BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Migrant treaty increases burdens of processing illegal aliens.

The treaty requires that countries provide full legal procedures for illegal aliens. This could limit the ability of a nation to quickly process and deport illegal aliens. In some countries, large immigration problems make such lengthy judicial processes untenable. And, it is not the fault of the government that a massive and constant flood of illegal immigrants makes judicially and equitably handling each and every one of them impossible. In such instances of a breach of national and sovereign security, full legal processes for NON-citizens is simply not an option, not is signing a treaty that requires this.
Migrant Workers Convention is the best way to protect migrants

"Europe, It's Time to Ratify the Migrant Workers Convention." International Federation for Human Rights. June 21, 2010: "20 years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, also known as the Migrant Workers Convention. We believe that the 20th anniversary provides an excellent opportunity for the European Union to live up to its core values and stand firm on the rights of migrant workers. The Convention constitutes the broadest framework in international law for the protection of the rights of migrant workers and members of their families and provides guidance to States on how to respect the rights of migrants while developing and implementing labour migration policies."
Aerial reforestation cuts costs of reforestation

Matthew McDermott. "Can Aerial Reforestation Help Slow Climate Change?". Tree Hugger. 22 Aug. 2008 - "Thousand Of Seed-Containing Bomblets Dropped to Reforest Mangrove Forest Since it’s too labor intensive and too slow to reforest large areas of land by hand, foot, shovel and trowel, why not try to use aircraft to drop thousands of small bomblets containing a tree seed (in the experiment in the show, mangrove seeds) and some soil over deforested areas? It would be much quicker than manual reforestation and the principle could be applied to pretty much any type of forest in the world."
Reforestation would have a negligible impact on global warming

Andrea Thompson. "Trees Won't Fix Global Warming". Live Science. 8 Aug. 2007 - "The plan to use trees as a way to suck up and store the extra carbon dioxide emitted into Earth's atmosphere to combat global warming isn't such a hot idea, new research indicates...Scientists at Duke University bathed plots of North Carolina pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for 10 years and found that while the trees grew more tissue, only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming."
Reforestation sequesters C02 and helps reverse global warming

Adrian Higgins. "A New Leaf on Life". Washington Post. 8 May 2008 - "According to a neat calculator on the Web site of Casey Trees, a fair-size white oak tree with an 18-inch-diameter trunk would reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by 622 pounds per year. A mature apple tree would lower carbon dioxide by more than 300 pounds. Even the weedy tree of heaven would store ("sequester," in eco parlance) 391 pounds once it reached a trunk diameter of 12 inches.
Reforestation is a cost-effective solution to global warming

Robert N. Stavins. "The cost of U.S. forest-based carbon sequestration". Pew Center on Climate Change. January 2005 - "Their conclusions are striking. Estimated costs for sequestering up to 500 million tons of carbon per year—an amount that would offset up to one-third of current annual U.S. carbon emissions—range from $30 to $90 per ton. On a per-ton basis, these costs are comparable to those estimated for other climate change mitigation options such as fuel switching or energy efficiency."
Increasing droughts impairs carbon sequestration by trees

"Trees Won't Fix Global Warming". Climate Progress - "One researcher [of a Duke University Study] noted, 'If water availability decreases at the same time that carbon dioxide increases, then we might not have a net gain in carbon sequestration.' Well, climate change is projected to decrease water availability in many parts of the world, including the American West. If water availability decreases at the same time that carbon dioxide increases, then we might not have a net gain in carbon sequestration."
Enough land for reforestation to be a viable solution

Robert N. Stavins. "The cost of U.S. forest-based carbon sequestration". Pew Center on Climate Change. January 2005 - "Much of the current interest in carbon sequestration has been prompted by suggestions that sufficient lands are available to use sequestration for mitigating significant shares of annual CO2 emissions, and related claims that this approach provides a relatively inexpensive means of addressing climate change."
Bowls are a tradition that should be continued.

The college football bowls have been around for decades. While this system has evolved, with the Bowl Championship Series being created in 1999 to better organize the system, never has college football broken from this system to include a playoff. To add a playoff would be to break with the tradition of these bowls, which many fans have come to love and expect to occur every year. Families have enjoyed these traditions for years, and to break from them would do unfortunate harm to this important human sense of continuity.
Co-opting bowls into playoffs would be unsuccessful

Chuck Klosterman. "No college football playoff, please." ESPN. January 2, 2007: "I realize playoff proponents always say these games still could exist if the eight best teams were bracketed into a championship pool. But it wouldn't be the same. Somehow, these minor bowls would start to seem like the NIT tournament (which I never watch). If these games lack credibility as things currently stand, I can't imagine how they would feel to audiences if they essentially became exhibitions."
Playoff would generate more revenue than BCS

Daniel Deceuster. "The Case for a College Football Playoff." Bleacher Report. March 23, 2009: "Think if USC and OSU played in the Rose Bowl next season. Each team would get a big cut of the revenues generated and a lot of money would go to their conferences, the BCS, and the television network broadcasting the game. [...] Now think if USC and OSU are seeded 1-2 in the tournament and go all the way to the championship. Each team would have played three home games to get there. [...] Think of how much revenue goes straight to the school—much more than just the one Rose Bowl game that divides the revenue so many ways."
More teams "win" and finish season happy in BCS

Sam Herrell, a Texas high school coach, said to the New York Times in December of 2008: "You know, I coach high school football in Texas, and every year there’s only one team that ends up happy in your classification. You go the playoffs, the first round, the second round, the quarterfinals — oh how exciting for everyone. But you look at it, as soon as one of those teams gets beat, they’re just forgotten. Now I know people say how much it works for basketball, but I think football is different. Is it really better for the kids to have a playoff or for at least half of them to go to a bowl game and say, ‘We won the Gator Bowl, the Cotton Bowl, whatever bowl.'"[3]
Opponents of CF playoffs care about money, not academics

Michael Shull. "BCS No More: College Football Needs Playoffs to eliminate the BS." College Sports Fans.: "So there you have it, a 16-team playoff format. Critics will begin with arguments like 'that’s too many games for these student athletes' or a focus on the academics and the hardships these college students would be under if they advance to the 16-team playoff and keep playing. My counter to that is that academics did not decide the 12th game that was recently added to everyone’s schedule in the Football Bowl Subdivision, and academics don’t seem to matter in breaking the Texas-Oklahoma-Texas Tech debate for the Big 12 South title and Big 12 Championship debate, so quit saying you care about anything other than money."
Most college football fans want a playoff

"Fans want football playoff." New York Times. December 29, 2009: "Most college football fans want a playoff system like the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament to replace the Bowl Championship Series, according to a recent nationwide Quinnipiac University poll. Fans are evenly divided over the Bowl Championship Series, the current method for determining the college football national champion: 43 percent have a favorable opinion of the B.C.S. and 45 percent have an unfavorable opinion. Nearly two-thirds of fans, 63 percent, said the B.C.S. should be replaced by playoffs similar to that used in college basketball."
Schools lose too much money to BCS businessmen

"Wetzel's playoff plan." Yahoo Sports. December 7, 2009: "BCS bowl games are the single worst business arrangement in American sports. College football’s continued willingness to be fleeced by outside businessmen, who gleefully cut themselves in on millions in profits, makes even conference commissioners blush when confronted with the raw facts. [...] What other business outsources its most profitable and easily sold product – in this case postseason football? [...] The bowls were needed back in the 1950s. These days they are nothing but leeches on the system. [...] It’ll never make sense to allow businesses outside college football to determine how college football does its business."
Fan turnout would be equally strong for college football playoffs

Harvey Starin. "There is nothing wrong with college football playoffs." Sun Sentinel. January 7, 2010: "Oeters suggests one of the "major problems" with a playoff system is that fans will only come to the game one day instead of several, as they do now for the Orange Bowl festivities. Huh? Would anyone really expect that rabid college fans would spend more time in South Florida at a meaningless Orange Bowl game than they would if the game actually had real national championship implications? Of course not. [...] A smart Orange Bowl Committee could still have all the pomp and pageantry that Oeters cherishes and offer fans a real reason to travel here in the winter, instead of a made-up, meaningless bowl game that means nothing except to the alumni of the playing teams."
A national champion through a playoff is not important

Chuck Klosterman. "No college football playoff, please." ESPN. January 2, 2007: "I like college football as an entity more than I like knowing who is (supposedly) 'the best' amateur football team in the United States. People used to bemoan the thought of a mythical national champion, but it all seems mythical to me. It still does, and it always will. I don't need to pretend that I know the unknowable. If you want a playoff system, it might just mean you want to feel as though football has a clear sense of order. You probably enjoy feeling as though you know who is No. 1, because that's what really matters to you. But maybe you like college football as an experience a little less than you think."
Schools would make more money by hosting playoff games

Dan Wetzel. "Wetzel’s playoff plan: Money talks." Yahoo News. December 7, 2009: "Hosting games would be a boon to the schools. Instead of sharing up to 40 percent of game revenue (and all travel costs) with third-party bowl committees – run by an executive director making up to $800,000 a year – college and universities could keep all money in-house."
4-team college football playoffs open slippery slope to bigger playoffs

Playoff Smayoff, we don't need it." ESPN. April 30, 2008: "The idea of a 'Plus One' playoff was voted down by the conference commissioners (plus Notre Dame’s athletic director) in their Hollywood, Fla. meeting. [...] I’m OK with that, although I have never been totally against a 'Plus One' format. [...] Trouble is, once we get 'Plus One' format the college football brain trusts won’t stop until they’ve got 16, then 32, then 64."
Playoffs are hard on football players' bodies

In other sports, the toll of each game on the athlete's body is much smaller than it is in football. For that reason, a college football playoff presents risks to the players' health. This is particularly true when considering that a playoff might be pact into a relatively short period of time. The championship game, therefore, may be between two injury-ridden teams. This kind of a risky, unhealthy playoffs should not be forced on our student-athlete football players.
Fans equally willing to travel to playoffs as BCS

Harvey Starin. "There is nothing wrong with college football playoffs." Sun Sentinel. January 7, 2010: "Her second point, that South Florida will suffer a negative economic impact, is equally specious. As for fans' unwillingness to travel for playoff games, they travel now for meaningless bowl games, to be part of the pageantry and camaraderie they feel as boosters. [...] And after the first round, half the eight teams will be out anyway. So there are only two more games to attend before the legitimate championship. And I guarantee that rabid fans from contending teams will attend the two extra games. They do it now for college basketball, which has 60 extra games and doesn't even come during a time when people are off from work and their kids are home for the Christmas-to-New Year break."
BCS is unfair to smaller teams and conferences

Michael Shull. "BCS No More: College Football Needs Playoffs to eliminate the BS." College Sports Fans.: "I have chosen the 16-team format for one reason and one reason alone. FAIRNESS, something that has long been neglected by the NCAA for Division I-A Football Bowl Subdivision football. You see, the whole idea of the BCS basically limits any real chance at any kind of a fair chance for 45 of the 120 Division I-A college football programs in 2009. With 65 teams in BCS Conferences and over 90% of the BCS Bowl Game bids (and the $17 million payout for playing in those games, win or lose), the deck is stacked against the non-BCS teams in the WAC, Mountain West, MAC, Conference USA & Sun Belt. Add in the whole Notre Dame special name recognition and money clause and the deal is even more corrupt."
BCS makes much more money than playoffs could

Mark Purdy: "College football playoff sounds great but is a bad idea." Mercury News. January 8th, 2010: "The real deciders here, when it comes to the BCS's future, are the university presidents. They're the ones who have to balance the budgets at their schools. And they have noticed how the current system works well. [...] A whole bunch of dough comes their way, every year — including the money from the middle-echelon and lower-echelon bowls. Those presidents are very risk-averse. They think that a playoff system would damage the BCS bowls and kill those other bowls entirely."
College football playoffs benefit more schools

Matthew Sanderson. "The conservative case for college football reform." The Hill. January 6th, 2010: "College football’s considerable institutional benefits discussed above — improved funding, publicity, alumni networks, and admissions applications — are not awarded through merit- or market-based methods. They’re largely distributed on the basis of legacy entitlements and backroom deals. By reforming college football, government would not play Robin Hood and give disadvantaged parties a 'fair share' of the trophy or the revenues. Reform’s only aim is for schools to have a 'fair shake' at earning these benefits through competition. Conservatives should favor this modest effort to eliminate stacked decks and instill competition."
College football fans can't afford playoff tickets/travel

Mark Purdy: "College football playoff sounds great but is a bad idea." Mercury News. January 8th, 2010: "I attended the Rose Bowl as a fan. My wife and I had a swell time. We also paid $300 for our two tickets, face value. [...] That's a lot of money. But we enjoyed the day. We tailgated with old friends from Ohio. We watched. Yet as I looked around the stadium at all the fans from Ohio State and Oregon, this thought crossed my mind: "What if this were a college playoff quarterfinal game? How many of these fans, if their team won, would then be willing to pay $150 or $200 or $275 more per seat the next week, plus hundreds more for travel to another neutral location — say, Miami, for the next playoff round against maybe Boise State? [...] My unofficial conclusion: There are a lot of crazy fans in Ohio, Oregon and Idaho. But not enough who are both that crazy and that rich. [...] In other words, for that next hypothetical playoff game — between Ohio State and Boise State — you would be relying largely on the fans of Miami and South Florida to buy tickets. Good luck with that."
Lower-tier college football playoffs are poorly attended

Mark Purdy. "College football playoff sounds great but is a bad idea." Mercury News. January 8, 2010: "There are playoff tournaments in the lower levels of college football — including the second tier Championship Subdivision. Those games are played on home fields, instead of neutral sites. So maybe that would be the way to go at the top level of college football, too. [...] But have you noticed something about those lower-level playoff games? One, many are played in horrible December weather at the Northern sites. Two, the stands are hardly packed. [...] The new BCS executive director, Bill Hancock, was talking about that Thursday in a session with the media in Southern California. 'If you look at attendance for those games, only Montana had decent attendance,' said Hancock, a longtime NCAA executive. 'Many teams didn't draw as well as they did in the regular season.'"
Bowls give small match-ups more exposure and drama

Chuck Klosterman. "No college football playoff, please." ESPN. January 2, 2007: "Occasionally, I will overhear some pseudo-acerbic small-time TV sports announcer rhetorically ask questions like, 'Who really cares about the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl?' My eternal answer is always, 'Me.' I love the way offensive coordinators unload the insanity within their playbooks, and I love seeing otherwise unheralded players from mid-major schools kill themselves during the only nationally televised game they will ever experience."
Football playoffs would not make traveling fans happy

Mark Purdy: "College football playoff sounds great but is a bad idea." Mercury News. January 8th, 2010: "I attended the Rose Bowl as a fan. [...] as I looked around the stadium at all the fans from Ohio State and Oregon, this thought crossed my mind: 'What if this were a college playoff quarterfinal game? How many of these fans, if their team won, would then be willing to pay $150 or $200 or $275 more per seat the next week, plus hundreds more for travel to another neutral location — say, Miami, for the next playoff round against maybe Boise State?' [...] In other words, for that next hypothetical playoff game — between Ohio State and Boise State — you would be relying largely on the fans of Miami and South Florida to buy tickets. Good luck with that. [...] That's why I claim that the most ardent Boise State fans are making out OK under the current setup. How frustrating would it be for them to face the difficult choice of either (A) maxing out on credit cards and going deep in debt to attend another game far away or (B) staying home and watching on television as their team tries to win a game in the blah atmosphere of a half-empty stadium?"
College football can evolve to include a playoff

Daniel Deceuster. "The case for a college football playoff." Bleacher Report. March 23, 2009: "Throughout its illustrious history, college football has evolved. Rules have changed, conferences have come and gone, NCAA divisions were implemented, polls and rankings came into play, and even the BCS was formed in 1998 to “fix” the Bowl Alliance. [...] College football is no stranger to change. Whenever it has been in the best interest of the sport, it has changed. [...] So why—when a playoff is so obviously in the best interest of the sport—has nothing changed?"
Playoffs maintain importance of regular season

"Wetzel's playoff plan." Yahoo Sports. December 7, 2009: "college football’s roller-coaster regular season needs to be protected. [...] That’s accomplished by two things. The first is playing on the home field of the higher-seeded team until the title game (more on this later). [...] The second is by giving the chance for an easier first-round opponent – in this case No. 1 seed Alabama would play No. 16 Troy. Earning a top two or three seed most years would present a school a de facto bye into the second round. [...] The season still matters this way. By winning the SEC championship game Saturday, Alabama gets Troy and enjoys home-field advantage in Tuscaloosa until the title game. By losing it, Florida gets Penn State and has to hit the road if it can beat the Nittany Lions."
A playoff would still maintain and co-opt bowls

Michael Shull. "BCS No More: College Football Needs Playoffs to eliminate the BS. " College Sports Fans. : "So what do we do with the bowls? I love bowl games as much as anyone, and I do not want them to go away nor do they need to be eliminated. A 16-game tournament means 15 games will be played, 15 games that can be hosted by the Top 7 bowls, matched up regionally as best as possible, with the four big-money (current) BCS bowl games, the Rose, Orange, Fiesta & Sugar hosting the College Football Final Eight through the National Championship. [. .. ] The 16-team format eliminates the need for 8 traditional bowl games because those 16 teams are now in the playoffs. Thus, the current 34 bowl games will be reduced to 26 bowls.
Manned mission to Mars necessary to reveal underground life

Glenn Zorpette. "Why Go to Mars?" Scientific American. March 2000: "Another reason why humans may have to be on site to conduct a thorough search for life stems from the fact that if any such life exists it is probably deep underground. Upcoming probes will be equipped with robotic assemblies that can bore several centimeters into rocks or dig a few meters down into the soil. But barring any discoveries at those shallow depths, researchers will have to bring up samples from hundreds of meters below the surface, maybe even one or two kilometers down, before they can declare Mars dead or alive. Drilling for samples at such depths 'most likely will require humans,' says Charles Elachi, director of the Space and Earth Sciences Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif."
There is little public support for a mission to Mars

"Mars beckons." Cumbrian Sky. July 21, 2009: "THE PUBLIC AREN’T INTERESTED IN SENDING PEOPLE TO MARS. There. I’ve said it. We were all thinking it, but no-one was saying it. Time to face facts. There is, at present, NO public demand – or even support – for a manned mission to Mars. They think it would be a huge amount of money spent for absolutely bugger all practical use. And until space enthusiasts and the space community, and, yes, NASA itself, can give the public a damned good reason for sending people to Mars and not just more rovers, WE ARE NOT GOING TO MARS."
Mission to Mars will have major communications time-lag

"Going to Mars: A mission fraught with risk." Canadian Space Agency. September 3, 2008: "The 20-minute communications lag. Another difficulty is the communications lag between Earth and a spacecraft travelling to Mars. Depending on the distance between the two, it can take almost 20 minutes to send commands, and then another 20 minutes before a response is received. Scientists must react quickly when problems arise, and then wait with great patience for the response, which will arrive 40 minutes after they send the initial signal. This also means that robots and systems we send to Mars must be able to make some of their own decisions, or at least know to wait for a command if something is not right."