BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Necessary for an impartial peace.

By prosecuting perpetrators, justice creates a deterrent. The deterrent effect, as accepted in criminal law generally, is likely to make the peace more long standing and stable in the future – it will make those minded to perform atrocities think again. If those who committed atrocities ‘get away with it’ they will be much more likely to plunge the country back into violence. If Sharon was prosecuted for his crimes in the 50s, would he have gone on to have the same political career? He would likely not have had the chance to allow the Sabra and Shatia massacre or Operation Defensive Shield.[1] The career of Laurent Nkunda is a good example of this; he fought in the Tutsi group that took control of Rwanda in 1994 ending the genocide and then was a rebel commander in both Congolese civil wars in which he was accused of atrocities before launching his own rebellion, only now after 14 years as an army commander is he under arrest[2]. Clearly Nkunda being locked up at some stage would have been better than regularly negotiating with him to try and create peace. [1] Hasan, Mehdi, ‘Five Numbers That Suggest Ariel Sharon Was a War Criminal’, Huffington Post, 12 January 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/ariel-sharon-war-crimes_b_4584178.html [2] BBC News, “Profile: General Laurent Nkunda”, 23 January 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3786883.stm
Prosecutions are an impediment to peace negotiations

A prosecution against a prominent military or political figure could jeopardize faith in the international community, which would be harmful to peace negotiations. Prosecuting one side would effectively allocate blame, damaging Israel’s position. Sharon may have been the only man who could have led the Gaza pullout,[1] he would not have had the chance or would not have been able to if he was prosecuted. This is not a new concern – there were issues following ICTY indictments and the Dayton negotiation, with some parties being unable to attend[2]. Similarly, the Lord’s Resistance Army offered to surrender but refused due to ICC arrest warrants[3]. [1] Vick, Karl, ‘Ariel Sharon: Israel’s Soldier and Strongman, 1928-2014’, Time, 11 January 2014, http://world.time.com/2014/01/11/ariel-sharon-israels-soldier-and-strongman-1928-2014/ [2] Goldstone, Richard, “Peace versus Justice”, Nevada Law Journal, 2006, http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1367&context=nlj&sei-redir=1 at p421-p322 [3] Otim, Michael, and Wierda, Marieke, ‘Justice at Juba: International Obligations and Local Demands in Northern Uganda’, in Waddell and Clark eds., Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa, pp.21-28 http://www.issafrica.org/anicj/uploads/Waddell_Clark_Courting_Conflict.pdf
Was unlikely ever to happen anyway

At any rate, a prosecution was unlikely. In addition to the general support for Israel amongst the permanent members of the UN Security Council such as the United States – the US would have been likely to use its veto power to stop any International Criminal Tribunal for Israel-Palestine. Also, many of these actions were before the renaissance of international criminal law in the early 1990s following the creation of the ICTY and ICTR by UN Security Council resolutions.
If Sharon is tried then many others would have to be as well

While many of the actions of Sharon were unacceptable, he is not the only person who committed horrible acts: not just only in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, but across the world. If he were to be prosecuted, many others would be. Hamas figures would have to be indicted for their actions, too – for example Mohammed Deif, who masterminded the 1996 Jaffa Road bus bombings which killed 33 civilians as with many other commanders of groups – Hamas, Islamic Jihad, even Fatah - that have engaged in targeting civilians could be put on trial.
Took a key role in negotiations

Sharon was not a genocidal maniac. He led the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza, as part of the unilateral disengagement plan. If he continued in office, perhaps further negotiations would have continued with further successes rather than the stalled talks and false hope of more recent events.[1] Leaks of State department Cables show that Sharon had stressed to US senators that he would face down “a left that has no power, and a right which was totally opposed to his initiative” in order to negotiate a peace and was willing to hand over some Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem and he said “A final settlement might take a few years, but it can be achieved.”[2] [1] Vick, Karl, ‘Ariel Sharon: Israel’s Soldier and Strongman, 1928-2014’, Time, 11 January 2014, http://world.time.com/2014/01/11/ariel-sharon-israels-soldier-and-strongman-1928-2014/ [2] Ravid, Barak, ‘Sharon was planning diplomatic moves beyond Gaza, leaked documents reveal’, Haaretz, 13 January 2014, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.568192
Impunity

It is up to sovereign states to deal with their own criminality, not that of international courts. Israel decided Sharon had nothing to answer for. There have been commissions into some of his actions; the Khan Commission of Inquiry looked into the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla and concluded that “blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged.” Sharon was only indirectly responsible.[1] When he became a head of state, head of state immunity applied to him – a necessary thing to keep the wheels of international diplomacy turning. This has been accepted by the International Court of Justice in the arrest warrant case[2]. [1] The Kahan Commission of Inquiry, ‘Report into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut’, Jewish Virtual Library, 8 February 1983,  http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kahan.html [2] Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) 14 February 2002 http://www.refworld.org/type,CASELAW,ICJ,,3c6cd39b4,0.html
Historical record

Is an aid for historians really worth all the upheaval and problems a trial would cause? Denialism can still continue even though there are established facts, such as denial of the Japanese role in Second World War forced prostitution[1]. [1] See Honda, Masakazu and Takada, Makoto, “LDP Pressure led to cuts in NHK show”, The Asahi Shimbun, 12 January 2005, http://www.asahi.com/english/politics/TKY200501120160.html
Necessary for an impartial peace.

This fails for two reasons. Firstly, prosecutions are not always a deterrent to future crimes. Secondly that justice is not necessary in all cases to prevent recidivism – justice has not been needed in many cases, such as in Haiti after the 2004 coup, Haiti’s subsequent problems being caused by natural disasters. Even if Sharon were to be brought to trial before an international tribunal, the Israeli state apparatus would be able to carry on with a new leader, rendering the exercise futile in trying to stop the conflict. A prosecution would not have brought peace it would simply entrench the Israeli position.
Was unlikely ever to happen anyway

Just because something is difficult does not mean it should not be attempted. Israel itself was no stranger to war crimes trials between Nuremberg and the ICTY: Adolf Eichmann, the logistical architect of the Holocaust, was tried and put to death by an Israeli court in 1962. Sharon has been accused of things after the creation of the ICTY came in to force, such as deaths as a result of Israeli operations in Jenin in 2002[1]. [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘Jenin’, 2 May 2002, http://www.hrw.org/node/79081/section/3
If Sharon is tried then many others would have to be as well

Good: impunity is a bad thing. Those who break those norms of international law , and commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression should be prosecuted - on all sides. Actions by Hamas and other organizations that are reprehensible are matters that should be brought before impartial courts, too. While there is no international international definition of terrorism, there are a number of acts which are prohibited by particular treaties – they can be prosecuted too.
Impunity

In addition to events mentioned in the introduction, Sharon was accused of, along with troops under his command, execution-style killings of 49 Egyptian civilians taken prisoner by the IDF in the Saini peninsula in 1956[1] - wilful killing of civilians being a war crime as per the Fourth Geneva Convention. The purpose of international criminal law is that individuals are brought to trial to ensure that individuals are held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity: if a person isn’t prosecuted, either by a domestic or international court, the credibility of the limits civilized nations place on war is eroded. [1] Miller, Marjorie, ‘Israel to Probe Deaths of Egyptian POWs in '56 : Sinai: At Cairo's request, defense officials will investigate general's claim that scores were shot.’, Los Angeles Times, 16 August 1995, http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-16/news/mn-35764_1_defense-officials
High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs

There is still significant social prestige to being a doctor that will motivate people to take up the role; the same will be true for other high-paid jobs where there is a lot of training, such as lawyers. This prestige is often a key part of the reason people do the job in the first place; many doctors are paid far less than people working in business or financial services at similar levels of seniority. Finally, the unpleasant jobs mentioned typically are done for a salary well below the cap proposed, and they still have adequate people. improve this
This will distribute wealth more evenly

As a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1 1Michael J. Haupert, "The Economic History of Major League Baseball", EH.net Encyclopedia, December 3rd 2007
This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources

Some resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society. 1E. Belsky, “Multiple-Home Ownership and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand”, October 2006
High salaries incentivize people to work hard

People respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation. 1PWC, "The Total Tax Contribution of UK Financial Services", December 2010 improve this
High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs

Some jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done.  1Payscale, “Salary for People with Jobs as Physicians/Doctors”, July 2011 improve this
Systems for implementation

Some evasion of this is inevitable; figures show $2 trillion of unreported income in the US in 20081. Furthermore, international cooperation is unlikely, as each country has a strong incentive to renege on agreements to attract more talented people to their country. 1E. Feige, "America's Underground Economy: Measuring the Size, Growth and Determinants of Income Tax Evasion in the U.S", January 2011 improve this
Equality is in and of itself a good thing

Social tensions are greatly exaggerated, and only actually felt when a specific crisis and against a very specific figurehead (in the case of Fred Goodwin, an entirely isolated example, the large amounts of media coverage he received for his role in the banking crisis). Furthermore, feelings of inferiority are typically reasoned away by people, who explain other's greater income in terms of their willingness to work hard, or being lucky. The feeling of superiority over others can be considered a motivator that encourages some people to work (See Opposition Argument One below). Finally, Sweden may be disanalogous as an example as they (and other Scandinavian countries) have a strong collectivist spirit that may be lacking in other countries. improve this
This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers

The significant difficulty of moving country, such as leaving behind friends and family, and leaving behind an area (or even language) you know well, are likely to limit emigration. As for immigration, the skill set is typically already within the country; if not, this policy may encourage a focus on an educational system to ensure it is. Finally, if the argumentation about equality leading to a better and happier society is correct, this in itself will attract immigrants to high-paying jobs. improve this
High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research

Under this policy, companies will not be able to spend their profits on inflating their salaries, and so are more likely to have a long-term outlook to the company. The best way to advance long-term interests is through research; it is possible that all their excess profit will be spent on this. While entrepreneurs may be driven by profit, the salary proposed is sufficiently high that it can be aspired to; most entrepreneurs will still be motivated by it, as they seldom already have a job that already pays so much. improve this
Systems for implementation

This system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people. improve this
Equality is in and of itself a good thing

Firstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3. 1BBC News Website, 25th March 2009 2CIA World Factbook, 20th July 2011 3Forbes, "The World's Happiest Countries", July 14th 2010
This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers

Many industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income.  1John Salt and Jane Millar, Office of National Statistics “Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends”, October 2006 improve this
High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research

Many entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society. 1FierceBiotech, "GlaxoSmithKline: The World's Biggest R+D Spenders", March 2011
High salaries incentivize people to work hard

The effect of high salaries on levels of labor supply is likely to be marginal. People work in part due to the significant social pressure of having a job and advancing themselves comparatively against others. This motivation will still exist, as there will still be rewards to advancing your career; a salary closer to the salary cap, and the added responsibility and social (or business) standing such advancement provides. While there may be fewer people willing to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week, this work is being done because it is valuable – so the firm will need to employ more people to do it, and the work is spread over a larger number of people, possibly even increasing employment improve this
It’s in the interests of co-workers

Working with someone with HIV does not put you at risk. Suggesting that it does serves to perpetuate the myths that do such harm to HIV-positive people who already suffer too much. To clarify: AIDS cannot be transmitted through external, intact skin. It cannot pass through the air like cold germs. Sweat, urine, tears and saliva cannot transmit HIV. Whilst blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid and breast milk can, how often are such fluids encountered at work? Even if they are, and such fluids are HIV positive, they must enter another’s body through mucus membranes, directly into the bloodstream (e.g. via injection), or from mother to child via breastfeeding or in the womb. What workplaces risk such transferral?
Employers have no right to private medical information

Employers have a right to know about issue which will affect their business.  An employee with a serious incurable illness which requires a large amount of medication to control is inevitably going to affect the business in a way that the employer will have to know about in order to work around it.   Aside from the fact that HIV status need not be communicated to co-workers, managers and employers already have a duty to prevent harassment and prejudice in any circumstances and this would not change.
The risks of ignorance and prejudice are too high

Employers can be trusted to use this information responsibly. They are already used to keeping sensitive information (e.g. about salaries, annual reports, or employees' addresses and telephone numbers) confidential. Nor is it in their interest to open themselves up to lawsuits for bullying and discrimination in the workplace. There is no reason to assume that businesses will be more likely to leak information about someone's HIV status than doctors or hospitals, who already have such information.
It’s in the interests of employers

It’s in the interests of employers. A long, incurable and debilitating condition has stricken one of their employees. They will have to make provision for possible sickness cover and replacement workers, potentially for medical and/or retirement costs. HIV can make people tired and can lead to being sick more often as it means the immune system will not be able to fight off infections as well as it normally would.[1] The employee’s productivity might be reduced to the point at which their continued employment is no longer viable. If things are made difficult for employers with HIV positive workers, then they are less likely in the future to employ people who (they suspect) are HIV positive. Employers must be listened to in this debate – in many HIV-stricken countries, they’re the last thing between a semi-functioning society and complete economic and social collapse. Traditional rights ideas such as concerns about privacy of medical records are less important than the benefit to society of being able to cope with the unique problem of HIV more effectively.   [1] Dickens, Carol, ‘Signs of HIV, AIDS symptoms’, AIDS Symptoms, http://www.aidssymptoms.org/Diagnosis/hiv-signs.html
It’s in the interests of employees

It’s in the interests of the HIV positive employee. Right now, although in many countries it is illegal to fire someone for having HIV[1] prejudiced employers can claim that they didn’t know their employer had HIV when they fired him, so they must have been acting on other grounds. The employee then has to try and prove that they did know, which can be very hard. Furthermore, once informed the employer can reasonably be expected to display a minimum level of understanding and compassion to the employee.   [1] Civil Rights Division, Ouestions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS’, U.S. Department of Justice, http://www.ada.gov/pubs/hivqanda.txt