BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Inspectors are ending a chemical weapons threat

Unless you are a warmonger, or you have a particular hatred of the United Nations, then there is no reason to throw the weapons inspectors out. They do no harm in their mission in Syria and have the potential to do a lot of good by destroying one of the world’s biggest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. 189 countries representing 98% of the world’s population have signed up to the chemical weapons convention, which means getting rid of these horrifying weapons.[1] Clearly the world is in agreement that they must go and this is what the inspectors are endeavouring to do. Getting rid of the inspectors simply halts this vital work to no end. [1] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, ‘Chemical Weapons’, un.org, https://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/
Nobody can afford to have the weapons inspectors leave

There were three main actors in the deal that allowed the chemical weapons inspectors into Syria; The United States, Russia, and the Syrian government, none of whom have any reason to want to see the inspectors leave. Russia took the initiative to create the deal having leapt upon Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks and so has a lot of international prestige tied up in making the deal work, it also shows that Russia can be constructive as well as simply a spoiler in the international arena. If the deal collapsed then the United States would almost certainly be back to where it was when there was agreement on sending the weapons inspectors in; days or weeks away from military action. Such military action would be costly and unlikely to work; attacking chemical weapons from the air would be difficult and would risk chemical releases.[1] Because of the risk of attack it would clearly be in Syria’s interest to stick with the current situation. So far it has given no indication that it will hinder the weapons inspectors in any way. This has been confirmed by Sigrid Kaag, the Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission, who in late October stated “To date, the Government of Syria has fully cooperated in supporting the work of the advance team and the OPCW-UN Joint Mission.”[2] [1] Hambling, David, ‘How the US may try to destroy Syria's chemical weapons’, New Scientist, 3 September 2013, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24142-how-the-us-may-try-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons.html#.Umadffmkr_D [2] Kaag, Sigrid, ‘Statement of Sigrid Kaag, Special Coordinator of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission’, un.org, 22 October 2013, http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=3144
Cluster Bombs Have Significant Strategic Value

Cluster bombs are an ineffective weapon that often deal more damage to the side deploying the weapons than their opponents. Given modern warfare scenarios, the need for cluster bombs is not great given that in asymmetric warfare the conflict will be over relatively quickly, owing to the massive level of firepower that the West and its allies can bring against the targets that they attack, often dictators only in control of militarily weak countries. Dud cluster bombs harm any occupation following invasion and warm by harming troops that happen to stumble across them as well as harming demining personnel. This prevents effective occupation in the long run and costs lives through preventing the armed forces from achieving stability in the region as quickly.9
The Ban is Unfeasible

Whilst the ban prevents engagement with countries that use cluster bombs, it also limits the supply of cluster bombs to these countries significantly. The West ceasing the manufacture of cluster bombs means that many countries will cease being able to get their through second or third hand sources. Whilst the Chinese might be able to fill the gap, their cluster bomb technology is not on the same level as that of the West and as such the lack of reliability with the Chinese weaponry will cause fewer countries to employ the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Further, the ban on cluster bombs by Western countries sends out a strong moral message that many other smaller countries are likely to obey and follow. With the US accepting the ban international prosecution, or potentially even sanctions is considerably more likely. The U.S. holding out however, shows the West to be divided on the topic and as such prevents other countries that might be better off from banning them owing to their fear of indecision in the West.6
This House Believes That the U.S. Should Ban The Use of Cluster Bombs

The improvement of cluster bombs in the way that opposition describes has not happened yet and these bombs have not been deployed. It would be fairly easy to class these new cluster bombs differently to older models should they come into effect. However, the potential for new types of cluster bombs does not mean that the older types are any less inhumane. A ban on cluster bombs could easily exist to simply encompass older models whilst leaving newer ones alone.11
Cluster Bombs Cause Unacceptable Harm to Civilians

In a modern warfare scenario, the vast majority of combat takes place in civilian areas, such as cities. Whilst cluster bombs are obviously not used for peacekeeping purposes they are used in initial assaults on these areas, particularly against larger formations of enemy troops. This means that due to the indiscriminate nature of cluster bombs, in the same way as with land mines, often both military and civilian targets are encompassed in the blast radius. This is what happened in Zagreb as Martic was targeting Croat forces but the attack due to the use of cluster weapons also killed civilians. Further, cluster bombs often have a few bomblets which are duds and do not go on initial impact. The issue with bomblets is that they are often brightly coloured and when used in cities or populous areas they can often attract the attention of children who are very unlikely to know to be careful around them. This can result in significant harm to civilian populations well after the attack has been carried out. Further, due to the sheer volume of duds that cluster bombs put out, attempts to demine cluster bomb bomblets is an incredibly dangerous process that in of itself costs lives.1,2,3
Cluster Bombs Are Inconsistent With International Law

The international legal system is dependent on being robust and transparent in order for it to be respected by countries and states that accept it. The refusal by the U.S. to ban cluster bombs prevents the international community from doing the same within international law as the U.S. has enough political power that should it choose to ignore the law, the law itself is considered to be irrelevant. In failing to ban cluster bombs the U.S. maintains an inconsistency within international law. Since dud cluster bombs effectively act as land mines for all intents and purposes, they are well hidden and cause indiscriminate damage, the fact that they aren’t banned is inconsistent with existing bans on land mines already. This inconsistency within international law makes the international legal system seem less credible, owing to contradictions as well as illustrating its weakness to the influence of the U.S. This makes it more difficult for countries to enforce the rules of the international legal system, such as preventing human rights violations because  fewer countries will accept international law as being legitimate and will not agree to subject themselves to those rules.5
Rejecting the Ban on Cluster Bombs Hurts the international image of the U.S.

The U.S. is one of the only remaining Western Liberal democracies to allow the U.S. of cluster bombs. The continued refusal of the U.S. to tow the same line as fellow liberal democracies makes it look bad internationally; especially considering that one of the main instigators behind the cluster bomb ban is the U.K. traditionally a great ally of the U.S. politically. The U.S. is often seen as the greatest representative of Western liberal democracy as it is the most economically powerful. Part of this political clout however, comes from the continued cooperation of other Western Liberal democracies with the U.S. in failing to the sign the cluster bomb treaty despite pressure from other countries, the U.S. fails in this capacity and loses the support of the countries that it relies on to maintain its political status. Moreover, given that the U.S. currently does not help with demining work, this further worsens relationships with other countries.6
Cluster Bombs Have Significant Strategic Value

As mentioned earlier in the opposition counter arguments, cluster bombs are incredibly effective at dealing with large formations of troops and armoured vehicles and can cause a significant amount of damage to an opposing force in a relatively small amount of time. This niche is not filled as cheaply or as easily by other weapons that can be released from a bombing aircraft. As such cluster bombs have a significant level of military and strategic value when used in conflict. In the case where cluster bombs were banned, it would simply fall to the military to find an effective replacement weapon for these scenarios and it is likely that these would be as problematic if not more so.8
The Ban is Unfeasible

The problem with the ban on cluster bombs is that it is unfeasible in the prevention of the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries aside from the U.S. will continue to use the weapons and will likely do so less responsibly. There is no way to persuade these countries to abandon the weapons. Countries such as China and the US are unconcerned by threats that their use can be a crime against humanity and might result in international criminal prosecutions as they are not signed up to the ICC and as Security Council members can prevent investigations of themselves or their clients. The U.S. and Western powers continuing to manufacture cluster bombs allows them to engage with the other users of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries import weapons from Western powers and as such, continuing the manufacture of cluster bombs allows Western powers to keep a check on their use by other countries. Further, the ability for Western powers to use cluster bombs allows Western powers to discourage their use on the battlefield through the threat of retaliation with the same weaponry. As such, banning the weapons could cost the lives of soldiers on the battlefield.8
This House Believes That the U.S. Should Ban The Use of Cluster Bombs

Currently the U.S. is working on improving the reliability of cluster bombs. The weakness of cluster bombs, being that the bomblets often do not explode is something that U.S. military has understood for a long time. It is inefficient for the military to allow this problem to continue. As such a large amount of military funding goes into improving cluster bombs. The U.S. is hoping to improve cluster bombs in two ways, the first is ensuring that when the cluster bombs are deployed that all bomblets explode on impact or explode very quickly after the initial barrage. However, the U.S. is also working on technology that would allow bomblets to disarm themselves after a short period of time, hence preventing accidental discharges in the future. If these improvements work, then cluster bombs cease to cause civilian damage and will likely be an incredibly effective tool in warfare. Hence a ban on them when this technology is being deployed is premature.10
Cluster Bombs Cause Unacceptable Harm to Civilians

Cluster bombs, when used sensibly are used in uninhabited areas to take down military personnel. They are only intended for military targets and collateral damage when attacking military targets is something that is accepted as a regrettable problem in war. Further, cluster bombs are simply a very effective weapon in battles between standing armies in most war. Given that cluster bombs help sides achieve victory quicker and with less resistance, they justify their use in the prevention of strife in the future by causing wars to end quickly as well as enabling assaults on well-defended sites to be performed more smoothly. Due to their niche, cluster bombs will simply be replaced by the military with substitutes that are just as harmful.4
Cluster Bombs Are Inconsistent With International Law

The international legal system already has many grey areas and often things that should be banned are not because of objections by certain countries despite their similarities to other items that are banned. A change regarding cluster bombs is not realistically going to make more people accept the international legal system. Further, according to the exact wording of the 1997 ban on land mines, the ban exists for those items that exist to “Primarily” act as land mines. Cluster bombs act as landmines as a secondary effect and are not intended to do so. As such, it would be more inconsistent under the law to accept cluster bombs as landmines than it would be to ban them.5
Rejecting the Ban on Cluster Bombs Hurts the international image of the U.S.

The U.S. is currently developing cluster bomb technology that will prevent cluster bombs from remaining armed over a long period of time. Given that the U.S. is a pioneer in this area, it knows more about the development of the technology than other countries that might have signed up to the treaty. If the efforts of the U.S. prove to be fruitful then their decision to avoid the ban will prove them as being the more politically shrewd of other liberal democracies. Further, political status with other countries is unlikely to be entirely determined by treaties regarding cluster bombs. In fact these treaties are relatively minor and have almost no political affect by comparison to more pressing issues such as economics or other parts of international policy.7
: Opinion polls are harmful to the democratic process because they stifle debate

Even though polls may alter public dialogue, an explanation of what stifles debate is not sufficiently provided by the proposition.  They seem to infer that ‘stifling’ by opinion polls suggests a that debate shuts down whereas we claim that a politician’s responses to public opinion is exactly what is sought by the public to make them better informed.   The stifling of debate does not occur.  So even though, the prop suggests that stifling debate is hindering debate, this has not been proven since responses by politicians to opinion polls are simply part of dialogue and not necessarily hindering discussion. The observation that voter behaviour is some- how unfairly influenced through strength of numbers doesn’t include all of the close results which are often reported between platforms or candidates.  The assumption that voters feeling outnumbered will often occur and will change their vote as a result cannot be made.  Most citizens are already aware of their political leanings regardless of opinion polls or popular opinion.  The undecided voter is not necessarily waiting on opinion polls but more likely the continuing debate occurring through the election cycle.    Apathy among voters occurs for many other reasons besides the publication of opinion polls.  We cannot be certain that the exclusion of public polls to protect apathetic voters will significantly outweigh the value of a more informed public.  That democracy is harmed through opinion polls has not been established.
Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians.

They provide important information about what people think of their performance during the election process.  Politicians have the right to change tactics if need be and opinion polls often provide voter feedback about how a candidate is perceived.   Informed candidates can better speak to voter concerns, thus increasing dialogue prior to elections.  Candidates who speak more specifically to issues develop a better public trust as well as commitment regarding their future performance to which they can be held accountable.   Since candidates or platforms which win the election influence future policies, citizens benefit from informed politicians who can speak to the concerns of citizens and issues of the nation.
Opinion polls can lead to tactical voting which may have unintended outcomes.

The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur.  However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process.   Voting is used as a voice to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic method to influence the outcome.  Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended outcomes.   Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not.   Tactical voting could occur whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate.
Politicians will be less likely to engaged in political marketing and speak more directly to substantive issues.

Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope.  Political campaigning is advertising by its very nature.   Citizens are informed throughout the campaign through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself.   And campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer.   Opinion polling is not unique. And, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue.  There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the development of party consistency or personal philosophy.   The outcome the proposition hopes for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one of marketing.  To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is also critical to better democratic discussion.
Citizens should be respected for their opinions

Of course, citizen opinion and intelligence should be respected and we do not disagree on this issue.   Our differences lie in the nature of how mediated messages are presented to citizens as well as fair questions into the motives of those responsible for polling and media outlets which provide them to the public.  First, the nature of mediated messages requires that they be reduced to brief and simply forms.  There is an abundance of messages in competition for listeners’ attention.  Therefore the details regarding polling activity is not provided (purposely or not) and citizens are left with insufficient information on which to make critical judgements.   Second, even though the opposition hopes that the natural process of credibility will check this possibility, it cannot be denied that manipulation can occur to the unaware voter. So due to this vulnerability of inaccurate information being disseminated, it is better to acknowledge the problems which occur in mediated messages which are often the primary source of information for voters.   This does not deny that polls can be accurate and are constantly being improved; however, the on-going nature of that science is different than the question at hand as to whether they can always be trusted as a form of information for those respected citizens.
Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.

Tactical voting may be legitimate within the democratic process but that does not deny the fact that unexpected outcomes could occur.  These unexpected outcomes mean that the will of the people is less likely to be served which is the consequence with which we are concerned.  Whether tactics is legitimate does not deny the fact that it may not be good or even dangerous.   Tactics can vary in outcomes whether it comes to financial investment, competitive sport or election strategy.  Therefore, the tactic of voting one way to achieve another outcome could achieve the desired result or it could not.   That tactical voting is a choice available does that mean that it serves the democratic process well.   Sometimes it is valuable to limit the choices of citizens so negative unexpected consequences do not occur.
: Opinion polls are harmful to the democratic process because they stifle debate

In democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus on popular opinion even between elections.   Since the media carries the news, the active use of opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda.  Lack of information on critical issues is likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight. Democracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter behaviour can be influenced.   When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel “outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue.   Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a foregone conclusion.  The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids opinion polls shortly before an election. [1] [1] Blocman, ‘Ban on Publishing Public Opinion Polls’, 1999, http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/1999/7/article12.en.html
Opinion polls can lead to tactical voting which may have unintended outcomes.

Tactical voting is the purposeful casting of votes to sway an outcome.   When the outcome is predicted in an opinion poll, it can influence voters to possibly cast a ballot differently than had that poll information not existed.    This means that the votes are being cast based upon inaccurate assumptions.  For instance, in the 1992 U.K. elections all polls predicted a Labour victory.  However, against all expectations, the Conservatives won.  It is wholly possible that many people, ensured of a seeming Labour victory, then decided to vote for the Conservatives tactically to ensure that there would be a balance in the House of Commons – or even out of sympathy, the ‘underdog effect’.[1] Or decided to vote for their first preference minor party, such as the liberal democrats, because they believed the Conservatives would be voted out without their needing to cast their votes tactically for Labour. Thus, it is possible that the voters didn’t accomplish the government they actually wanted, as they cast votes based on opinion polls.  The unintended outcomes are a result of these opinion polls and tactical voting. [1] Traugott, Michael W., and Lavrakas, Paul J., The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, Fourth Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Aggmwi1lPpAC&source=gbs_book_other_ve... p.202