BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
AIG should reveal contracts so public can judge validity

Charles Fried, professor of contract and constitutional law at Harvard Law School, wrote on New York Times, Room for Debate, on March 17, 2009 - "As we all own 80 percent of the company, we ought to be able to see the text of these contracts. They should be posted on our company’s — that is, A.I.G.’s — Web site. Then we can discuss whether the recipients of that money really earned it."[10]
AIG and free markets cannot be relied upon

Robert Creamer. "AIG Bonus Scandal Spotlights the Bankruptcy of Wall Street's 'Greed is Good' Values". March 15 April, 2009 - "The 'Greed is good era' is over. It died on September 15, 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the right wing myth that if everyone looks out for his own self interest the 'invisible hand' would assure that the public interest would take care of itself. More than Lehman Brothers went bankrupt that day. So did Wall Street's entire system of 'greed is good' values."
Reneging AIG contracts differs from renegotiating Auto contracts

"Ruth Marcus: The case for AIG bonuses". Washington Post. March 18, 2009 - "But, you ask, what about autoworkers who are being squeezed to renegotiate their contracts? Those renegotiations involve the terms of employment going forward. If an autoworker doesn't want to show up on the assembly line under the terms of that deal, he or she doesn't have to. That's different from telling AIG employees they're not getting the amount on which they agreed for work they've already performed."
Justice of reneging AIG bonuses would be worth costs

James Surowiecki. "The A.I.G. Bonuses and Altruistic Punishment". New Yorker. March 18, 2009 - "when it comes to the A.I.G. bonuses, the costs of clawing them back are trivial at best, while the public satisfaction at seeing what feels like justice being served will be great. Getting all worked up about this money may not, strictly speaking, be rational, but I think that paradoxically, if some of this money is clawed back, it’ll increase the chances that we’ll be able to keep dealing with the ongoing crisis in a rational way in the future."
Republicanism is not more modern than constitutional monarchy

Constitutional monarchies exist in some of the most developed societies on earth. Britain, Canada, and Australia are among them. There are both strengths and weaknesses to a constitutional monarchy, but it is not clear that a republic is better, more democratic, and more stable overall. It is wrong to presume that a republic is a more advanced and modern system, and that Australia will inevitably make the move to a republican form of government. [see more arguments on this position in the next section]
Support for Australian republic has waned in recent years

Tony Abbott. "Monarchy is the tie that binds us together." The Age. November 29, 2006 - "Still, there is some reason to think that long-standing attachments and traditional loyalties have not entirely lost their appeal. Support for Australia becoming a republic (as measured by Newspoll) is 8 per cent below its 2000 peak. Strong support for becoming a republic is actually at its lowest among young people. Although the monarchy has been out of favour since 1993 (when Newspoll first recorded more republicans than monarchists), 29 per cent of people aged between 18 and 34 remain uncommitted on the question, with 26 per cent of young people actually against Australia becoming a republic. Given almost all commentators' need to declare themselves republican, this suggests that the young may be less conformist than their parents."
The symbolism of the Australian monarchy is important and bad

Some say that the Monarchy only has symbolic meaning, as a way to disclaim the significance of the monarchy and thus reduce the significance of the complaints raised against it. But, even if the monarchy had only a symbolic significance (which it does not - it engenders real power), its symbolic importance is both large and largely bad. The historic, commonwealth, hereditary, sexist, and even religiously discriminatory symbols associated with the crown are all significant, and significantly bad. They cannot be diminished in significance, only disowned.
If the Australian constitutional monarchy isn't broke, don't fix it

Pragmatic monarchists have maintained that, whatever the argued weaknesses of the current system, it also had many strengths; following the motto of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The Australian Monarchist League's Phillip Benwell told ABC in April 2008, "At a time when there's no problem with our constitution, when there's no constitutional crisis, why move to fix something that doesn't need fixing, just because people don't like one part of our constitution -- and that is the Queen and the Crown?".[1]
The Australian monarch is, in fact, a foreign monarch

Supporters of the monarchy often argue that the Queen is not a foreign queen, but "our queen", and thus Australian. This notion is fictitious, not only because the Queen does not reside in Australia, but also because she does not focus her efforts on representing Australians. How could she? She has to represent Britain as well as dozens of other commonwealth countries simultaneously. But, this makes her a foreigner to Australians in the way of her interests and actions.
Foreign monarchs cannot adequately represent Australians

A central argument made by Australian republicans is that, as Australia is an independent country, it is inappropriate for the same person to be both the head of state of more than one country. They argue that a person who is resident primarily in another country cannot adequately represent Australia, neither to itself, nor to the rest of the world. As Australian Republican Movement member, Frank Cassidy put it in a speech on the issue: "In short, we want a resident for President".
The monarchy checks the abuse of power by the executive

One of the reasons that Australia has enjoyed such great stability since its founding in 1901 is its constitutional check, in which the monarch can dismiss the Governor-General and the Governor-General can dismiss the Prime Minister in circumstances where these leaders abuse power or put the interests of Australia in jeopardy. The simple threat of dismissal also deters the Governor-General or the Prime Minister from abusing power. In the United States, many believe that President Bush abused his executive powers precisely because there was no check against such abuse (in a word, he could). This, some argue, allowed for the Iraq War and violations of individual rights in the name of the War on Terror, among other things. Australia's constitution prevents such abuses and subsequent instabilities from occurring by providing a check against it - the monarchy.
Republicanism in Australia incites tensions between Protestants and Catholics.

It has also been claimed monarchism and republicanism in Australia delineate historical and persistent sectarian tensions with, broadly speaking, Catholics more likely to be republicans and Protestants more likely to be monarchists[9]. This developed out of a historical cleavage in nineteenth and twentieth century Australia in which republicans were predominantly of Irish Catholic background and loyalists were predominantly of British Protestant background[10]. Whilst mass immigration since the Second World War has diluted this conflict [11] — according to 2001 census data, 886,914 Australians identified themselves specifically as Catholics of Irish ethnicity and a total of 1,919,727 stated Irish ancestry, not to mention a large number of the Australian ancestry category would be of old Irish colonial immigration.[12] — the Catholic-Protestant divide has been cited as a dynamic in the republic debate, particularly in relation to the referendum campaign in 1999[13][14]. Nonetheless, others have stated that Catholic-Protestant tensions — at least in the sense of an Irish-British conflict — are at least forty years dead,[15] or simply "not there any more," having been replaced with a general conflict between secular and religious Australians.[16]
The monarchy violates Australian laws against gender discrimination

Succession to the British throne is based upon male primogeniture, in which male heirs take precedence and the right of succession belongs to the eldest son. The heir apparent has always been a male. A female heir to the throne can only be the heiress apparent, rather than the heiress presumptive ("presumptive" as she could be ousted at any time by the birth of a son to the reigning Monarch) if she were the sole, or eldest, surviving daughter of a dead heir apparent, who had no sons. A monarchy that promotes the sexist system of primogeniture is wrong and should be ended.
Drafting a Republican constitution in Australia would not be difficult

Senator Alan Eggleston. "The Republic: an idea that has reached its time". Address to the John Stuart Mill Society. September 22nd, 1997 - A Republican Constitution is too difficult to draft Conservative lawyers such as Sir Harry Gibbs have made fuss of the difficultly of drafting a set of words for a Republic constitution which would recreate the balances and political stability enjoyed by Australia under the present arrangements. Without doubt, the task will be complex, but I have long suspected more was being made of this difficultly than needed to be. To me, it has never been credible for monarchists to argue that, in a nation which has produced so many brilliant, clear thinking lawyers as Australia, a constitution could not be written which protected and preserved the rights of the Australian people, entrenched responsible parliamentary government under a Prime Minister and cabinet and created an institution for a Head of State not only having clearly designed and limited powers but also embodying formulae for the democratic means of resolution of crises should the good government of the Commonwealth be in jeopardy."
Australia was founded by the Crown and so owes continued allegiances in the commonwealth.

The first European settlers in Australia were from England, arriving in the 1780s between the American and French revolutionary wars. For nearly 100 years, Australia was considered a British colony, and was completely dependent on England for money and resources. In 1901, Australia became independent but decided to remain a part of the commonwealth, where it continued to receive aid from Britain. It remains part of the British commonwealth with full independence, except for authority of the Queen and her appointed Governor-General. Given the fact that Australia would not exist without the initial decision of the crown to colonize Australia, it seems entirely appropriate that a token of allegiance remain to the Crown within the commonwealth system. To deny this allegiance and to demand independence would be to ignore Australia's history and the debt of gratitude it owes to Britain.
Queen Elizabeth II's existence undermines claims against a sexist Australian monarchy

While an issue can be made over primogeniture, it is somewhat odd that opponents of the monarchy claim that the monarchy is sexist when Queen Elizabeth II, a woman, has been Queen for over sixty years. Clearly, she is a woman in power, which helps combat sexism, and she has upheld the rights of woman in Australia. If anything, she has been a hugely positive force against sexism in Australia around the world.
An Australian republic could accommodate states that remain monarchies

Senator Alan Eggleston. "The Republic: an idea that has reached its time". Address to the John Stuart Mill Society. September 22nd, 1997 - "What about the Australian States? If the Commonwealth became a Republic it wouldn't matter in the interim if the States wanted to remain monarchies. This is the view of Professor George Winterton. The Federal Republican Constitution could accommodate the status of both monarchal and Republican states. In due course, I believe that the States would adopt a Republican mode."
The Queen has served, united, and uplifted Australians

The Queen has had a particularly beneficial role in Australian society since taking power in 1947. In particular, she has inspired honor, respect and duty among Australians, unified peoples around her principles and respect for the constitutions within the commonwealth nations, and prevented controversies and the abuse of power from boiling over into damaging conflicts. For this reason, she is very popular among the Australian public. Why should Australia go in a direction contradictory to this popularity (and the reasons underlying it) by pushing to establish a republic?
The monarchy checks the abuse of power by the executive

Selwyn Johnston, Indepednent, Elected Representatives' Advocate. "The 'no' case against a republic, and 'for' our constitutional monarchy." Retrieved April 21st, 2008 - "Today [the monarchy] represents the denial of total power. While the Crown is at the head of all our great Institutions of State, nobody else can be the head of any of them. Thus the Crown represents the ultimate and untouchable guarantee of our freedom and our genius. Republicans resent the power that the Crown denies them. They resent the Senate having the power to block supply to a rogue Government. They resent the Governor-General's ability to sack a rogue Prime Minister."
Many modern states like Australia have foreign elements in identity

Tony Abbott. "Monarchy is the tie that binds us together." The Age. November 29, 2006 - "The very idea of the monarchy offends people accustomed to think in aggressive slogans. It's "foreign", although that has never been held against other institutions to which great deference is offered (such as the United Nations). It's shared with other countries, but so is our language and no one (so far) wants to change that."
The Queen is not a "foreign queen", but is the "Queen of Australia"

"Queen of Australia". Retrieved April 21st, 2008 - "The title, role and legal aspects of the Queen of Australia are not well understood by most Australians including those who advocate a republic and by most of those employed within the media industry. The purpose of this page is to help Australians get a better understanding of the legal role of the Queen in her capacity as the Queen of Australia. To refer to the Queen of Australia as the the British Queen, the English Queen or the foreign monarch is fallacious when considering the Queen's role as outlined in the Australian Constitution and the several laws of Australia that relate to constitutional matters. There are several documents that legally confirm the Queen's role as Queen of Australia. Some of those aspects are addressed below."
Australian constitution does not separate of church and state; monarchy is O.K.

While many argue that the monarchy in Australia is unconstitutional due to its connection with the Anglican Church, this erroneously assumes that the constitution states a separation of Church and state. It doesn't. Therefore, any Anglican church influence in Australia is actually not at odds with the constitution. So, at leas the monarchy's Anglican connection is not creating a constitution crisis in Australia. As to whether a separation between church and state should exist (as opposed to the existing policy of "neutrality"), that is a question that has nothing to do with the Crown's policies and cannot be held against it; it is a question about the Australian constitution.
The Australian monarchy is "broken" in so far as it is undemocratic.

In modernity, the degree to which a government is "undemocratic" is, in large part, the degree to which it can be considered "broken". Therefore, in the areas where Australian government is considered undemocratic - in the hereditary control of the monarch and appointment of the Governor-General - it can certainly be considered "broken". This does not mean all of Australian government is broken, and certainly most of it "works", but those undemocratic things that are "broken" can and should be changed by adopting a republican form of government.
The 1999 referendum was rejected on specifics not the principle of Republicanism.

It was the particular form of the republic offered which was criticised as the main reasion for the defeat of the referendum. Supporters of the republic disagreed about the best proposed mechanism for replacing the monarch and Governor-General with either a head of state appointed by the Parliament (which was widely criticised as being undemocratic), or with a directly-elected head of state (which was widely criticised as moving Australia away from the proven Westminster System toward an American-style presidential system, even though many Parliamentary republics directly elect non-executive Presidents). Many Republicans voted no, therefore, on the specifics of the referendum, despite supporting the general principle of moving toward a Republic. A referendum on the general principal of electing a head of state would have likely passed. If a new referendum is designed in these general terms, as a first step on the principals of a Republic, it would likely pass.
That the Australian monarchy "works" is a faulty argument against positive change

The argument that Australia's government "isn't broken, so why fix it", is what is known as a status quo argument. It promotes the functionality of the status quo as a reason to avoid the hassle of change. This is an invalid argument because it shirks the responsibility within government to improve governance. When something can be made better, it should be made better. Turning Australia into a republic from a monarchy will certainly make it more democratic, and thus better. Therefore, this action should be taken.
The 2020 summit on 19-20 April, 2008 agreed with a republic system.

On 19-20 April, in Canberra, a 2020 summit was held where Australians gave ideas to the Prime Minister. Many people wanted for Australia to be a republic. They decided to have a vote and out of the 1000 people there, only 1 person voted 'no'. Australia does want a republic.
A 1986 Chernobyl accident would not occur today:

Mark Brandly. "The Case for Nuclear Power". Virginia Viewpoint. October, 2001: "The Chernobyl plant explosion released radiation into the surrounding area. Such an explosion would have been contained in a U.S. plant. The Chernobyl plant lacked a fundamental safety structure found in western plants, a steel-reinforced concrete shell that completely encapsulates the nuclear reactor vessel. The Chernobyl tragedy exhibits the failure of government planners, not an inherent danger of nuclear power."
Nuclear power is efficient only once the uranium is in pellet form.

Uranium mines don't contain fuel pellets. For uranium bearing rocks to even be called ore, they need to have at least 750 parts per million of uranium. It takes a lot of processing to make a fuel pellet. A large amount of uranium ore needs to be mined, milled, refined and enriched in order to produce that little tiny pellet that has the energy of many coal hopper cars. Although it takes about 20 times more mining for coal as it does for the same amount of uranium, one still has to consider the environmental damage from the radiaton gases being released into the atmosphere, the groundwater contamination and the radioactive dust in the air.
Nuclear energy "waste" can be recycled

Patrick Moore. "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case". Washington Post. April 16th, 2006: "[Claim:] Nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. [Response:] Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind."
Nuclear energy has caused far fewer deaths than coal

Patrick Moore, a prominent environmentalist and founding member of Greenpeace, "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case." Washington Post. April 16, 2006: "The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year."
Nuclear energy is not applicable and accessible globally

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "Nuclear is not an available power source in the Philippines, and, given the DOE’s power forecasts, a nuclear plant will be a poor choice to meet power demand because it takes too long to build. Being modular and decentralized by nature, new renewable energy can be expanded and built much more rapidly (and operated more efficiently given the country's archipelagic character) than nuclear and conventional polluting sources. [...] Uranium to fuel the BNPP will have to be imported as there are no uranium deposits in the Philippines, so the country’s dependence on foreign fuel is increased. Uranium is further subject to large price hikes since the resource is only available to a few countries. In fact, 58% of global uranium supplies come from only three countries and its processing as fuel can only be carried out in six countries. Further, at current global nuclear capacity, known uranium resources will last only 34 years."
Nuclear waste is minimal, solid, and manageable

James Lovelock, Honorary Visiting Fellow, Green College, Oxford University. "Nuclear Energy: the safe choice for now." July 2005: "An outstanding advantage of nuclear over fossil fuel energy is how easy it is to deal with the waste it produces. Fossil fuel burning produces twenty seven thousand million tons of carbon dioxide yearly. This is enough if solidified to make a mountain nearly two kilometres high and with a base ten kilometres in circumference. The same quantity of energy if it came from nuclear reactions would make fourteen thousand tons of high level waste. A quantity that occupies a sixteen metre sided cube. The carbon dioxide waste is invisible but so deadly that if its emissions go unchecked it will kill nearly everyone. The nuclear waste buried in pits at the production sites is no threat to Gaia and dangerous only to those foolish enough to expose themselves to its radiation."
Nuclear-powered ships demonstrate safety of nuclear energy

US Senator Pete Domenici writes in his book "A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energ": "nuclear power plants roam the world daily without any significant problems. He says, "Nuclear power is safe and sure. Every week, one or two nuclear power plants dock at a major port in America or somewhere else in the world. And these power plants have been doing so for half a century now. ... No accidents of any kind have ever marred these dockings, no leaks have cleared blocks of cities; no emergencies have been declared."[1]
Nuclear energy is the primary alternative to dirty coal

Patrick Moore. "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case". Washington Post. April 16th, 2006: "Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple."