BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Negotiation isolates those who are only interested in violence

Negotiations are not needed to isolate terrorists. The vast majority of citizens will abhor violence as they simply desire a quiet life in which they can make a peaceful living. The best way for the government to isolate the terrorists is to ensure the security of the community and meet some of their grievances. When the community sees that they government is in a better position to provide what they want they will support the government. The situation in Iraq was unusual in that there were important people in the community who at one point or another actively supported Al Qaeda so there needed to be negotiations with these people. In most circumstances the important members of the community are on the sidelines so negotiating with them would not be analogous to negotiating with terrorists.
Negotiation encourages more terrorism

There is no question that violence can sometimes achieve its aims but each individual campaign is different and is responded to in different ways thus for example a terrorist group that achieves minimal aims through violence cannot be used as a model by a group whose aims present an existential threat to the state. Thus for example the IRA achieved devolution after years of bombings but this does not them mean that the Real IRA was ever going to be successful in obtain a complete break with the UK.
Terrorists can’t be trusted – better to crush them

Simply because a terrorist group has broken ceasefires numerous times does not mean that the next attempt will get nowhere – in ETA’s case the current ceasefire is holding.[1] We should also remember that not every time the terrorist group breaks a ceasefire it has been result of actions by the terrorist group – the state can also be the one that is walking away from talks. Ultimately there needs to be trust on both sides, to the terrorists the state seems as untrustworthy as the terrorists do to the state. [1] ‘Spain and ETA Always around’, The Economist, 17 August 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21583715-weakened-terrorist-group-remains-presence-basque-region-always-around
Negotiation saves lives

Almost all terrorist groups kill people, whether innocents or members of the military. Even those who limit casualties by giving warnings of their atrocities are unperturbed when they do end up taking lives. Negotiation can then be the best way to save lives both in the short and long term. In the short term negotiating can mean a cease fire, and if there are hostages their release. Over the long term negotiation is necessary if there is to be any peaceful conclusion to the conflict. As the right to life is the most fundamental right, and the duty of the states to protect its citizens is primary role of the state it is clear that the protection of these lives should be the main consideration for the state.
Negotiation encourages moderation

In every terrorist movement there are different factions and disagreements about how best to achieve their collective aims, and often terrorist groups have either direct or indirect ties with political parties with whom they share the same goals. It is clearly then in the interest of the state to strengthen the more acceptable parts of the movement whether can seriously talk to. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to negotiate. This then makes their path to a solution the more credible course for the movement as a whole to take. To demonstrate a negative example the United States and Israel were unwilling to negotiate with moderates within the PLO for fifteen years during which time not only was there a lot more bloodshed but much more radical groups formed on the Palestinian side making negotiations much more complicated in the long run as there would be multiple groups who would need to sign up to a final peace treaty.[1] [1] Chamberlin, Paul Thomas, ‘When It Pays to Talk to Terrorists’, The New York Times, 3 September 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/opinion/when-it-pays-to-talk-to-terrorists.html?_r=0
Negotiation isolates those who are only interested in violence

Just as negotiations strengthen the moderates they isolate those who are most radical and interested in a violent solution. This isolation is key to actually winning a fight against groups using terrorist methods because terrorists are almost always hiding within the community. The only way to prevent these acts is therefore to encourage their community to persuade the terrorists to reject violence, or if they are not willing to change to aid the state. The need for help from the community is recognised in almost all conflicts against terrorist groups and insurgencies. The state succeeds when it gets the moderates on board, this is shown by the conflict in Iraq where the United States turned the tide against al Qaeda in the Al-Anbar Awakening. This victory was only made possible through the engagement and cooperation with local leaders who wanted an end to violence so were willing to talk to, and join with the US military if the result was likely to be security.[1] [1] Smith, Niel, and MacFarland, Sean, ‘Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point’, Military Review, March-April 2008, pp.41-52, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA486828 p.48
Negotiation encourages more terrorism

There are two ways in which negotiation encourages more terrorism. First it shows that violence can achieve its aims, a group that has committed violent acts and received negotiations in return will believe that they will gain even more from greater levels of violence. Secondly as argued in the previous point negotiations with terrorist groups gives legitimacy to political violence. This in turn will encourage other groups to resort to violence to achieve their political goals as they have seen it work for another group. Thus for example when the Fatah movement and the Palestine Liberation Organisation were legitimised by a peace process and the recognition of a form of Palestinian government other groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas came to believe that they could take terrorist actions further in order to liberate Palestine through an armed struggle.[1] [1] Schweitzer, Yoram, ‘The Rise and Fall of Suicide Bombings in the Second Intifada’, Strategis Assessment, Vol.13, No.3, October 2010, http://www.inss.org.il.cdn.reblaze.com/upload/(FILE)1289896644.pdf p.40
Terrorists can’t be trusted – better to crush them

Any group that is willing to resort to violence cannot be trusted not to simply take up arms again as soon as they perceive some new grievance. Groups that believe they can achieve what they want through force of arms will turn to violence again and again. This can be seen all over the world; thus ETA regularly declares ceasefires and breaks them just as often (1989, 1996, 1998, 2006),[1] or civil wars that have seemed to be coming to a close reignite because one or more groups believe they can gain more from another round of fighting. Thus the Tamil Tigers fought what might be considered to be four separate wars with the Sri Lankan state with a lot of ceasefires along the way.[2] It was however not negotiations but the pursuit of a ruthless military campaign that finally brought the reunification of the country.[3] [1] Dingle, Sarah, ‘ETA militants declare end to armed struggle’, ABC The World Today, 21 October 2011, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3344858.htm [2] ‘Sri Lanka profile Timeline’, BBC News, 16 May 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12004081 [3] Smith, Niel A., ‘Understanding Sri Lanka’s Defeat of the Tamil Tigers’, NDU Press, 2009, http://www.ndu.edu/press/understanding-sri-lanka.html
No negotiation encourages the hunt for a bigger lever

Buying time only helps the terrorists. It gives them time to arm themselves and gain allies abroad so enabling a more deadly series of attacks later on. Terrorist groups usually only have a very finite number of resources so the state should seek to press the terrorist group until it has nothing left to fall back on. It is notable that each time Israel has failed to destroy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza they have quickly been resupplied b allies in Syria and Iran making them more difficult to fight next time.[1] [1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006, http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/31/world/fg-hezbollah31
Negotiation is the only way to solve the underlying problem

There is nothing wrong with attempts to solve the individual grievance without reference to the terrorist group. The aim of resolving the grievance is to prevent more people joining the extremists and to isolate them from the people. When this is done it will be much easier to catch the people who are responsible for the terrorist atrocities and bring them to justice. Being willing to negotiate with the terrorist group on the other hand will likely lead to some of the concessions being that terrorists or former terrorist manage to escape justice for their acts as they will want such an amnesty to be a part of the concessions they receive in return for giving up violence.
Negotiations cannot take place while innocents are being threatened

A precondition that terrorists must give up their arms and renounce violence before negotiations will ensure that negotiations never come and the violence will continue indefinitely. Terrorists realise that their influence is only as a result of their threat of violence; once this has been renounced the government will never have any reason to give them what they want. The only response to such a precondition is to force the government to drop that condition through violence.
Negotiation provides more resources to terrorists

It is very rare for such negotiations to provide a benefit to terrorist groups. Many states, such as the UK and USA, are unwilling to provide ransom payments so where they are provided they are often privately raised thus cannot be considered to be a result of negotiation. In such circumstances the state will have secured the release of hostages and the life of a state's citizens should be placed above comparatively small amounts of money. Where prisoners are being released as a confidence building measure the terrorists will usually be making some concession as well such as giving up some arms so the state does not end up worse off but there is more trust to enable negotiations to prevent more violence.
Even if negotiation with one group is successful others will take their place

The real IRA also shows how negotiation is successful. The new group did not have the tacit support from abroad in the form of the Republic of Ireland or the USA or resources of its predecessor. The violent campaign destroyed any public support and the group disbanded, its leaders were eventually found liable for the bombing.[1] The political process through the Stormont Parliament is now the accepted way to peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. [1] McDonald, Henry, ‘Four Real IRA leaders found liable for Omagh bombing’, theguardian.com, 8 June 2009, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jun/08/omagh-real-ira-leaders-liable
No negotiation encourages the hunt for a bigger lever

When fighting terrorists the state either needs to answer some of the terrorists demands or fight back. When the state fights back the by the terrorists response is almost always more bloodshed using more and more extreme methods for example the first intifada was fought using sticks and stones, but when this, and the peace process that followed it failed, or rather did not show the results that was hoped for, the second was a major step up to suicide bombing. This is because when the terrorists fail they are unlikely to pack up; instead they will try to find a bigger lever to course the state into making the move they want. In this case Arafat hoped a round of violence would bring about concessions.[1] The best way to prevent this cycle of violence is to negotiate, even if this is mostly to buy time. Even when there is no cease fire there will be no reason for the terrorists to escalate if their demands are being taken seriously. [1] Pressman, Jeremy, ‘The Second Intifada: Background and Causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’, The Journal of Conflict Studies, Vol. CCIII, No.2, Fall 2003, http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/220/378
Negotiation is the only way to solve the underlying problem

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in 2003 “terrorism will only be defeated if we act to solve the political disputes and long-standing conflicts which generate support for it.  If we do not, we shall find ourselves acting as a recruiting sergeant for the very terrorists we seek to suppress.”[1] Terrorist campaigns don't just come out of nowhere (with the exception of some single individual acts), there is a grievance behind the acts. The terrorist is trying to have this grievance dealt with and believes the best way to this end is through violence. It is clear that the easiest way to end the conflict is simply to resolve the grievance. Even when there are no negotiations the state will usually attempt to resolve some of these grievances, however doing so unilaterally will simply show that the terrorist's violence is working without getting any guarantees of an end to the violence in return. Negotiation therefore benefits both sides. It is notable that 43% of terrorist groups that have ended since 1968 have done so as a result of negotiations compared to only 7% being defeated militarily. [2] [1] Annan, Kofi, ‘Ability to reason vital in fighting terrorism, Secretary-General tells conference’, un.org, SG/SM/8885, 22 September 2003, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sgsm8885.doc.htm [2] Jones, Seth G., and Libicki, Martin C., How Terrorist Groups End, RAND, 2008, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG741-1.pdf p.xiii, xiv
Negotiations cannot take place while innocents are being threatened

Governments cannot negotiate while innocent civilians are being threatened by illegitimate violence. The state is the only wielder of legitimate violence in the form of the police and military that are needed to keep order and defend the state's citizens. To negotiate with terrorists is to provide them with legitimacy making violence an accepted way of achieving political aims. Before legitimacy is granted upon the terrorist group they must first give up their weapons and renounce violence. By taking such a position the state ensures that no lives will be taken during the political process.
Banning partial birth abortions is in line with popular and accepted moral standards

These opinion polls are misleading, as they force respondents to choose between an outright ban and no control at all – it is impossible for them to register support for partial-birth abortion in cases where the mother’s physical or psychological health is in danger. A majority of Americans are still in favour of the right to abortion. More importantly, this should not be the business of the general public or of legislators. Nobody who would prefer not to have a partial-birth abortion will be made to have one. Most people who want it banned will never face a situation where it directly affects them in any case. We should leave decisions up to the people who are directly affected by them - not to outsiders, who are free to express their opinion but not to impose it on everyone else. This is a campaign promise George Bush should not keep.
The concept of "foetal rights" is an attack on the autonomy of women

Allowing partial-birth abortion is utterly inconsistent with the growing, and legally recognised, respect for foetal rights in the United States. If a man can sue the mother of his child for taking drugs during pregnancy which discolour their child’s teeth, if pregnant women can be banned from the smoking sections of restaurants, what sense does it make to allow exactly the same foetuses to have their skulls deliberately crushed?
Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general

Although many people who are against partial-birth abortion are against abortion in general, there is no necessary link, as partial-birth abortion is a particularly horrifying form of abortion. This is for the reasons already explained: it involves a deliberate, murderous physical assault on a half-born baby, whom we know for certain will feel pain and suffer as a result. We accept that there is some legitimate medical debate about whether embryos and earlier foetuses feel pain; there is no such debate in this case, and this is why partial-birth abortion is uniquely horrific, and uniquely unjustifiable.
The foetus feels pain

Partial-birth abortion is disgusting. Like all abortions, it involves the killing of an unborn child, but unlike first trimester abortions there is no doubt that the foetus can feel pain by the third trimester.[1] The procedure involves sticking a pair of scissors into a baby’s brain, enlarging the hole, sucking the brain out with a catheter and then crushing the skull. It is entirely unacceptable to do this to a living human being. Psychological damage to the mother as a result of rape or teenage pregnancy or depression is in the end less significant than the physical damage - death - caused to the child. [1] Lee, Susan J., et al., ‘Fetal Pain, A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 294 (8), 2005,  http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.short
Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption

Tragically, some babies are unwanted, but this does not mean that we should kill them. There are plenty of other options, notably adoption. If anything, the case for adoption is more compelling in the third trimester, because the pregnancy is nearer to its natural end and there is less time, only about ten weeks, for the mother to have to put up with it.[1] Unwanted pregnancy and adoption may be psychologically harmful, but in many cases so is abortion, particularly at a late stage of pregnancy when the mother can see that the dead foetus is recognisably a baby - the guilt feelings associated with feeling that one is responsible for murdering a child can be unbearable. [1] Bupa, ‘Stages of pregnancy’, April 2010, http://www.bupa.co.uk/individuals/health-information/directory/s/pregnancy-what-happens-stages#textBlock190283
Banning partial birth abortions is in line with popular and accepted moral standards

here is a vast amount of support in the United States for a ban on partial-birth abortion. Opinion polls have shown a consistent increase in support for a ban: as high as 70% in favour to 25% against in January 2003.[1] Furthermore, in 1997 the House of Representatives voted 295-136, and the Senate 64-36, in favour of a ban. For President Clinton to veto it was undemocratic;[2] for President Bush not to pass it would have been to break a campaign promise. [1] Gallup, ‘Abortion’, 30 November 2011, http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx [2] Craig, Larry E., ‘Clinton Claims on Partial-Birth Abortion Still Not True -- Not Even 'Legally Accurate'’, United States Senate Republican Policy Committee, 15 September 1998, http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/partial-birth.htm
The concept of "foetal rights" is an attack on the autonomy of women

The culture of foetal rights reflects a dangerous litigious trend in American society, and implies a view of pregnant women as being nothing more than baby-carrying machines whose independence and autonomy should be restricted and whose motivations should be questioned at every turn. If this has implications for the abortion debate, then those implications are profoundly damaging to women in general. In any case, the mother of a wanted baby has entirely different responsibilities toward the unborn foetus from the mother of an unwanted baby - that’s why our society allows both abortions and antenatal classes.
Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general

Partial-birth abortions form a tiny proportion of all abortions, but from a medical and psychological point of view they ought to be the least controversial. The reason for this focus is that late-term abortions are the most obviously distasteful, because late-term foetuses look more like babies than embryos or foetuses at an earlier developmental stage. Late-term abortions therefore make for the best pro-life campaigning material. By attempting to focus the debate here, campaigners are aiming to conflate all abortions with late-term abortions, and to increase opposition to all abortion on that basis.
Partial birth abortions are safer than any available alternative

The D&X abortion procedure generates the minimum of risk for the mother.  Banning it means that the only alternatives are premature labour induction for which mortality rates are 2.5 times higher and is emotionally very difficult due to the length of time it takes[1] (it is also likely to be unacceptable to the proposition) and hysterotomy (which results in removal of the womb). Finally as those who are having late partial birth abortions are likely to be suicidal, or at least will be very determined to get rid of their child they are the most likely to resort to back-street methods that cause damage to themselves. [1] The Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, ‘Abortion’, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/pubhealth/modules/reproductiveHealth/abortion.html
The foetus feels pain

Nobody would choose to have a partial-birth abortion over a much simpler abortion in the first trimester. Partial-birth abortions are either medically or psychologically necessary. If a young mother either does not find out she is pregnant or is too scared to tell anyone, if a woman is raped and decides at any stage that she does not want the baby, if a woman is threatening suicide if she is forced to carry a baby to term, we should not make her suffer further by forbidding her from ending the pregnancy. For all sorts of reasons, many women do not seek any kind of medical help until late in their pregnancy - this should not mean they forfeit their right to an abortion. In any case, if abortion is allowed at all, and given that the foetus is not recognised in law as a human being, it should be nobody’s business but the mother’s whether and at what stage she chooses to have an abortion.
Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption

Arguing that adoption is a good option shows a fundamental lack of awareness of what is involved in carrying an unwanted foetus to term. Pregnancy can be stressful at the best of times; being forced to carry an unwanted child against your will is enormously traumatic, and can cause permanent psychological harm, as can the knowledge that your own unwanted child is growing up elsewhere and may one day return to find you. If a mother chooses to carry a foetus to term and then give it up for adoption, that’s fine, but nobody should force her to do so.
Cannabis is a gateway drug

People who use cannabis will be more likely to move on to harder drugs. While the bad effects of cannabis may be disputed, the harmful effects of hard drugs cannot – they seriously damage people’s health. A major study in 2011 found that ‘smoking cannabis daily sets users up for a lifetime of multiple drug use’ 1. Heavy users are more likely to resort to crime to fund their addiction. Their habit often harms their relationships with friends, colleagues and family. State money then has to be spent on benefits, on policing, and on rehabilitation programs. 1. Griffin, 2011, http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/cannabis-a-gateway-to-other-dr... improve this