BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Without appropriate legislation, neo-Nazi groups will publish their own version as a propaganda tool.

One of the principle reasons for the production of this text was that “Once anyone is free to publish Hitler’s work, now-Nazis will inevitably churn out editions favourable to the Nazi leader.”[i] This decision to publish does absolutely nothing to change that “inevitable” fact. The state of Bavaria has done nothing to restrict other publications but have simply produced an ‘authorized version’ which does nothing more but give credibility to others. This will still leave the possibility of “charlatans and neo-Nazis appropriating this infamous book for themselves”.[ii] It will allow a narrative to emerge on which is the better publication – should it be interpreted as we see it today or should it be understood within the setting of Hitler’s own time; is it possible to approach the text itself without sharing the perspective of those original readers in the twenties, and so on. Presumably the Bavarian state has taken this approach because it does not want to be accused of stifling debate on this subject. Which is odd because it’s been doing so for nearly seventy years. The compromise of having the official versions and allowing alternatives is, perhaps, the worst possible outcome, allowing the neo-fascist versions the veneer of respectability of being ‘alternatives’ rather than simply being flat-out wrong. [i] Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” to be published in Germany for the first time since WWII. Alexander Nazaryan. New York Daily News. April 24 2012. [ii] AP, ‘Historians hope to publish Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’, USA Today, 5th February 2010, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-02-05-publish-german_N.htm
Money for blood.

If Mein Kampf were presented by a contemporary writer to a contemporary publisher, nobody would go near it; simply because nobody would buy it. There is virtually no market for books of its kind, of which it is a poor example, and even those who might be interested in what it has to say tend not to be known for their book buying enthusiasm. The overwhelming reason why this would be bought is either out of morbid curiosity or the desire, on the part of neo-Nazis to own an icon. Even one of the editors of the version to be published, Edith Raim, has said "Our book won't find any buyers in the Neo-Nazi scene. It's going to be a solid scientific work".[i] No doubt both will happen. Selling the book will result in profits from both groups – particularly the latter for whom possession of the physical thing itself is likely to be more important. Those sales will result in profits and it seems distasteful that any profit should be made – either by the state of Bavaria or subsequent publishers of other versions. This wouldn’t be published on the basis of the book itself, the only thing that is driving those profits is the historical role of Hitler, his notoriety and his atrocities. [i] Evans, Stephen, ‘Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German publication since WWII’, BBC News, 25 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17837325
Publication is inconsistent with other legislation.

Publication of the book provides another symbol for European neo-Nazis who present a very real threat. The Swastika and Nazi salute remain banned in Germany and other jurisdictions; this should be added to that list.[i] If Mein Kampf were one of a kind, there might be an argument in favour of treating it in the manner suggested by Proposition. However, the reality is that it isn’t. All sorts of Nazi imagery remain banned and not just in Germany and not just because others find them offensive. They are banned because they serve as rallying points for some of the most dangerous elements in society who, in turn, pose a very real and immediate threat to the physical well-being of groups ranging from immigrant to Jews to homosexuals. The real issue of consistency, if the Swastika is banned, then why not add Mein Kampf to the list? At the time of the prohibition of these other images, there was no need to do so as it was unavailable as a result of copyright. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, had that not been the case, it would have been banned at the time. All additional legislation would do now is to rectify an historical oversight. [i] Evans, Stephen, ‘Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German publication since WWII’, BBC News, 25 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17837325
It was not the powerful arguments that are made in Mein Kampf that led to the atrocities of Nazi Germany, mostly because there are none.

There is no such thing as a ‘presumption in favour of publication’. Publishers don’t publish books all the time – and absolutely nobody cries free speech. Proposition have said it themselves, the arguments aren’t persuasive. However, having it published at all would have given the work a degree of credibility it doesn’t deserve, having it published with the authority of the state will redouble that. Many of the neo-Nazis who see it as iconic would, in all probability, never have got as far as actually reading the book – let alone any commentary – but they will see a book written by Hitler from the print of the state of Bavaria.
Banning the book would have simply increased its role as an iconic symbol.

It seems unlikely that it will become any less iconic after publication. Indeed the very fact that it has been published is likely to be hailed as a great victory. Neo-Nazis in Germany and elsewhere will not present this as the result of the elapse of copyright and a measured response by the state. As in any comparable situation, it will be presented as a victory. To take one example, when fascist leaders are interviewed on television or invited to speak in university debates, those actions are presented to their followers as proof of how seriously they are now being taken by the mainstream. None of those followers will be aware that their leader was roundly thrashed, because they didn’t watch the interview and didn’t attend the debate. Similarly the book will be waved, unopened at rallies to demonstrate to the faithful that progress is being made.
The ban achieved no practical impact in the Internet age as it was not global.

Presenting Mein Kampf as a text for critical discussion gives the impression, at least, that those who supported its arguments and those who decried them were somehow on an equal footing. Having the massed ranks of German academia comment on it is likely to add to its credibility rather than detracting from it as it will suggest that the ideas are worthy of analysis. Treating the text in such a way would be akin to teaching theories of a flat earth in Geography. No child is likely to get through their school career without some discussion of WWII, proposition has failed to demonstrate what, exactly, this would add to that situation.
Without appropriate legislation, neo-Nazi groups will publish their own version as a propaganda tool.

If the publication of other versions is ‘inevitable’ then it makes sense for those versions to be framed within the narrative set by a version grounded in scholarship and critical discourse. Indeed the very process of allowing people to understand that different versions of the same text can fulfill radically different roles is welcome development in its own right. It is also likely that by the time copyright runs out, people’s curiosity will have been largely sated by the official version.
Money for blood.

The point is that it isn’t being presented to a contemporary publisher by a contemporary author. As with all texts, it is of its time and forms its own part of the historical record. It’s entirely likely that if The Canterbury Tales were presented by a contemporary author, publishers wouldn’t be fighting over it. However, within its context it is one of the founding documents of world literature. Moreover as Stephan Kramer, the General Secretary of Germany's Central Council of Jews points out publishing "A historically critical edition… prevent[s] neo-Nazis profiting from it."[i] [i] Paterson, Tony, ‘German Jews want ‘Mein Kampf’ reprinted’, The Independent, 10 August 2009, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-jews-want-mein-kampf-reprinted-1769960.html
Publication is inconsistent with other legislation.

All of which goes to show how ridiculous bans are in practice as a political tool. When neo-Nazis arrive at rallies with an assortment of black geometric shapes on a white background surrounded by red, nobody stands around trying to figure out what the reference might be. In the same way banning publication of the book doesn’t expunge it from history, everyone still knows it was written, who write it, and broadly what it’s about. It is the symbolism behind the icon, rather than the artifact itself, that caries the significance. As a result banning the artifact achieves little.
Hydro electric dams destroy existing ecosystems

Large dams wreak havoc with the environment: they destroy habitats and ecosystems both further upstream and downstream. They prevent salmon from swimming upstream to spawn. The water going through them is often warmer and devoid of nutrients, depriving downstream riverine wildlife of their natural habitat. A shocking example is China’s Three Gorges Dam, which Scientific American called ‘an environmental disaster’.[1] [1] Scientific American, ‘China’s Three Gorges Dam: An environmental disaster?’ 2008
Hydroelectric dams destroy communities

What applies to the environment, also applies to the human communities. Building dams often involves relocating people and removing them from their ancestral homelands. For example, China’s Three Gorges Dam involved relocating 1.3 million people,[1] involved severe human rights abuses[2] and has had dire social consequences.[3] [1] CBS News, ‘China Completes Three Gorges Dam’, 2009 [2] International Rivers, Human Rights dammed of at Three Gorges, 2003 [3] New York Times, ‘Chinese Dam Projects Criticized for Their Human Costs’, 2007
Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions

Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams.[1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing,[2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions. [2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary
Hydroelectric dams provide cheap access to renewable energy

Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated.[1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.
Hydroelectric dams can be used to provide flood control and irrigation

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath.[1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives.[2] [1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002 [2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003
Hydro electric dams destroy existing ecosystems

Hydroelectric dams can mitigate the ecological impact. Hydroelectric dams can take steps to mitigate their environmental impact. For example, for salmon, dams these days have ‘fish ladders’, allowing them to reach their spawning grounds. For these and other sustainability measures, the International Hydropower Association developed several guidelines and protocols to minimize ecological impact as far as possible.[1] [1] International Hydropower Association, Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol.
Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions

Hydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions.[1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower,[2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively. [1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010 [2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons.
Hydroelectric dams provide cheap access to renewable energy

In 2010, about 1.4 billion people had no access to electricity.[1] Hydropower provides a source of energy that is cheaper even than conventional coal.[2] Large dams can last for over a hundred years[3] and are easy to switch on and off according to demand, making them very cost-effective. Given that having no access to electricity makes work and study nearly impossible, alleviating global poverty by giving access to electricity is an important step to take. [1] IEA, Access to Electricity, 2010 [2] Wikipedia. Cost of electricity by source. [3] WWF, Dam Right!, 2003
Hydroelectric dams can be used to provide flood control and irrigation

The large water reservoirs created by hydroelectric dams can provide facilities for water sports and can become tourist attractions themselves. The reservoirs can be used for irrigation to help farmers and can be a means for flood control. A prime example of this is the Tennessee Valley Authority, an organisation responsible for flood control, electricity generation, economic development and even fertilizer generation in the Tennessee Valley in the U.S., spanning parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia.[1] [1] Tennessee Valley Authority, homepage.
Hydroelectric dams increase methane emissions

Hydroelectric dams emit a lot of methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. This happens when the plants and vegetation submerged in the reservoir start to rot under water: they then produce methane which bubbles up and is released into the atmosphere. On balance, some dams produce more greenhouse gasses than conventional power plants running on fossil fuel.[1] [1] New Scientist, ‘Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed’, 2005
A point on the path to peace

Sometimes peace comes from one big agreement. But most of the time there are lots of small steps on the path to peace. This involves finding areas where deals can be made to help build trust that the negotiating regimes will carry out their promises. A cease fire is worthless if neither side believes the other will stick to it as it becomes a race to break it first. But the progress of weapons inspectors shows Syria can be trusted to fulfil its commitments. Peace talks have followed the agreement on chemical weapons. There have been conferences at Montreaux/Geneva, they have not brought breakthroughs, but neither have they broken down so progress on other issues such as prisoner exchanges, humanitarian access, or safe passage deals, are likely at some point.[1] [1] Williams, Michael C., ‘Negotiating a path to peace: from Geneva to Aleppo, via Moscow’, New Statesman, 13 February 2014, http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/negotiating-syrian-peace-moscow-geneva
Inspectors don’t solve the real problem

There is a limit to what can be done in internal conflicts such as the Syrian civil war. There is a chemical weapons convention that almost every nation has signed so there is an international norm against their use and agreement on their disarmament. This is not the case with conventional internal conflict. The Syrian regime will agree to disarm its chemical weapons to prevent bombing by NATO but removing conventional weapons or ending the conflict would be completely different; a much bigger operation which the Syrian regime could not agree too as it would mean signing their death warrant.
Inspectors were the only way to avoid international conflict

Conflict would not break out if the inspectors left; that point has passed. Now if the inspectors left it is likely that nothing would happen. Clearly the better option is for there to be significant pressure on Syria and Assad to bring about peace in the country – through sanctions, help for the rebels, even limited military action. This can then allow much more comprehensive weapons that don’t provide a chance for the Syrian regime to hide some amidst the chaos.
Nobody can afford to have the weapons inspectors leave

The chemical weapons inspections take the pressure off Syria. When there was a threat of intervention by an outside power there was a reason for the Syrian government to negotiate with the rebels to find a peaceful solution. It is clear that it was coercion that got the weapons inspectors in as the White House said “It was the credible threat of U.S. military action that led to the opening of this diplomatic avenue.”[1] But it halts future coercion. With weapons inspectors in the country the possibility of using coercion is non-existent; no country is going to consider an attack while they are there and the Syrian regime knows this. The inspections may be considered a diplomatic victory for Russia and the USA but it has come at the expense of the bigger prize of peace. For which there is now almost no prospect. [1] Zenko, Micah, ‘Would the Syria Deal Be a Coercive Diplomacy Success?’, CFR, 12 September 2013, http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/09/12/would-the-syria-deal-be-a-coercive-diplomacy-success/
A point on the path to peace

The deal that allowed weapons inspectors into Syria may have made peace further away not closer. By allowing Assad’s government to sign up to an international treaty while its legitimacy was contested by other groups showed that other governments accept only Assad as the legitimate government of Syria. This undid two years of attempts to delegitimise Assad; more than 30 countries had recognised Syria’s opposition as the country’s ‘legitimate representative’.[1] [1] Freedman, Joshua Meir, ‘Don’t let Assad sign the Chemical Weapons Convention on Syria’s behalf’, AlJazeera, 29 September 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/don-let-assad-sign-chemical-weapons-convention-syria-behalf-201392981058347857.html
Inspectors don’t solve the real problem

The biggest difficulty with the weapons inspectors being in Syria is that they are a sideshow to the real problem. Yes chemical weapons use is horrific but their use in Syria has caused far fewer casualties than conventional weapons. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the total death toll at 115,000 at the end of September 2013[1] by comparison the chemical weapons attack that triggered the threat of intervention and therefore the inspections caused somewhere between 136 and 1300 deaths.[2] Syria’s having joined the chemical weapons convention and allowed in inspectors may prevent more deaths as a result of chemical weapons but it has not stopped the conflict. Many thousands more will die as a result of the conflict while the international community looks on patting itself on the back that it has somehow managed to find a solution. [1] Stampler, Laura, ‘Group Says Syria Death Toll at 115,000’, Time, 1 October 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/10/01/group-says-syria-death-toll-at-115000/ [2] Mroue, Bassem, ‘The United Nations is seeking clarity over the alleged chemical attack in Syria’, USA Today, 22 August 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/22/syria-attack/2683855/
Unlikely to make any progress

Weapons inspectors are unlikely to actually be able to totally disarm Syria. The OPCW has been given a target of dismantling Syria’s arsenal by the middle of 2014 but has admitted that it is a tight deadline that will require temporary ceasefires if the target is to be reached. This is because “For any particular move that the team has to undertake, the security situation is assessed. Unless we get the clearance from our UN colleagues, we don't move.”[1] Clearly if the weapons inspectors won’t go where there is a high risk to themselves they are unlikely to get the job done. Already inspectors have encountered situations where they can’t gain access to sites due to safety concerns.[2] Moreover in a conflict situation it will be extremely difficult to verify that all of Syria’s chemical weapons have been dismantled. There are two potential problems – will the Syrian government really be honest about the size of its stockpiles or will it quietly keep some back, and will the inspectors be able to gain access to all areas both government and rebel held? So long as there is conflict there will clearly be a chaotic situation in which weapons could be buried, or hidden, or simply never found. [1] Ensor, Josie, ‘Chemical watchdog chief calls for Syria ceasefire’, The Telegraph, 9 October 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10367242/Chemical-watchdog-chief-calls-for-Syria-ceasefire.html [2] BBC News, ‘Syria chemical weapons inspectors hail progress’, 17 October 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24566722
Syria has not lived up to its commitments

Syria is falling well behind on handing over its weapons. The deadliest chemicals were supposed to be removed by 1st January and the rest by 6th February. Neither happened. The Syrian government blamed the lack of protective equipment as well as the security situation but the OPCW says it has handed over the necessary equipment.[1] Under a new timetable Syria has pledged to remove all chemical weapons by 13th April, but by the end of March had only removed just over half.[2] If Syria continues to fail to meet deadlines there have to be consequences, including abandoning the mission. [1] Blanford, Nicholas, ‘Months of stalling preceded Syria’s latest chemical weapons handover’, CS Monitor, 4 March 2014, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0304/Months-of-stalling-preceded-Syria-s-latest-chemical-weapons-handover [2] AlJazeera, 2014, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/03/watchdog-half-syria-chemicals-removed-2014327235384570.html
Inspectors were the only way to avoid international conflict

Before the deal on allowing in weapons inspectors the course was set for an international conflict in Syria; the United States and allies, such as France, would have bombed Syria. The only way to prevent such a conflict becoming a reality is to keep weapons inspectors on the ground. Syria crossed President Obama’s ‘red line’ when chemical weapons were used and despite initial reluctance on the part of the Obama administration this was always likely to lead to some form of military response. Syria's Foreign Minister when accepting the Russian suggestion to disarm its chemical weapons suggested this was why it accepted as Walid al-Moallem said they accepted to "thwart U.S. aggression".[1] If the weapons inspectors leave the United States is once more left with the question of how to get rid of the chemical weapons, the weapons inspections are the only non-military option. [1] AP, 'Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons, Foreign Minister says', Huffington Post, 10 September 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/syria-accepts-proposal-to-surrender-chemical-weapons_n_3898941.html