BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ICC is too ineffective to deter war crimes

John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "deterrence ultimately depends on perceived effectiveness, and the ICC fails badly on that point. The ICC’s authority is far too attenuated to make the slightest bit of difference either to the war criminals or to the outside world. In cases where the West in particular has been unwilling to intervene militarily to prevent crimes against humanity as they were happening, why will a potential perpetrator feel deterred by the mere possibility of future legal action? A weak and distant Court will have no deterrent effect on the hard men like Pol Pot most likely to commit crimes against humanity. Why should anyone imagine that bewigged judges in The Hague will succeed where cold steel has failed? Holding out the prospect of ICC deterrence to the weak and vulnerable amounts to a cruel joke."
Article 98 agreements help protect US citizens from ICC

John R. Bolton. "The United States and the International Criminal Court". Remarks to the Federalist Society. 14 Nov. 2002 - "As the ICC comes into being, we will address our concerns about the ICC’s jurisdictional claims using the remedy laid out for us by the Rome Statute itself and the UN Security Council in the case of the peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslavia. Using Article 98 of the Rome Statute as a basis, we are negotiating bilateral, legally-binding agreements with individual States Parties to protect our citizens from being handed over to the Court. Since the European Union’s decision in September to permit its member states to conclude Article 98 agreements with the United States, our negotiators have been engaged in bilateral discussions with several EU countries. In the near future we will also be holding discussions on the issue with several countries in the Middle East and South Asia. Our ultimate goal is to conclude Article 98 agreements with every country in the world, regardless of whether they have signed or ratified the ICC, regardless of whether they intend to in the future. These agreements will allow us the necessary protections in a manner that is legally permissible and consistent with the letter and spirit of the Rome Statute."
ICC prosecutors are given too much power in deciding cases

Henry Kissinger. "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction: Risking Judicial Tryanny". Foreign Affairs. Aug. 2001 - "The independent prosecutor of the ICC has the power to issue indictments, subject to review only by a panel of three judges. According to the Rome statute, the Security Council has the right to quash any indictment. But since revoking an indictment is subject to the veto of any permanent Security Council member, and since the prosecutor is unlikely to issue an indictment without the backing of at least one permanent member of the Security Council, he or she has virtually unlimited discretion in practice."
ICC is only a tool for protecting interests of powerful states.

The ICC like the UN security council will become only a tool for protecting the rights and deeds of a few countries. Genocide in many regions is a problem indeed but the war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were never discussed in an international forum. Can this ICC actually check war crime in those countries? Obviously no! How can the US, for instance, join a court that will point out its own crimes? Even before attacking Iraq, the UN was made a tool to attack and not a place to have discussions and to avert war. Since its useless to create such a court in which propaganda, lobbying and influence of power will have the major role, the plan should be abandoned.
Cooperation in ICC and rule of law is best overall for stability

Dennis Kucinich. "The US Administration and the ICC". Common Dreams. 9 Dec. 2004 - "There are many in our United States government who do understand that Peace can only be obtained through international cooperation and adherence by all nations to high principles. We know that, as a matter of the survival of the human race, unilateralism must yield to multilateralism. [...] Each of us has the responsibility and the gift to work within our sphere to construct a world where all may survive and thrive in peace and justice. [...] We must work tirelessly for ratification or accession to the Rome Statute."
US Article 98 does not seek to undermine the ICC

"Frequently Asked Questions About the U.S. Government's Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC)". State Department. 30 July 2003 - "The U.S. Government (USG) proposed agreement undercuts/attacks the ICC. Our draft agreement is fully consistent with the Rome Statute. Article 98 of the Statute expressly contemplates such agreements. During the UN Security Council debate on protections for peacekeepers from the ICC, countries that are leading proponents of the court urged us to make use of Article 98 agreements as a means of addressing our concerns about the court."
ICC can balance need for justice and practical peace

"Justice or expediency in Sudan?; The International Criminal Court". The Economist. 19 July 2008 - "Only this week Indonesia and Timor-Leste published a report blaming the Indonesian army for the atrocities committed in the former East Timor. But, to keep the peace, there is no hint of bringing anyone to trial. None of the big shots who oversaw apartheid ever faced serious punishment. Till recently, dictators who ordered thousands of "disappearances" in Latin America's dirty wars were allowed to slip into easeful retirement. Terrorists in Northern Ireland and Palestine have been forgiven their crimes in return for desisting. Such decisions are never easy: just ask the victims. But the hunger for peace will occasionally trump the appetite for justice if forgiveness and amnesty are the only way to end wars or move societies from dictatorship to democracy [...] Where does that leave the high hopes that accompanied the creation of the ICC ten years ago? Still strong, we believe. Examples of justice denied do not mean that this noble enterprise is doomed to fail [...] A court on its own cannot bring either peace or justice."
Big government has unintended consequences

Michael Cloud. "Why Not Big Government? The Five Iron Laws." The Center for Small Government: "3. Big Government Programs create new problems. [...] The Federal Government created Medicare to help senior citizens and Medicaid to help the poor with medical care. Unintended consequences? Massive government funding for these programs drove up health care costs – for those participating and those not. It made doctors and hospitals accountable to the government — instead of patients. It breeched patient-doctor medical confidentiality. It set in motion the drive toward a Government Monopoly — 'Single-Payer' — Health Care System. Toward Socialized Medicine. [...] Social Security? Government Central Planning of Education? Government Disaster Relief? The War on Drugs? Mandatory Minimums? All create new problems. Unintended consequences."
Govt growth results mainly from citizens demanding it

"The Case FOR Bureaucracy." GovernmentIsGood.com.: "What has driven the historical expansion of government in the United States? [...] government responsibilities increased because of public demand for social and economic regulation increased. During those eras [of the 1930s, 60s, and 70s], massed-based social movements – including the labor movement, the civil rights movement, and the environmental movement – insisted that the government address a wide variety of pressing social and economic problems."
Big government can better help individuals.

Government is designed to help individuals, particularly in enabling them to achieve their full potential. This can be seen in government funded schools, scholarships, job-training and re-training programs, equal opportunity programs, disability regulations, civil rights laws, gender equality legislation, veterans affairs offices, as well as social security and Medicare programs. These programs and laws all provide immense help to individuals, allowing them an opportunity to live fulfilling and productive lives that we all benefit from.
Higher taxes don't actually weaken growth

Jeff Madrick. "How big government helps the economy take off." Boston Globe. September 7, 2008: "Reagan swept into office on the promise of tax cuts and reducing government, and what followed were the boom years of the 1980s. To conservatives of the time, it seemed strong proof that the arguments of Friedman and his followers were correct. [...] But there is also a strong case that they were wrong. In 1992, President Bill Clinton succeeded in passing legislation to raise the income tax rate on higher income Americans. Harvard's Feldstein, who had served as Reagan's chief economic adviser, claimed that the tax increase would reduce the incentives to work and therefore the incomes of the wealthy. It turned out to do nothing of the kind: the top tier of Americans, in fact, made more money." [see argument page for extended quote].
Small government produces less healthy societies

Jeffrey Sachs. "The Case for Bigger Government." Time. January 8th, 2009: "Even as our economy worsened, many Americans consoled themselves with the belief that at least we were better off than people in other rich nations. No more. When you compare the U.S. with Canada, Western Europe and Japan, the news is sobering. Our child-poverty and infant-mortality rates are the highest, our life expectancy is the lowest, our budget deficit as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is the highest, and our 15-year-olds rank among the lowest on tests of math and science."
Big government helps stimulate economic growth

Throughout history, there were several big, liberal governments. Peter the Great (Russia), Catherine the Great (Russia), FDR (US), Park-Chung-Hee (South Korea), Sejong the Great (South Korea), Elizabeth the First (Britain), among other leaders. Under these leaders, the country they governed reached great economic growth. For example, look at Park-Chung-Hee of South Korea. Although a military dictator, he funneled growth by government leadership. He sharpened the industrial sector, began ordering production, and spent taxpayer's money on expanding the economy. Now, look at South Korea. It's one of the finest success stories in the world. South Korea was turned from a devastated, farming, poor country into the 13th largest economy in 3 decades. There is overwhelming evidence that big, liberal governments help improve the economy dramatically.
Government is by, of, and for the people/individual.

Many seem to regard government as some kind of monolithic institution detached from the citizens of a country, and even out to get them. This forgets the founding principles in any democracy, where government is by, of, and for the people and the individual. The government is, in other words, ultimately controlled and driven by the people, and is meant to reflect and uphold their interests. If a citizen feels that this is not the case, they should feel empowered by their vote and their ability to protest and organize in order to shape their government according to their interests.
Big government spending helps poor less than tax cuts

Edward Glaesar. "The Case for Small-Government Egalitarianism." New York Times. January 13, 2009: "Libertarian progressivism distrusts big increases in government spending because that spending is likely to favor the privileged. Was the Interstate Highway System such a boon for the urban poor? Has rebuilding New Orleans done much for the displaced and disadvantaged of that city? Small-government egalitarianism suggests that direct transfers of federal money to the less fortunate offer a surer path toward a fairer America."
Big government fosters harmful entitlement culture

Ryan Messmore. "A Moral Case Against Big Government." Heritage Foundation. February 27, 2007: "A conception of broad government responsibility to provide for those in need has exercised great influence since the days of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. This in turn has fed a notion of individual entitlement. [...] expensive government social programs can lead to [...] unhealthy moral consequences, including damaging dependence on government handouts."
Govt is leading agent of change/progress/adaptation

Jeff Madrick. "The case for big government." October 22, 2009: "As economies grow larger, societies more populous, scientific and social knowledge deeper, and interconnections more complex, government grows as well—at least in societies that succeed. And when government works as it should, it is also typically the leading agent of change. As economies progress, societies learn more, and expectations rise, government's main purpose is to manage, foster, and adapt to this change. It is a profound task."
Govt bureaucrats pursue more power to advance careers.

Government bureaucrats, as they accumulate more power through the expansion of government, desire to accumulate more of this power, funding, and sway as a means of advancing their careers. Particularly, in the absence of profits and handsome salaries and bonuses, the most that government bureaucrats can hope for is an expansion of their power and their careers. Across a bureaucracy, this means that big government leads to even bigger government.
European-style big governments foster more stable societies

Jeffrey Sachs. "The Case for Bigger Government." Time. January 8th, 2009: "The European strategy, with levels of taxation and government spending roughly 8% to 10% of GDP higher than in the U.S., has many successes to show for it: less costly and more reliable health care, the elimination of hard-core poverty, solid educational achievements, and social services that ensure better care for children and more flexibility for mothers and the elderly."
Government is better than businesses at many things

"The Case FOR Bureaucracy." GovernmentIsGood.com.: "Myth No. 2: Business is Always Better than Bureaucracy. [...] Charles Goodsell is a professor of Public Administration and Public Affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University who has spent much of his life studying bureaucracy. After examining these efficiency studies, he concluded: 'In short, there is much evidence that is ambivalent. The assumption that business always does better than government is not upheld. … When you add up all these study results, the basis for the mantra that business is always better evaporates.'"
Govt can't bind communities like local associations

Ryan Messmore. "A Moral Case Against Big Government." Heritage Foundation. February 27, 2007: "Local forms of association, especially the family and religious congregations, generate the thick, personal bonds that unite and motivate individuals toward the good for themselves and others. [...] The common goods offered by the nation-state are less capable of engendering the thick, personal bonds that unite smaller institutions like families and congregations. Instead, the state is left more dependent on fear of punishment as a means of motivation."
History shows economic gains from govt intervention

Jeff Madrick. "How big government helps the economy take off." Boston Globe. September 7, 2008: "Contrary to the romantic claims about the nation's laissez-faire past, American history is a story of government intervening, time and again, to support growth. [...] Early America created a national bank to maintain its finances and currency, critical to a smooth-functioning modern economy, at the instigation of Alexander Hamilton, George Washington's treasury secretary. Under Thomas Jefferson, well-known for his laissez-faire sympathies, America bought the Louisiana territories in what amounted to a large federal spending program. He thus provided cheap land to farmers at federally controlled low prices, enabling them to feed themselves and the nation, but also soon to produce surpluses to feed Britain as well, adding to America's wealth." [more of quote in argument page].
Big government weakens local associations

Ryan Messmore. "A Moral Case Against Big Government." Heritage Foundation. February 27, 2007: "Misplaced Allegiance Threatens Democracy. Citizens' cultural allegiances to family, church, and local associations [...] are some of 'the most powerful resources of democracy.' The diversification of authority and allegiance among social institutions helps to prevent any one institution from becoming too powerful." In so far as government undermines these social institutions, it undermines a vital check on government in a democracy. This can lead to ever-expanding government power.
It is a myth that government impedes growth

Jeff Madrick. "The case for big government." October 22, 2009: "All myths are by definition simplistic. The one that became entrenched in the late 1970s and early 1980s had as its core claim that government's presence was usually an impediment to prosperity and that the best course for the American economy was to reduce aggressively government's size and reach. So popular was this destructive notion that the end of the “era of big government” was announced proudly in 1996 by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton."
Idea of govt as "wasteful bureaucracy" is mostly a myth

"The Case FOR Bureaucracy." GovernmentIsGood.com: "Conservatives like to play on this popular prejudice by constantly equating government with bureaucracy. The comments of Charlton Heston are typical: 'Of course, government is the problem. The armies of bureaucrats proliferating like gerbils, scurrying like lemmings in pursuit of the ever-expanding federal agenda testify to that amply.' Once government is thought of as “bureaucracy,” the case for reducing it becomes obvious. Who could complain if Republicans want to get reduce these “armies of bureaucrats”? Everyone knows that we would all be better off with less bureaucracy and fewer bureaucrats in our lives. So when conservatives want to make shrinking government sound attractive, they say they are cutting 'bureaucracy' – not 'programs.' Most people value government programs – especially in the areas of education, health and the environment – and do not want to see them reduced; but everyone hates bureaucracy. Using the term 'bureaucracy' in this way is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that obscures the real costs of cutting back on government programs."
Small governments have higher per capita income

Milton Friedman. "The Hong Kong Experiment." The Hoover Institution. 1998: "According to the latest figures I have, per capita income in Hong Kong is almost identical with that in the United States. [...] That is close to incredible. Here we are—a country of 260 million people that stretches from sea to shining sea, with enormous resources, and a two-hundred-year background of more or less steady growth, supposedly the strongest and richest country in the world, and yet six million people living on a tiny spit of land with negligible resources manage to produce as high a per capita income. How come? [...] The explanation is the same as for Britain and Israel. Direct government spending is less than 15 percent of national income in Hong Kong, more than 40 percent in the United States."
Government avoids pitfalls of focus on profits

"The Case FOR Bureaucracy." GovernmentIsGood.com.: "Myth No. 3: We Want the Government to Act Like a Business. The astronaut John Glenn tells a story about his first trip into space. As he sat in the capsule, waiting nervously on the launching pad, he couldn’t stop thinking about the fact that NASA had given the contract for the rocket to the lowest bidder. This raises another important point about government bureaucracies: we don’t always want them to act like businesses."
Big government diverts money from more productive uses

Michael Cloud. "Why not big government? The five iron laws." The Center for Small Government: "5. Big Government Programs divert money and energy from positive, productive uses. Big Government Programs are funded with hundreds of billions of tax dollars taken from productive workers and businesses. Every dollar drained from the private sector is a dollar that the individuals and business who earned it can’t spend, save, invest, or give to effective private organizations and programs that help those less fortunate. [...] Charities, churches, and service organizations strive to assist those in need – and help them become self-sufficient. Because these organizations rely on voluntary donations, they are directly accountable to their supporters. Because they operate on lean budgets, they streamline their operations, eliminate needless overhead, and seek better ways to help those unable to help themselves. They regularly produce good results – at a fraction of the expense of comparable Big Government Programs."
Big govt programs are generally ineffective

Michael Cloud. "Why not big government? The five iron laws." The Center for Small Government: "1. Big Government Programs don’t work. Big Government Programs don’t solve the problems they were created to solve. They don’t produce the results they were intended to produce. They don’t deliver the benefits they were supposed to. Do Government Welfare Programs get people back on their feet and enable them to become self-supporting individuals? Do Government subsidies of businesses make their recipients stronger and more competitive? Big Government Economic and Social Programs don’t work."
Government has no inherent interest in expansion

"The Case FOR Bureaucracy." GovernmentIsGood.com.: "it is not clear at all that bureaucrats are always seeking to expand their agencies and their budgets. This budget-maximizing thesis was directly contradicted by a study conducted by Julie Dolan. [...] She found that in most areas the public was willing to support increased spending much more than the agency administrators. And, in most cases, a majority of these administrators did not support increased budgets. This was due, she believed, to administrators having a more realistic and sophisticated knowledge of these issues and programs. Her conclusion: 'In sum, the budget-minimizing tendencies of federal administrators reported here suggest that self-interest is not as powerful a motivator as previously believed, and they suggest we should revise our theories about self-interested bureaucrats inflating government budgets for their own gain.'"
Big government bureaucracies are wasteful

Michael Cloud. "Why not big government? The five iron laws." The Center for Small Government: "4. Big Government Programs are costly and wasteful. Have you ever heard about government cost under-runs? How many times have you read about government projects that come in at 5 or 10 or 20 times the price initially agreed to? Why aren’t Big Government Programs thrifty? Because they don’t have to be. It’s not their money. Every year, the officials running these Big Government programs go back to their local or state or federal legislators for bigger budgets and more tax dollars."
Strong citizen-driven govt binds communities.

Citizens can come together to engage in government at all levels. Going to a caucus as a citizen, for example, and interacting with other citizens, and voting for and shaping the agenda of ones political party is an incredibly powerful form of civic engagement. It binds communities mightily, allowing them to come together to express their individual and common vision for their future, and then enabling them to achieve these goals through collective action, with the authority of the state. No other civil association has the same power, so is not as capable of rallying a community together.
The UN SC veto is justifiably given to nuclear powers

The P-5 veto holding members of the UN SC are unique in that they are the only countries that have nuclear arsenals (not simply a small stock nuclear weapons). They are the only countries with the power to initiate full-scale nuclear war. Therefore, it is important that that they be able to end measures with their veto power to ensure that measures are not realized that could foment serious international tension and possibly nuclear war.