BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Kyoto Protocol is not very expandable

Leslie Evans. "Kyoto Protocol Said to Harm Effort to Stop Global Warming--But There Is Something Better". UCLA International Institute. May 25, 2007 - "3. It is unlikely the Kyoto Protocol will be expanded. The defenders of the Protocol, Verweij said, 'have always argued that it is only the first step. The problem is that there may not be a second step. There may not even be a first step. A leading Brazilian civil servant has told me that there is no chance there will be a second Kyoto Protocol. The second step would have to bring in the United States as well as the developing countries, which are not included in the first Kyoto Protocol. The developing countries argue that they did not create the problem in the first place. They say, we have much more important problems to deal with, such as drinking water, polluted cities. We don't contribute much to the problem.'"
Countries must work together under Kyoto to combat global warming

Dennis Kucinich, US Representative (D-OH), stated in a June 20, 2007 article titled "Campaign for America's Future: Take Back America 2007" on the Federal News Service: "...[A]s we reduce our carbon footprint, simultaneously we work with the world community. The Kyoto Climate Change Treaty is just the first step. We need to go beyond Kyoto. We need to reach out to the world and reduce our carbon emissions, and we need to have environmental protection to secure our food supplies."[21]
Costs of Kyoto are less than environmental-economic costs of inaction

Joseph Heath. "Fuzzy math dominates Kyoto debate." Montreal Gazette. November 14th, 2002 - "When we burn it in fuel, and then breathe it in, we are literally poisoning ourselves. It causes heart and kidney problems in adults, and mental retardation in children. People pay thousands of dollars to have lead-based paint removed from their homes. So when we evaluate the ban on leaded fuel, it is meaningless to look at the costs without also looking at the benefits. In Canada, the ban on leaded fuel led to a 99% reduction in airborne lead emissions."
Holocaust deniers do further injustice to Holocaust victims

David Matas, Senior Counsel for the "League for Human Rights" of the Zionist B'nai B'rith organization in Canada: "The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews, including two million children. Holocaust denial is a second murder of those same six million. First their lives were extinguished; then their deaths. A person who denies the Holocaust becomes part of the crime of the Holocaust itself."[2]
Criminilizing holocaust denial infringes free speech

"Free speech, even if it hurts". Los Angeles. February 22, 2006: "Freedom is a principle that must be applied indiscriminately. We have to defend Irving in order to defend ourselves. Once the laws are in place to jail dissidents of Holocaust history, what's to stop such laws from being applied to dissenters of religious or political histories, or to skepticism of any sort that deviates from the accepted canon? [...] No one should be required to facilitate the expression of Holocaust denial, but neither should there be what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the "silence coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form."
Criminalizing Holocaust denial makes it more attractive

In 2000, historian Deborah Lipstadt confronted Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian David Irving in one of the most famous trials in recent British history. Irving had sued Dr. Lipstadt for libel after she correctly labeled him as a Holocaust denier. Irving was later imprisoned for his views, yet Lipstadt called for his release, arguing, "Generally, I don't think Holocaust denial should be a crime. [...] I don't find these laws efficacious. I think they turn Holocaust denial into forbidden fruit, and make it more attractive to people who want to toy with the system or challenge the system."[8]
Criminalizing Holocaust denial is necessary to protect Israel.

To a significant extent, Israel was created as a means of compensating the Jews for the immense crimes done to them during the Holocaust. Denying the occurrence of the Holocaust, therefore, is a direct affront to the justifications underlying the vary existence of the state of Israel. And, it feeds into the arguments being made by many terrorists organizations in their fight to destroy the Jewish state. Making such arguments, therefore, are a direct threat to the state of Israel, and subsequently unacceptable. This provides at least a partial basis for outlawing Holocaust denial.
Holocaust denial opens doors to harmful, non-factual views

David Oshinsky and Michael Curtis of Rutgers University: "If one group advertises that the Holocaust never happened, another can buy space to insist that American Blacks were never enslaved. The stakes are high because college newspapers may soon be flooded with ads that present discredited assertions as if they were part of normal historical debate. If the Holocaust is not a fact, then nothing is a fact...."[7]
Holocaust denial cannot be criminal on basis of protecting Israel.

There are many statements made in the world that go directly against the interests of other states, or even directly threaten the integrity and sovereignty of another state. Many argue, for example, that Kosovo does not have a legitimate claim to independence. Yet, statements by such individuals are not made illegal on the basis that they are threatening to the state in question. On this basis, Holocaust denial, in so far as it undermines the basis for Israel's creation and existence, is not exceptional and cannot be made illegal on these grounds.
The cumulative evidence proves the Holocaust occurred

Holocaust denial is widely viewed as failing to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, principles that mainstream historians (as well as scholars in other fields) regard as basic to rational inquiry. The prevailing—indeed, the virtually unanimous—consensus of mainstream scholars is that the evidence given by survivors, eyewitnesses, and contemporary historical accounts is overwhelming; that this evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Holocaust occurred; and that it occurred as these sources say it occurred.[9]
Publics can reject holocaust denial without a ban

Robin Davis. "Holocaust Denial and Uncomfortable Truths". Countercurrents.org. June 6th, 2009: "It is likely that most people regard the real deniers of the Jewish genocide - the ones who say the extermination crimes never happened at all - in the same light as those who espouse any number of other oddball ideas. Do we need laws to protect us from those who make obviously unsupportable claims?"
General statements against criminalizing Holocaust denial

In 2000, historian Deborah Lipstadt confronted Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian David Irving in one of the most famous trials in recent British history. Irving had sued Dr. Lipstadt for libel after she correctly labeled him as a Holocaust denier. Irving was later imprisoned for his views, yet Lipstadt called for his release, arguing, "Generally, I don't think Holocaust denial should be a crime. I am a free speech person, I am against censorship. I don't find these laws efficacious. I think they turn Holocaust denial into forbidden fruit, and make it more attractive to people who want to toy with the system or challenge the system."[6]
Debating Holocaust implies there are two reasonable viewpoints.

This is not the case: there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the Holocaust did not happen. If reputable historians debate with Holocaust deniers, it implies that the claims of Holocaust deniers have sufficient merit to be considered on the same level as interpretations based upon a fair reading of historical evidence. Thus, saying, as many do, "all ideas should be open for consideration and debate, including Holocaust denial" is an unjustifiable position; it give undue credit and consideration to a desriminatory, discredited, and socially threatening viewpoint.
Various claims regarding the facts of the Holocaust.

The Nazis had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews. Nazis did not use gas chambers to mass murder Jews. The figure of 5 to 7 million Jewish deaths is a gross exaggeration, and the actual number is an order of magnitude lower. Stories of the Holocaust were a myth initially created by the Allies of World War II to demonize Germans. Jews spread the myth of the Holocaust as part of a grander plot intended to enable the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and now to garner continuing support for the state of Israel. Documentary evidence of the Holocaust, from photographs to the Diary of Anne Frank, is fabricated. Survivor testimonies are filled with errors and inconsistencies, and are thus unreliable. Nazi confessions of war crimes were extracted through torture. The Nazi treatment of Jews was no different from what the Allies did to their enemies in World War II.
Holocaust deniers are those calling it a hoax and Jewish conspiracy.

Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory. The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary. This is different than historical revisionists that dispute only the numbers of those killed or certain methods used, but whom do not dispute that the event occurred and whom do not argue that the Holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy. This simple definition and distinction of "Holocaust denial" can be easily applied to ban the practice.
Criminalization allows the international pursuit of holocaust deniers.

An act of genocide on the scale of the holocaust is a crime against all humanity and all humanity has a responsibility to combat it. If a country makes holocaust denial illegal everywhere, it limits the ability of holocaust deniers to put forth their views because of the risk of deportation or extradition or arrest on travel to that country. For example, Ernst Zundel was deported from Canada and then arrested in Germany. This is appropriate because something on the scale of the holocaust requires a concerted effort by all humans to prevent it happening again.
Allowing debate on Holocaust fosters hate groups

Michael Arrington. "Holocaust Museum Death Won’t Change Facebook’s Mind On Hate - But Advertisers May Be Able To". June 12, 2009: "for those of you who will argue that the best way to handle hate is to shine a light on it, debate these people openly, and generally assume that reason will prevail: you’re wrong. Read this USA Today opinion piece that is talking about the steady rise of hate groups in the U.S. - 'the Internet gives formerly isolated racists, whether individuals or small groups, a means to stoke one another’s smoldering anger. With the ready availability of weapons, even a single person can do enormous harm.'"
Defining Holocaust denial is too difficult to outlaw it

Barbara Kulaszka. "What is Holocaust Denial". Institute for Historical Review: "Should someone be considered a 'Holocaust denier' because he does not believe – as Matas and many others insist – that six million Jews were killed during World War II? [...] if that is so, then several of the most prominent Holocaust historians could be regarded as 'deniers.' Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews, does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, author of The Final Solution, likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information."
Law degree is a good means of job security

"Why Go to Law School?" Kaplan: "Although there are very few jobs that remain secure in today's economy, the fundamental role that legal systems play in our increasing global working world is striking. Certainly a law degree has become a necessary prerequisite for a great many jobs that could have been done without legal expertise 20 years ago. Your training and skills can allow you to stay employed and prepare you for a variety of situations."
Public interest legal work is not much more interesting

"Why you shouldn't go to law school." Law and Letters. November 15th, 2007: "the work won't be that much more interesting. Because litigation is still litigation, and contains an outrageous amount of discovery. But now you're in an organization that can't afford paralegals. Who does the dirty work? Who reviews the 12 bankers' boxes of internal procedures from the government agency you're suing for sex discrimination? Yep. You. The low lawyer on the totem pole. At least you'll get to show up in court occasionally."
More corps are hiring law students directly to in-house.

Vanessa O'Connell. "Cut the law firms, keep the lawyers." Wall Street Journal. August 12th, 2011: "Companies used to depend on elite law firms to train new lawyers they could bring in-house years down the road. Now, some are just doing it themselves, hiring directly from law-school campuses rather than recruiting lawyers who had previously spent a few years at a major firm. These companies are growing weary of paying high hourly rates for inexperienced law-firm associates. Hewlett-Packard Co. was one of the first known companies to bypass law firms in recruiting new lawyers. 'I think it's the wave of the future,' said Michael Holston, H-P's general counsel."
Lawyers often must think theoretically and creatively.

"In Defense of Law School--A Response to Lippe." Jurisdynamics. July 10th, 2009: "I know from my practice days that lawyers at law firms with sophisticated clients are often asked to think outside the box, to propose changes to legislation or regulations, to make novel arguments in court, and to suggest cutting edge legal strategies. Moreover, the legal profession extends far beyond law firms and in-house counsel offices. Lawyers working for public entities and non-governmental organizations are even more likely to be asked to "invent" law for the future."
Law school is not best way to make social change

Jennifer Fields. "Is Law School for You?": "While lawyers do have the ability to affect change on a case-by-case basis, it is important to realize (as I eventually did) that there is a tremendous amount that lawyers can't change. Deborah Aaron, author of What Can You Do With a Law Degree? A Lawyer's Guide to Career Alternatives Inside, Outside, & Around the Law, emphasizes that law school may not be the best way to make your dream of changing society come true. "It's a very expensive way to contribute," she said. "Law school is so expensive and public interest jobs pay so little that you can't afford to go out and change the world and do good."
Higher paying law jobs harder, less fulfilling

Zaring & Henderson, "Young Lawyers in Trouble" (2007)): "We observe that higher firm profitability is associated with higher salaries, bonuses, and prestige. Yet, higher profits also have a statistically significant relationship with longer hours, a less family-friendly workplace, less interesting work, less opportunity to work with partners, less associate training, less communication regarding partnership, and a higher reported likelihood of leaving the firm within the next two years."
Idealistic law students usually find corporate law is only option

Chapter 5 of Derek Bok’s book "Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More.": "For students who begin their legal training hoping to fight for social justice, law school can be a sobering experience. While there, they learn a number of hard truths. Jobs fighting for the environment or civil liberties are very scarce. Defending the poor and powerless turns out to pay remarkably little and often to consist of work that many regard as repetitive and dull. As public interest jobs seem less promising (and law school debts continue to mount), most of these idealistic students end by persuading themselves that a large corporate law firm is the best course to pursue, even though many of them fund the specialties practiced in these firms, such as corporate law, tax law, and real estate law, both uninteresting and unchallenging…."[3]
Only top-10 law school students get good jobs

"Why you shouldn't go to law school." Law and Letters. November 15th, 2007: "3. The Sucker. This is the club for those who don't go to a top ten law school. You get the boring work and the moral difficulty of the corporate serf, with the terrible salary of the do-gooder, because you're working in some small firm doing family law, or criminal law, or wills and trusts, or real estate. [...] The point being that these job options suck. There are boring, immoral jobs that pay better (investment banking). There are moral, low-paying jobs that are more interesting (investigative journalist). There are boring, low-paying (or high-paying!) jobs that are less immoral (foundation fundraiser). Why take the worst of all possible worlds?"
Law cultivates pettiness more than intellectualism

"Why you shouldn't go to law school." Law and Letters. November 15th, 2007: "Pettiness. As I've been emphasizing, much of the nastiness in the practice of law is in small-minded disputes about nothing points of procedure and other maneuvering for tactical advantage. Do you really want to practice being the kind of prick who demands that pleadings be thrown out for being one day late?"
Lawyers too in debt to advocate for the little guy

"5 Myths about going to law school." Penelope Trunk's Brazen Careerist. May 16th, 2007: "Myth 4: I'll be able to advocate for the little guy. If you are independently wealthy, you can advocate for the poor, fight for environmental justice, defend civil rights, etc. But if you are like the typical law school graduate today, you will finish with substantial debt. Public interest jobs are too low paying to accommodate a heavy debt burden. Some law schools have a debt-forgiveness program for people going into public interest jobs, but the salaries are so low that they are often hard to manage even in light of debt forgiveness."
Lawyers rarely engage in intellectual work

"Myths about going to law school." Penelope Trunk's Brazen Careerist. May 16th, 2007: "Myth 5: I'll have intellectually challenging work. [...] Early in your career, you will probably spend a lot of time reviewing documents all day rather than tackling great intellectual issues. Even litigators – many of whom go into law to argue exciting, constitutional issues — will spend most of their time researching mundane procedural issues at the beginning of their career."
Law schools often exaggerate job/salary prospects.

Patrick Lee. "Law Grads Sue Over Tuition." Wall Street Journal. August 11th, 2011: "Two lawsuits seeking class action status were filed in Michigan and New York on Wednesday against Thomas M. Cooley Law School and New York Law School. The plaintiffs, who are graduates of the defendant schools, seek $250 million from Cooley and $200 million from NYLS in tuition refunds as well as other damages and reformed methods of reporting their graduates' employment numbers. The plaintiffs—three against NYLS and four against Cooley—seek "to remedy a systemic, ongoing fraud that is ubiquitous in the legal education industry and threatens to leave a generation of law students in dire financial straits," according to both suits."
Practicing the law can be very exhilarating

"Why Go to Law School?" Kaplan: "Excitement. Although the life of an attorney is not really like that portrayed in the television series Ally McBeal, there are aspects of lawyering that can be a great deal of fun. Tasks such as preparing for a trial, defending a client, prosecuting an accused criminal, or putting together a business deal can give you a rush of adrenaline. The interpretation of existing law can be both intellectually challenging and exciting in itself as you participate in the continuing evolution our legal system."
Always new things to learn as a lawyer.

Jamison Koehler. "On the True Value of a Law Degree." Koehler Law. January 16th, 2011: "The potential to learn as a lawyer seems infinite. Things are always changing, and you can never know everything, even within a highly specialized area of the law. That thought would have intimidated me as a younger man. Today I find it very reassuring to think that I can practice criminal law for the next thirty years without running out of new things to learn."
Law degree is perhaps the most versatile degree

"Why Go to Law School?" Kaplan: "Lawyers can function in the business world, whereas M.B.A.'s cannot function in a legal position. And although lawyers cannot be doctors, neither are they as closely held to their "field" as are M.D.'s. [...] A law degree gives you almost unparalleled mobility in your career&151;lawyers run movie studios, manage baseball teams, hold political office, serve in the foreign service, run Fortune 500 companies, and head a wide range of legal service organizations."
Dissecting and winning arguments is exciting.

Jamison Koehler. "On the True Value of a Law Degree." Koehler Law. January 16th, 2011: "As a public defender, I once spent an entire Saturday holed up in my home office studying a single, fairly obscure opinion that the prosecution was using as the basis for its case. I read all the preceding cases the opinion cited. I pulled the notes of testimony from the preliminary hearing for the case off of Lexis. I marked up my copy of the opinion. I graphed the logic on a piece of scrap paper. And I just lay there thinking about the opinion, trying to let the case seep into my body as if by osmosis as I looked for ways to distinguish its fact from the facts of the case I was defending[...] it was always clear to me from the way the prosecutor described the case that he or she had read nothing more than the headnotes. And for the more obnoxious of us, that’s where the competitive instinct kicks in, the rush of adrenaline and satisfaction we get from sensing weakness in the opponent’s argument."
New lawyers can gain credibility/responsibility quickly.

Susan Chen. "The Many Benefits Of Being A Lawyer." Ezine Articles. November 22, 2006: "The Legal Profession Pushes You To Your Full Potential. A common misperception towards lawyers in general, not just in the USA but also all over the world, is that younger lawyers are usually not to be trusted with complicated cases. We often tend to gravitate towards older lawyers because we see them as more experienced. People will typically start trusting a young lawyer as he starts earning some credibility from winning some cases. Thus a newbie in the legal profession may proceed a bit slow in the beginning of his career, but after a few success and wins, his career starts gathering momentum."
Legal training is a very transferable skill

Hindi Greenberg. "So What Else Can You Do with Your Law Degree?" American Bar Association. July/August 2005: "Even those who do totally leave the law continue to draw on the skills they developed in law practice, because those skills are broad-based and valuable. Legal training is very beneficial in the development of useful, transferable skills that are much in demand in the workplace. Both legal education and legal work provide excellent training in analytical thinking, communication, writing, and persuasiveness—skills that can be used in many endeavors."