BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
China's suppression of Tibet insignificant relative to other countries

"Our Tibet Protests Won't Work". Washington Post, Post Global. April 14th, 2008 - "China's attitude toward Tibet is wrong and cruel, but, alas, not that unusual. Other nations, especially developing countries, have taken tough stands against what they perceive as separatist forces. A flourishing democracy like India has often responded to such movements by imposing martial law and suspending political and civil rights. The Turks for many decades crushed all Kurdish pleas for linguistic and ethnic autonomy. The democratically elected Russian government of Boris Yeltsin responded brutally to Chechen demands. Under Yeltsin and his successor, Vladimir Putin, also elected, the Russian Army killed about 75,000 civilians in Chechnya, and leveled its capital. These actions were enthusiastically supported within Russia. It is particularly strange to see countries that launched no boycotts while Chechnya was being destroyed -- and indeed welcomed Russia into the G8 -- now so outraged about the persecution of minorities. (In comparison, estimates are that over the past 20 years, China has jailed several hundred people in Tibet.)"
Politicizing and boycotting Beijing is necessary to uphold the Olympic spirit

The Olympic Charter states that "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man,with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." Thus, as China is disrupting the "harmonious development" of several countries, clearly is not concerned with the preservation of human dignity as can be seen from the continuous human rights violations, politicizing the Olympics by taking a stand and boycotting China is now the only way to truly uphold the goal of the Olympics.
Official English discriminates against non-English speakers

"Language Rights Are Protected Under Civil Rights Law." MALDEF on OpposingViews.com: "Language is not only a barrier to communication, but also an identifying characteristic of an individual’s ethnicity and national origin. [...] Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, ancestry, national origin or ethnicity. Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination based "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act provides the foundation for ensuring nondiscrimination in all federal programs and services, including those provided to language minorities."[See extended argument on OpposingViews.com]
English-only in workplace protects businesses from lawsuits

"Tennessee becomes first state to protect businesses with English workplace policies." US English. June 24th, 2010: "With the signature of Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen, Tennessee became the first state today to protect the rights of businesses to have English-in-the-workplace policies where there is a 'legitimate business necessity.' [...] The bill, which passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support in the state House and Senate, was designed to comply with rules set by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and to protect businesses from lawsuits. Federal courts have affirmed that businesses can require their employees to speak English during business operations and for safety reasons."
English-only policies increase non-native dropout rates

James Vazins. "Boston students struggle with English-only rule. Many nonnatives quit the system." Boston Glob. April 7th, 2009: "Students not fluent in English have floundered in Boston schools since voters approved a law change six years ago requiring school districts to teach them all subjects in English rather than their native tongue, according to a report being released tomorrow. [...] In one of the most striking findings, the study found that the high school dropout rate nearly doubled for students still learning to speak and write in English, according to the report by the Mauricio Gastón Institute for Latino Community Development and Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts at Boston and the Center for Collaborative Education."
English-only laws can be a public safety/health hazard

"English-Only Negatively Impacts the Government’s Response to Disasters." MALDEF on OpposingViews.com: "Examples of situations in which government officials must communicate efficiently and effectively to ensure the safety of the general populace abound. In the event of a natural disaster or terrorist threat, for example, federal emergency workers must be able to convey important information and instructions to as broad an audience as possible, a need that may require the use of languages other than English. A national English-only policy would impede the government’s ability to convey warnings or post danger or hazard signs in languages other than English. Such a policy would prevent local law enforcement from effectively investigating crimes, communicating with crime victims or witnesses, or providing critically needed services to victims of domestic violence and abuse?
Impractical/expensive for govt to cater to multiple languages

USEnglish.org. "Why is Official English necessary?": "Official English is common sense government. The designation of official English will eliminate the needless duplication of government services in multiple languages. It is not the responsibility of the government to provide services in the 322 different languages spoken in the United States. It is the responsibility of each individual to either learn English or to find a friend or family member to translate. The money formerly spent on multi-lingual services can instead provide immigrants with the assistance they really need-classes to teach them English."
The English language is under threat in America

"Linguistic Unity Is Critical in an Increasingly Diverse Society." ProEnglish on Opposing Views.com: "America's linguistic unity, that enabled the melting-pot crucible to forge one nation out of millions of immigrants from all over the world, is under pressure as never before in our history. The record numbers of non-English speaking immigrants the United States is receiving is adding to the nation’s diversity and putting enormous pressure on the assimilation process."
All US citizens should be able to speak English.

Steve Balich, the Homer, Illinois township's clerk and author of a July 2010 resolution calling for official English: "We want the people who come to this country to become official U.S. citizens and to learn to speak. It's really as simple as that"[2] This is a common provision in many countries abroad, and a reasonable request by a government and nation that has always conducted its official governing in English.
English is not under threat nor needing protection

Linguistic Society of America Resolution on English Only. July 1, 1987: "The English language in America is not threatened. All evidence suggests that recent immigrants are overwhelmingly aware of the social and economic advantages of becoming proficient in English, and require no additional compulsion to learn the language." Indeed, roughly 94% of Americans already speak English. This is a very high number, compared to other countries that have much greater linguistic stratification. It is not necessary, therefore, to change anything and make any greater effort at compelling Americans to learn English.
"Official English" does not mean "English only"

"Why official English?": "Official English doesn't mean 'English only.' None of the 30 states with official English laws prohibit government agencies from using another languages when there is a compelling public interest for doing so. These include: protecting public health and safety, assuring equality before the law, promoting tourism, teaching foreign languages, providing for national defense, and many other legitimate, common sense needs." The government can act to provide these services when necessary. But, it is another thing entirely for a citizen to demand these services as a right.
Public opinion favors English as the official language

"Americans Overwhelmingly Support Official English" ProEnglish on OpposingViews.com: "National polls and state referendums show conclusively that Americans, including Hispanic Americans, overwhelmingly support Official English. 87% of American voters support making English the official language of the United States. 77% of Hispanic voters think English should be the official language of government operations. 82% of Americans support legislation that would require the federal government to conduct business solely in English. 72% of American young people ages 18-24, including majorities of Hispanic and Asian-American young people, favor making English the official language. 74% of American voters agree that election ballots should be exclusively in English. Nearly two thirds of all Hispanic adults --65 percent -- favor making English the nation's official language." [See extended argument on OpposingViews.com]
Incentive to learn English exists w/o making it official language

"The Myth of English as a Threatened Language." MALDEF on OpposingViews.com: "Latino immigrants are learning English, and doing so as quickly as or more quickly than previous generations of immigrants. As is typical of immigrant populations in the United States, by the third generation most Latinos tend to speak only English. Latino immigrants, then, do not need official English or English-only legislation to coerce them into learning English; that desire and determination already runs deep in the Latino community."
Too many languages for right to govt services in own language.

There are over three hundred languages spoken in the United States. And, there are roughly 15 million American citizens (about 5% of the total population of 300 million) who do not speak English. Giving all of those individuals, in all of those different languages, the right to demand government services in their own language is preposterous. If we give Spanish speaking people this right, we would naturally have to extend the right to all the other 300 some-odd languages and those that speak them. This would unreasonably burden government services, adding a huge layer of bureaucracy and costs. Even then, inevitably, somebody with some obscure language will find that their "right" to have services provided to them in their own language will not be adequately fulfilled at some government facility. This is a bad combination in public policy; a right that cannot be provided adequately that nevertheless adds billions of dollars in extra costs for US government and taxpayers.
Language policies should be state-by-state, not national.

There should be no official national language. One of the great strengths of the United States is that we can experiment on a state-by-state basis. When one state does things one way, and a neighboring state does things the other way, it is much easier to see the advantages of doing things one way or the other. This allows each state to choose one way or the other based on objective evidence and results. And, indeed, 30 states have already opted to have English as their state's official language. While, some may disagree on this side with the decision of any one state to adopt official English, the state-by-state approach may still be considered superior to a national English policy.
Imposing official language often undermines national unity

Linguistic Society of America Resolution on English Only. July 1, 1987: "History shows that a common language cannot be imposed by force of law, and that attempts to do so usually create divisiveness and disunity. This has been the effect, for example, of the efforts of the English to impose the English language in Ireland, of Soviet efforts to impose the Russian language on non-Russian nationalities, and of Franco's efforts to impose Spanish on the Basques and Catalans."
English only in schools is effective language immersion.

Immersion is a very effective strategy used in university programs, where college students are sent abroad and immersed in a language. Sometime, there is a requirement in these programs that students speak no English at all, and only the new language being learned. This is because immersion forces an individual, under high pressure, to learn the language quickly. English-only policies in schools follow this logic, teak kids English more quickly, and subsequently benefit them in their lives in the long-run.
Drifnet "by-catch" has a disastrous impact on ocean life.

Driftnets indiscriminately ensnare sea creatures in their area. This has a disastrous impact on the oceans. Banning driftnets would hugely reduce “by-catch”. By-catch refers to all those species that are ensnared by these nets other than their intended prey. Examples include dolphins and porpoises: they get caught in the net, die and then thrown away as a type of “collateral damage”. This drives species to extinction and this hurts biodiversity: the Moroccan driftnet-fleet of 177 boats alone is said to be responsible for 3000–4000 deaths of a certain threatened dolphin species.[2]
Large-scale commercial driftnets are the concern, not local driftnet use.

Commercial driftnets were first employed in the 1980s by Japan, Korea and Taiwan. These use driftnets to basically “strip mine” the seas with nets sometimes up to 40 miles wide, draining them of all fish before even the local fishermen can get to it. Poor local fishermen also have an interest in banning driftnets: they would prefer a healthy fish stock to feed future generations, rather than exhausting and driving into extinction their livelihood within a few years. Besides, in Bangladesh, driftnets account for about 30% of all fish caught, meaning that there are enough alternatives.[6]
An effective driftnet ban must go beyond international waters into countries' Exclusive Economic Zones.

A country’s Exclusive Economic Zone stretches 200 nautical miles from the coastline. In fact, because of the gradual sloping-away of the sea-bottom from the coast, this zone of 200 miles forms a unique habitat for about 90% of known fish species, meaning that “the high seas” provide no escape. Besides: who is going to check and patrol to see if all those “domestic” industrial fishers really keep within the EEZ? The UN has no police force to enforce its rules. Interestingly enough, Japan, for example, banned the use of driftnets inside its territorial waters (up to a maximum of 12 miles out of the coast), but their commercial fleet regularly shows up everywhere in the North Pacific. This is exactly why, when instituting the ban on international waters, the UN made a strong appeal to its member states to also ban it in their EEZ and territorial waters.[8]
By-catch doesn’t need to be a reason to ban driftnets.

In fact, when used well, drift-nets can have a minimum of by-catch, and certainly no more than other fishing methods. By catch can be limited by restricting the size of the mesh in the net, so that dolphins “recognize” the net as a “wall” of sorts and so avoid it, or by attaching sound-devices which emit “pings” (hence called “pingers”) to warn dolphins. Limiting the overall length of driftnets, as the EU has done, can also minimize by-catch. This all points to regulating rather then banning driftnets altogether.[3]
Driftnet fishing is a form of subsistence living for many.

All talk about biodiversity and poor dolphins and fish is nice, but should be considered against the fact that for many people, driftnet fishing is their only means of subsistence. Banning driftnets would spell starvation for them. That’s why, for example, in the 1980s the UN Food and Agriculture Organization actually recommended and helped with the use of driftnets in Bangladesh. The use of driftnets there increased the number of fish caught by about 45%, at a 40% lower cost, providing a vital means of subsistence to the locals.[7]
There is a ban on the use of driftnets in international waters already.

This should be enough: it provides fish with enough “breeding space” to recover from overfishing. If some countries then decide to overfish and thereby exhaust certain species of fish within their own Exclusive Economic Zone, then that is their sovereign right to do so. Apparently their government and population thought catching these fish was more important then biodiversity, and the international community has no business intervening in these domestic issues. As long as the high seas are “safe”, there is no problem.[9]
Polygamy is O.K. as long as multi-partner relations of all kinds are also allowed.

These could include women marrying multiple husbands, or gay, lesbian, and even bisexual partners. This openness to all kinds of multi-partner relations would combat any concerns that polygamy is merely patriarchal (with the man at the top). If all varieties are possible, it is impossible to argue that the law is biased toward patriarchy in polygamy.
Polygamous men cannot reciprocate equally the love they receive from their wives.

Carrying for a wife is about more than supplying her with material needs, something polygamist husbands are frequently capable of doing for their many wives. It is also about more than treating all wives equitably and even "loving" them equitably. It is, rather, about providing a wife with reciprocal attention, love, sexual attention, and feelings of individual value and meaning. This is reflected in the notion of the yin and the yang; parity and complementarity between two partners. A man with even just two wives is incapable of reciprocating equally the love and care he may receive from each of them. He will fall short to some degree with each of wives and violate the notion of reciprocity in marriage.
Polygamy is only appropriate when a man can provide for more than one wife

"Polygamy means to protect, to take care of and maintain the wife. He told one social worker that polygamy was not illicit. But, Srila Prabhupad explained, only if the man is able to maintain his wives. Otherwise, if he cannot maintain another wife, then to want another wife is not actually for protection. Then all he wants is to have sex only. That is irresponsible and thus illicit sex. Even if a man cannot maintain one wife, but has sex with her and gets her pregnant, this is not good. Who will maintain the woman and child? Then it is irresponsible sex, and that is illicit. But, if the man can properly maintain additional wife, then it is not illicit, then it is proper religious marriage, protection, of the women.
Polygamy makes individual wives feel that they are insufficient

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. "The Case Against Polygamy". The Huffington Post. April 23, 2008 - "There is good reason to outlaw polygamy. Marriage is the most romantic institution because it establishes the inviolate uniqueness of its participants. A woman is made to feel that she is the one and only to her husband. A husband's devotion confers upon his wife the blessings of primacy and exclusivity. But polygamy subverts that pledge, establishing not a woman's uniqueness, but her ordinariness. Her husband marries her with the express understanding that she alone will not satisfy him. He requires others. She is inadequate.
Men have an inherent desire to have many wives and "multiply".

Men have an inherent desire to mate very frequently. But, it is not possible with a single wife to have multiple children in rapid succession (or as frequently as a man wishes to have sex and thus procreate). Clearly, men have a desire to have sex and procreate more frequently than every nine months, the period of time that a man would have to wait if in a monogamous marriage. Thus, the only way for a man to satisfy the inherent desire to procreate with a high frequency is if he marries multiple wives, whereby he can satisfy his desire to have and and procreate in rapid succession.
Any problems with polygamous couples can be remedied.

Any legal complications that could arise are either easily remedied or are already being dealt with in the courts for monogamous couples. The fact of the matter is that the existence of legally recognized polygamous families would not alter the landscape of the nation, its laws, or its people significantly. Many of the methods that would be used to provide remedies for things like child custody and divorce settlements already exist through the courts, and allowing polygamists to use them, while increasing the workload for civil servants, would cause no excessive burden or force the creation of any new entities to handle them.
Recognizing polygamy would cause a host of legal problems.

Regardless of whether polyamorous relationships are appropriate or if it's appropriate for people to have polygamous marriage ceremonies in religious institutions the benefits provided by legally recognized marriage pose serious problems. A group of people, such as a street gang, corrupt public officials, corrupt businessmen, or even a terrorist cell could get legally married to avoid testifying against each other in court. Divorce proceedings would be complicated. Even if just one spouse was getting a divorce since marriage involves sharing property so the court would have to figure out who brought what into the marriage to protect the property of the spouses not getting divorced. Determining child custody would also be difficult. Which spouses are eligible for custody rights? All of them? Just the two that had the child? Any spouse that was in the marriage at the time the child came into their custody? Determining how to divide inheritance would also be complicated. Furthermore it has a greater abuse potential in immigration law than monogamy. A person could bring in thousands of people just by marrying them. This could pose a grave threat to national security, since a terrorist or spy could use this to get his associates into the country easier, and combined with spousal immunity obtaining evidence in order to stop them could prove difficult.
Polygamy allows men to avoid controlling their sexual impulses

Men should be able to control their sexual impulses with reason and control. This is very important to avoiding an obsession with sexuality and a distraction from other important elements of life. Philosophers throughout history have stressed the hazards of uncontrolled sexual impulses. Yet, polygamy allows men to let their sexual impulses loose without control and reason guiding the impulse to have sex and procreate. This damages discipline among men, allows their sexual impulses to become a controlling obsession and distraction, and allows sex, procreation, and child-rearing to become the dominant factor in a man's life. This is unbalanced and unhealthy.
Polygamy leaves some men with no women to marry; socially destabilizing

Polygamy is unsustainable, or at least inequitable in this way. With many women marrying a single man, many men will be left without wives. Certainly, this would be depressing and even disastrous for these men. The injunction against premarital sex means, for men, no sex, ever in your life. In other societies, this would not present such a drastic problem, but wide scale polygamy would at a minimum, result in severe depression for a large segment of the male populace. And make no mistake, it would eventually become common.
Older wives suffer when new wives enter a polygamous marriage

Steve Sailer. "The Problem with Polygamy". United Press International. January 17, 2002 - "I've been following accounts of polygamous societies ever since I saw an article in the early 1980s about a Kenyan man with 150 wives. It set the template for every first-hand description of polygamy that I've read since. The reporter diligently interviewed the youngest wife, who thought polygamy was terrific since it allowed her to marry the richest, handsomest, and most respected man in her village.