BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Forcible "liberation" is contrary to the principle of self determination

The absence of a civil society in North Korea makes it very difficult to know if there is a great upwelling of dissent in the country but there is certainly very little in the way of evidence of it. For the same reason, there is no obvious government in waiting, there is nothing that could take over from the triad of party, army and state that currently runs the country except and imported elite from the South. As a result an uninvited military intervention the people of North Korea would end up, in effect being ruled by a ruling elite that they don’t know. The influence of the regime is everywhere in the North and an occupying force would need to attempt a process similar to the disastrous de-Ba’athification actions in Iraq. The results do not seem likely to be any different. Replacing a heavily armed rogue state with a similarly heavily armed failed state would not seem to represent much in the way of progress. A rogue state can, at least, be mostly constrained by China, a border region that is part of a united Korea in name only offers no such opportunities for persuasion and coercion. Instead it would represent a ‘badlands’ causing difficulties for all around it on a daily basis with rampant crime taking the place of economic activity.
There is little interest in unification among young people in South Korea

There is one very obvious historical example which speaks to attempts to unite Korea by force: the 1950-53 war. It seems unlikely that even the most ardent supporter of reunification south of the border would be keen to repeat that fiasco which had at least 910,000 battle deaths and total death toll up to 3.5million.[1] In addition, the younger generations have much less interest in the proposal than their parents and grandparents did. As a result the grand coalition would run the very real risk of one of the component parts actively opposed to the proposal and the other half at the very least unhappy about it. The assumption that the North Korean army will simply roll over or melt away is reminiscent of the ideas about swift victories in Iraq and Afghanistan and so it seems unlikely that the US public would be too keen to sign up for a second Korean War. Ultimately to work this proposal needs the support of the peoples of North and South Korea as well as those of, at least, the US and China. There is precious little evidence that any of those things are true. [1] ‘Inter-State War Data’, Correlates of War v.4.0, 1816-2007, ‘Korean War’, Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century
North Korea represents a clear danger to its neighbours and their allies and that is unlikely to change

North Korea may well be a dangerous state with an unstable leader but neither the regime nor the nation is suicidal. There may be a large military but it simply lacks the resources to mount an invasion. The occasional demonstrations of military prowess have far more to do with negotiations about aid than they have to do with a genuine military threat to the South. It is inconceivable that North Korea would take any significant military action without the agreement of Beijing and it is inconceivable that any military action would achieve more than a gnat bite from the point of view of either the American or Chinese military. Although Kim Jong-Il may be a master of sabre-rattling as a form of brinkmanship it is staggeringly unlikely that the sabre would ever be unsheathed. It is worth noting that the idea that Pyongyang would commit financial suicide by attacking their main form of financial support – South Korea – is relatively ridiculous. The shifting relationship between the two Koreas has more to do with the varying level of political machismo in Seoul than it has to do with the realities of the possibility of military intervention or confrontation.
Kim Jong Un is unlikely to consent to any form of unified government that does not include him and his family

There is no appetite for, and little interest in, the outside world in the North. Those reunions that have been organised have been established by the South. As far as the citizens of the North are concerned they are living in a utopia that is the envy of the world. There is little evidence that North Koreans are clamouring for reunification, although there is some appetite for it in the South, it is diminishing as the generations that remember a united country die and the younger generations take a look at the cost of doing so. It is also highly questionable what either party would get from the union. The North would gain little except mass unemployment as they are simply not equipped for a 21st century economy and the south would get all of the social unease that usually accompanies mass unemployment. Talk of a shared culture and heritage is all very well but simply doesn’t pay the bills in is a fairly dubious claim at best – the languages are now unrecognizable to each other and the last sixty years have eradicated anything but the most romanticised views of an ancient and honorable past that never existed. Neither party brings any noticeable natural resources to the deal and the skill sets of each society are now so vastly different as to be mutually exclusive. There simply is no economic advantage. Politically the merger would look set to cause disaster, the last thing that the South’s new and somewhat fragile democracy needs is the sudden addition of millions of unemployed citizens with no history of participating in a democratic process. It would confer second-class status on those from the North for generations to come and be more likely to create a situation that looks like Israel/Palestine than one that looks like Germany.
Despite the tyranny of Kim Jong-Un, the control he exercises over his people has eliminated the possibility of revolution

Although the famines in North Korea are now an annual fixture and are routinely exacerbated by the regimes whimsical refusals to accept food aid, it is difficult to see how the situation would be improved by what would probably be a long and protracted war followed by permanent unemployment. South Korea has no welfare state to speak of and retired people live off the income of the working ‘middle’ generation. Mostly the situation works well but it does assume that at least somebody in the household is capable of getting a job at some point. Per capita incomes are approximately five per cent of those to the South. Although it is possible to make a moral argument that the world has a responsibility to avert another famine in the North, they certainly do not have the moral authority to impose, asked and unwanted, a solution that runs the very real risk of making things worse for citizens on both sides of the 38th parallel. It is questionable as to whether the South has the right to meddle in its neighbours affairs for the rest of the world, en masse, to take it upon itself to do so is as lacking in moral authority as it is in economic credibility.
Reunification of the Korea peninsular is unaffordable

China has an enormous interest in not having an unstable nuclear power on its doorstep. It also has an interest in Pyongyang doing nothing to upset the region’s relationship with the West. That in and of itself should be enough for China to at least increase the trade and support it gives to North Korea. China is already investing in North Korea, such as at the port of Rason,[1] it would want to protect these investments, Chinese firms main criticism of operating in North Korea is the business environment something that unification would improve. The same can be said for Japan and the other Asian Tigers. Rates of growth in North Eastern Asia have been spectacular in recent years and do not look set to diminish in the long term. It is also worth noting that the estimates for the costs of reunification vary and $5trillion is on the upper end. Also that is the cost for getting the North to where the South is now. It took the South 60 years. North Korea would be following the same path as part of a larger and richer nation and could as a result do it faster. The North has land for development that is desperately lacking in the south and a large pool of cheap labour whose living standards would be increased dramatically by the association. Even just accepting the food aid sent by the international community would be huge progress on the current situation. Clearly North Korea is not going to solve all of its problems over night but simply not getting much worse every year would be a start. [1] Wong, Edward, ‘Tending a Small Patch of Capitalism in North Korea’, The New York Times, 12 October 2011
It is impossible to effectively ban gambling

When gambling has been banned, people have just found a way round the ban. They use internet sites based in other countries. A good example being the Ukraine, who in May 2009 made gambling illegal, this included internet gambling. By July 2009, over 500 illegal gambling operations were established, where 6,000 slot machines were confiscated and 216 criminal charges were made in connection to illegal gambling.1 This illustrates how banning gambling can creates a thriving underground market. It is better to legalize and regulate online gambling than to drive gamblers to poorly-regulated foreign operators. Regulation can reduce the problems identified by the proposition. For example, online gamblers can be required to give personal details when registering (e.g. occupation, income). If this information suggests he or she is spending more than they can afford, the company can block their credit card. 1 Kyiv Post, ‘Governmental checks expose over 500 facts of illegal operation of gambling establishments’, 20 July 2009.
Many activities directly comparable to gambling are already legal and regulated

What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves knowledge and expertise that can improve your chances of success. In the same way, trading in bonds, shares, currency or derivatives is a bet that your understanding of the economy is better than that of other investors. Why should one kind of online risk-taking be legal and the other not?
Online gambling has increased the incidence of gambling addiction

Internet gambling is in fact less dangerous than normal gambling. It is free from the pressures to gamble that casinos can create through free food and entertainment, glitzy surroundings and peer pressure. And as children can’t get credit cards, they should not be able to gamble online anyway. Stolen credit cards can be used to commit fraud in any number of ways - online gambling is not a specific problem here. It is also in the interest of internet gambling sites to run a trustworthy, responsible business. Whatever they are looking for online, internet users choose trusted brands that have been around for a while. If a gambling site acts badly, for example by changing its odds unfairly, word will soon get around and no one will want to use it.
Gambling affects poor people disproportionately

Gambling effects every person in the same way, everyone have the free will to decide to gamble and each may win or lose despite of their wealth or position in society, thus gambling cannot affect poor people to a greater extent. Gambling is only regressive because more poor people choose to gamble. Gambling does also have good effects on all member of society- Gambling is often used to raise money for the state or good causes. Many governments tax gambling. Some even run their own lotteries. Charities use prize draws to raise funds. Because people will gamble anyway, the best that governments can do is to pass rules to make it safe and try to get some social good out of it. If the government uses the revenue to help people on lower-incomes, it is not necessarily true that taxes on gambling are regressive and target the poor.
Gambling is simply a leisure pursuit

Gambling is a harmful activity and could have harmful effects on not only to individuals but also on their friends and family. Gamblers may win money from time to time, but in the long run, the house always wins. Why should governments allow an activity that helps their citizens lose the money they have worked so hard to earn? Surely it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens from harming themselves, just as harmful substances are illegal, gambling should also be illegal.
Casinos create positive economic effects in the communities that host them

The economic benefits of casinos are exaggerated.1 They generally only create low-paid jobs for local people – the casino companies usually bring in managers from elsewhere. The problems associated with casinos (e.g. crime, gambling addiction) outweigh the economic benefits. In any case, an immoral industry is not justified by the fact that it creates employment. 1 John Warren Kind, "The Business-Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in West Virginia: Short-Term Gain but Long-Term Pain", PBS, 1994
Gambling is addictive and psychologically harmful

Gambling can become a psychologically addictive behavior in some people. According to the Emotional Neuroscience Centre in Massachusetts, “Monetary reward in a gambling-like experiment produces brain activation very similar to that observed in a cocaine addict receiving an infusion of cocaine.”1 Because of this addictive nature, many people end up gambling to try to recover money they have already lost. This is known as ‘chasing losses’. It results in people staking more and more money, most of which they will lose, and sinking deeper and deeper into debt. People start to gamble without thinking that they will become addicted. Once that happens, it is often too late. A gambling addiction, in addition to the long term effects it has, can result in financial ruin in a few short hours. 1 Johannes Hedwig, Hypersensitivity to Reward in Problem Gamblers, Biological Psychiatry, April 15 2010..
Online gambling has increased the incidence of gambling addiction

Someone can become addicted very easily – they don’t even need to leave their home, and online gambling sites are available at all hours. This also means that they are gambling in private. They may therefore be less reluctant to wager very large sums they cannot afford. In the United States in 1999 the National Gambling Impact Study stated "the high-speed instant gratification of Internet games and the high level of privacy they offer may exacerbate problem and pathological gambling",1 and it is estimated that 75% of internet gamblers are problem gamblers, compared with 20% of those who visit casinos. It is very hard to know the identity of an online gambler – there have been several cases of people (including children) using stolen credit cards to gamble online. Online gambling sites can also get around government regulations that limit the dangers of betting. Because they can be legally sited anywhere in the world, they can pick countries with no rules to protect customers. 1 Skolnik, Sam, High Stakes: the Rising Cost of America’s Gambling Addiction, Beacon Press, 2011, Chapter 5
Gambling affects poor people disproportionately

Poor people are more likely to gamble, in the hope of getting rich. In 1999, the National Gambling Impact Commission in the United States found that 80 percent of gambling revenue came from lower-income households1. It is immoral for the state or charities to raise money by exploiting people’s stupidity and greed. Taxing gambling is a regressive tax (this means that the poor pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the rich), and regressive taxation is deeply unfair. Gambling attracts people with little money who are desperate for a windfall. These are the people who can least afford to lose money. 1 Mark Lange, The Gambling Scan on America’s Poor, Allnet.com, May 3 2007.
Gambling is simply a leisure pursuit

People have free will and should be allowed to spend their money on which ever leisure pursuits they choose. Gamblers know that, overall, they are likely to lose money. They gamble because it is a leisure pursuit that they enjoy. There is nothing irrational about this. Some people get an enjoyable thrill from the remote possibility that they might win a huge prize – even if he or she loses, they enjoy the experience. Some forms of gambling are highly sociable. For example, many people are involved in ‘social gambling’ and go to bingo halls (or equivalent) to spend time with friends, and some types of gambling are interlinked with other leisure pursuits such as horse racing.* Society accepts people spending money on other leisure pursuits with no material benefits (e.g. cinema tickets, watching sport) – gambling should not be any different. It is patronizing to suggest that people should not be able to choose how they spend their money or their leisure time. 1 The General Education Centre of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, ‘Report on A Study of Hong Kong People’s Participation in Gambling Activities’, Home Affairs Bureau, March 2002, p.4
Casinos create positive economic effects in the communities that host them

Casinos can revive entire areas and regions. They create jobs and cause money to be spent on transport infrastructure. The jobs are not just in the casino itself. More jobs are created in hotels and other parts of the tourism industry. In an article for nwjob.com Sandra Miedema, ‘Snoqualmies’ employment coordinator is quoted saying that at any one time there are an average of 20 vacancies, from chefs to table dealers.1 In the United States commercial casinos employed more than 350,000 people in 2003.2  Casinos have helped to regenerate many places that previously had considerable poverty and social problems, e.g.  Atlantic City, New Jersey5. 1 Libraryindex.com, ‘Casinos: The Effects of Casinos – Employment’ 2 Associated Press, Atlantic City to be transformed by 2012, November 20 2007
Gambling is associated with other forms of addiction and harmful behaviour

There is no evidence that gambling makes people not care about others. People do not gamble because they expect to win lots of money. Most gamble as a form of entertainment. Also, there are many areas of life where success is not the result of merit or hard work. Someone born to well-off parents may get many advantages in life without merit or hard work. There are therefore no grounds for thinking that gambling promotes these undesirable values. The desire for wealth one that stems from society as a whole, not casinos.
It is impossible to effectively ban gambling

Gambling is not impossible to ban, although it will not be easy such examples of states that have banned it show that it is possible and although illegal activity may arise from the ban this can also be stopped by though rules. If government did not ban activities where some may find a way around it, nothing would be banned at all. Making an activity more difficult to pursue will still reduce the number of those who take it up. It is not impossible to put effective deterrent steps in place, such as the recent US ban on American banks processing credit card payments to internet gambling sites.
Many activities directly comparable to gambling are already legal and regulated

Gambling is quite different from buying stocks and shares. With the stock market investors are buying a stake in an actual company. This share may rise or fall in value, but so can a house or artwork. In each case there is a real asset that is likely to hold its value in the long term, which isn’t the case with gambling. Company shares and bonds can even produce a regular income through dividend and interest payments. It is true that some forms of financial speculation are more like gambling – for example the derivatives market or short-selling, where the investor does not actually own the asset being traded. But these are not types of investment that ordinary people have much to do with. They are also the kinds of financial activity most to blame for the financial crisis, which suggests we need more government control, not less.
Gambling leads to the disintegration of families

Gambling can have a devastating effect on families. The most obvious effect is financial as one partner uses all their money on gambling the other needs to support the whole family or the gambler may even gamble away joint savings. Psychologically there is a relationship between gambling and various psychiatric and alcohol disorders. This is also an impact on friends, who do not want to be tied into supporting gambling financially or even just emotionally. Lesieur and Custer estimated that for each problem gambler there were 10-15 other people adversely impacted by the gambling of that person.1 As with drugs, it is harmful to the individual concerned and their family and friends, and it is better to ban gambling to stop people getting started in the first place. 1 Shaw, Martha C. et al., ‘The Effect of Pathological Gambling on Families, Marriages , and Children’, CNS Spectrums, Vol. 12, No. 8, 2007, pp.615-622.
Casinos are often used to mask criminal activity

Casinos are often associated with crime, particularly organized crime. When it comes to local crimes a study has found that only larceny(theft) liquor violations increased significantly with a small increase in prostitution.1 But comparing statistics probably does not show the real harm; drug dealers and prostitutes operate near casinos – they know that there are a large number of potential clients in the area. Moreover when a gambler is in debt and wishes to continue gambling due to its addictive nature, he or she often turns to loan sharks as no bank would lend to them. Casinos can therefore be devastating to neighborhoods. It would of course be wrong to assume all gamblers are criminals, although there is an increased possibility that gamblers in debt could turn to criminality through illegal borrowing. These loan sharks themselves usually have links to organized crime, in some cases are actually run by organized crime,2 and use brutal methods to reclaim their money. By banning gambling the opportunities for loan sharks to offer their services is greatly reduced due to a lesser amount of gamblers in debt, as are the opportunities for prostitutes therefore reducing criminal activity in the areas surrounding casinos. 1 Stitt, Grant, et al., ‘Does the Presence of Casinos Increase Crime? An Examination of Casino and Control Communities’, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 49, No. 2, April 2003, pp.253-284, P.279 2 Jordan, Mary, ‘Mafia loan sharks making a killing’, Washington Post, 15 March 2009.
Gambling is associated with other forms of addiction and harmful behaviour

Gambling makes people concentrate of winning money. Religious leaders of all denominations see gambling as eroding family values1 because it implies that material goods should be valued above other things like friendships and families. It also sends out the message that success should not necessarily be the result of merit and effort. As a philosophy, ‘gambling culture’ is incredibly dangerous. Those in society who most need to self-improve, never do. Instead, they tie their hopes and dreams to the lottery.  There may be the possibility of winning a big prize, but the overwhelming likelihood is that a gambler will lose money. Instead, governments should be promoting values like thrift, hard work and self-reliance rather than encouraging or even allowing gambling to promote its own negative values. 1 Holahan, Catherine, ‘Online Gambling Still in the Cards’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 3 October 2006.