BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A cull is needed to prevent bovine TB

Bovine TB is a disease that affects cattle. When a herd is infected the animals in question need to be slaughtered to prevent the disease getting into the foodchain. The UK’s Chief vet, Nigel Gibbons argues that the risk of infection of humans will increase if there is no cull.[1]  Since the protection of badgers in 1992 there have been increases in the numbers of badgers and at the same time an increase in infections. In 1992 there were only about 800 infected herds but by 2012 that had increased to 9000. Scotland, which has only 10% of the UK’s badgers compared to 25% in the South West of England has very low prevalence of bovine TB.[2] It seems clear that we need to halt the spread of bovine TB to prevent the infection of humans and a badger cull has to be a part of the answer. [1] Bawden, Tom, ‘Chief vet: We need badger cull to prevent spread of TB to humans’, The Independent, 30 May 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/chief-vet-we-need-badger-cull-to-prevent-spread-of-tb-to-humans-8638379.html [2] ‘Bovine tuberculosis statistics and costs’, bovinetb.info, http://www.bovinetb.info/ (chart f and j)
A cull would save on the cost of compensation to farmers

A cull would be much cheaper than the cost of compensating farmers for their losses as a result of bovine TB. The cost of the disease to the taxpayer is estimated to be £1billion over the next ten years – mostly as a result of compensation payments for farmers. This cost also damages farmers’ livelihoods as the average cost of a TB breakdown on a farm is £34,000 of which the farmer has to pay £12,000.[1] By contrast the cost of the cull is estimated to be £1000 per square kilometre per year meaning the trials for the culls would cost a total of £2.2million. This then is considerably cheaper than the cost of the disease so will be saving both farmers and taxpayers a considerable cost.[2] [1] ‘Bovine TB (tuberculosis)’, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs,26 March 2013, http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/ [2] Agencies, ‘How badger cull policy was reached’, The Telegraph, 27 August 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/10268051/How-badger-cull-policy-was-reached.html
If there is no cull farmers will simply carry out their own killing

Without a cull farmers will simply take the issue into their own hands in order to protect their herds. If the government will not act on the issue of badgers then farmers will feel they are left with no choice. According to groups that aim to protect badgers there are already an estimated 9,000 badgers killed each year through gassing, poisoning, and baiting.[1] [1] Jenkinson, Stephen, ‘Protect the Badger, Why Bother?’, South Yorkshire Badger Group, http://www.sybadgergroup.f9.co.uk/page4.html
Culling badgers is inhumane

The culling of badgers will not be done in a humane way. The intention is that badgers will be shot by trained marksmen but according to the RSPCA “Their anatomy makes it difficult to shoot a free-roaming badger” the result is likely to be large numbers of injured badgers with many escaping “suffer agonizing deaths underground.”[1] As badgers are sentient beings we should be seeking to avoid causing them harm and suffering. [1] RSPCA, ‘RSPCA deeply saddened by start to badger cull’, politics.co.uk, 27 August 2013, http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/rspca-royal-society-for-the-prevention-of-cruelty-to-animals/article/rspca-deeply-saddened-by-start-to-badger-cull
Culling could increase rather than reduce TB

There have been trials of culls of badgers before and they have not been successful. In a randomised badger culling trial in 30 areas of England each measuring 100km2 it was found that “removing badgers by culling was found to disrupt their social organisation, causing remaining badgers to range more widely both inside and around the outside of culled areas.” The result of increased movement was “Proactive culling was associated with a 25% increase in the incidence of cattle TB on neighbouring un-culled land.”[1] Reactive culling can result in even higher increases with the risk of bovine TB more than doubling.[2] Clearly this could be dealt with through a complete cull that would not encourage movement of badgers but as the badger remains protected this is not possible. There are also difficulties with knowing how many badgers there really are because they live underground and only come out a night. Counting by numbers of setts is unreliable when there may be many that are disused or where there are badgers that use more than one sett.[3] [1] Bourne, John, et al., ‘Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB’, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20081027092120/http://defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/isg/pdf/final_report.pdf Pp.19-20 [2] Imperial College London News Release, ‘badger Localised reactive badger culling raises bovine tuberculosis risk, new analysis confirms’, Imperial College London, 13 July 2011, http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_13-7-2011-9-59-29?newsid=100586 [3] Carrington, Damian, ‘Counting the cost: fears badger cull could worsen bovine TB crisis’, The Guardian, 27 May 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/27/badger-cull-bovine-tuberculosis
There are other options to a cull

Culling badgers is just one option for reducing the incidence of bovine TB. We are forgetting that the rate of bovine TB is increasing mostly because the UK was very successful at wiping out bovine TB in the past. In the 1930s the national infection rate was around 4 in 10 cattle, this was reduced to less than one in 1000 in the mid-1960s.[1] This was done by removing infected cattle; this is still done today but that it was so successful in the past shows that other methods work. Badgers are not a new species in the UK and would have represented the same risk in the 1960s. Also potentially a better option is vaccination. This can be done either by vaccinating the badgers, or most effectively by vaccinating the cows. Wales has opted to go for a vaccination of badgers, a field study has found that vaccination can result in a 74% reduction in the proportion of wild badgers testing positive for TB.[2] It can also be done comparatively cheaply by using volunteers (the same people who are campaigning against the culls). It will still cost £2000 per km2 (about twice the cull) and it is clear that even if herd immunity is achieved in badgers this won’t immediately stop infections of cattle from badgers but considering the cull is expected over 9 years with only a 16% improvement in infection rates a vaccine would seem to be a good alternative.[3] [1] Rollins, Julian, ‘Badgers: To cull or not to cull’, BBC Countryfile, 8 April 2009, http://www.countryfile.com/countryside/badgers-cull-or-not-cull [2] ‘Research into Bovine TB’, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 10 December 2012, http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/research/ [3] ‘Bovine TB vaccination no magic bullet say MPs’, parliament.uk, 5 June 2013, http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environment-food-and-rural-affairs-committee/news/bovine-tb-report-publication/
A relaxation in cattle controls, not badgers, caused the problem

Bovine TB was almost eradicated in the UK yet the number of cases have shot up since the 1990s. The cause however is not badgers. Rather it is the result of BSE and Foot and Mouth disease which resulted in huge numbers of cattle being destroyed. To help the cattle farmers get back on their feet restrictions were all but lifted and cattle were moved all over the country. It is notable that the Isle of Man, which has no badgers, does have bovine TB.[1] John Bourne, who led a trial of badger culling, suggests the cattle movement controls should be tightened before anything as drastic as a cull is undertaken. “The cattle controls in operation at the moment are totally ineffective… It's an absolute nonsense that farmers can move cattle willy-nilly after only two tests. Why won't politicians implement proper cattle movement controls? Because they don't want to upset farmers.” The problem is that the tests are not accurate so herds can pass the tests while they still have the disease so when cattle are moved they infect other herds.[2] [1] Kaminski, Julia, ‘Badger culls don't stop tuberculosis in cattle – the evidence is clear’, theguardian.com, 11 August 2011, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/aug/11/badger-cull-dont-stop-bovine-tb [2] Carrington, Damian, ‘Counting the cost: fears badger cull could worsen bovine TB crisis’, The Guardian, 27 May 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/27/badger-cull-bovine-tuberculosis
A cull is needed to prevent bovine TB

Some of the costs are largely illusionary. Yes we stop food that is tested positive from bovine TB from getting into the food chain but this ignores that the tests are not accurate so there is likely meat that is infected getting into the foodchain anyway. Bovine TB is mostly in parts of cattle that are not eaten and cooking kills the TB bacterium. At the same time almost all milk is pasteurised so again the bacterium is killed posing no risk to human health.[1] The main difficulty with the argument that a cull will prevent TB is that we do not know which way infections run. Do badgers infect cattle or the other way around. Currently the evidence suggests that it is cattle that infect badgers this is why there are areas with high badger populations without bovine TB problems such as the north of England. It is all but certain that any large jumps in infection over large distances are the result of cattle to cattle transmission.[2] Looking at the chart presented it is clear that the biggest jump from under 2000 to over 5000 infected herds occurs immediately after foot and mouth suggesting the increase was a result of cattle movements. [1] ‘expert reaction to TB test-positive cattle entering the food chain’, Science Media Centre, 1 July 2013, http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-tb-test-positive-cattle-entering-the-food-chain/ [2] Dawson, D.G., ‘Badgers and TB, where is the science?’, University of Birkbeck, March 2013, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/environment/ecss/lecturesarchive/badgerstext (6, 10, 11)
A cull would save on the cost of compensation to farmers

This would certainly make sense if it was expected that the cull would eliminate bovine TB however this is not the case. The estimated reduction in bovine TB cases is expected to only be 16% as a result of a cull of 70% of badgers in an area.[1] This is because only a small proportion of badgers, possibly as low as 6% and at most 30-40%, have bovine TB.[2] Another reason is that other animals, such as deer and foxes, also can pass on bovine TB.[3] Clearly most of the cost in terms of compensation will therefore remain. There may be some small cost savings but these are marginal. [1] Ghosh, Pallab, ‘Badger cull will reduce cattle TB infections slightly’, BBC News, 28 September 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19742101 [2] Packham, Chris, ‘like Owen Paterson, I had pet badgers. But their real place was in the wild’, theguardian.com, 27 August 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2013/aug/27/chris-packham-pet-badgers-owen-paterson [3] Worral, Patrick, ‘FactCheck: the badger cull – what we know and what we don’t know’, Channel 4 News, 27 August 2013, http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-badger-cull/14232
There are other options to a cull

A vaccine for cattle does not yet exist in a form where it is possible to tell the difference between a vaccinated cow and a cow infected by bovine TB. This means that vaccinated cattle would have to be treated the same way as infected cattle so would not be salable. Vaccination is not 100% effective and would run the risk of other countries banning exports.[1] Vaccination of badgers on the other hand is costly with the first phase of the welsh trials having amounted to £662 per jab despite the vaccine itself costing much less.[2] [1] ‘Cattle Vaccination’, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 24 January 2013, http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/vaccination/cattle-vaccination/ [2] ‘NFU Cymru slams bovine TB vaccination costs’, NFU Cymru, 29 January 2013, http://www.nfu-cymru.org.uk/sectors/cross-cutting-issues/bovine-tb/nfu-cymru-slams-bovine-tb-vaccination-costs/
Blanket commitment creates a slippery slope of when to intervene.

It is not difficult to set up basic guidelines as to determining when a situation has gone too far. Even proponents of Responsibility to protect agree on certain criteria particularly right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable Prospects.[1] The last of these criteria will rule out any intervention against a great power such as China where there would not be reasonable prospects of success unless disproportionate means (something like a preemptive nuclear strike) was used. Questions like ‘how many have to die?’ are therefore not asking the right questions because the loss of life could be relatively small (it also assumes that only killing matters) if all the criteria are fulfilled. While this would regrettably constrain any ‘responsibility to protect’ it would at the same time mean that R2P would not become an excuse for starting large scale wars. [1] Evans, Gareth et al., The Responsibility to Protect, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001, p.32 http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf
The UN does not have the necessary funds or expertise.

The United Nations does have a problem raising sufficient money, troops and resources to meet its present needs for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. This is precisely because all such operations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the approach so beloved of the opposition for dealing with any challenge. Without a clear global commitment to the Responsibility to Protect, the UN will always be scrabbling scrambling around to meet its needs in dealing with individual crises. Once there is clear agreement on the kind of situation which will in future prompt intervention, the UN can begin to plan ahead to build up resources, create contingency funds, and seek pledges of military units from member states, to be activated swiftly as needed. This could most easily be done regionally through the regional security organizations such as NATO and the African Union that it was originally intended would provide this kind of security. If the member states of one organization lacked some necessary equipment such as transport capacity they could borrow them from neighboring organizations.
Actions to intervene in internal situations need to be determined on a case by case basis.

Acting on a case-by-case basis does not establish an effective deterrent. If a leader does not know for certain that their action is going to lead to an intervention, they can’t be deterred. In order for them to be deterred, they need to know by which standards their actions will be assessed and acted upon. On a case-by-case basis, there is no such consistency established. The UN needs to adopt an equal treatment of every country and situation under a responsibility to protect clause so that the least powerful in this world do not go unprotected.
The United Nations has a responsibility to prevent genocide and mass atrocities.

Citizens should be protected by individual governments, however if governments are either partaking in or failing to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, then another global actor needs to take action. The United Nations should take on this responsibility to protect people when their governments are unable or unwilling to do so, in order to prevent mass killings, genocide and other atrocities[1]. If we believe human rights have any meaning at all, then they must be universal and therefore our obligation to protect citizens from such horrors must apply regardless of state boundaries. Moving from a situation where the UN placed the rights of states above those of their people, to one where individual rights are given the greater priority is surely morally essential. [1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”, http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop#sg_report
A strong United Nations commitment to the Right to Protect will create an effective deterrent to future atrocities.

Governments and leaders who are considering attacks on their own people, or who are wavering in their commitment to defend them from harm, will be aware that ignoring their own obligations could bring swift action from the international community. Only once their ability to hide behind claims to absolute sovereignty has been removed will human rights have to be taken seriously by dictators and extremist regimes. Thus by adopting a strong UN position on the Responsibility to Protect, we can hope to make states take their own responsibilities more seriously and make the need for any actual intervention rare. For example, Omar Al-Bashir of the Sudan has committed horrible atrocities against his own people. He is complicit in committing genocide against Darfur populations, yet remains in power. There is a warrant for his arrest from the International Criminal Court, but they have little ability to act upon their threats[1].  A strong commitment to the responsibility to protect would ensure leaders like Bashir think twice before permitting such atrocities to take place, through fear for their own grip on power.   [1] New York Times (2011), “Omar Hassan al-Bashir”, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/omar_hassan_al_bashir/index.html
Countries and governments have an obligation to protect human rights and defend their citizens from harm

We can no longer argue that sovereignty must be considered absolute. Sovereignty was created as the means by which states justified the control of their territory to prevent foreign aggression. Since the creation of the United Nations, sovereignty is no longer as necessary to protect states, as most wars are not about territorial acquisition. Now it is primarily a barrier to the international community intervening when the state is abusing its own population. A better principle is if governments today are unable or unwilling to perform the duty to protect their people from harm (including state-imposed harm), then their claims to sovereignty lose their moral force and intervention becomes justified[1]. For example, Qaddafi of Libya was likening his citizens to cockroaches and rats, threatening to kill them house-by-house whilst speaking of his intent to indiscriminately attack the population of Benghazi[2]. As such, there was significant concern that violence would have devastating impacts on Libyan civilians. The United Nations, in response, authorized NATO action[3]. Through unleashing state military assets to attack his own population, Qaddafi made it clear that he was not a fit leader. The United Nations, as the representative of the international community, has the responsibility to protect those whose leaders have let them down. [1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”, http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop [2] BBC News (2011), “Libya Protests: Defiant Gaddafi refuses to quit”, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12544624 [3] Chivers, C.J. (2011), “In Libya’s West, Signs of Growing Frustration With NATO”, New York Times, http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/in-libyas-west-signs-of-growing-frustration-with-nato/?scp=2&sq=libya&st=cse
It is better to save lives than stand idly by.

It is immoral to let people die when something can be done about it. It inherently values the lives of victims of genocide and civil war less than other lives.  The world and the United Nations have for too long stood by and watched atrocities unfold. Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur are all horrible examples where genocide and other appalling violations of human rights were inflicted upon civilian populations while the UN failed to act[1]. Clearly in all the past cases where action might have saved lives and delivered hundreds of thousands of people from evil, no action was taken by the Security Council. Therefore those who argue that future challenges should be considered purely on a case-by-case basis must accept that this is likely to mean yet more refusals to act decisively and so more needless suffering. We must place an obligation to act on the Security Council so that they are predisposed to respond seriously and swiftly in future. If there is a known atrocity going on in the international community, the Security Council should no longer be allowed to ignore it based on their individual ties. For example China could not defend the Sudan even though they have close financial ties when intervention for human rights abuses is the norm[2]. The world responded to the holocaust saying ‘never again’, yet similar ethnic cleansing has happened over and over again, and in defense of human rights the UN needs to adopt a no tolerance policy. Countries who are not prepared for this obligation should step down from the Security Council. [1] Prevent Genocide, “Past Genocides”, http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/ [2] Aljazeera (2011), “China Bolsters Economic Ties with Sudan”, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/201162952034878959.html
The UN would be turned into something that it is not.

From a group of cooperating but sovereign states, secure from external intervention if they live peaceably with their neighbors, the UN would be turned into some sort of global congress of humanity, where borders played no part. This may seem a utopian vision, but the nation state has a good record of delivering responsive, accountable government to which individual citizens can feel a strong personal commitment, and which is able to meet their particular cultural, religious, environmental and economic needs[1]. International institutions are at best impersonal and remote and at worst an unaccountable and undemocratic imposition. It is right to oppose any language and commitments which would advance the cause of those who would turn the UN into a world government. [1] The Economist (1999), “Garibaldi and the 1,000”, http://www.economist.com/node/346847
Blanket commitment creates a slippery slope of when to intervene.

A blanket commitment could lead the United Nations and the word into great dangers. It must be considered whether intervention with force is always practical. For example, in the past China's government has committed horrific human rights abuses, such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Square massacre. These surely show a state unable or unwilling to protect its citizens and would have invited intervention under this proposal. Or perhaps you feel these are purely historical examples - but what if the Chinese regime in future used horrific force to put down future risings by Uighur or Tibetan ethnic minorities? Or what about present Russian behavior in Chechnya? Would the UN really deliver on an intervention in members of the security council? Where do they draw the line? How do they decide which countries have revoked sovereignty with their actions? How many people have to die? One of the concerns with the NATO invasion in Libya is that it sets a dangerous precedent[1]. The UN would very likely be taking far too much on if they truly adopt the “responsibility to protect” particularly because it is difficult to justly define when a government has gone too far. [1] Bajoria, Jayshree (2011), “Libya and the Responsibility to Protect”, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-responsibility-protect/p24480