BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in states that possess nuclear weapons

Powerful states often couch their imperial ambitions and desires to further their own aims on the world stage in the language of humanitarian intervention.[1] Such interventions are rarely due solely to the abuses, real and imagined, committed by leaders upon their people, but are driven by geopolitical considerations. This is why interventions have been staged in the Middle East, as in Iraq where there were substantial oil reserves, while not in Sudan where civil war has been rife, but which possesses little in the way of strategic or economic significance. Recognizing the right of all states to possess nuclear weapons serves to diminish the number of political power plays of strong states against weaker ones, and entrenches the concept of national self-determination as an ideal that should not be infringed by strong nations against the weak. [1] Walsh, John. 2011. “Libya and the Hypocrisy of Humanitarian Intervention”. Daily Paul.
The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikes from its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weapons

The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.”[1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict. [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8   improve this     If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States.
Nuclear weapons serve to defuse international conflicts and force compromise

Nuclear weapons create stability, described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war.[1] If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. For example, the conflict between India and Pakistan was defused by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides. Before they obtained nuclear weapons, they fought three wars that claimed millions of lives. Relations between the two states, while still far from cordial, have never descended into open war. The defusing of the immediate tension of war, has given the chance for potential dialogue.[2]A similar dynamic has been played out a number of times in the past, and as of yet there has never been a war between two nuclear powers. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. [1] Waltz, Kenneth. 1981. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better”. Adelphi Papers 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies. [2] Nizamani, Haider K. 2000. The Roots of Rhetoric: Politics of Nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. Westport: Praeger.   improve this
The right of self-defence must be exercised in accordance with international law.

There can be no right to such terribly destructive weapons; their invention is one of the great tragedies of history, giving humanity the power to destroy itself. Even during the Cold War, most people viewed nuclear weapons at best as a necessary defence during that great ideological struggle, and at worst the scourge that would end all life on Earth. Nuclear war has never taken place, though it very nearly has on several occasions, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And in 1983 a NATO war game, the Able Archer exercise simulating the full release of NATO nuclear forces, was interpreted by the Soviet Union as a prelude to a massive nuclear first-strike. Oleg Gordievsky, the KGB colonel who defected to the West, has stated that during Able Archer, without realising it, the world came ‘frighteningly close’ to the edge of the nuclear abyss, ‘certainly closer than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962’.[1]Soviet forces were put on immediate alert and an escalation was only avoided when NATO staff realised what was happening and scaled down the exercise.[2] Cooler heads might not prevail in future conflicts between nuclear powers; when there are more nuclear-armed states, the risk of someone doing something foolish increases. After all, it would take only one such incident to result in the loss of millions of lives.[3] Furthermore, in recent years positive steps have finally begun between the two states with the largest nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia, in the strategic reduction of nuclear stockpiles. These countries, until recently the greatest perpetrators of nuclear proliferation, have now made commitments toward gradual reduction of weapon numbers until a tiny fraction of the warheads currently active will be usable.[4] All countries, both with and without nuclear weapons, should adopt this lesson. They should contribute toward non-proliferation, thus making the world safer from the threat of nuclear conflict and destruction. Clearly, the focus should be on the reduction of nuclear weapons, not their increase. [1] Andrew, Christopher and Gordievsky, Oleg. 1991. “KGB: The Inside story of its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev”. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. [2] Rogers, Paul. 2007. “From Evil Empire to Axis of Evil”. Oxford Research Group. [3] Jervis, Robert. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon, Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [4] Baker, Peter. 2010. “Twists and Turns on Way to Arms Pact With Russia”. The New York Times.
The involvement of CSOs promotes good governance practices

The idea that CSO’s involvement in political life equals good governance is essentially an oversimplification. In extremely corrupt semi-democracies, there is no guarantee that societal actors will not be co-opted within the system and become corrupted themselves[1]. This would result in a legitimation of the non-democratic powers in the public eye, rather than a promotion of better practices and good governance. We could say that a wider role for civil society is desirable only for those countries that are well ahead in the path of democratisation. The risk is, otherwise, to trigger a counterproductive reaction. [1] Mogalakwe and Sebudubudu (2006) ‘Trends in state-civil society relations in Botswana’, Journal of African Elections, 5:2, pp. 207-224
Western European experiences do not demonstrate that civil society’s involvement in politics would be positive in the African context

Despite the arguments underlining the differences between Western and African contexts, there is evidence that civil society may play in Africa the same crucial and positive role it had in Western political history. Indeed, the EU commissioner for development, Andris Piebalgs, has issued a press release specifically analysing the role civil society may play in African politics[1]. The conclusions highlight that a wider involvement of civil society in Africa’s political life is crucial for the prospects of democratization and development in the continent. [1] Piebalgs, Andris, (24 October 2013), ‘Civil Society Organisations, a key role to play in Africa-EU relations’, Europa.eu
An excessively active civil society would increase political instability and paralyse African states

The opposite may actually be the case. Several authors in fact claim that an active civil society can improve political stability. A weak state consolidates its power by democratising and acquiring legitimacy. Civil society is crucial in this regard. ‘Civil society contributes directly to stability by encouraging citizens to address their concerns through democratic political processes, including elections. It also challenges abuses of power that fuel instability ’, Freedom House reports [1]. Indeed, the Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation in Africa (CSSDCA) (2000)[2] identified an increased participation of Civil Society in African states as essential to promote stability in the continent.  A wider involvement of CSOs in the political life must therefore be pursued all the most in the African context, where the political power needs both consolidation and democratization. [1] Calingaert, Daniel, (11 July 2013), ‘Resisting the Global Crackdown on Civil Society’, Freedom House [2] OHCHR, ‘Compilation of documents…’, ohchr.org
The promotion of civil society is yet another form of the Western imperialism

Two crucial counterpoints can be opposed to the above argument. First of all, we may agree that western NGOs organize, support or fund African CSOs. However, this does not mean that African civil society is not independent in its action and able to defend its own interests and values. Secondly, even if we accept that western actors may interfere with the activity of African CSOs, we must consider if this is the worst of evils. Someone may argue, and we certainly do, that it is still worth ensuring civil society has a voice in African politics, even if this brings the risk of western interference.
Civil society’s involvement in political life is necessary to strengthen democratic accountability

The involvement of civil society in political life is all the more crucial in Africa, where newborn democracies need to be strengthened and consolidated. Active CSOs function as a watchdog for political power and as alternative channels for citizens’ political participation, thus strengthening democratic accountability. Indeed, several scholars highlight that a ‘prostrate civil society’ is to be identified as a fundamental factor in determining the region’s democratic instability (Scott, 1998, as quoted in Lewis, 2002: 576). ‘Civil society is a hitherto (missing key) to sustained political reform, legitimate states and governments, improved governance, viable state-society and state-economy relations, and prevention of the kind of political decay that undermined new African governments a generation ago’(Harberson, 1994: 1-2). The sustainability of African democracies thus depends on the promotion of a more active and participative civil society.
Civil society is good for economic development

There is increasing evidence that a more active and involved Civil Society is good for economic development[1]. Specifically, CSOs are believed to have a crucial role for African development prospects. The Local Economic Development Network of Africa argues that ‘In particular, they often know what are the employment and income generation needs of different groups within the population and what could stimulate better outcomes for them. It is very important, therefore, that they are involved and consulted’ (LEDNA, 2013). In addition CSOs autonomously implement development programmes. Only to give an example, in Nepal CSOs in the Education for Income Generation program have played a crucial role in building up workers skills resulting in 80% being in employment many striking out entrepreneurially on their own5. It is therefore necessary for African governments to guarantee such organizations and grant them a wider participation. [1]  Panth, Sabina, (25 February 2011) ‘What Role Does Civil Society Play in Economic Development?’, blogs.worldbank.org
The involvement of CSOs promotes good governance practices

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that ‘good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development’[1]. It is therefore impossible to ignore the claim that CSOs involvement in political life is crucial to promote good governance practices. Civil Society is able to create additional pressure on the government to ensure good governance, as well as to contribute ideas about what good governance practices should entail in the specific local context, and to ‘bridge the gap between the law and its actual implementation’(Zivanovic, 2007). “Good governance in Africa is ultimately going to come from civil society in the countries themselves”, declared Jendayi Frazer, former U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs[2]. An article in The Guardian shows how CSO’s can help: ‘In the Ileje district of southern Tanzania, expectant mothers about to give birth had to cross a crocodile-infested river into Malawi because a local medical centre did not have enough money to pay for a midwife. It took a campaign by civil society organisations and citizens to uncover that there was money available, but that it had somehow been diverted’[3].  CSOs involvement ultimately permitted the solution of the issue. [1]  Kofi Annan, Partnerships for Global Community: Annual Report on the Work of the Organisation (UN, 1998) [2] Cannon, H. Brevy, (4 May 2009), ‘Diplomat: Civil Society Is Key To Good Governance in Africa’, UVA Today [3] Kilonzo, Semkae, (30 September 2013) ‘Tanzania has shown how civil society can contribute to economic justice’, theguardian.com
Western European experiences do not demonstrate that civil society’s involvement in politics would be positive in the African context

The idea that CSOs involvement in political life would have positive consequences has been generated by a western-centric literature. However, there is no evidence that the same results would materialize in a completely different context such as the African one. Maina (1998), for example, claims that relations of class and ethnicity are so important in Africa that it is hard to imagine civil society would work in the same way it has in the west. CSOs could form along ethnic or religious lines, thus damaging the fabric of society and jeopardising the stability of divided countries. Ashutosh Varshney (2001), for example, analysed how CSOs formed exclusively along ethnic lines in certain areas in India, thus causing an increase in ethnic violence and political instability. We must therefore be very careful in applying western paradigms to non-western countries, the risk being otherwise to do more harm than good.
An excessively active civil society would increase political instability and paralyse African states

CSOs involvement in the political life does have positive and relevant consequences, but only if the state is strong and the political power is stable. In the African context, several scholars argue, an excessively active civil society may instead increase political instability and paralyze an already weak state. Blair (1997), for example, affirms that CSOs may advance so many different claims and interests that the result is a political paralysis. A weaker state, rather than a deeper democracy, results.  Similarly, Foley and Edwards (1996), analysing the ‘paradox of civil society’, point out that conflicts may arise among groups in civil society. ‘These conflicts, in the absence of specifically political settlements, may spill over into civil disruption and violence’ (1996: 40). The example of India reported above is extremely relevant in this regard.  In addition, several scholars argue that Trade Unions and CSOs in general have represented an obstacle for both economic development and political stability in Latin America. African states must stabilize and consolidate before integrating civil society in their political life
The promotion of civil society is yet another form of the Western imperialism

CSOs in Africa are constituted by western NGOs or funded by western actors. It has even been argued that the involvement of western actors in African civil society cannot be avoided, since western NGOs need to function as intermediaries between funders and local groups[1]. In addition, western NGOs are easily co-opted by western governments, and tend to promote western interests and values rather than local ones[2]. In short, CSOs’ wider involvement in African political life would result in an increased western influence on African affairs. Sseremba, A journalist from Uganda, even claims that western NGOs are ‘indoctrinating young African politicians to serve western interests’[3].  It is therefore necessary to find another way to ensure African citizens are actively involved in the policy making process. [1] INTRAC, (2012), ‘Supporting civil society in Africa’, baringfoundation.org.uk [2] Talberg and Uhlin (2011) ‘Civil society and global democracy. An assessment’, in Archibugi, Koenig Archibugi and Marchetti,   Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. [3] Sseremba, Yahya, (10 May 2012), ‘THE NEXT PUPPETS: How NGOs are indoctrinating young African politicians to serve western interests’, The Campus Journal
Civil society’s involvement in political life is necessary to strengthen democratic accountability

There is no consensus on the assumption that CSOs may function as alternative channels of accountability. This, in fact, would require CSOs to be democratically accountable themselves. Yet, this is not the case. There is no form of direct accountability between Civil Society Organizations and the communities they claim to represent. In other words, no one ‘elects Oxfam’ [1]. Moreover, CSOs are not even representative of the people they are supposed to give voice to. In fact, wealthy and highly educated men are overrepresented in CSOs[2]. It is therefore hard to understand how civil society can guarantee or increase democratic accountability in African countries. [1] The Economist, 23rd September 2000, p. 129 [2]   Talberg and Uhlin (2011) ‘Civil society and global democracy. An assessment’, in Archibugi, Koenig Archibugi and Marchetti,   Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Legalization has benefits for society

Legalizing prostitution would unleash forces that exploit vulnerable women and men for profit.  People with the means to buy sexual access to others would be able to exploit those who are poor, young, or inexperienced.  By legalizing prostitution, society endorses impersonal and promiscuous sexual relations that damage individuals and families. The resources we allocate to protect vulnerable citizens from sexual exploitation, and to uphold the values of sexual commitment, loyalty, and responsibility, are well spent, and the foundation of a healthy social order.
Prohibition prevents harm by substantially curtailing markets in sex

Sex exchanged for money may not have the same value and meaning as sex exchanged as a gift among lovers.   Yet, it does not follow from this that paid sex is without value.  The value of paid sex is clearly subjective, and may be derived from its ability to provide sensual pleasure, sex education, and relief from stress, boredom, or loneliness.  It may be less meaningful and enjoyable than sex with a romantic companion, but when the latter is not an option, paid sex may be an acceptable substitute.   Since people have different expectations from paid sex than non-market romantic sex, they are not likely to suffer emotional and psychological damage from the former. Individuals who are not in monogamous relationships, and who have multiple sexual partners must take special precautions to protect their physical health, whether money is exchanged or not.  Sex work does not pose additional health risks that are not otherwise faced by sexually active but non-monogamous individuals.  There are precautions that all sexually active people can take to protect their health, such as rigorous condom use and regular health exams.  Moreover, societies can promote education about STDs and how they are transmitted and detected, so that all sexually active individuals can learn how protect themselves.  Markets in sex do not in themselves precipitate harms or pose a public health threat, rather ignorance about sex and STDs, and barriers to health care and prophylactics such as condoms, are responsible for the harms of sex.
Markets in sexual services can serve legitimate needs

While many societies have attempted to restrict sex to marriage, few (if any) have succeeded.  In contemporary, secular liberal societies, adults are no longer punished for pursuing sex outside of marriage. Many adults find non-marital sex satisfying, healthy, and fulfilling, whether it occurs in the context of an ongoing romantic relationship, a casual friendship, or a market exchange.  While many people will never seek the services of a sex worker, those who do are often seeking sensual comfort, companionship, entertainment, and fantasy fulfilment.   While the latter goods are often obtainable in non-market relationships, some people prefer the convenience and efficiency of market mechanisms for securing these goods.  In a liberal society, individuals are free to pursue their own vision of happiness, as long as they respect the moral and civil rights of others.  Markets that provide sexual services enable some individuals to secure goods essential to their happiness.  Those who provide services to these individuals can do so in a manner that respects their rights and dignity, if the markets are legal and well regulated.
Legalization has benefits for society

Removing criminal penalties from the sale or purchase of sexual services, and regulating sex markets so that they protect participants and non-involved third parties, would be socially beneficial.  In particular, sex enterprises and businesses could be made safer for workers, clients, and the communities in which they operated.  By allowing sex businesses to operate openly, providers, clients, and business owners can become law-abiding, productive citizens, who contribute to their communities.  Sex businesses and workers would pay taxes, and other licensing fees.  Business owners would be expected to comply with standard business laws and regulations.   Moreover, the government could enact special regulations appropriate to this industry, such as age restrictions on workers and clients, and mandatory condom use.  The resources that are currently allocated to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate sex workers and clients could be reallocated for better uses.   For example, these resources could be used to better address the sexual abuse of minors, sexual assault, substance abuse, mental health problems, and the many public and individual needs that go unmet.