BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Compulsory breast feeding will reduce the level of child pain.

Breast milk not only contains nutrients, it also contains many of the immunities that the mother has accrued in life. This means that upon being breast fed, the child will begin to become immune to many the things that the mother is immune to. This will prevent the child being sick. Given that babies are weak and are susceptible to illness we should try and reduce their pain by making breast feeding compulsory. This will ensure that the child is ill less often. This is the most human thing to do, to stop child pain and suffering.
Compulsory breast feeding will cut benefit levels needed

Since the Labour domination in 1997, a lot has been made in the media of families who gain a lot of resources from the welfare state. Many people cite families that have vast amounts of children in order to gain more and more benefits. However, if we made breast feeding compulsory we could cut the level of benefits given to these families. If all of the nutrients that child needs are being gained for free, then less benefits would be needed in order to keep the child healthy. This would make people question whether or not scrounging off of the benefit system was a good idea with the benefit levels being so reduced. In this way, the child is not harmed.
Compulsory breast feeding will increase the support available to mothers

If the Government were to make breast feeding compulsory, they would have to look into improving the conditions under which women breast feed. There is a vast amount of stress when trying to breast feed. It is a very tense time, trying to get your own child to accept your milk. In the Infant survey in 2005 [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10851615]] it was found that one of the main reasons why women did not breast feed was because they felt they had a lack of support. If the Government made breast feeding compulsory, they would then have to look at this and put more money into medically trained people in the art of breast feeding and place more money into schemes which aided mothers through this stressful time. Such a move would greatly help mothers and children.
Convention on the Rights of Children

There is a Convention that specifically deals with the rights of children. This is a legally binding document that most countries in the world have ratified. It therein contains Article 24 which states that a child is to have the highest attainable standard of health. If this is achieved through being breastfed, then this is what the Government shall have to do to comply with the Convention on the Rights of Children. This measure is not only appropriate but it is also proportionate to the dire need for child care and health.
Compulsory breast feeding will reduce NHS costs

It could actually result in more costs on the NHS. The pressure that a mother may feel to breast feed with a legal sanction hovering over her head may result in more stress and anxiety, for her and the child. This would then lead to more visits to NHS institutions and individuals. Also, if a baby will not suckle, rather than persistently trying, the mother may seek medical help. If it is compulsory, mothers may feel more and more force behind the argument that breast feeding is the most natural course of action. With this in mind and a child who will not suckle, mothers may feel that they or their child are abnormal in some way. This could lead to many needless appointments to the GP or even hospital.
The gossip market is too large as it is. We should be careful about encouraging this intellectual dumbing down of our reading material.

The gossip market seems to be ever-expanding: television, magazines, the internet, even mobile phone updates to keep us up-to-date on our favourite stars. Whilst a bit of gossip may be good for us, there can be little doubt that this flooding of the market is doing little for our intellectual development. Indeed, the number of young girls who can talk of Paris Hilton’s latest flame or Kerry Katona’s breakdown compared to those who can comment on Gordon Brown’s new initiatives, is frankly frightening.
Gossip is important for making friends

In an industrial society where there is considerable mobility, using gossip about celebrities to bond with co-workers can be an important weapon in our social armoury. Whereas in the past, live was stable (families often knowing other families for generations) with a minimal number of ‘strangers’, modern life depends on being able to interact comfortably with those new to our acquaintance. It is here that gossip is useful; where two people may have entirely different political views, ambitions, and backgrounds, it is, however, likely that both will have an opinion on a celebrity. Even the newest of acquaintances would be able to discuss, for instance, the Richie-Madonna divorce. Moreover, on a more personal ‘local’ level, it is also important in learning who not to trust.
Gossip is important for moulding society

At the most basic level, gossip helps to mould citizens. Negative gossip tends to revolve around people who have broken collective expectations of acceptable behaviour: for instance women smoking or drinking during pregnancy; ‘welfare cheats’; cheating husbands or wives; drug-taking and so on. Gossip tells us what behaviour is and is not socially acceptable and as a result, helps us understand what we should or should not do.
Principle of security

Opp knows the importance of habeas corpus and that the detainees have the right to trial but are these rights actually being enforced? HC was denied to 21 detainees in the past.[[http://goo.gl/a0b8T]]HC only applies when the detainees are trialed in federal courts. Currently, detainees are “tried in military commissions rather than federal court.”[[http://goo.gl/D4G6D]]This is problematic as HC doesn’t apply to military commissions. “The Military Commissions Act [..] eliminate access to habeas corpus for GB detainees. “ [[http://goo.gl/22bcl]] Thus it prevents detainees from claiming HC in military commissions court, and prevents MCA restricts judicial review in terrorism cases by making Geneva Convention inapplicable in US courts Using torture sometimes provides false info from guilty detainees. Victims are smart enough to avoid giving the real answer thus torture is ineffective. “The fact is there has never ever been reported that any information garnered from torture in fact produced accurate "actionable intelligence." However, there are many reported instances of false info extracted through torture that led to disastrously bad actions by the United States,”. Even the FBI agents repeatedly warned interrogators at GB that their aggressive methods were legally risky and ineffective. [[http://goo.gl/AKjjx]] Also, it’s evident that the innocent doesn’t have any info for the govt. What the opp tried to prove is that torture is justified even to these detainees who are innocent. They said a govt should be allowed to torture the innocent to retrieve more info. “The Pentagon has acknowledged 10 cases of abuse or mistreatment at [GM], including a female interrogator climbing onto a detainee's lap and a detainee whose knees were bruised from being forced to kneel repeatedly.” [[http://goo.gl/ae6jY]] As the proposition side, we believe that unnecessary and unjustified torture should be prevented especially in cases from GB.
Guantanamo Bay’s Lack of Transparency Counters American Interests.

First of all, the point that GB’s existence is undemocratic as not all information can be revealed to the public cannot stand for the very reason it is not the way how democracy in the US works. It is not a direct democracy where citizens make all the decisions regarding internal and external policies; it is a representative system. Therefore, voters elect others to take care about national security, military etc. Faith is put into the elected that they can make reasonable and educated decisions. In the same way, our representatives must ensure utmost security of the people, which could not be effectively done if secret information were made public. Knowing that taxpayers’ money is used for protection is enough to request, we are not limiting individual rights by not disclosing confidential matters. In addition to that, some argue that GB is, contrary to the popular belief, one of the most open detention camps in the world [[http://goo.gl/BpSUs]] allowing access to journalists who ultimately monitor the way how inmates are being treated. As of 2007, more than 1,000 reporters, the most significant guarantors of democracy, visited GB. The International Red Cross has, as stated above, access to the facility and it may even interview the inmates regarding their conditions [[http://goo.gl/5sc6J]]. When we consider the resumed military trials that acquitted a great number of detainees in past [[http://goo.gl/3SBgL]] and the fact that the facility is not on US soil, we have to acknowledge that violent interrogation techniques may have been used. Still, the government did so in order to ensure maximum safety of its people, which is its Constitutional obligation. It cannot be revealing every detail of the procedure at GB even if they do not seem acceptable to the Western culture, but the end justifies the means. Provided the willingness of the current administration to change, we do not agree with shutting down GB.
Czech Republic 2011: Summary

Prop has not proved the need for closure, less so immediately. We presented 3 main levels. On principle level that the function of GB is needed. Even if not, there is the possibility of reform, making it transparent and complying with international law. Even if this is not possible, we see the consequences worse with closure. If any of them stands, prop loses the debate. Prop asserted that HR violations take place at GB. It doesn’t mean, however, that GB should be closed. Rather, it has to be improved and shown that the problem still exists. Instead, only not-detailed general reports (Amnesty) or 6 year-old solved cases (Red Cross) have been brought up. Currently, the prisoners have religious rights, access to lawyers as well as habeas corpus and contact with the Red Cross and journalists. We condemn HR violation and we call for punishment. This can be easily achieved without the closure of GB. Some interrogation techniques are justifiable to prevent deaths of thousands of innocent people, which has been shown as effective by many pieces of evidence. The innocent detainees have already been released and the trials take place. Even if it wasn’t justifiable, we don’t see any reason why it should not be improved and reformed. Prop pointed at the lack of transparency, which they consider undemocratic. Thanks to the social contract, transparency is often limited when it endangers public security, which applies to these cases because absolute transparency makes the war on terror ineffective. Even if this doesn’t apply, we see the primary role of the government to protect it citizens and GB is an essential tool for it. Prop claimed that international relations would suffer. Even after the worst revelations about GB, trade, legitimacy and relations have not changed as GB does not undermine states sovereignty. Even if they did, we see greater harms in letting innocent people die by terrorist attacks. However, we showed great economic harms caused by the closure of the facility (which is isolating the prisoners, not the press) by wasting resources. GB isn’t the cause of war of terror or a symbol of Muslim discrimination. Terrorists fight against US as such, or thanks to Iraq or Afghanistan invasion, thus the closure of GB would not solve the situation, as seen Abu Ghraib’s case. Prisoners have absolute freedom of religion. The ethic composition is such because most terrorist come from Muslim countries. Even though, the reform would be the symbol of our tolerance, which would be better gesture than camouflaging past. Prop didn’t present better solution than preserving GB. Moving prisoners would lead to creating a less known and controlled place, which wasn’t reacted. Allowing them to a regular trial would cause release thanks to the lack of legal evidence. If terrorists are released, they can be mistreated more or that they will rejoin terrorist group, which wasn’t reacted again. Both are worse for HR or other innocent people.
Gauntanamo Bay is detrimental to foreign relations for United States.

In our first argument, we clearly proved that a facility like GB is needed to ensure global security and that its maintaining should be of high priority to the US. We regret the iniquities which might have happened. The fundamental thing that has not been tackled by our opponents, however, is the possibility to reform and to denounce the past events. The proposition has been trying to convince us that since the US is a model of freedom and righteousness for many, it should not engage in acts that violate fundamental HR. Nonetheless, before taking HR of others into account, we have to deal with those who infringe upon our own rights of freedom and security or potentially put our people’s lives at stake. Only then can morality be discussed. Furthermore, the proposition has omitted the fact that WoT is not only a matter of the US itself. Basically, the whole world is concerned with security and no country wishes to watch its soil being attacked. That is why it is almost impossible for a major opposition to the GB concept to appear in the future. Rather than being against themselves by insisting on immediate closure of the camp, they should cooperate with the US to reform it as much as possible, exactly as we stress. If it is fulfilled, trials are resumed and prisoners are treated properly, international relations of the US will not worsen as they are based on pragmatism rather than on idealism. Of course everyone would love to live without terrorism but that is not the case, sadly. Another sad thing is that HR violations can be expected in a war; it is only decisive how the offender faces his mistakes and prevents them next time. To put it straight once again, we say that shutting down GB is neither strategic nor effective especially when done immediately as the motion says.
Need of Information

The opposition wants to be realistic instead of idealistic. The War on Terror started 10 years ago and from that time we live in permanent fear. Bombers are not uniformed, they live as normal civilians, which makes any suspicion impossible. The security measures are extremely complicated and not realistic thanks to our limited resources, i.e. protecting every single subway station, public place or institution, as we could see in Madrid in 2004. These measures limit freedoms of citizens due to scanning, monitoring communication etc.To protect our civilians and to guarantee security, we need to have information about terrorist’s steps from inside, for which we need GB. The information about planned attacks are perfectly secured and the human factor is one of the ways to get it. We don’t agree with humiliating techniques and we call for their punishment. On the other hand, we admit that sometimes more radical steps are needed. GB prisoners are not chosen arbitrary. They are detained and questioned for secret information which can help us to prevent other attacks. Leon Panetta, CIA Director, has said “Important information was gathered from there detainees. It provided information that was acted upon.” [[http://goo.gl/UO7Na]] The words are confirmed by John Brennan, Obama’s security advisor: “Enhanced interrogation techniques were necessary to keep America safe” [[http://goo.gl/5ryq1]] The detainees will not voluntarily share the information. Therefore, methods of putting them to unpleasant situations are necessary to disclose the truth. With this information, we are able to impose security measures to protect innocent people. The planned attack on Heathrow Airport using hijacked planes in 2003 or on several targets in Karachi in Pakistan has been prevented [[http://goo.gl/FsTGJ]] . Other prevented attack on the tallest building in LA, California, can just confirm this [[http://goo.gl/O8iRD]] . To conclude, we see GB as essential measure to protect us.
Shift of the Problem

The good thing about matters we do not like is that we know about them. GB is a well known institution with increasing transparency and even if we know that there might be things which are not pleasant happening, it is good that we at least know about it and therefore are able to control it. Such information [[http://goo.gl/ZkNmq]] rang a bell and now the situation is changing and already is better [[http://goo.gl/24L1C]]. However if Guantanamo was closed, we would have no guarantee that it would be the end of whatever might be happening there. A closure could cause opening of a new facility, a secret one, such as secret CIA institutions in Poland and Romania where agents blatently torture the inmates without the public official awareness and, therefore, are not suject to improvement of any kind[[http://goo.gl/923qd]]. The most dangerous individuals are now located in GB, where the security can be achieved as well as transparency. The general public is aware of how they are treated, whereas closure would cause creation of another institution hidden from public [[goo.gl/KU6zh]], which may allow the guards to behave without any limits and consequences causing much greater harms to individuals. In conclusion, rather than being idealistic and closing Guantanamo in order to get rid of all methods which are not snow-white clean, we have to consider the possible consequences and prevent unthinkable things, which might arise on different place without any control over them causing greater harmes.
Principle of security

From the very beginning of the debate, we don’t support torturing people to death, hitting their heads against walls or humiliating, and we also call for its strong punishment. What we need to realize is which kind of detainees are in GB - leaders of terrorist groups, operatives and material supporters of terrorism. These people are highly dangerous to society and consequences of their release would be terrible. The possibility of innocent being detained has been reduced by releasing most of the detainees (from 800 in 2009 to current 172). The high chance of obtaining information from the remaining ones must be exploited in order to keep public security even with the use of some harsher interrogation methods [[http://goo.gl/knpa7]] . The war on terror includes each of us and any information is essential to prevent deaths of thousands of people. These methods have results and they are effective and crucial for prevention [[http://goo.gl/pou4P]] . We have prevented another terrorist attack on Heathrow and Canary Wharf [[http://goo.gl/tQFi7]] . If any of them had been carried out, the amount of deaths would have been in thousands or even more. Still, the prisoners have habeas corpus and access to lawyers [[http://goo.gl/y9GWI]] [[http://goo.gl/7RXw6]] , who already keep a sufficient standard. Even if this was not a sufficient reason, we believe that GB can get more transparent and to the international level of behavior. This base is isolated on an island, which means that it is hard to escape for prisoners and they are well secured, but it doesn’t mean that Red Cross and journalists cannot access and therefore ensure transparency. International standard of handling detainees can be achieved easily by limiting guards by supervisors as is in every other prison and it is not a sufficient reason to close this extraordinary and well-built prison, but rather to reform it, which would fulfill its purpose and keep in line with HR guideline
Guantanamo Bay’s Lack of Transparency Counters American Interests.

GB undemocratically burdens US citizens in terms of both liberties and finances. What is worse than inhumane actions conducted at GB is that the Pentagon has been reluctant to allow the Red Cross or other aid agencies to visit the detainees and inspect their living conditions. If there were no scrutiny to investigate any situations that are made within that place, there is no boundary to limit the actions of soldiers in a sense that interrogation wouldn’t build up to harming the individual’s rights. “In 2002, Executive Order that the detainees at GB should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, ‘to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity.’ [[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20061122.html?ref=jauin.da.ru]] Since investigations can't be made in camps, the documents do not detail the controversial techniques used to obtain information from detainees. This is why there is a concern over the admissibility of evidence collected during torture. Human Rights Watch has obtained an unredacted copy of al-Qahtani's interrogation log, and believes that the techniques used during al-Qahtani's interrogation were so abusive that they amounted to torture. Since US has been a leader of human rights internationally, it will be contradictory for the govt to allow these kind of human right violation, especially secretly. Ultimately, secrecy and isolation of GB would eventually encourage further acts of violence. Moreover, citizens have no right in what their tax money is being spent on—which is often times through undemocratic methods. The fact that they don’t know where the money goes makes it undemocratic because informed decisions are a principle of the democratic process. US citizens must have the right to know how their tax money is spent, especially if it is spent on human rights violation. When this is not made, what is the use of holding a detainee camp that goes against the country that is in charge of the institution?
Gauntanamo Bay is detrimental to foreign relations for United States.

It is evident that GB does not meet international standards of handling their detainees and therefore frowned upon by numerous nations such as Britain, France, and Germany.[[http://goo.gl/8uqMl]] Especially Muslim communities dislike GB for their disrespect for Muslim prisoners and for their religion within the center. [[http://goo.gl/wrkKz]] As mentioned in C3, this can negatively fuel terrorism, opposite of the US’s initial incentive. US is one of the western liberal democratic countries who support democracy, freedom and human rights globally. However, GB violates fundamental human rights and this distorts US’s reputation and its image of a role model for other countries to follow. This results in many negative outcomes for the US. First of all, they lose their international authority to request other countries to stop violation of human rights. Prop would like to remind there were/are wars where US fought simply for protection of human rights in other countries. Continuing to keep GB is going against their constitutional values that the US were found upon, and makes what US fought for meaningless. Also this hurts the US’s trade relationships with western countries who do not support GB, which is obviously not in the interests of the country. Most importantly, keeping GB is one of the US’s effort to win WOT. In order to win this war, the US needs international support. It is problematic because US is carrying out human rights violation they exactly oppose by declaring war on terror, and therefore is going to lose the support they need to win this war if GB continues to exist. UN, along with many other organizations such as Amnesty Int and HumanRightsWatch have already called on US to close down the center. John McCain "Ultimately, [whether to close down GB or not] is about morality. We are America, and we hold ourselves to a higher standard. That is what is really at stake." [[http://goo.gl/EeWYi]]