BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Palestinian cause has no shortage of advocates in the UN this would add nothing to the discussion

The United Nations fulfills a number of roles but perhaps its foremost function is to act as an arbiter in international disputes. To do that effectively it needs to reflect the opinions of the international community and deal in realpolitik. As things stand that would make it impossible for the organisation to take what would be seen as a partisan stance. Recognising the existence of a state which could at best be described as aspirational, and at worst as a fantasy, would put an intolerable burden on the UN’s ability to act as an impartial agent in negotiations.
The UN has historically recognised statehood when nations achieve it, not when they ask for it or wish it

Palestine is a unique case; the UN removed its statehood during the creation of Israel. They are, perhaps ironically, Ishmael and Isaac to the UN’s Abraham. One recognised and the other shunned. The issue of statehood for Palestine was a misstep created at the inception of the UN as fallout of the decline of the British Empire and the emergence of American hegemony. If this were an entirely new issue of the world scene then many of the caveats raised by opposition would by justifiable but the reality is that this is simply a case of clearing up an old injustice.
Palestine has its own infrastructure and government and is, in all meaningful ways a state

In any meaningful way Palestine is a state. It may well be one at war with a neighbour and in dispute over its boundaries but the only reason it has yet to be recognised is that it would be politically inconvenient for the US, Israel and their allies. There are plenty of nations that do not function in line with European and North American concepts of statehood, Afghanistan for example, however they take their seat at the UN and add their voice to the choir of nations[i]. There are even other member states that are not recognised by every other member state, Israel is not recognised by 33 UN members[ii] and the People’s Republic of China is not recognised by 23 UN members.[iii] [i] John Quigley. “Statehood for Palestine: International law in the Middle East Conflict”. Cambridge University Press, 2010. [ii] Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, ‘Background Note: Israel’, U.S. Department of State, 10 December 2010, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm [iii] Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, ‘Background Note: China’, U.S. Department of State, 6 September 2011, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm
Palestine is a legal entity and deserves to have its voice heard on an equal footing with Israel

Nobody can dispute that Palestine functions as a nation, its citizens are governed within the jurisdiction of a government that is one of the closest observed in the world. Abbas has as much right to speak for the Palestinian people as any other world leader does for theirs and that reality is reflected in the fact that he and other members of his administration negotiate with other nation states and international bodies. Palestine is for example a member of numerous International Organisations the most recent of which is joining UNESCO in November 2011.[i] If Palestine can be treated as a state for the purposes of signing international treaties and negotiating with the Israeli[ii] and other governments then it is only sensible that it should be awarded the benefits and status that come with statehood, of which recognition by the UN is one. [i] UNESCO, ‘Palestine’, unesco.org, 2011, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/arab-states/palestine/ [ii] Jewish Virtual Library, ‘Israel-PLO Recognition’, 9 September 1993, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html
The issue of Israel/Palestine has been a major one for the UN for sixty years, it is simply unfair that one of the parties represented and the other one is not

The territory claimed by both the state of Israel and the state of Palestine is contested. These matters should be settled by the UN but this is not possible when one of the parties is represented but the other is not. It is simply against the principles of natural justice – let alone the precepts of international law – for only one party in any dispute to be fully represented where the other is not. Essentially, this is a fraud that has been perpetrated for over sixty years, in the interests of politics, justice has been ignored; Israel has been given recognition when Palestine has not, which body has the right to speak for the populace of that disputed territory should not be a matter imposed from outside but for the inhabitants of the land itself.
The Palestinian cause has no shortage of advocates in the UN this would add nothing to the discussion

The entire Arab League is already perfectly capable of speaking for the Palestinian cause in the United Nations. There are established nations whose leaders have not addressed a full meeting of the General Assembly as frequently as leaders of the Palestinian cause, even the leader of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas has addressed the General Assembly as he did in September 2011.[i] It is the only geo-political issue that routinely impacts upon the conduct of the elections of other nations, the plight of the Palestinian issue is the stuff of newspaper headlines around the world while other, arguably more serious, concerns go unvoiced. It is difficult to see how admitting Palestine as a member state would bring any more focus to the issue in practical terms. [i] ‘Full transcript of Abbas speech at UN General Assembly’, Haaretz.com, 23 September 2011, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/full-transcript-of-abbas-s...
The UN has historically recognised statehood when nations achieve it, not when they ask for it or wish it

Establishing statehood is a matter for international law and, as things stand, Palestine is not a state. Since 1990, 34 new countries have been created – mostly as a result of the collapse of the former USSR[i]. Palestine is not among them and does not look set to be any time soon. There have been many separatist movements in countries all over the world from the Basque region to Aceh. These often have similarly legitimate grievances as the Palestinians but the UN does not recognise them. Any one of those nations, or at least movements within them may have wished for recognition by the UN but they did not receive it because the UN is bound to recognise what is, not what might be. [i] Matt Rosenburg. “New Countries of the world”. 10 July 2011. About.com
Simplifying the language could improve child literacy.

The language itself isn’t always to blame. It is often argued that too much emphasis is placed on the relationship between spelling and sounds, and that English can be taught more effectively using the ‘look and say’[1] method. If this was implemented more widely, so that children associated the word with what it represents rather than what it sounds like, then the teaching process would almost certainly accelerate. Languages such as Chinese and Japanese which are based on symbols rather than letters rely heavily on this method of teaching, and it is this difference that often makes learning their languages such a challenge for Europeans and Americans[2]. The frequency with which words such as "to, you, your, very, many"  are used has, according to Vivian Cook, moved them into the realm of signifiers (like “£” registering instantaneously as “pound”) rather than words that rely on sound. Because we use them so often, we are soon aware of the subtle differences and tend only to misspell them when not fully paying attention. [1] Teaching Treasures, 'look and say'. [2] BBC News 'How hard is it to learn Chinese?'.
Making English easier would be especially beneficial to people learning English as a second language.

The very fact that English has been so successful shows that it is not too complicated for people to learn as a second language. Although specific pronunciation may take longer to master in English than most other languages, this does not hinder people in becoming literate to an acceptable standard. If anything, making the language phonetic would make things much harder for non-English speakers. Other than context (something which is often difficult to grasp) there would be no way to tell the exact meaning of words like “your/you’re” and “there/their/they’r
Changing the language could have social benefits - it would remove a layer of class superiority which is presently judged by literacy.

That language is a key part in the intellectual development of children is not in question. At no point however, does the research suggest anything about the fundamental make-up of the language having an effect on the social outcome of the child. The solution to the problem is better teaching and better communication - changing the system to a phonetic one will not fix the fact that poorer children are generally exposed to fewer words and have less of an opportunity to learn in their formative years.
English isn’t too complicated - if it was it wouldn’t have survived, so there is no need for change.

If other languages found it necessary to change because of complications and increasingly vague definitions then why not English? The English Spelling Society (tESS) argue that the problems with the language run far deeper than a few confusing idioms, showing that 55% of English words do not actually conform to the rules of the language[1]. Just because English has managed to survive doesn’t mean it can’t be improved. tESS also suggests that there are significant economic impacts to the complications in the language, making a connection between education and crime: “Education is the proven best way to prevent re-offending. In countries where the literacy rates of prisoners are generally higher, improving their education while behind bars is also much easier. The poor literacy skills of many English-speaking offenders make this more difficult and repeated returns to jail more likely, with very high social and economic costs”[2]. Changing the language to improve literacy could be beneficial, and surely even if there is no ‘need’ to do this, it is a positive thing nonetheless. [1] The English Spelling Society, 'Argument for the complexity of English and the economic costs' [2] The English Spelling Society, 'Argument for the complexity of English and the economic costs'.   improve this
The logistical implications of making such changes are impossibly impractical.

The language has been changed in the past, and even in more recent times languages have been standardized and altered to make them simpler. The scale of doing this for English would undoubtedly be massive, though the process wouldn’t have to happen quickly. With the advent of modern technology, we have seen English adapt and become phonetic all by itself in the form of “text speak”[1]. The logistical difficulties could as such be made less of a problem by using these natural advances to implement the new phonetic system. The changes also wouldn’t have to be that drastic - English could be greatly simplified, as Ken Smith argues, by “putting the 20 or so of the most commonly mispelt words in the English language on the same footing as those other words that have a widely accepted variant spelling”[2] [1] BBC News, 'Istxt mightier than the word?', 2003.  [2] Smith, 'Just spell it like it is', 2008,
There would be significant cultural consequences to consider, the English language has evolved over a very long time, and to change it just to make it ‘easier’ would in fact complicate matters in many cases.

Many people believe its lengthy and varied historical past is actually the language’s main problem. Perhaps more than any other language, English has taken influence from numerous foreign invasions, the rise of international trade with London at the heart of the world, all on top of the natural development of the native tongue. In the Times Higher Education Supplement, Ken Smith argues that these historical nuances in the language are unnecessary: “We spell the word "February" the way we do only because it is taken from the Latin word februa, the Roman festival of purification. Similarly, the "correct" spelling of the word "Wednesday" comes from the Old English Wodnes daeg, or Woden's day. But why should we still pay homage today to a pagan god or a Roman festival of purification?”[1] This point is especially poignant when we consider that it is these irrelevant historical relationships which are making English so difficult for people to master. [1] Smith, 'Just spell it like it is', 2008,
Simplifying the language could improve child literacy.

A survey taken in 2003 which shows that English children take as much as three times longer to learn basics of the language than the European average[1]. It seems that the main problem is the fact that there are illogical inconsistencies in spelling, pronunciation and meaning at a fundamental level in words that are essential in everyday use. Masha Bell suggests that “ the irregular spellings of common words like "to, you, your, very, many" are particularly noxious because they keep undermining the basic English spelling system and so make it harder for children to learn it”.[2] If we wish to improve child literacy across the board, there would potentially be a great economic benefit in the future, as a higher standard of consistency would reduce the burden on the education system and provide a more literate workforce. [1] Bell, 'pressures on parents', 2010,  [2] Bell and Cook, 'Should we simplify spelling', 2007,
Making English easier would be especially beneficial to people learning English as a second language.

English is the third largest language in the world in terms of the total number of native speakers[1]. When the people who speak English as a second language are taken into account, it becomes by far and away the biggest language in the world - a fact that could easily change if English isn’t made easier to learn for those who are not native speakers. Masha Bell once more suggests that “Foreign learners can never be sure how to pronounce an English word without hearing it first”[2], so in a period in which nations such as China and India are becoming more powerful economically than the likes of the USA and European nations, then changing to a more phonetic system would surely help maintain English as the main language of commerce. [1] Wikipedia, 'list of languages by number of native speakers'.  [2] Bell and Cook, 'Should we simplify spelling', 2007,
Changing the language could have social benefits - it would remove a layer of class superiority which is presently judged by literacy.

Research by the National Literacy Trust found that “A key ingredient in determining future social class is language: the basic tool for thought, argument, reasoning and making sense of a confusing world”[1]. If language is such a key part of what makes up the class system, and people in general believe in equal opportunities and the eventual dissolution of that class system, then surely making the language more accessible to those who do not receive as good an education is a step in the direction of a fairer society. Those from affluent backgrounds are likely to hear, speak and be taught many more words in their formative years - making the language easier to learn for those who do not have this advantage is surely a good thing. [1] Toynbee, 'We can break the vice of the great unmentionable', 2004
Changing would not be difficult

Changing the whole language is going to take a long time in order to make a complete change. Even if the all the English speaking nations agreed on a method of simplifying the language there would be millions who would need to unlearn some of what they were taught. The new simple form of English would be taught in schools so the next generation and subsequent generations would grow up knowing it. There would be a significant divergence in how different people spell many English words. However this would not be a problem as there are already many instances where different generations, or different regions spell or speak the same language in different ways. Indeed standardisation of spelling only dates from the 18th Century when Samuel Johnson published his Dictionary of the English Language.[1] As such it should not pose a problem to have different the different formats of English operating alongside each other. [1] Kemmer, 'The history of english' 2009,
English isn’t too complicated - if it was it wouldn’t have survived, so there is no need for change.

The problems people face when learning English are more often than not idiomatic. Even those who campaign for the simplification of the language like Masha Bell admit this (she writes in phonetic English) - “Yes, as a language, English is exceptionally easy to lern. Compared with the six uther European languages which I hav studied (Lithuanian, Russian, German, French, Spanish and Italian), it has almost no grammatical difficulties whatsoever..the onely linguistic aspects I found tricky wer idiomatic expressions like "get off, back up, turn up"[1]. Languages develop and evolve naturally, and it is only through artificial intervention that any have become phonetic - such as the standardization of Finnish in the mid 20th century[2]. [1] Bell and Cook, 'Should we simplify spelling', 2007. [2] Wikipedia, 'Nykysuomen sanakirja'.
The logistical implications of making such changes are impossibly impractical.

Probably the strongest argument against the motion to change the English language is that the fundamental process of doing so would be utterly impossible. As we have seen, English is spoken or at least understood by more people than any other language. This begs the question, where would you begin teaching the new system? Any money that might be saved teaching students for a shorter time would be dwarfed by the resources required to “re-educate” the 2 billion people alive today that can already understand the language to some degree. Add to that the innumerable books (Google claims to have worked out that there have been just under 130M books written - of course not all in English[1]), road signs and even labels on food packaging that would need to be changed, and the scale of the problem can perhaps be understood. [1] McGee, 'How many books are there on Earth? Google knows', 2010
There would be significant cultural consequences to consider, the English language has evolved over a very long time, and to change it just to make it ‘easier’ would in fact complicate matters in many cases.

Words that carry cultural backgrounds often carry specific meanings which align with their seemingly odd spelling or pronunciation. The cultural background to words such as “February” are more than simply an inconvenience. They form an essential part of our cultural history that would be instantly erased were the language to be changed. If anything, these words are made more memorable because of their historical background - the fact that they are spelt in an unusual and seemingly illogical way can, if the teaching method is good enough, be used to help people remember both the word and its etymological background. Especially in the case of words with historical backgrounds it is surely important that they are preserved and taught, just as any other historical event or artefact should be preserved and learnt from. The very meanings of the words would also be altered if the spelling was changed - in an article in The Times, Libby Purves points out that “the prime purpose of language is to convey meaning: a lawyer’s tort is neither taut nor taught, nor a restaurateur’s torte”[1]. Words do not conform to general rules often because they mean something different to a word which sounds the same. [1] Purves, 'Proposturos! Words wud lose there meening', 2008,
The army has no place in a modern democracy

The army should not have a position of influence in democratic, civilian politics. It is generally accepted that the military’s responsibility is to the state[1]. This means that they cannot become involved in the governing of said state, as this is a breach of the civil-military relationship. According to Huntington, ‘Politics is beyond the scope of military competence, and the participation of military officers in politics undermines their professionalism’[2]. It is important, therefore, that civilian supremacy is maintained and that the military is subservient to the civilian government. In modern democracies it is expected that the government is held to account at the polls, as long as they act legally, rather than military whims. There is also a tendency for military figures to feel more inclined towards intervention in civil society after their initial attempt, as demonstrated by the most recent military coup as the military had previously taken charge between the fall of Mubarak and Morsi’s election.  For this reason, the overthrow of the civilian government at the hands of the Egyptian military is flawed. [1] May et al., 2004 [2] Huntington, 1957 pg. 16
Morsi Undermined Democratic Principles

The post-Morsi leadership, with the assistance of the military, have arguably continued the trend of undemocratic governing. These actions have given the impression that they are acting hypocritically by removing Morsi. In November 2013 a new law was enacted which banned peaceful protest without prior notification to the police. Believed to be aimed at Morsi’s supporters and the Muslim Brotherhood, this law sought to curb protests being conducted against the Egyptian army’s leadership[1]. As protest is a political right, many human rights groups have had a negative response to this legislation. Defiance of these laws has led to the use of teargas and violence to disperse crowds[2]. The new constitution also places the defence ministry firmly in the hands of the military, giving policy control to an unelected official[3]. The claims of the military backed authorities being anti-democratic illustrate the hypocrisy of removing Morsi. [1] Guerin, 2013 [2] el-Deen, 2013 [3] Aswat Masriya, 2013
Failed to gain control of the Egyptian crisis

There have been continued protests and violence since the military coup. The post-Morsi leadership and the Egyptian army have therefore done little to bring the Egyptian crisis under control. The most notable incident was on 14th August 2013, over a month since the military coup removed Morsi, when over one thousand people were killed in a day’s fighting between security forces and protestors. Human Rights Watch declared that this was ‘the most serious incident of mass unlawful killings in modern Egyptian history’.[1] Even after the ban on un-notified protesting there have been continued demonstrations of civil disobedience. Due to the handling of these demonstrations the USA has threatened to cut some of its $1.3 billion military aid to Egypt[2].  This inability to gain control of the situation echoes the reasoning for removing Morsi. [1] Loveluck, 2013 [2] Sciutto & Labott, 2013
Morsi’s economic and social policies had been ineffective and unpopular

The Morsi government arguably did not have enough time to deal with Egypt’s economic conditions. Tourism and investment had already been in decline prior to Morsi assuming power[1]. The global perception of Egypt as unstable was unavoidable following the revolution which had deposed Mubarak. The ex-dictator had been a symbol of security and stability prior to the Arab Spring. Tourism dropped from 14.7 million people to 9.8 million in the first year post-Mubarak, which led to a loss of revenue[2]. Unemployment had been on the rise prior to the Arab Spring, as was the cost of living. Morsi’s establishment had only been given one year to resolve the economic crisis which was insufficient time to put any economic recovery plan in to full effect. [1] The World Bank, accessed 2013 [2] Bakr, 2012