BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Renewable energy standard ensures US green tech competitiveness

A 2010 Ernst & Young report, found that China has passed the U.S. for the first time to become the most attractive destination for global clean energy investment: "This issue sees the US relinquishing its top position held since 2006 -- dropping two points to slip behind China, effectively crowning the Asian giant the most attractive market for renewables investment. This follows the failure in the US Senate’s proposed energy bill to include a Federal Renewable Energy Standard (RES) provision."[2]
WikiLeaks release won't have terrible diplomatic effects.

President Jimmy Carter says he disagrees with Hillary Clinton's characterization of the WikiLeaks fallout: "I don't agree with Secretary Clinton that it's that significant it has torn up the fabric for our diplomacy. [Nothing] serious has happened that would be damaging to America's policies around the world. [...] I think the long-term damage will be much more minimal than is presently ascribed by maybe the White House spokesperson."[6]
WikiLeaks release is an assault on global democracy

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. This Administration is advancing a robust foreign policy that is focused on advancing America’s national interests and leading the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time, from fixing the global economy, to thwarting international terrorism, to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons, to advancing human rights and universal values. In every country and in every region of the world, we are working with partners to pursue these aims. So let’s be clear: this disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community – the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations, that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity."[3]
Private cables are not US policy as WikiLeaks claims.

Cameron Munter, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan. "Wikileaks - the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship." US Embassy in Pakistan. November 29th, 2010: "I do believe that people of good faith recognize that diplomats' internal reports do not represent a government's official foreign policy. In the United States, they are one element out of many that shape our policies, which are ultimately set by the President and the Secretary of State. And those policies are a matter of public record, the subject of thousands of pages of speeches, statements, white papers, and other documents that the State Department makes freely available online and elsewhere."
WikiLeaks undermines international trust and diplomacy

"WikiLeaks Starts Publishing US Cables, US Considering Legal Action." Metrolic. November 29th, 2010: "For short, they all agree that it wasn’t a good idea for Wikileaks to make public some very important documents that could seriously contribute to hostile relationships between the US and a lot of countries worldwide. The key ingredient to all relationships is trust. With the release of the cables you could say that the trust that’s essential to diplomacy has been broken. As Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan mentioned, shortly after describing the release as very damaging, a lot of countries, whether US allies or enemies, might ask themselves “Can the United States be trusted?” and might wonder if the country can keep a secret. Apparently it can’t since its top secret documents are readily available on the web, for anyone to read."
WikiLeaks aids transparency and accountability

Steven Greenhut. "WikiLeaks no threat to free society." OC Register. December 5th, 2010: "Clearly, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has done our nation a service by publishing at-times embarrassing accounts of how the U.S. government conducts its foreign policy. This is a government that claims to be of the people, by the people and for the people, and which has grand pretenses about projecting freedom worldwide, yet it wants to be able to keep most of the details of its actions away from the prying eyes of the public. [...] I applaud WikiLeaks and its efforts to provide the information necessary so Americans can govern themselves in this supposedly self-governing society. WikiLeaks has helped demystify the inner workings of our government, sparking a much-needed debate over various U.S. policies across the world and reminded Americans that free societies depend on an informed citizenry. And the disclosures even provided some levity, as we got to read some honest assessments of puffed-up world leaders. We should thank Assange rather than malign him, and we should eagerly await his next release."
No illegal behavior exposed by leak.

"Why Wikileaks is Wrong." 3D Blogger. November 29th, 2010: "I would challenge Chatterjee to find anything illegal in the actions of the diplomats that have been exposed by this wikidump. No doubt analysts will focus on the instructions to diplomats at the UN to gather humint about the Secretary General. Perhaps. Or maybe it is due diligence in preventing another scandal like the "oil for food" being launched from our shores? In any event: show me the violations, I'm not seeing it, just because somebody provides a frank characterization of the Persian character or tries to gather Arab allies in the job of containing Iran's nuclear mischief."
WikiLeaks release will shift specialized diplomats.

Maria Ressa, former head of ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs (NCAD): "The US is going to be moving diplomats around now... The impact is, you have specialists in each region. These specialists have written these cables. Those specialists will have to move since they won't be effective in these posts. You'll have more inexperienced US diplomats in each of the posts they're in now."[8]
Legal for WikiLeaks to post diplomatic cables.

"WikiLeaks' posting of diplomatic cables does more harm than good." TDN.com. December 6th, 2010: "But the person or organization receiving and publishing the documents would seem to be in the clear. The First Amendment prevents the government from telling media outlets what they can and can't publish. The Supreme Court confirmed that constitutional protection against censorship prior to publication almost 40 years ago, when it sided with The New York Times' and Washington Post's right to publish the so-called Pentagon Papers that detailed some embarrassing government lies regarding the Vietnam war. Daniel Ellsberg, who provided the papers to the newspapers, had legal difficulty. But not the newspapers that published them."
WikiLeaks leaks lack democratic principles of consent.

"Why Wikileaks is Wrong." Wired State. November 29th, 2010: "In that sense, Micah Sifry's tweet that Wikileaks represents an 'open society' is a disgraceful perversity -- and I told him so. You can hardly compare a society that is open *by consent* and by voluntary disclosure of the governed and the governing to vandals who forcibly pry open what is rightly closed. How strange that Micah answers that I 'of all people' should be interested in this openness?! Like all the opensource thugs, Wikileaks violates the principle of opt-in; and indeed there is not even an opt-out. Yes, most of all, what's wrong with Wikileaks is that it is achieved by force, without consent and without knowledge. It's Bolshevist, in that a group of people arrogantly usurp to themselves power, without democratic legitimacy, in the name of revolutionary expediency (and here, it's not even clear what the revolution is for, except to undermine the leader of the Western world for the sake of hackerish info-anarchy). [...] I bet some people doubt that a democratic and fair vote as to whether this sort of leakage should be approved would lead to people voting *against* Wikileaks. I don't. And the problem is, like people living in a totalitarian society, we didn't *get* to vote. It's our country and our diplomats and our documents -- and we *didn't get to chose*. It was unaccountably leaked in spite of us."
WikiLeaks helps expose wasteful/equivocal top secret world.

David Samuels. "The Shameful Attacks on Julian Assange." The Atlantic. December 3rd, 2010: "According to a three-part investigative series by Dana Priest and William Arkin published earlier this year in The Washington Post, an estimated 854,000 people now hold top secret clearance - more than 1.5 times the population of Washington, D.C. 'The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive,' the Post concluded, 'that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.' The result of this classification mania is the division of the public into two distinct groups: those who are privy to the actual conduct of American policy, but are forbidden to write or talk about it, and the uninformed public, which becomes easy prey for the official lies exposed in the Wikileaks documents: The failure of American counterinsurgency programs in Afghanistan, the involvement of China and North Korea in the Iranian nuclear program, the likely failure of attempts to separate Syria from Iran, the involvement of Iran in destabilizing Iraq, the anti-Western orientation of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and other tenets of American foreign policy under both Bush and Obama."
WikiLeaks not about transparency, but damaging US

"Why Wikileaks is Wrong." Wired State. November 29th, 2010: "there's only the taunting slogan 'We open governments.' Except they don't. They only open *one* government, pretty much, the U.S. The others only become displayed to the extent the U.S. engages with them, and much of the time, it's unflattering and damaging to the U.S., not anyone else. Timothy Garton-Ash makes a strange effort to make lemonade out of lemons by describing, for example, William Burns' literary talents in describing a Dagestani wedding where Kadyrov is present and concluding that U.S. diplomatic efforts make the diplomatic corps look good. Maybe so. But they'd look even better if their secrets weren't dumped."
WikiLeaks can avoid pressure govts level on journalism.

Evan Hansen. "Why WikiLeaks Is Good for America." Wired. December 6, 2010: "One of the core complaints against WikiLeaks is a lack of accountability. It has set up shop in multiple countries with liberal press protections in an apparent bid to stand above the law. It owes allegiance to no one government, and its interests do not align neatly with authorities’. Compare this, for example, to what happened when the U.S. government pressured The New York Times in 2004 to drop its story about warrantless wiretapping on grounds that it would harm national security. The paper withheld the story for a year-and-a-half. [...] Sites like WikiLeaks work because sources, more often than not pricked by conscience, come forward with information in the public interest. WikiLeaks is a distributor of this information, if an extraordinarily prolific one. It helps guarantee the information won’t be hidden by editors and publishers who are afraid of lawsuits or the government."
WikiLeaks' critical infrastructure releases revealed nothing important.

Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, told Threat Level in December of 2010: “My own opinion is that there’s no shortage of potential targets that hostile actors might find interesting, and they don’t need a State Department list to assist them. The good news is it’s hard to read. Talk about security through obscurity … this is one boring memo. You have to be really committed to get through this."[11]
Leaks undermine counter-terrorism intelligence-sharing.

"The return of information silos." The Acorn. November 29th, 2010: "What might happen is that brakes will be applied in the trend towards sharing of information within government and across departmental silos. A process that began as a result of the US intelligence community’s failure to piece together data that could have led to the uncovering of the 9/11 plot—and was adopted by governments across the world, including in India—might come to an end with abuse of technological power by Wikileaks. ‘Information fusion’ within governments is likely to be the first casualty of Mr Assange’s war on responsibility."
WikiLeaks helps journalists do job and check govt

David Samuels. "The Shameful Attacks on Julian Assange." The Atlantic. December 3rd, 2010: "It is a fact of the current media landscape that the chilling effect of threatened legal action routinely stops reporters and editors from pursuing stories that might serve the public interest - and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Every honest reporter and editor in America knows that the fact that most news organizations are broke, combined with the increasing threat of aggressive legal action by deep-pocketed entities, private and public, has made it much harder for good reporters to do their jobs, and ripped a hole in the delicate fabric that holds our democracy together. The idea that Wikileaks is a threat to the traditional practice of reporting misses the point of what Assange and his co-workers have put together - a powerful tool that can help reporters circumvent the legal barriers that are making it hard for them to do their job. Even as he criticizes the evident failures of the mainstream press, Assange insists that Wikileaks should facilitate traditional reporting and analysis. 'We're the step before the first person (investigates),' he explained, when accepting Amnesty International's award for exposing police killings in Kenya. 'Then someone who is familiar with that material needs to step forward to investigate it and put it in political context. Once that is done, then it becomes of public interest.' Wikileaks is a powerful new way for reporters and human rights advocates to leverage global information technology systems to break the heavy veil of government and corporate secrecy that is slowly suffocating the American press."
WikiLeaks has none of the transparency it espouses.

"Why Wikileaks is Wrong." Wired State. November 29th, 2010: "there's also the issue of democracy, transparency and accountability -- of Wikileaks itself, as an operation or loose organization or movement. It has none of those things. People involved are mainly anonymous. They ask for donations by banking accounts -- but we don't know how much they raise or how much they spent, or on what. They don't say what their aspirational goals are, or whether they have any creed or ideology -- there's only the taunting slogan "We open governments. [...] The nature of Wikileaks itself and the contrary, secretive, unaccountable essence of its own operation are, of course, a problem, and one not commented on often. As is the one-sided nature of their 'opening' -- it's never the Kremlin, the Taliban, the Iranian ayatollahs and *their* plans and *their* assessments that we ever get from this bunch."
Clinton's vote in the Iraq War was justifiable or at least excusable.

There were many factors surrounding Clinton's vote in the Senate that gave the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. First, at the time, there were many intelligence reports indicating that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and was not Clinton's place to object to these reports. Second, the AUMF vote was not intended to be a direct authorization for war, but rather gave the president the flexibility merely to make that threat for, some felt, diplomatic ends. Third, the majority of Americans and the vast majority of Senators supported going to war. Clinton's vote was not detached from the conventional wisdom of the time. Finally, it is possible that the war could have been conducted successfully; Clinton should not be blamed for the post-invasion failures of the Bush administration.
Obama's African decent will win valuable points in the Muslim world.

Obama's African decent may be a useful way to win the hearts and minds of individuals in the Middle East. This is highly important to the United States in its current struggles in the Middle East and in the War on Terror. That a man of Muslim-Kenyan origins is running for President makes a strong statement to the Middle East about a number of things. First, it viscerally demonstrates that the United States is not a "White Christian nation on a crusade against the Islamic world". Second, it demonstrates that, in America and a democracy, opportunity for any individual of any creed abounds.
It is more important to elect the first black candidate than the first female candidate.

Racial tensions and problems abound in the United States, while gender issues are much less of a problem today. Obama is committed to helping solve these racial problems, as was displayed by his March 18, 2008 speech in Philadelphia. And, he is in a great position to do so, as the son of a mixed couple. His race, therefore, puts him in a better position to solve a much bigger outstanding social problem in America, as compared to Hilary helping solve any remaining gender issues).
War-time use of landmines hampers post-war reconstruction.

It is absurd to suggest that there are two separate issues about landmines: wartime use and post-conflict removal. The two are inextricably interlinked. Most nations that deploy landmines, including those manufactured by the United States, never clear them afterwards. As demonstrated by decades of inaction on the part of nations after determined lobbying by passionate activists, it is folly to rely on goodwill or trust to remove landmines. It is simple – if they are manufactured and deployed, innocent people inevitably die. The USA should not dirty its hands by the trade in these wicked weapons.[23]
Korea is the sole exception requested by US to mine ban

"The Mine Ban Treaty and the US Government: 10 Years and Waiting". US Campaign to Ban Landmines. 3 Dec. 2007: "There is no evidence that the U.S. has used antipersonnel landmines, with the exception of the North/South Korean border area, since 1991." And, it seems to be the sole exception requested by the US as a condition of it agreeing to joining the Land Mine Ban Treaty.
Mines are not essential to deterring N. Koreans

"U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality." Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. March, 2002: "Myth: The U.S. landmine barrier system is a principal deterrent of an invasion by North Korea. Reality: [...] Landmines in the existing barrier are old and many are non-functional. This fact is well known to the North Koreans."
Efforts to clear landmines should be improved, instead banning them.

The use of land mines in war time or a tense environment is a totally separate issue to cleaning them up in peace time; efforts to blur the two together by pro-ban commentators should be resisted. The latter can be fixed without banning the former. The proposition completely accepts that the consequence of keeping land mines legal is an obligation on the part of those that use them to fund clean-up efforts, and the USA is indeed doing this in many troubled countries. The attention of the very humanitarian organisations calling for a ban will ensure this obligation is met.
Mines in DMZ controlled by S. Korea; unaffected by US joining

Human Rights Campaign: "Letters from US Senators in 2010 to Obama in support of joining the ban addressed two issues raised over the years by those who were hesitant to join the treaty. One is whether land mines would have to be removed from the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The letters note that the mines there are the responsibility of South Korea, not the United States, and that if the United States joins the treaty, mines in the DMZ would not be affected."[20]
Geneva Conventions regulates use of landmines; ban is excessive.

The appropriate use of landmines is governed by the Geneva Convention. This ensures that the use of landmines in specific instances is consistent with international humanitarian law and norms. The use of landmines in the DMS of Korea, for instance, can be justified under the Geneva Convention, because they pose no real threat to civilians, and serve a defensive purpose. The real issue is ensuring that landmines are used in this kind of a way under the Geneva Conventions, not whether we should ban them altogether.
Landmines are not protecting US troops as first line of defense

"U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality." Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. March, 2002: "Myth: The 37,000 U.S. troops stationed on the DMZ are the first line of defense for South Korea. Reality: Official U.S Army briefers in Korea have stated that the U.S. has no responsibility for the frontline defense of South Korea; Instead, U.S. forces will form a mobile reserve behind the front lines when an attack is imminent.
A ban can be enforced slowly over time.

It is obviously true that only those nations that obey laws will obey the law. That is a rationale for never passing any law. There will certainly be some nations that seek to ignore the ban – but as it gains stature and is embedded in the world’s view as a concrete rule that should never be broken, such nations will eventually come around, especially if the diplomatic and moral might of the United States is seen to be behind the ban. For examples, foreign officers trained at US Military Colleges will increasingly view the use of mines as unacceptable. Even if they do not, at least usage will have been vastly reduced by all those nations that do obey the terms of the Convention. Moral pressure is felt by the ruling regimes of almost all countries – setting an example will increase pressure on others to do the same. Even if they don’t, doing the right thing in and of itself is very important. Ultimately, this is about what kind of global society you want to live in. Do you wish to live in a society that tries hard to stop the use of such horrible weapons, and occasionally fails, or one that never even bothers to try?[24]
US and others have securely gone w/o mines for years

A 2010 letter from US senators to president Obama: "our NATO allies have addressed their force protection needs in accordance with their obligations under the Convention.' The US has already gone without using these weapons for almost two decades. It is time to make a commitment never to use them again."[10] The United States has not used antipersonnel mines since 1991, has had an export ban in place since 1992, and has not produced them since 1997.[11]
The ban has an asymmetric effect.

it only stops nations that obey the law from using landmines. Most nations contemplating invasion will ignore it, deploying them aggressively to defend captured territory. On the other hand, many nations that would use landmines defensively for themselves, or for multinational defence of another vulnerable nation or people, will observe the ban and thus weaken themselves and expose those they guard. The landmine should in fact be a primary tool of the United Nations efforts to protect those in its care. Nations that want to use landmines will do so regardless of the position taken by the USA (or any other nation) - as demonstrated by the current prolific use of mines despite the mass of signatories to the Ottawa convention. And if we might one day face an enemy deploying landmines, we must expose our soldiers to their use in training so that we do not expose them to serious harm.[25]
Landmines inhibit a counter-attack into North Korea

"U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality." Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. March, 2002: "Myth: Landmines are an integral part of our battle plans in Korea. Reality: U.S. military officers concede that the existing barrier will be an impediment to our counter-attack; [...] Use of landmines in the U.S. battle plan for Korea will be deferred because of the logistical difficulty in getting them to the front - and because of the hazards they pose to our own forces."