BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Filibuster perverts rules meant to promote debate

Ezra Klein. "Debate the filibuster. The filibuster would want it that way." The American Prospect. February 17th, 2009: "The filibuster is a byproduct of the Senate's right to unlimited debate. The idea was that the Senate would be a body of reasoned deliberation. The rule was meant to promote argument, not require super majorities. Indeed, it wasn't until Woodrow Wilson that the Senate could even vote down a senator trying to talk a bill to death. They changed the rules because the right to unlimited debate had changed: It had been transformed from a guardian of democratic deliberation into a tool for undemocratic obstruction. [...] So get rid of the filibuster. Now that the filibuster doesn't even require excess speech, it's come completely unmoored from the right to unlimited debate."
Filibuster blocks small majorities ramming through unpopular laws

Brien Jackson. "In Defense of the Filibuster". Below the Fold. February 17th, 2009: "having the filibuster as an option still restricts a relatively small majority that may not even acurrately reflect the will of the electorate from ramming through unpopular aspects of their agenda. [...] The most picture-perfect argument for the Senate is, ironically, that old bugaboo, the 2000 election. Until Jim Jeffords bailed on the GOP, Republicans controlled the House by 9 votes, had the majority of a 50-50 Senate split based on the tiebreaking vote of the Vice-President, and, of course, had control of the White House despite getting fewer votes for the office than the Democratic candidate. Additionally, they lost seats in both houses of Congress in 2000, including 4 in the Senate. Is there any real argument that this unified government was the result of the country’s overwhelming preference for the GOP agenda? Obviously not." It should be noted that this argument has less to do with minority rights than actually preserving what might be a slight majority view in the public, but which is not shared and supported by a majority of the people's representatives.
Filibustering presidential nominees violates balance of powers

William Kristol. "Break the Filibuster". The Weekly Standard. May 9th, 2005: "There is no rationale for a filibuster, however, when the Senate is acting under Article 2 in advising and consenting to presidential nominations. As Crockett points out, here the president is 'the originator and prime mover. If he wants to make the process more burdensome, perhaps through lengthy interviews or extraordinary background checks, he can.' The Senate's role is to accept or reject the president's nominees, just as the president has a responsibility to accept or reject a bill approved by both houses of Congress. There he does not have the option of delay. Nor should Congress have the option of delay in what is fundamentally an executive function of filling the nonelected positions in the federal government. In other words--to quote Crockett once more-- it is inappropriate for the Senate to employ a delaying tactic normally used in internal business--the construction of legislation--in a nonlegislative procedure that originates in a coequal branch of government."
Filibuster fits framers' distrust of govt, desire for checks

Bill Frenzel. "Defending the dinosaur: the case for not fixing the filibuster". Brookings Review. Summer 1995: "Filibuster haters claim they are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution because they require extraordinary majorities. The rationale is that the Framers, who created a majority system and rejected supermajorities, would be horrified by filibusters. Perhaps, but don't be too sure. Remember that no one has dug up a Framer lately to testify to the accuracy of this theory. [...] The Framers created our system based on their profound distrust of government. They loaded the system with checks and balances to make it work very slowly... [the filibuster agrees well with this]"
Filibuster hamstrings the productive passage of legislation

Elliot Richardson. "The Case Against the Senate Filibuster". 2005: "If the Senate operated by majority rule, Congress would have passed a campaign finance reform law last year. It also would have adopted the first major telecommunications reform law in 50 years, reined in the giveaway of taxpayer-owned gold to private mining companies and perhaps adopted a compromise health-care reform. [...] Each of these bills was killed in Congress because a filibuster frenzy has made majority rule the exception rather than the rule in the Senate. Filibusters also took place on school funding, toxic-waste cleanup and other legislation."
Filibuster undermines democratic principle of majority rule

Jean Edward Smith. "Filibusters: The Senate’s Self-Inflicted Wound." New York Times. March 1, 2009: "The routine use of the filibuster as a matter of everyday politics has transformed the Senate’s legislative process from majority rule into minority tyranny. Leaving party affiliation aside, it is now possible for the senators representing the 34 million people who live in the 21 least populous states — a little more than 11 percent of the nation’s population — to nullify the wishes of the representatives of the remaining 88 percent of Americans."
Eliminating filibuster is excessive; reforms are sufficient.

There are many possible reforms of the filibuster that address many of the concerns raised by opponents to it. Putting the onus on the filibustering party to be present during a filibuster, instead of the majority party is one proposed reform. Lowering the number of the number of a "filibuster-proof" majority from 60 to 55, or so, is another proposed method. Collectively, such reforms are perhaps a better way of eliminating any negative elements of the filibuster, while avoiding the difficult process of amending the Constitution to get rid of it. And, this suggests that abandoning the filibuster is an excessive measure. Reforming it is sufficient.
Value of filibuster against "bad" legislation is not valid

Elliot Richardson. "The Case Against the Senate Filibuster". 2005: "The issue is not whether we are for or against whatever bill is the filibuster's victim. There are times when a nation's future may depend on whether its citizens can rise above policy differences and take a stand for democracy. This is such a time. At stake is our government's ability to make decisions and take action."
Filibuster creates unintended system requiring 60-vote majority

Ezra Klein. "Debate the filibuster. The filibuster would want it that way." The American Prospect. February 17th, 2009: "Instead of some loophole forcing a 60-vote majority, let's simply decide what the Senate should be. If it's to be a 60-vote institution, then make that the number required to pass a bill. If it's meant to be a majority body, then let that vision rule the day. But whatever the decision, it should be legitimate, the product of, well, thoughtful and sustained debate [not the result of the filibuster exploiting loopholes in the Senate rules].
Coca eradication harms economy and poor farmers.

"Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca." The New York Times. February 12th, 2006: "The eradication of so lucrative a crop, however, had serious social and political repercussions for a desperately poor country where coca and cocaine had become a leading industry. With their losses rising into the hundreds of millions of dollars, Chapare's coca farmers, often led by Mr. Morales, protested, blocked roads and battled security forces, sometimes with fatal consequences. The unrest so weakened the central state that two presidents were forced to resign in the 20 months ending in June 2005."
Cocaine is most produced where coca is legal.

Wherever coca is legally produced, cocaine production thrives with greater success. The correlation is very clear. In Bolivia, coca eradication efforts in the 1980s and 90s helped reduce cocaine production. As Evo Morales took power and legalized coca production and consumption, however, cocaine production has shot up. This is despite his efforts to fight cocaine production. The bottom line is that legalizing coca makes it easier for cocaine producers to operate. This correlation cannot be ignored.
Coca production can be monitored/limited to hedge cocaine.

In Bolivia, coca production is legal, but within strict limits. Only a certain amount of the stuff can be grown, and amounts exceeding these numbers are subject to eradication. Bolivia excepted $250,000 from the US in April of 2011, for example, for satellite monitoring of its coca fields. This helps ensure that coca is not excessively grown for use in cocaine; much more coca is required to produce cocaine than is required for natural consumption such as chewing. This is just one way in which coca production can be regulated to ensure against abuse in cocaine production.
Impossible to stop coca from being diverted to cocaine.

"Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca." The New York Times. February 12th, 2006: "On a narrow mountain pass shadowed by craggy peaks, Lt. Col. Julio Cruz and his police unit stop vehicles leaving Yungas, checking the 50-pound sacks of coca leaves and making sure they are headed to the legal market. On some days, 500 vehicles carrying more than 150,000 pounds of coca pass through the checkpoint, Colonel Cruz said. But after this checkpoint, the police say, they have no way to know how much is diverted for illegal purposes. 'The leaf comes out legally,' Colonel Cruz said. 'But once out, it goes to labs for cocaine. We cannot escort every truck to market.'"
Ineffective eradication efforts suffer from "balloon effect."

"Coca Production Makes a Comeback in Peru." New York Times. June 13th, 2010: "The increase [in Coca production] in Peru offers a window into one of the most vexing aspects of the American-financed war against drugs in Latin America, which began in earnest four decades ago. When antinarcotics forces succeed in one place — as they recently have in Colombia, which has received more than $5 billion in American aid this decade — cultivation shifts to other corners of the Andes. This happened in the 1990s, when coca cultivation shifted to Colombia after successful eradication projects in Peru and Bolivia. More recently, coca growers moved to dozens of new areas within Colombia after aerial spraying in other areas. Scholars of the Andean drug war call this the balloon effect, bringing to mind a balloon that swells in one spot when another is squeezed."
Coca chewing and use are inviolable Andean traditions

Evo Morales "Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves." New York Times Editorial. March 13th, 2009: "The custom of chewing coca leaves has existed in the Andean region of South America since at least 3000 B.C. It helps mitigate the sensation of hunger, offers energy during long days of labor and helps counter altitude sickness."
Coca in its natural state is not a narcotic

Evo Morales "Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves." New York Times Editorial. March 13th, 2009: "What is absurd about the 1961 convention is that it considers the coca leaf in its natural, unaltered state to be a narcotic. The paste or the concentrate that is extracted from the coca leaf, commonly known as cocaine, is indeed a narcotic, but the plant itself is not."[1]
Balloon effect occurs because some are weak on eradication.

The balloon effect often occurs simply due to inconsistent eradication policies in South America; while one country like Columbia is strong on eradication, other countries like Peru and Bolivia grow soft and even legalize or decriminalize the growth and chewing of coca. This has allowed production of cocaine to "balloon" in Peru and Bolivia. This all suggests that the solution is simply to ensure that all countries adopt strong eradication policies. If this happens, there would be no place for production to "balloon", eradication would work, and cocaine supply would be successfully curbed internationally.
Coca can be used in a variety of products

"Coca yes, Cocaine no?" Drugs and Conflict Debate Papers. 2006: "The most famous non-pharmaceutical industrial uses are in Vin Mariani and Coca-Cola. Both opened up large markets as natural stimulants used in different strata of society. Coca-Cola changed its formula in 1906, using the coca leaf as a flavouring agent without alkaloids; this was later made legitimate under Article 27 of the Single Convention of 1961. The separation of the cocaine alkaloid from the leaf, producing a substance that is used to flavour the drink without the alkaloid, is one of the best-kept industrial secrets in the history of the world. There are many other products in both Bolivia and Peru that have a modest domestic market. The supply ranges from products that seek to take advantage of the leaf’s nutritional value — although many of its valuable components, such as calcium and certain vitamins, can be obtained as well or better from other plants — and products that emphasise its energising value (syrups and teas) or anaesthetic properties (salves), etc. There are also cosmetic products (toothpaste and shampoo). There are various products whose scientific basis is not clearly proven, and there are no clear indications that coca is better than other ingredients for the preparation of the final product — although this could also be due to the stigma attached to coca, as well as the limited availability of technological means."
Coca can be used as a local anesthetic.

"Coca yes, Cocaine no?" Drugs and Conflict Debate Papers. 2006: "One of the main properties of the coca leaf, which has been and continues to be used industrially, is its medical potential as an anaesthetic and analgesic. This characteristic of cocaine, which was part of ancestral practices and knowledge in the Andean-Amazon region, came to light in the 1880s and led to a revolution in medical science, particularly in surgery. As a local anaesthetic, it offered an alternative for operations that had previously been painful and hazardous. These properties were used to ease childbirth pains and dental treatments, among other things, taking the coca leaf and cocaine rapidly to the pinnacle of pharmacology and medicine."
Coca is narcotic because cocaine can be readily extracted.

WHO. In 1992 the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) undertook a ‘prereview’ of coca leaf at its 28th meeting. The 28th ECDD report concluded that, “the coca leaf is appropriately scheduled [as a narcotic] under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, since cocaine is readily extractable from the leaf."[4] This ease of extraction makes coca and cocaine inextricably linked. Therefore, because cocaine is defined as a narcotic, coca must also be defined in this way.
Coca chewing fosters social cohesion

Morales called coca chewing a "factor in social cohesion," enshrining this principle into a newly adopted constitution as of January of 2009. :"Coca yes, Cocaine no?" Drugs and Conflict Debate Papers. 2006: "Social: to maintain social cohesion and cooperation among members of the community, it is used in community ceremonies, as a “payment” for labor exchange and a social relations instrument.
Coca consumption is most akin to caffeine use.

"Coca yes, Cocaine no?" Drugs and Conflict Debate Papers. 2006: "Because of its effects, coca would fit better into a category similar to that of caffeinebased plant stimulants — coffee, tea, guaraná and yerba mate. Because of the way it is assimilated, including the use of an alkaline reagent, its use would be more similar to the oriental custom of chewing the areca nut (areca catechu) wrapped in betel leaves (piper betle) and mixed with lime."
Mountaintop removal destroys recreational mountains.

Anita Miller, a resident of Laurel Branch Valley in West Virginia where Mountain Top removal has taken place, said in July of 2009: "There used to be pine trees, and it was a very pretty shaded area. There was a nice trail that went up the hollow and I used to take my granddaughter up there and we’d go ginsenging [harvesting ginseng roots, an Appalachian custom] on up the hill.[...] Can’t we go someplace else? There’s no hills to climb there."[7]
Mountaintop removal waste fills/destroys streams

John McQuaid. "Mountaintop Mining Legacy: Destroying Appalachian Streams." Yale Environment 360. July 20th, 2009: "Of all the environmental problems caused by mountaintop projects — decapitated peaks, deforestation, the significant carbon footprint — scientists have found that valley fills do the most damage because they destroy headwater streams and surrounding forests, which are crucial to the workings of mountain ecosystems."
Coal slurry left over from mountaintop removal is toxic

I love mountains.org: "PROCESSING — The coal is washed and treated before it is loaded on trains. The excess water left over from this process is called coal slurry or sludge and is stored in open coal impoundments. Coal sludge is a mix of water, coal dust, clay and toxic chemicals such as arsenic mercury, lead, copper, and chromium. Impoundments are held in place by mining debris, making them very unstable."
Explosives/machines in mountaintop removal replace jobs

Ashley Judd. "Stop mountain top removal coal mining." The Hill. July 14th, 2010: "Coal companies say Appalachia needs mining for jobs. Again, false. Coal mining jobs in Appalachia have decreased by 60 percent as MTR is highly mechanized. Explosives, machines such as 20 story draglines and bulldozers have replaced more than 100,000 jobs. Those working MTR jobs have little to no social protections and often work in a climate of bullying and fear. Many sites lack regulation, oversight and enforcement, as recent tragedies make sadly clear. The specious argument that Appalachia must choose between jobs and people, jobs and ancient mountains, honoring our coal mining past and having a strong future, must be retired."
Explosives used in mountaintop removal are dangerous/loud/etc.

I love mountains.org: "BLASTING — Many Appalachian coal seams lie deep below the surface of the mountains. Accessing these seams through surface mining can require the removal of 500-800 feet or more of elevation. Blowing up this much mountain is accomplished by using millions of pounds of explosives." This is dangerous to workers, annoying to locals, and potentially harmful or disruptive to local wildlife.
Mountaintop removal does not inherently involve valley filling.

"Mongiardo leads defense of mountaintop removal." Kentukians for the Commonwealth. March 26th, 2009 "A distinction we try to make clear: a valley fill permit is not the same as a permit allowing the company to mine using mountaintop removal or any other mining method. Those permits are usually issued by the state. Valley fill, or "404" permits (referring to the section in the Clean Water Act), are issued by the Corps of Engineers. The EPA has overall responsibility for enforcement of the CWA, including some oversight authority over the Corps' actions." In other words, mountaintop removal does not inherently involve valley fills. Valley fills can be banned or avoided by coal companies without abandoning the practice of mountain top removal.
Mountaintop removal more accurately called mountaintop development.

Taylor Kuykendall. "What's In a name? 'Mountaintop Removal' vs. 'Mountaintop Development'" Friends of Coal. December 27th, 2010: "coal industry executives say the term 'mountaintop development' would paint a more accurate picture of the practice. 'In my mind, mountaintop ‘removal’ implies the site is mined and then left barren, lifeless and flattened. This couldn’t be further from the truth,' said Chris Hamilton of the West Virginia Coal Association. [...] [Hamilton says] Restoring the land occurs in about 90 percent to 95 percent of former surface mines [...] 'We rebuild the mountain peak, resculpting it to approximately as close as possible to the original premining topography of the land, then we reseed it with grasses and trees,' Hamilton said. 'We also rebuild the drainage channels, putting in sediment and erosion-control structures to prevent potential downstream impacts.'"
Mountaintop mining helps communities hampered by lack of flat space.

Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), told the Guardian that dynamiting the tops off of mountains helped communities that were "hampered because of a lack of flat space."[8]: "I can take you to places in eastern Kentucky where community services were hampered because of a lack of flat space — to build factories, to build hospitals, even to build schools. In many places, mountain-top mining, if done responsibly, allows for land to be developed for community space."
Mountaintop mines are almost never developed afterwords.

Vivian Stockman, an organizer for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, told West Virginia Public Broadcasting that a flyover of the southern West Virginia coalfields suggests little development on former surface mine sites. 'If they’re hoping to, you know, create shopping malls on some of these, I don’t know where they’re going to get all the shoppers. All the communities around these areas have been driven away.”[3] :[4]: "Researchers from the Natural Resources Defense Council found that about 1.2 million acres and about 500 mountains were flattened by surface mining in central Appalachia. An aerial imagery analysis by NRDC found that about 90 percent of mountaintop removal sites were not converted to economic uses. Only about 4 percent of West Virginia and Kentucky mountaintops had been redeveloped, NRDC found. 'We watch our Appalachian communities being destroyed every day with the false promise of reclamation,' Lorelei Scarbro, with Coal River Mountain Watch, told NRDC. 'We, the citizens living at ground zero, are losing our way of life and our history with every mountain they take. I am heartbroken to think what my grandchildren will have left when they grow up if we don’t stop this rogue mining.'"
Holding up mountaintop removal mining costs jobs.

National Mining Association stated in 2009 in response to the Obama administration's EPA action holding up permits for mountaintop removal and valley fills: "This action, which applies to all mining-related 404 permits in the region, puts thousands of mining jobs and coal production in Appalachia at risk. While on the one hand the administration is spending billions in stimulus jobs, it is taking away the highest paying jobs in the region by delaying needed permit approvals. This is not good for jobs or for energy security."[6]
Mountaintop coal companies restore developed area.

Chris Hamilton of the West Virginia Coal Association said in 2010: "Restoring the land occurs in about 90 percent to 95 percent of former surface mines. We rebuild the mountain peak, resculpting it to approximately as close as possible to the original premining topography of the land, then we reseed it with grasses and trees. We also rebuild the drainage channels, putting in sediment and erosion-control structures to prevent potential downstream impacts.”[1]
Mountain mining creates economic opportunities on flattened land

"Few sites redeveloped after mining." The Mercury. January 3th, 2011: "HINDMAN, Ky. — A short drive up a side road through dense Appalachian forest ends at a vast, flat clearing where a mountaintop used to be. The peak that stood for an eon is gone, replaced by a giant recreation area that was built after a coal company scraped away thousands of tons of earth, lowering the mountain by 200 feet. Coal industry supporters say the Knott County Sportsplex in eastern Kentucky is one of many examples of economic opportunity created by strip mining techniques that include the often-vilified method known as mountaintop removal."