BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The reduction of aid will cause innocent people to suffer

A reduction of aid to Africa will likely affect the most vulnerable in society rather than the politicians who can adjust the law. The African continent shows signs of growth, but 40% of sub-Saharans live below the poverty line[1]. Cutting aid to states that criminalise homosexuality will increase poverty among individuals who have no influence over their government’s policy. This is an issue which both African states and African LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexuals, Transgender) groups agree upon[2]. Ahmed Lawan, a senator from Nigeria, argued that there needs to be more dialogue and diplomacy if the West is to convince them[3]. Should aggressive policies be used to leverage policy change, such as reducing aid, then African nations will be deterred from making pro-western changes to legislation. LGBT groups want donor countries to ensure that aid is distributed more evenly, and guarantee that aid directed towards human rights reaches homosexuals rather than cutting aid all together[4]. If aid is cut, it will serve to weaken ties between Africa and their donor countries, as well as worsen Human Development Indicators. [1] Our Africa, ‘Poverty’ [2] Should donors rethink aid to states that persecute gay people? Ware,G. 25/01/12 [3] Ibid [4] Should donors rethink aid to states that persecute gay people? Ware,G. 25/01/12
Cultural Imperialism

Cultural Imperialism is the ‘the practice of promoting a more powerful culture over a least known or desirable culture’[1]. Culture provides an identity which is naturally coveted. Attempting to impose mainly Western, liberal values on Africa equates to a dilution of African culture. Globalisation has spread US culture throughout the world[2]. This has led many to lament the weakening of unique cultures, claiming that the USA is drowning out all cultures that do not agree morally with themselves[3]. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) stated ‘that respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and cooperation, in a climate of mutual trust and understanding are among the best guarantees of international peace and security’[4].  Attempting to change Africa’s attitude towards homosexuality is an attempt to increase the influence of Western culture on the continent. These cultural ties to attitudes on homosexuality are so powerful that even strict Muslims and Christians are brought together on this issue[5]. To deprive Africans of their cultures and their morals is at odds with the UNESCO’s idea of maintaining cultural diversity throughout the world. [1] Princeton ‘Cultural Imperialism’ [2] Ezema,I.J. ‘Globalisation, information revolution and cultural imperialism in Africa: Implications for Nigerian library and information professionals.’ University of Nigeria, Nsukka [3] Cultural Imperialism Ekeocha, O. 08/09/13 [4] UNESCO ‘Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity’ 02/11/01 [5] Islam and Africa ‘Islam and Homosexuality’
Helps Ukraine financially

Ukraine is in a dire financial situation; it has gone to the IMF seeking $15billion to help stabilise the economy with a bailout.[1] The interim finance minister Yuri Kolobov suggests that even this amount will not be enough for the full year with Ukraine needing $34.4billion.[2] Finance was one of the reasons why Ukraine turned to Russia in November 2013; Russia was offering money when the EU was not. The lease agreed for the Black Sea Fleet involves the payment of $90million per year and the renegotiations in 2010 involved giving Ukraine cut price gas as well.[3] A lease for the whole of the peninsular with almost 2 million inhabitants and is close to the size of Belgium would cost a lot more, potentially enough to fill much of that financial hole. [1] Talley, Ian, ‘IMF Making ‘Good Progress’ in Ukraine Bailout’, The Wall Street Journal, 13 March 2013, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579437672180468290?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303546204579437672180468290.html [2] Schmeller, Johanna, ‘Crimea crisis further imperils Ukraine’s economy’, Deutsche Welle, 4 March 2013, http://www.dw.de/crimea-crisis-further-imperils-ukraines-economy/a-17473302 [3] Harding, Luke, ‘Ukraine extends lease for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, The Guardian, 21 April 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/ukraine-black-sea-fleet-russia
Precedent

While of the core points of sovereignty is that is indivisible this has not stopped the existence of other similar deals happening in the past. Locally the Black Sea Fleet is a good example There have however been more famous examples in the past; the Panama Canal Zone was leased to the United States from 1903 to 1977 for $250,000 per year (later increased).[1] There are other instances of territory being leased; the clearest example being Hong Kong’s new territories which were leased rent free for 99 years from 1898 after China was defeated by Japan[2] – at the time there was a general view that if one great power gained then all the others have to as well. That leasing territory is an established practice means that it should be easy to apply to this case. [1] Lowenfeld, Andreas, ‘Panama Canal Treaty’, Institute for International Law and Justice, http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/PanamaCanalTreaty.pdf [2] Welsh, Frank, A History of Hong Kong, 2010
Rewards aggression

The US Secretary of state condemned Russia’s action in Crimea as "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text".[1] Yet it is exactly 19th century thinking that expects that a great power will get away with launching aggressive acts against a weaker neighbour. If the result were to be effectively a hand over of Crimea, and a legal recognition of that status even if it is in the form of a lease Russia would be getting away with this act of aggression and might be tempted to try it again elsewhere. Russia has already got away with one aggressive act when it launched an assault on Georgia in support of separatist regions. Under such circumstances it is better for everyone if Russia is isolated and there is no deal that rewards and legitimises Russia’s acts. [1] Dunham, Will, ‘Kerry condemns Russia’s ‘incredible act of aggression’ in Ukraine’, Reuters, 2 March 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-kerry-idUSBREA210DG20140302
Does not provide guarantees for the protection of other Russian minorities

Although it is the region in which Russia has acted its interest in Ukraine is not just about Crimea. Foreign Minister Lavrov has made clear “Russia recognises its responsibility for the lives of countrymen and fellow citizens in Ukraine and reserves the right to take people under its protection”.[1] A lease over Crimea will resolve nothing if it does not also resolve other issues between the two countries such as the protection of minorities and Russia’s economic interests.   [1] MacAskill & Luhn, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/russia-west-collision-course-ukraine-talks-fail-london
The crisis affects more than just Crimea

There is a lot more at stake than just the Crimean peninsula. While suggestions that it may destroy the whole international system are hyperbole the territory becoming part of Russia would be the most major territorial change in Europe since the unification of Germany and breakup of the USSR both of which were peaceful and mutually agreed events.  The G7 notes “the annexation of Crimea could have grave implications for the legal order that protects the unity and sovereignty of all states.”[1] A lease however would be a de facto change of territory, a hand over from Ukraine to Russia. Hong Kong was on a lease from China but during that time it was essentially considered as part of the UK. [1] G7, 12/3/2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-of-g7-leaders-on-ukraine
Russia gets what it wants

If this conflict really is zero sum then a lease over the whole of Crimea is a big loss to Ukraine; it is after all losing a whole province in return for some financial assistance. Moreover we have little evidence that it really would mean Russia getting what it wants; Russia continues to deny that it even has military forces in Crimea, “these were local self-defence forces”, let alone spell out to the world exactly what its objectives are. President Putin says “This is a humanitarian mission” that “corresponds with our interests of protecting people who are historically tied to us”. If protection is all that is necessary then a lease should not be necessary.[1] [1] Siddique, Haroon, ‘Putin: Yanukovych ousting was ‘unconstitutional overthrow’’, theguardian.com, 4 March 2014 http://www.analystsforchange.org/2014/03/putin-yanukovych-ousting-was.html
Rewards aggression

While legitimising a reward for Russia’s actions may hurt it is far better that the dispute be resolved than it be left to fester. Under the status quo there are concerns that war will break out because the situation is unstable and Russia “reserves the right to take people [Russian speakers elsewhere in Ukraine] under its protection”.[1] This is in large part a result of the Russians and Ukrainians not speaking to one and other as the Russians won’t recognise the Ukrainian government. Peace will only come when both sides give some ground no matter who is in the right. Under this deal there will be peace, not further aggression. [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and Luhn, Alec, ‘Russia and west on collision course over Ukraine as talks fail in London’, theguardian.com, 14 March 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/russia-west-collision-course-ukraine-talks-fail-london
Does not provide guarantees for the protection of other Russian minorities

Any deal for a lease would clearly involve negotiation on other concerns that Russia and Ukraine have. Russia would clearly need to renew its guarantees of Ukraine’s territory perhaps with the acceptance that the lease would become null and void if Russia again takes aggressive acts. Ukraine for its part would need to guarantee the rights of minorities; this should not be a problem as both countries are signed up to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.[1] [1] Council of Europe, ‘Geographical reach of the FCNM’, coe.int, 24 October 2008, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/minorities/1_AtGlance/PDF_MapMinorities_bil.pdf
A peaceful solution

Agreeing a lease would provide a much needed peaceful solution to the Crimean crisis which would not only solve the immediate crisis but would also prevent future flare ups. Shortly after Russian forces moved into Crimea Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk of Ukraine said “This is not a threat: this is actually the declaration of war to my country”.[1] It has not so far been a shooting war, and no one wants it to escalate. Russia’s UN Ambassador has said “Russia does not want war… We don’t want any further exacerbation of the situation.”[2] But when there are constant tensions the best way to prevent a potentially unpredictable situation is to provide a solution to the situation. A lease should be considered. [1] Zinets, Natalia, and De Carboonnel, Alissa, ‘Ukraine mobilises after Putin’s ‘declaration of war’’, Reuters, 2 March 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140302 [2] ‘Ukraine crisis: Russia tells UN it does not want war’, BBC News, 14 March 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26564851
Russia gets what it wants

There have been many suggested motives for Russia’s sending military forces into Crimea. Providing a lease on Crimea to Russia would provide a solution to most of Russia’s main objectives; the Russians in Crimea are protected, and the Russian hold on its Black Sea base is secure. More importantly the crisis started after the defeat of President Yanukovych and the resulting blow to Russian prestige in what Russia sees as a zero sum game (if one side wins the other automatically loses to the same extent). An invasion or Crimea regained Russian leverage but left Russia with little room to manoeuvre as any climb-down would leave Putin with nothing.[1] A lease gets out of this zero sum problem as both can gain. A lease would enable Russia to make an agreement with the Ukrainian government and recognise that government without having to lose face as any other solution which maintains Ukrainian territorial integrity would. [1] Crowley, P.J., ‘Crimea: Putin’s mission accomplished’, BBC News, 3 March 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26418621
We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species.

We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.  improve this
We only have indirect duties to animals

We clearly have direct duties to animals if we condemn the clubbing of baby seals and like activities. Furthermore, it is not enough simply to state what duties we do and don't have. There needs to be a reason why we do not have direct duties to animals. What distinguishes them from human beings that might answer this question? We would argue that there is nothing. Animals unlike other 'property' can suffer and feel pain and have an interest in living. improve this
Speciesism is wrong

Just as racism is wrongful discrimination against beings of a different race and sexism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different gender, speciesism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different species. Wrongful discrimination occurs when there is no other reason for the discrimination except the mere fact that the being is of the race, sex, or species that they are. For example, if an employer refuses to employ a black woman over a white woman because she has an inferior qualification this is justified discrimination whereas if he refuses to employ the black woman simply because she is black then this is wrongful discrimination. Human beings are speciesist towards animals because we sacrifice their most important needs for our trivial desires: their life for our enjoyment of a burger. You might think that we are allowed to have special relationships to people that are similar to us but there is a difference between special relationships and being active cruel and discriminatory. Our evolutionary instinct to protect our own species may not be ethically correct in contemporary society. Similarly, we ought not to 'put down' animals who are too expensive to care for. We do not allow human beings to kill off their children when they experience financial difficulty because we believe that human beings value their lives. It would be justifiable to kill off something that has no interest in living, such as a plant, but since we believe that animals do have an interest in living it would be speciesist to kill off a puppy simply because it is not human. We know that society believes animals have an interest in living sometimes because there is outcry when baby seals are clubbed or when elephants are poached for their ivory. Yet at other times we are happy to eat animal flesh and wear leather. This is a contradictory stance. We ought to be consistent in our views and to condemn speciesists. Refusing animals rights is speciesist. Speciesism is wrong. Therefore, it is wrong to deny animals rights. improve this
Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights.

We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights. First of all, animals have an equal capacity to experience pain. While we are unable to know exactly what other humans or animals are experiencing, we can make inference from what we observe. According to Peter Singer: “Nearly all the signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...The behavioural signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on”.[1] In addition we know that animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in a circumstance in which we would feel pain—an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than basic impulses, emotions, and feelings. These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds.” Animals therefore have the capacity for physical and emotional suffering, and so should be granted rights. [1] Singer, Peter. "All Animals are Equal." Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002
We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species.

We have always been superior to animals. Just as a lion can kill antelope and a frog can kill insects, so too human beings have struggled their way to the top of the food chain. Why then can we not exercise the power we have earned? Animals exercise their power and we should do the same. It is our natural obligation to do so. The reason we have always killed animals is because we need them. We need meat to be healthy and we need to test medicines on animals to protect our own race. We use animals to further our own race. This too is surely a natural obligation. improve this
We only have indirect duties to animals

Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant argue that we only have indirect duties towards animals. This means that we may not treat animals in such a manner that our actions are in conflict with our duties towards human beings. A human has no duty towards a dog not to kick it but a human has a duty towards the dog's owner not to damage his property. Pigs and cows are not loved by any human being so we cause no harm when we kill and eat them. Though the farmer may have owned the cow before, the beef becomes our possession when we purchase it. Wild animals are not owned by any human being so we may do to them what we wish. Some people argue that cruelty towards animals can lead to cruelty towards humans but there is no evidence that people who work in slaughterhouses are more violent towards other people. In fact, there seems little connection at all between how people treat animals and humans. A slave driver may adore and pamper his dog but beat and kill his slaves. If we have no direct duties to animals how can we grant them legal protection in the form of rights? The law should only prevent us harming animals when that clearly harms other people. For example, by killing a dog we infringe another person's human right to property. improve this
Animals are intrinsically worthy of rights because they are sentient

First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow. People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals. Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration. In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable. improve this
Most rights have no bearing for animals

The right to dignity would mean nothing to an animal. Animals are incapable of being humiliated and are not harmed by being reduced to human servitude. A dog is not ashamed of its nudity or having to eat out of a bowl and wear a leash. Animals happily copulate and defecate in front of humans and other animals. What exactly an undignified action might be for an animal it is difficult to say. The right to education, to vote, to fair trial, to be innocent until proven guilty, to privacy, marriage, nationality, religion, property, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, workers rights and shelter all seem impossible to apply to animals. If we specially tailor rights to animals then how is that different to the status quo where we have certain laws protecting animals?
Animals are equal to human beings.

Equality requires that two beings are actually equal on some fundamental level. Human beings have certain essential similarities that make them equal. These do not stretch to animals. Human beings are able to distinguish right from wrong while animals have no notion of ethics. We are thus able to consider what kind of a society we want to live in and we are affected when we feel that there is social degradation. Animals, however, do not have this sense. We have fundamental dignity which animals do not. This is clear in the fact that animals do not experience shame or embarrassment, desire respect, or have a notion of self. Furthermore, human beings can consider their future and have particular desires about how they want their life to play out. These are different for every individual. This is why we are concerned with choice and protecting individualism and religion. Animals on the other hand are concerned only with immediate survival. They have only instincts, not individual desires and wants. For these reasons, we can't consider animals to be equally morally considerable. As for the propositions standard of relevance for the criteria which distinguish animals from humans in any given case, we would argue that the fundamental individuality and humanity of our species is relevant in every case because it makes animal life fundamentally less valuable. improve this
Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights

We do not analyse human beings on a case by case basis but rather by what distinguishes human beings as a whole, as a species. Infants have the potential to become rational and autonomous etc. The profoundly retarded represent flawed human beings. Retardation is not a human characteristic just as being 3-legged is not a characteristic of a dog though there are both retarded humans and 3-legged dogs.