BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
EMF would improve EU fiscal federalism/coherence

Mark Thoma. "EMF roundtable: Try a European Fiscal Fund." Economist magazine roundtable. February 18th, 2010: "The fact that individual countries within the euro area cannot use monetary policy to stabilise their economies means they must rely upon fiscal policy as their main stabilisation tool. However, fiscal policy alone is not as effective at stabilisation as fiscal policy used in combination with monetary policy. Fiscal federalism is one way to improve stability. [...] if the goal is to provide more economic stability within the euro area, both a European Monetary Fund and a European Fiscal Fund would be helpful." An EMF can act in this way, regulating and disbursing common resources for the collective financial health of the EU.
The EMF could work like the IMF.

The IMF was effective at pulling irresponsible countries with debt, like South Korea and recently Greece. The worry and speculation among investors on a Greece bankruptcy sent shockwaves through the international market and even reached South Korea, a remote country which has only limited contact with Greece. If South Korea can be shook by even a small fear of bankruptcy, then imagine how bankruptcy can affect the world market. After Greece, there are more jittery European countries like Hungary, Portugal, Spain, and even Italy, the fourth largest economy in the Euro Bloc. To save these countries and the world economy, the EMF should exist. The EMF would work much like the effective IMF which stopped enormous bankruptcies to ensure the world economy's safety. The only difference is the the EMF's protection would only reach to Europe
New technology will never eliminate offshore oil leaks/spills

Contrary to the claims of the oil companies new technology has not slowed the pace of major oil spills. Of the 40 offshore oil rig spills exceeding 42,000 gallons since 1964, 13 have occurred within the last 10 years. More than a quarter of all major spills of the last 44 years, have occurred recently. From 1998 through 2007, offshore producers released an average of 6,555 barrels of oil a year, according to the Minerals Management Service. That was 64 percent more than the annual average during the previous 10-year period and these figures do not include the latest spills in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana or Australia. This despite the new technology that has been implemented.
Offshore drilling only adds more C02 to atmosphere

"Why explore for oil?" The Economist. April 2nd, 2010: "The fundamental problem is this: there is a finite amount of fossil fuel. The more of it we find and burn, the more carbon we put into the atmosphere, and the more severe the greenhouse effect becomes. Once the carbon is in the atmosphere, it stays there. If we want to limit climate change, what we have to do, one way or another, is to leave fuels in the ground wherever possible, not find and burn them."
Greater conservation is more important than offshore oil drilling

Lisa Wangsness. "New offshore drilling not a quick fix, analysts say". Boston.com. 20 June 2008 - "Environmentalists argue that the pollution caused by drilling could compromise fragile ecosystems for very little economic benefit when the United States should be focusing on conservation - the cheapest barrel of oil, they like to say, is the one we don't have to buy - and developing better renewable energy sources."
Offshore drilling ban is not responsible for rising gas prices

"Expanded offshore drilling is no answer to our energy crisis". Citizen Times. 16 July 2008 - "It’s beyond disingenuous to imply, as the president did, that the prohibition on offshore drilling is responsible for the present run-up in gas prices or that allowing offshore drilling would do anything to bring prices down. In 2005 when the Republican-controlled Congress agreed to give more than $14 billion in tax subsidies and increased the number of drilling permits in the U.S., gas was $2.29. Today the national average is about $4.10."
Wrong to out-source offshore drilling to foreign coasts

Peter Maass, a fellow at the Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, on New York Times Room for Debate, March 31st, 2010: "As a matter of global justice, why should America exclude its coastlines while coastlines all over the world are drilled for oil that goes into American gas tanks? Banning oil companies from operating in our waters while encouraging them to do so in other people’s waters — there’s a whiff of hypocrisy to that, a sort of outsourcing of oil pollution."[10]
Offshore oil still valuable, even if years away

While it may be true that - in a perfect world - it would be better for offshore oil to be available now, it is not true that it would be of no value down the line five, ten, or twenty years from now. In the future, energy needs will have grown, and the supply of traditional sources will have dwindled. In the event that alternative sources have not fully matured to fill the gap, offshore oil will indeed be very important in smoothing the transition to alternative, renewable energy sources.
Offshore drilling has a very strong environmental record

"Our view on energy dependence." USA Today Editorial. April 2, 2010: "Some of the most ironic objections come from those who say offshore exploration will destroy beaches and coastlines, citing the devastating 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska as an example. The last serious spill from a drilling accident in U.S. waters was in 1969, off Santa Barbara, Calif. But tankers like the Valdez continue to carry the imported oil we're ruinously addicted to and have gone aground more frequently, more recently and far more disastrously."
The environmental footprint of offshore drilling is negligible

James Hackett, president & CEO of Anadarko Petroleum, on energy issues, said in an interview with Larry Kudlow, "[We’ve] got a world class project that is the deepest producing well in the history of the world. It’s providing clean, natural gas to America, about 1.5 percent of all of our gas supply. Everyday it’s being provided from a football field and a half sized environmental footprint, a two-hour flight away from the shoreline. So it’s not in any visual contact with any human being. These platforms have gone through 200-year hurricanes, back in 2005, without any environmental consequences. It’s a bit of a fiction hoisted on us by people who don’t know better."[4]
US offshore oil is significant, can have big market impact

"Our view on energy dependence: Yes, drill offshore for oil, and do many other things, too." USA Today. April 2, 2010: "Critics note that the potential supplies offshore are a tiny part of the world market, but even so the Interior Department's estimates range from 39 billion to 62 billion barrels of oil. We use 7 billion barrels a year, so if the oil is really there, it could be five to nine years worth. True, robust production wouldn't kick in for a decade or more. But that same argument helped block action 10 years ago. Domestic gas supplies, meanwhile, are massive and underutilized."
US offshore natural gas drilling can significantly lower prices

"An Outdated Ban". Washington Post. 28 June 2006 - "natural gas is traded globally only in small quantities, in liquefied form; nearly all of the gas consumed in the United States is produced domestically or in Canada. So producing more natural gas in U.S. coastal waters would bring down U.S. natural gas prices rather than world prices. Because natural gas is much cleaner than its main alternative, coal, this would have environmental as well as economic benefits."
New technology makes offshore drilling safer than ever

Deroy Murdock. "Offshore oil drilling -- cleaner than Mother Nature." Seattle PI. July 24th, 2008: "Democrats and other environmental naysayers cite the 80,000 barrels that spilled six miles off of Santa Barbara, Calif., inundating beaches and aquatic life. This hydrocarbon Hindenburg haunts the memories of those who witnessed it. [...] But this genuine catastrophe occurred in January 1969 -- nearly 40 years ago. That era's drilling technology has gone the way of Flower Power and black-and-white TV. Innovation has boosted the safety and environmental reliability of offshore drilling."
US offshore drilling will improve confidence, futures, and prices

Martin Sieff. "Analysis: Offshore drilling realities". July 18, 2008 - "The very fact that offshore drilling has been approved may have some further positive effect on lowering world oil prices." Mark Hemingway concludes that President Bush's announcement that he would life the executive moratorium on oil was the direct cause of a dramatic drop in oil prices from $147 to $132 a barrel in mid July, 2008.[1] Based on this conclusion, if congress were to lift their moratorium, oil prices could be expected to drop even further.
Coastal states have right to drill offshore

Suzanne Sitherwood. "Let coastal states drill offshore if they want to". For the Journal-Constitution. 17 July 2008 - "States ought to be able to determine for themselves whether or not to allow offshore drilling. As a coastal state, Georgia's voice can weigh heavily in the national debate over energy policy. While we do not know what resources are readily available off Georgia's coast, if any, we must join with other coastal states in advocating for increased access to offshore drilling. Each state should be free to drill or not drill. States that allow coastal energy production should also receive a fair share in the revenues generated from the offshore leases."
Offshore oil exploration could result in a major find

Mark Hemingway. "Drilling in the Offshore Unleashing the oil companies." National Review. 17 July 2008 - "due to restrictions on drilling, much of America’s coastline has never been fully explored, let alone with the latest technologies. Just a few months ago, an oil find was made off the coast of Brazil that might contain 33 billion barrels of oil. Now imagine what a similar find off the coast of America would do for oil prices."
US oil crisis warrants drastic action and offshore oil drilling

"An Outdated Ban". Washington Post. 28 June 2006 - "The United Statesis suffering a major energy crisis right now, and we should be drilling in as many places as we can manage. Offshore drilling may be a short-term solution to a long-term energy problem, but if countries like China can already drill and drain our nearby coastal regions of oil and gas deposits, there's no reason why we shouldn't save ourselves a few bucks at the gas pump until alternative energy sources are further developed."
Directional drilling allows a single well to tap massive reservoirs

Suzanne Sitherwood. "Let coastal states drill offshore if they want to". Journal-Constitution. 17 July 2008: "While some argue that we don't want to see exploration in these pristine areas, the fact is that with today's technology, we can sensitively explore through directional drilling about 30,000 acres of surface lands with a single well. Isn't that a bargain when you calculate the cost to Americans to continue to rely on energy overseas, especially the volatile Mideast?"
Offshore oil helps mitigate spikes in oil prices

Chris Kahn. "Offshore drilling could soften oil price spikes, not energy costs." The Associated Press. March 1, 2010: "Opening more of America's coastlines to oil and natural gas drilling won't cut energy prices anytime soon. And it won't greatly reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. [...] But it could [...] soften the blow of future price spikes."
There is not enough US offshore oil to make a difference

"Expanded offshore drilling is no answer to our energy crisis". Citizen Times. 16 July 2008: "Consider: According to the Washington Post, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there are “undiscovered conventionally recoverable resources” of 17.8 billion barrels in the offshore areas unavailable for drilling. In the oil business, “resources” refers to promising geological structures where the presence of oil remains uncertain. [...] No big supply there. [...] To put that in perspective, it would satisfy U.S. demand for somewhere in the neighborhood of two to two and one-half years at present consumption rates."
A comprehensive US energy plan must include offshore drilling

"An Outdated Ban". Washington Post. 28 June 2006 - "The United Statesis suffering a major energy crisis right now, and we should be drilling in as many places as we can manage. Offshore drilling may be a short-term solution to a long-term energy problem, but if countries like China can already drill and drain our nearby coastal regions of oil and gas deposits, there's no reason why we shouldn't save ourselves a few bucks at the gas pump until alternative energy sources are further developed."
The three D's: oil rigs drill, drain and devastate.

Drills were made to do three things. Drill, drain, and devastate. Drills drill for oil, drill oil, while devastating the area around it. No matter how advanced technology is used, there will be accidents. Even after years of using electricity and making safety regulations and devices, there are still thousands of electrocution cases each year. This proves that even if advanced safety measures are taken, there will be accidents and tragedies. The drill is just like this. No matter how safe it is made to prevent accidents, it will have accidents. Also, the drilling, draining, and burning it causes is enough to devastate the ecosystem. Why try to deny the truth?
US offshore drilling would hardly lower global oil prices

Joseph Romm. "New offshore drilling does little for gas prices." Forbes. April 2, 2010: "The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will be approving 'significant oil and gas exploration off America’s coasts.' [...] Last year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration report, 'Impact of Limitations on Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf' analyzed the difference between full offshore drilling (Reference Case) and restriction to offshore drilling (OCS limited case). In 2020, there is no impact on gasoline prices (right hand column). In 2030, US gasoline prices would be three cents a gallon lower. Woohoo!"
US offshore drilling threatens vibrant fishing industry

Frances Beinecke is president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "More Drilling, More Risk." New York Times: "Here’s how we utilize our oceans today: In the U.S. alone, commercial fishing generates more than $103 billion in sales. Ocean-related tourism and recreation are responsible for more than 2 million jobs. In 2000, the U.S. ocean economy created two and a half times the economic output of the farm sector. [...] This economic vitality depends upon clean, healthy seas. Despite technological advances, drilling off our coasts still poses grave risks, including accidental and hurricane-related oil spills. The Exxon Valdez spill stretched over 600 miles of Alaskan coastline — a stretch that would cover the eastern coastline from South Carolina to the tip of Florida. That’s a lot of beaches and fishing communities devastated."
Offshore oil involves leaks, spills, environmental damage

David Ivanovich and Kristen Hays. "Offshore drilling safer, but small spills routine." Houston Chronicle. July 28, 2008: "offshore operators continue to spill thousands of barrels of oil, fuel and chemicals into federal waters each year, government records show. 'This is not a zero-risk proposition,' said John Rogers Smith, an associate professor of petroleum engineering at Louisiana State University. [...] Offshore operators have had 40 spills greater than 1,000 barrels since 1964, including 13 in the last 10 years, according to data from the U.S. Minerals Management Service, which oversees exploration and production in federal waters. [...] Despite the industry's technological improvements and safety planning, offshore operators have struggled to cope with the hurricanes that blow through the Gulf of Mexico. Seven of the 13 recent larger spills were hurricane related."
Cluster bombs' bright colors attractive to children

Jeffrey Benner. "The Case Against Cluster Bombs". Mother Jones. May 28, 1999 - "For every cluster bomb dropped, a small percentage of the 202 bomblets released are duds. Bright yellow with red stripes and a little plastic parachute hood, these soda-can-sized death sticks have proven particularly attractive to curious children. Many are blown to bits and killed in the encounter, while others survive despite the loss of limbs."
Cluster bombs kill soldiers of militaries deploying them

Dick Devlin. "Ban these bombs that kill indiscriminately". 12 July 2008] - "when U.S. soldiers stumbled upon tens of thousands of dud U.S. submunitions in the deserts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq during Operation Desert Storm (Iraq, 1991), they did not know what the litter was. As a result of their curiosity, this type of U.S. weaponry killed and injured more American troops than any Iraqi weapon system during that war."
Demeaning cluster bombs is dangerous, costs lives

The Boston Globe reported, "One of the first casualties of the war on terrorism was the killing of four United Nations demining workers in early October and the total disruption of demining work. 'We have lost 30 workers in the last decade on minefields, but this is the first time we have lost people in the office,' said Syed Ahmad Farid Elmi, acting director of the demining team. More than 1,000 demining workers were put on "mandatory unpaid leave once it appeared that the United States might retaliate in Afghanistan."[4]
US cluster bombs are justified by US "clean-up" actions

"U.S. Cluster Munitions Policy". Briefing by Stephen D. Mull, Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. 21 May 2008 - "And the United States is proud of the role that we've played in cleaning up battlefields around the world. Since 1993, we have spent more than $1.2 billion on cleaning up war zones and former conflict zones to make sure that they're safe for civilians to go back and reinhabit. And no other country in the world comes close to that. And it also exceeds - we do this not just where the United States is involved, but in conflict zones around the world where the United States is not a party to the conflict."
A cluster bomb ban is worthless with so many non-signatories

"U.S. Cluster Munitions Policy". Briefing by Stephen D. Mull, Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. 21 May 2008 - "Now, we understand very well the motives behind those participating in the Oslo process. We respect their interests in humanitarian concerns. But we have an essential tactical disagreement that unless you get all the major producers and users of these weapons to agree on how they're going to regulate them, the - you're not going to meet your goal of addressing the humanitarian impact of them."
Cluster bombs have a substantial military value in wars

"U.S. Cluster Munitions Policy". Briefing by Stephen D. Mull, Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. 21 May 2008 - "We think that it is going to be impossible to ban cluster munitions, as many in the Oslo process would like to do, because these are weapons that have a certain military utility and are of use. The United States relies on them as an important part of our own defense strategy. Many of our allies rely on them as well."
Cluster bombs inherently inaccurate, kill indiscriminate

Kathleen Peratis. "Back Bill To Ban Cluster Bombs". The Jewish Daily Forward. 23 Mar 2007 - "cluster bombs, like landmines, kill indiscriminately, and therefore they should be banned. This is how they work: A single cluster bomb spews dozens or hundreds of smaller sub-munitions, called bomblets, over a wide 'footprint.' The bomblets are designed to explode on impact and to destroy broad targets, such as massed armor and infantry formations." Because of the weapon's broad area of effect, they have often been documented as striking both civilian and military objects in the target area. This characteristic of the weapon is particularly problematic for civilians when cluster munitions are used in or near populated areas and has been documented by research reports from groups such as Human Rights Watch.[2] Further compounding this problem is that, according to Handicap International, only 15 percent of the bombs reach their objectives.[3]
1997 Anti-Personnel Landmines Treaty should not be interpreted to include cluster bombs

Jeffrey Benner. "The Case Against Cluster Bombs". Mother Jones. May 28, 1999 - At a 1997 Pentagon briefing regarding the land mine ban, the Pentagon said that while it supports the land-mine ban, it would like to see the word “primarily” inserted at the beginning of the definition. They believe this would insure that cluster bombs would be exempted from the ban, since they are not “primarily designed” to function as land mines. If “primarily” were not included, one Pentagon briefer explained, “that could knock out a number of systems that we really do need -- some of our runway and island munitions and that sort of thing, and that's what we're concerned about. We want to be sure that if we're talking about a land mine ban we're talking about land mines.”
A cluster bomb ban will undermine military alliances

Oliver Kamm. "Cluster bombs: don't ban them". Times Online. May 29, 2008. - "The most enduring costs of an extensive treaty, however, will be to the solidarity of Nato. The United States insists on the option of using cluster munitions. The US is not merely one state among many. In the absence of world government, it is the provider and guarantor of collective security. Under the terms of the treaty, military personnel might face criminal prosecution if they operated alongside US forces."
Cluster bomb "duds" become de facto mines, threatening civilizations

"Britain supports call for ban on cluster bombs". Guardian. 24 Feb. 2007 - "Up to 60% of the victims in southeast Asia are children. The weapons have recently been used in Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The UN estimates that Israel dropped 4m in south Lebanon during last summer's war with Hizbullah, with as many 40% failing to explode on impact." These unexploded "duds" act as de facto mines that can terrorize communities for decades.
A cluster bomb ban would jeopardize joint peacekeeping operations.

Stephen Mull, acting U.S. assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs told reporters in May of 2008 the proposed ban being discussed could 'criminalize' joint military operations between countries that signed the ban and those that did not. "we are concerned that measures adopted by the Oslo process could very much endanger our ability to operate and to cooperate with other militaries and other governments around the world. For example, the current draft of the Oslo process convention under consideration would effectively criminalize cooperation of countries who sign the convention, the Oslo process convention, criminalize their cooperation with militaries who do not sign them, who do not - with governments who do not sign the convention and who still use cluster munitions. And this would have very grave implications for a whole range of activities that we don't think are within the goals of the organizers of this process."[9]
Multiculturalism is like cohesive ethnic federalism

Peter D. Salins. "Assimilation, American Style". Reason Online. February 1997 - "Ethnic federalism explicitly rejects the notion of a transcendent American identity, the old idea that out of ethnic diversity there would emerge a single, culturally unified people. Instead, the United States is to be viewed as a vast ethnic federation--Canada's Anglo-French arrangement, raised to the nth power. Viewing ethnic Americans as members of a federation rather than a union, ethnic federalism, a.k.a. multiculturalism, asserts that ethnic Americans have the right to proportional representation in matters of power and privilege, the right to demand that their 'native' culture and putative ethnic ancestors be accorded recognition and respect, and the right to function in their 'native' language (even if it is not the language of their birth or they never learned to speak it), not just at home but in the public realm."