats are not responsible for violating primary rules so shouldn't be punished

The law to move the state primary forward was a state-wide legislative move that then obligated both the Democratic and Republican state parties in Florida to move their primaries forward. The Democratic party, while obligated by state law to obey, was not chiefly responsible for moving the election forward and became powerless to change the law. The problem for the Democrats is that they are not in control of the state legislature. And, despite the Democratic parties general disapproval of this action, the Republican state party pushed the measure forward. It is unfair to punish the Democratic party so severely for an action that they were not necessarily chiefly responsible for. Therefore, the Florida Democratic delegates should be seated at the national convention.
Allotting Florida and Michigan delegates according to national will promotes a tyranny of the majority.

This kind of an arrangement would completely strip Michigan and Florida voters of the right to have their voices herd, and would replace it with the will of the majority. Such an arrangement would promote a tyranny of the majority. This is unacceptable in a democracy where every vote should count equally. It is also unacceptable in a country where state rights exist. To replace the will of a state's people with the collective will of the nation and other states would be contrary to the federal-state power-sharing principles in the union.
Michigan ballots unfairly contained Clinton's name but not Obama's

This means that the Democratic voters in this election were simply not give a ballot that could ever live up to democratic, election standards. It is necessary, with any ballot that the primary candidates' names appear on the ballot. Both Obama and Clinton's names were absent. There is not chance that the results of an election that did not include the names of the candidates on the ballots could be used to later allot delegates for the Democratic Convention.