BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Employee Free Choice Act eliminates workers' right to secret ballots

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), an opponent of the bill, stated "It is beyond me how one can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone – your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers – knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee 'free choice...It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to ensure that a worker is 'free to choose' is to ensure that there's a private ballot, so that no one knows how you voted. I cannot fathom how we were about to sit there today and debate a proposal to take away a worker's democratic right to vote in a secret-ballot election and call it 'Employee Free Choice.'" [1]
Difficulty enforcing GM food labels limits actual consumer choices.

It is very difficult to test foods to ensure that those that are considered "GM free" are actually "free" of GM materials. This is an obvious practical issue, especially when one considers how high the volume of food products is and how rapidly they are consumed. Ensuring, by testing, that each harvest and item of food appearing on store shelves is at or below a certain level of GM-ingredients is obviously very difficult, and perhaps even impossible. This means that consumers are likely to be consuming GM ingredients even when they are consuming foods with GM-free labels. Thus, the actual choice of consumers to avoid GM foods is actually very limited, even with labels, due to these practical constraints on labels.
Labeling is part of efforts to stigmatize GM foods

George Misko. "Oppose Mandatory Labeling For Genetically Modified Food Ingredients." Food & Drug Packaging. July, 1999: "Why is [labeling] proposed? Because the proponents wish to stigmatize those products with a label notice that has the effect of a warning. And stigmatize, such a label will. To cite one example: In the United Kingdom, the popular press has, through a campaign of misinformation, created near-hysteria by slanderously referring to food products containing GMO derivatives as 'Frankenstein Foods.'"
Labeling of genetically modified foods is costly.

Labeling of genetically modified foods costs money. It is not free. It requires that all companies be regulated, that they ensure that they have or do not have a certain level of GM ingredients in their foods, and that labels be placed on these food products. This would be very expensive. This would harm prices, jobs, salaries, and overall economic health. It would also probably require an increase in taxes to fund new regulatory bodies for GM foods.
Labeling internalizes risks for those choosing to eat GM foods.

Labeling foods makes it possible for individuals to choose to take on the risks involved, or to avoid them. This makes it similar to smoking, eating fatty foods, or even something like rock climbing. The individual that adopts the risks adopts them with fully knowledge, and assumes the potential harm entirely on their own. This is opposed to a society without labeling, where individuals do not have the choice as to whether to adopt the risks, which is unjust.
Defining GM and non-GM foods is nearly impossible.

Almost all foods are genetically modified in some way, either by cross-breeding of species, selective harvesting, or more modern engineering. Defining only the more modern approaches as the GM foods and not the other, more ancient methods of genetic engineering runs into difficulties. In addition, what about cases in which a single ingredient is genetically modified? A good example is the corn and feedstock that is consumed by cattle. Should the resulting meat be considered genetically modified? The challenge lies in drawing the line, and the line is likely to be arbitrary.
Cost of labeling GM foods are exaggerated by opponents

"Report Shows Cost to Label Genetically Engineered Food is Overblown." Organic Consumers Association. March 19, 2007: "Mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods would cost much less than the food industry has claimed, a new study commissioned by Quebec's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reveals. [...] The as-yet-unpublished study, obtained by The Gazette, estimates the yearly cost of such a program at Cdn$28 million (US$23.8 million) to Quebec's food industry and Cdn$1.7 million ($1.4 million) to the provincial government. [...] Previous studies commissioned by the food industry - and cited by the federal and Quebec governments as reason not to act on the issue - pegged the annual cost of implementing such a system at up to Cdn$950 million ($807.7 million) (both government and industry) for the whole country, and up to Cdn$200 million ($170 million) in Quebec alone."
Labeling requires separate processing of GM and non-GM foods

"Labelling of GM foods. Pros and Cons of Major Labelling Approaches." Think Quest: "A At present, GM crops/foods and non-GM crops/foods are often mixed together during harvesting, storage or processing. It would be necessary to establish a system to segregate these crops along the food supply chain, especially when the trade would like to source for non-GM food products. Hence additional cost would be incurred to establish and maintain segregation systems."
GM labeling improves confidence in food safety measures

"Importance of labeling GM foods". GM.org: "Importance of labeling GM foods. An effective and successful labeling strategy for GM foods is impossible unless we develop precise traceability mechanisms to identify where GM ingredients are in the food chain. Regulatory and scientific inability to map out GM food products from fields to tables may act to lessen public confidence regarding food security. So in order to increase consumer confidence and trust in GM food products, information about improved traceability methods should be provided."
Labeling is wrong when GM foods show no differences with other foods

"What’s the Problem with Labeling Genetically-Modified (GM/GMO) Foods?" Monsanto Statement: "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees food labeling laws in the United States. The FDA has determined that where genetically-modified crops don’t differ from non-GM crops, that products containing them don’t have to be labeled. FDA does require the product to be labeled if the ingredient is a potential allergen, or somehow changes the nutritional properties of the food. To date, no approved biotech crop is either an allergen, or has any significant nutritional differences from non-GM counterparts."
Mandatory labeling disincentivizes innovation in food technology

George Misko. "Oppose Mandatory Labeling For Genetically Modified Food Ingredients." Food & Drug Packaging. July, 1999: "Without innovation, there would be no polio vaccine, no revolution in electronic information available over the internet, and, yes, no disease-resistant, higher-yielding crops to feed the world's hungry through genetic modification achieved by such traditional means as hybridization. Today, critical advances in biotechnology hold the promise of alleviating hunger and malnutrition, so there can be no compromise when some oppose innovation simply because it is new."
Labeling helps protect the legitimate place of GM foods.

Labeling may actually be critical in protecting what might be called the "legitimate place" or niche for genetically modified foods, such as the use of GM foods to help end malnutrition in some countries. Without such labeling, public anxiety and fears are likely to grow over their inability to avoid the potential harms of GM foods. With such labeling, those that want to avoid the food can do so and will not cry out as loudly about GM foods. This will help protect the more legitimate role of GM foods from growing public fears and criticism.
Insects are likely to become resistant to GM crops

Deborah B. Whitman. "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?" CSA. April 2000: "Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides." In other words, GM crops are not necessarily more cost-effective than non-GM foods that rely on pesticides.
Arbitrary labeling rules do not offer any real choice

Gregory Conko. "Mandatory Labeling Is A Bad Idea." Objective Science. March 23, 2003: "Although GM food labelling is already mandatory, advocates claim that the stronger new labelling and traceability rules will ensure that consumers have more complete information, enabling them to make informed choices. In truth, the measures will do no such thing. Both the existing and the proposed labelling regulations only require certain categories of GM foods to be labelled, and provide no context for why some are to be labelled and others exempt. So to make truly informed choices, shoppers must rely upon other sources of information."
Labeling of GM foods alarms and turns-away consumers.

Labeling of GM foods would create an immediate sense among consumers that there is something wrong with GM foods. This is particularly true when considering that most consumers are not too nuanced in their understanding of the nature of GM foods, the debate surrounding them, the alleged risks, and the fact that most of the foods they are consuming are already genetically engineered in some way. It is naive to believe that consumers would feel better and more assured after the labeling of these products, or that they would feel empowered by a new-found choice. Instead, they would be alarmed and the number of labels appearing on the shelves, and would become more anxious about GM foods. This would be unfortunate in many regards, most important of which is the fact that there is no hard evidence that GM foods are any riskier than ordinary crops and food produce.
Labeling gives consumers a choice on consuming GM foods

Craig Holdrege. "Why don't we label genetically modified food?" The Land Institute. October 18, 2002: "When you buy reconstituted orange juice at the supermarket, the label tells you it is 'from concentrate.' For this you can thank the Food and Drug Administration, with its mandate to promote 'honest and fair dealing with consumers.' [...] Part of the idea is to ensure that foods are truthfully labeled so producers cannot deceive consumers. Labels must include information about amounts, contents, additives such as vitamins and preservatives, and processing methods ('from concentrate'). [...] So why is your bag of corn chips containing genetically modified corn silent about this fact?"
Deterrence and targeted strikes better than Gaza blockade.

Ehud Eiran. "End the Siege, but Keep Arms Out." New York Times. June 1, 2010: "Gaza has been used as a base for a 10-year shelling operation against southern Israel. This is our most acute security concern. [...] The siege does limit the amount and quality of weapons at Hamas’s disposal, but following the 2008-2009 attack on Gaza, Israel relies primarily on deterrence and the occasional follow-up military action."
UN called Gaza blockade illegal human rights violation

On January 24, 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council released a statement calling for Israel to lift its siege on the Gaza Strip, allow the continued supply of food, fuel, and medicine, and reopen border crossings.[6] According to the Jerusalem Post, this was the 15th time in less than two years the council condemned Israel for its human rights record regarding the Palestinian territories.[7] The proceedings were boycotted by Israel and the United States.
Gaza blockade is consistent with precedents of WWII blockades

"WSJIDEBATE: Israel’s Gaza Blockade Is Justified." Shikhar "Singh: Yes, Legally and Morally" on Wall Street Journal. June 8th, 2010: "given a country’s right to security and self-preservation, a blockade could be affected in international waters. This has been practice for sometime now, including when Britain and the U.S. blockaded Germany and Japan."
Blockade delegitimizes Hamas, preservers two-state solution

Yossi Klein Halevi. "There’s No Alternative." New York Times Room for Debate. June 1, 2010: "The political rationale for the siege is that only by eroding Hamas’s power can the two-state solution remain viable. So long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza, the Israeli public, which now overwhelmingly supports the principle of two states, will not agree to withdraw from the West Bank."
Sanctions/blockades always harm civilians; Gaza blockade fine

"Israel's Gaza blockade: It works." LA Times. June 8th, 2010: "why isn't the world outraged by the wholesale deprivation we're inflicting on the North Koreans? Why do we even bother talking about sanctions against Iran, which will surely hurt the average Iranian more than the mullahs and the kleptocrats running the Revolutionary Guard. [...] Only one blockade is deemed indefensibly beyond the pale: Israel's blockade of Gaza. Why? Because it imposes 'collective punishment.'"
Blockade damages Gaza fishing industry

Israel allows fishermen to travel only 3 nautical miles offshore, reduced from 6nm in 2007. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has estimated that Gaza fishermen need to journey at least 12-15 nautical miles from shore to catch larger shoals, and sardines in particular are 6 nm offshore. Shoals closer to shore have been depleted. The total catch in 1999 was nearly 4,000 tons in pre-blockade 1999. This was reduced to 2,700 tons in 2008.
Cease-fire invalideates blockade-justification of "war" w/ Hamas

Marcelo Kohen, a law professor at Geneva’s Graduate Institute of International Studies, argued that "There is also at present a cease-fire on Gaza. Under [Israel's] logic one could maintain a maritime blockade unendingly. It only requires one party to consider itself as being in a ‘state of war.'" Therefore, Israel cannot justify its blockade and flotilla-raid in international waters on the grounds that it is "at war" or "in conflict" with Hamas.
Israeli blockade is supported by Egyptian blockade of Gaza

Israel is not the only country blockading Gaza. Gaza's other neighbor, Egypt, is also blockading Gaza on the grounds that Hamas is a threat to its security. This demonstrates at the very least that Israel is not alone in its analysis, and it also is notably in the way that Egypt is a predominantly-Muslim country; the fact that it believes Hamas is a threat must mean that Hamas really is a threat, worthy of being blockaded.
Israeli blockade of Gaza has failed to meet objectives

"Israel's siege mentality." The Economist. Jun 3rd 2010: "The blockade of Gaza is cruel and has failed. The Gazans have suffered sorely but have not been starved into submission. Hamas has not been throttled and overthrown, as Israeli governments (and many others) have wished. Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier taken hostage, has not been freed. Weapons and missiles can still be smuggled in through tunnels from Egypt."
Gaza blockade harms too many civilians for small military gains.

Douglas Guilfoyle, a specialist in international and maritime law at University College London: "The real question is: 'Is the blockade itself lawful?' Everything else turns on that [...] [The blockade is illegal] if it will cause excessive damage to the civilian population in relation to the military advantage gained... so therefore intercepting a vessel on the high seas to support or enforce the blockade would not be lawful."[2]
Israeli blockade of Gaza is legal during conflict with Hamas

Leslie Gelb. "Israel was right." The Daily Beast. May 31, 2010: "Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters. There would be a general violation only if the hostile actions against the ships took place in waters under the jurisdiction of another sovereign state. Thus, for example, if the Israelis stopped the ships in Egyptian waters, that would have been a violation." Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, Chicago Law School Professor Eric Posner, and Johns Hopkins international law Professor Ruth Wedgwood all argue that the blockade is legal."
Israel devastated Gaza in 2008, blockade prevents reconstruction

"Human Rights Watch slams Gaza blockade" Big News Network. June 8th, 2010: "Israel's comprehensive blockade of the Gaza Strip [...] has prevented significant reconstruction, including in areas where Human Rights Watch has documented destruction. Israel has allowed imports of cement for several repair projects, but United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted in late March that these were 'a drop in a bucket' compared to housing needs."
Lifting blockade would reward antics of flotilla activists

Jonah Goldberg. "Israel's Gaza blockade: It works." Los Angeles Times. June 8th, 2010: "this is a terrible moment to consider abandoning the blockade. Why? Because it would rightly be seen as giving the organizers and supporters of this seaborne propaganda stunt a victory. It would signal that America can be conned. It would reward Turkey's outrageous insult to us (a NATO ally) and to Israel, a longtime friend of Turkey."
Blockade is necessary to prevent smuggled weapons

"New Ship Headed for Gaza Despite Israeli Prohibitions". News Blaze. The Israel Project. June 2010 Legal expert Sarah Weiss Maudi: "The Hamas regime has bombarded Israeli communities in Israel, Israeli civilians in Israel, with weapons that are smuggled to Gaza by various routes, and one of these routes is the sea. Under international law a maritime blockade is a recognized and legitimate tool that can be used during an armed conflict."
Critics of Israeli blockade apply double standards

Daniel Gordis. "A botched raid, a vital embargo." New York Times. June 2, 2010: "Israelis are resigned to the fact that reason will not shake the world’s blatant double standard. Our blockade of Gaza is “criminal”; yet nobody mentions that Egypt has had a blockade of Gaza in place since 2007, and has never hesitated to use lethal force against those trying to break it. Israel’s attempt to enforce a blockade becomes an international crisis, while most of the world shrugs when North Korea sinks a South Korean ship. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared his willingness to sit with Fatah leaders any time, anywhere, but they insist on mere “proximity talks,” which they will probably now scuttle, using the flotilla as an excuse."
Israel controls too much of Gaza; it is an occupier.

After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer occupied Gaza with troops. But, Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza (except for the tunnels). Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid. So, while Israel may not have troops in Gaza any more, it has too much control over too many areas of life there. It is, effectively, an occupier, and its blockade should be seen in this context.
Israel is vulnerable; can't cave to global opinion on blockade

Daniel Gordis. "A botched raid, a vital embargo." New York Times. June 2, 2010: "Israel’s geographic vulnerability means that we do not have the luxury of caving in to the world’s condemnation. We will have to gird ourselves for the long, dangerous and lonely road ahead, buoyed by hope that what ultimately prevails will be not what is momentarily popular, but rather what is just."
Damaging Hamas economically is a legitimate security interests

"WSJIDEBATE: Israel’s Gaza Blockade Is Justified. Shikhar Singh: Yes, Legally and Morally." June 8th, 2010: "There has been shrill criticism of the blockade and its effectiveness in the long term. Much of that maybe true but the point is this: if Israel perceives it can minimize the threat from Hamas using economic coercion, then that becomes central to its security concern whether it is successful or not. In that sense, the economic blockade (contestable as it may be), is part of Israel’s security apparatus."
Animals have rights and it is wrong to kill them needlessly.

Humans are animals too and it is not possible morally to set us apart from other species. Animals may not be as clever as people, but a baby is less intelligent than an ape and we don’t say that means it should have fewer rights. Like us, animals can feel pleasure and pain, and they suffer if they are shut up and forced to live and eat in unnatural ways. Many religious people believe that all life is sacred, and that nothing should be made to suffer without need. For these reasons killing and eating animals is a form of murder.
Protecting animals from suffering by humans is a matter of animal welfare not rights.

Many supposed animal rights activists claim that they desire to see animals have a right against suffering at the hands of humans. This might be a good idea, but it is false to claim that it is a "right". Such an idea can only be classified within the realm of animal welfare. The main reason is that it is only something that is practiced by humans unto animals, and can never be claimed or defended by animals out of their own accord. The idea only restricts humans against inflicting suffering on animals, but does not restrict animals from inflicting suffering on other animals (not even animals within their own species). Because it is a one-way relationship in this sense (from human-kind unto animals), it can only be seen as welfare, not a right that an animal might be able to carry and defend in all their relationships with other creatures.
Offering rights to animals based on evolution is a slippery slope.

The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. This sort of thinking would have absurd consequences: e.g. saying that we should respect the ‘right’ to life of bacteria, or the ‘right’ of the AIDS virus to move freely and without restriction, and to associate freely with other living organisms. We might wish to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all creatures to which we are distantly related have rights.
Farming animals for meat is very unnatural.

Some animals do kill others for food, but at least prey species live free and any suffering in the hunt is almost always over quickly. And unlike lions or wolves, humans are moral beings, who are aware of the suffering they can cause and able to choose a different way of life. For this reason vegetarians dislike hunting animals for meat (or for fun) just as much as farming them. Farming is actually worse than hunting as it inflicts long term cruelty on animals in a systematic way. Not only are farm conditions cruel, breeding for meat, dairy or wool has created livestock which suffer all sorts of unnatural and painful diseases and conditions.
It is healthiest to eat a balanced diet with both meat and vegetable products.

We should eat five or six portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but without adding some meat or fish it is hard to make sure our body is getting the protein and iron it needs to be healthy. It might be OK for adults to choose a vegetarian diet for themselves, but should we allow vegetarian parents to impose such a diet on their babies? Meats are an easy and reliable source of protein, an essential building-block for the human body.