BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democracies have an obligation to shield these people and to encourage further dissent

The universality of human rights, of the freedom of speech and of due process is all touted as crucial by the world’s democracies. Democratic countries are frequently vocal on the subject of liberty, on the superiority of their system of government that provides for the best protection of human dignity. By offering amnesty to bloggers, the people standing at the forefront of the democratic cause in oppressive regimes, Western countries take a largely low-cost action that provides for the security and safety of some the bravest people in the public arena. The West must stop kowtowing to oppression and make a stand to offer an umbrella of protection to those who need it. That protection is absolutely crucial to the development of more dissent in the blogosphere and on the ground. Only by nurturing dissent can it ever take root and overcome the vast powers of authoritarian government. The promise of protection is hugely powerful because it gives bloggers a safety net to fall back on. Those already active will feel more empowered to speak out against their oppressors, and some currently cowed by fear will have the courage to speak up. The guarantee of amnesty also removes the perceived randomness of such offerings that currently occur, as in the recent case of Cuba in which two bloggers of similar pedigree asked for asylum in the US, but only one received it.[1] Such inconsistency has bred fear in the minds of dissidents. This policy would correct for it and help bolster the cause of justice on all fronts. It is through offering amnesty that democracies can provide the catalyst for the change they avow to be the paramount aim of human civilization. [1] Fox News Latino. “Cuba: Prominent Blogger-Dissidents Receive Contradictory Results on Visa Petitions”. 31 January 2013. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/01/31/cuban-blogger-yoani-sanchez-granted-passport-while-dissident-moya-denied/
This offer of amnesty serves as a powerful public statement in favour of free speech and rule of law

In offering amnesty Western governments make an exceptionally powerful public statement in the international arena, an area in which they already hold great sway as norm-setters. It is a statement that shows that they will not simply ignore the abuses of power used by repressive regimes to stifle dissent and the voices of reform.[1] Ultimately, the power of oppressors to act with impunity is the product of democracies’ unwillingness to challenge them. Authoritarian regimes often claim to value freedom of the press, for example article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees it,[2] and this policy challenges them to make their practice more like what they preach. A policy of amnesty for those threatened with the lash of tyranny serves to actively protect those people while at the same time upholding the avowed principles of justice and fairness the West proclaims. This will show that the West does not play favourites or turn a blind eye to these repressions, but is an active player, willing to step in to shield those who share its dreams of a freer world. The international ridicule these policies can generate will serve to shame regimes into relaxing their policies and to embrace at least a road to reform. Nor should it be assumed that this rhetoric will have no real consequences, many authoritarian regimes encourage investment by companies from democratic countries, such investment is less likely when that company’s home state is publically condemning that state by granting amnesties to dissident bloggers. [1] Clinton, H. “Conference on Internet Freedom”. U.S. Department of State, 8 December 2011. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/12/178511.htm     [2] Fifth National People’s Congress, “Constitution of the People’s Republic of China”, 4 December 1982, http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/english/law/const03.html
An amnesty policy will serve only to alienate regimes, shutting down the possibility of discourse or reform

It is a natural conclusion that a repressive regime, which operates largely by force and the control of its population, will react rather negatively to an action by the West that appears to be a calculated, public, and on-going subversion of their power in favour of criminal dissidents. The result of such action by Western democracies will not be any positive discourse between the targeted regime and the West, but will rather cause a breakdown in communication. They will be reticent to engage for the very reason that the states seeking to influence them are clearly not interested in dealing on an equal footing, but rather wish to undermine their way of life in favour of asserting their own superiority. The best way to actually get talks about reform started, and to empower those who wish for more democracy and press freedom, is to patiently engage with these regimes, to coax them peaceably toward reform without threatening their core aims.[1] Aggression toward them will generate aggression in return as is shown again and again by North Korea and the responses to its actions by the United States. While incremental change may feel glacial, the long game is the only way to get changes without letting blood flow through the streets. The only possible outcome of this policy would be a harsher crackdown on bloggers by these governments. [1] Larison, D. “Engagement is Not Appeasement”. The American Conservative. 17 December 2012. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/engagement-is-not-appeasement/
The liberal democratic paradigm is not the only legitimate model of government, a fact that democracies should accept and embrace

Ultimately, states’ laws have to be respected. Liberal democracy has not proven to be the end of history as Fukuyama suggested, but is rather one robust system of government among many. China has become the example of a state-led capitalist model that relies on a covenant with the people fundamentally different from that between democratic governments and their citizens.[1] Chinas ruling communist party has legitimacy as a result of its performance and its role in modernising the country.[2] China’s people have accepted a trade-off; economic growth and prosperity in exchange for their liberties. When dissidents challenge this paradigm, the government becomes aggrieved and seeks to re-establish its power and authority. If the dissidents are breaking that country’s laws then the state has every right to punish them. Singapore similarly has an authoritarian version of democracy that delivers an efficient, peaceful state at the expense of constraints on the ability to criticise the government.[3] This collective model of rights has no inherent value that is lesser to that of the civil liberties-centric model of liberal democracy. In the end, as the geopolitical map becomes complicated with different versions of governance, states must learn to live with one another. The problem of offering amnesty to bloggers is that democracies and the West seek to enforce their paradigm onto that of states that differ. This will engender resentment and conflict. The world economy and social system relies on cooperation, trade, and peace. The difference between systems and cultures should be celebrated rather than simply assuming that there is only one true model and all others are somehow inferior. [1] Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. “Is State Capitalism Winning?”. Project Syndicate. 31 December 2012. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-china-s-growth-model-will-fail-by-daron-acemoglu-and-james-a--robinson [2] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party?page=4 [3] Henderson, Drew, “Singapore suppresses dissident” Yale Daily News, 5 November 2010, http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/11/05/singapore-suppresses-dissident/
The offer of amnesty allows home governments to discredit bloggers and paint them as foreign agents of disruption

When Western states and democracies offer amnesty to bloggers under threat from their home governments, the blogger’s views and comments immediately become coloured in the eyes of the public. The government is able to point to the Western powers offering this amnesty and can easily claim that their offers are the result of collusion between bloggers and their foreign patrons to spread propaganda, so the blogger is therefore guilty of treason. As unfortunate as it may be in individual cases, the result is that offering amnesty will only weaken the cause of democracy. Being sent to prison for their beliefs will do far more to serve their cause than seeking succour in the arms of another state, one that has demonstrated antagonism toward their homeland. The ability for governments to stoke nationalist fires has been thoroughly demonstrated in recent months by China’s reaction toward territorial disputes with Japan.[1] It is very easy to rile the public against a perceived external aggressor, especially given that these states often control much of the mainstream media outlets, and those who offer amnesty give themselves up on a platter as an adversary to be exploited in the public consciousness. The better plan for democracies in pursuit of their goals is to condemn acts of oppression and to seek diplomatic redress, but direct interference in the course of states’ justice will doing nothing but harm relations with regimes and turn the people against the proponents of reform. [1] The Economist. “Barren Rocks, Barren Nationalism”. 25 August 2012. http://www.economist.com/node/21560882
Democracies should be wary of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries

Authoritarian countries tend to guard their sovereignty jealously and will not take kindly to what they would consider to be interference in their internal affairs. In many cases this is exactly what the government offering an amnesty would be doing. Should foreign countries really be deciding that the justice system of a country was wrong in this or that case so amnesty should be provided? Where there are legal proceedings against a blogger that end up with the blogger being sent to jail those outside the country may think the sentences unjust but as countries that publically support the rule of law they should accept the result. It may well be the case that sometimes the judicial system has been used to persecute a blogger but it is difficult to see why an outside power with little interest in the case should believe they have the right to provide an alternative verdict through an amnesty. Where a country disapproves of the treatment of an individual this should be done by negotiating with the government in question and providing any alternative evidence they have. Cuba for example has released dissidents before as a result of negotiations with outside actors; the release 80 dissidents for the visit by Pope John Paul II in 1998 being merely the most successful example.[1] [1] Human Rights Watch, “Cuba: Release of Dissidents Still Leaves Scores in Prison”, 8 July 2012, http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/07/08/cuba-release-dissidents-still-leaves-scores-prison
These people are under serious threat for their pursuit of justice

Offering amnesty will not serve the cause of justice, it is responding to the symptom not the cause. It is unfortunate that individual bloggers suffer at the hands of governments, but seeking to give them amnesty will only serve to anger the regimes, leading to even further oppression and stifling of dissent. This unfortunately means that an individual is saved even as their actions may result in further reductions in the liberties of those who remain. As seen in China, the process of reform is slow and gradual. Upsetting that process could well increase the repression Western peoples feel to be so reprehensible.
Democracies have an obligation to shield these people and to encourage further dissent

A democracy’s first duty must always be to the citizens that elect it, not to foreign dissidents. Their duty therefore is to be engaging with these regimes to the benefit of their own citizens; through encouraging trade relations for example. Offering amnesty to individuals oppressive regimes consider to be criminals will serve only to alienate those regimes from the process of negotiation so actually runs counter to the interests of the electorate. Such alienation would result in even more repression, and a greater unwillingness to adopt reforms. If democracies want to promote their mode of government abroad they would be best advised not to pick fights with those they wish to influence.
This offer of amnesty serves as a powerful public statement in favour of free speech and rule of law

This policy will not be a public statement of anything other than Western attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of others. It is also a powerfully hypocritical message; many democracies have libel laws that prevent libel and misrepresentation and authoritarian states should be allowed to have the same laws which will sometimes impact on bloggers.[1] [1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party?page=6
This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others

By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens. Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living
It is a natural thing to do

Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.
Doctors should not be asked to take the moral burden of people who want to commit suicide

It is not fair to ask doctors who have committed their lives to preserving health to act as an instrument of killing a person. The doctor will then have to live with the doubt as to whether the act of assisting in the donation was just or not. In other words, if the person who wanted to die for another did not do so voluntarily, the act of killing him or her is morally wrong and the doctor becomes complicit. In order to carry out this scheme, the individual moral autonomy of doctors will be violated.[1] [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480
The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself

Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.
Greater awareness will increase donations

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person.  Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them.  Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.
The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another

Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this.[1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.
The role of society is to save lives not to assist in suicide

If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12,[1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Introduction.aspx
It is a natural thing to do

We are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer.[1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less.  They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost. [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.
The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself

It is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.
Greater awareness will increase donations

There is a clear need around the world for more donors of organs. In the UK there are about 4000 transplants a year but there are always more waiting, in November 2012 there were 7593 people waiting so on average each will be waiting for almost two years.[1] In Germany there are over 12,000 waiting but only 2777 donations in 2012.[2] The sacrifice of individual relatives who willingly choose death to save their loved ones therefore brings the need for donations into focus. The media are likely to present heart-breaking stories about loving people who made the ultimate sacrifice. As a consequence, more people will be aware of the issue and wish to fill in donor cards so that they might be able to minimise the number of voluntary donations in the event of their death.  Thus there will be more naturally donated organs available and more lives will be saved. [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Introduction.aspx [2] Lütticke, Marcus, “Germany lags behind in organ donations”, Deutsche Welle, 4 January 2013, http://dw.de/p/17Dth
The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another

In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it?[1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed. [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.
The role of society is to save lives not to assist in suicide

The purpose of society, the health sector and more specifically the doctors is to preserve health, not to be damaging health or even assisting in the ending of a life even if voluntarily. As part of this, death is sometimes something that must be affected. However, it is not in line with the purpose of medical professionals to kill a healthy person. The solution is to focus every possible effort on curing the sick person, but society cannot be complicit in killing a healthy person[1]. [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480
The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life

Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting.[1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.