BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A two-state solution is best for peace

Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas. Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: “Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.”(1) This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated “In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.”(2) Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel’s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: “I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.”(3) Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own. As Peres argues, “The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.”(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.
A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish

As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.
Santa is an outdated and slightly worrying figure in the modern world

Belief in Santa Claus is outdated and rather worrying. Who today has a chimney through which to send a burning message to Santa, and through which he can descend to distribute presents? Who wears stockings rather than socks or pantyhose? And who thinks an old white male is a relevant role model in today’s society? There is also something rather sinister today about having a stranger enter children’s rooms at night, or having them whispering secrets to him while seated on his lap in a store. Finally, Santa Claus with his saintly origins alienates those of other faiths who do not enjoy being forced to join in a quasi-Christian celebration.
Santa undermines the true meaning of Christmas

Belief in Santa Claus is against the real Christian message of Christmas - that Jesus Christ was born to a virgin in a stable in Bethlehem to be the saviour of the World. Neither Santa Claus nor Father Christmas appears in the Bible, and many Christians are dubious about the St Nicholas traditions as well. At best Santa is a distraction from the real Christmas story; at worst he competes with Christ for attention, confusing children and turning a Christian celebration into a worldly orgy of consumerism. It is significant that in many European traditions the red-clothed mid-winter visitor is not a St Nicholas figure, but some kind of devil instead.
Misleading children about Santa Claus leads to a spiral of dishonesty

In order to get kids to believe in Santa Claus, it’s not enough to commit a couple of simple lies and move on. As with any lie, it’s necessary to construct more and more elaborate lies and defences as time passes. Sceptical questions about Santa must be met with detailed lies about Santa’s powers. “Evidence” of Santa Claus must be created once mere stories of Santa prove insufficient. It’s unethical for parents to perpetuate elaborate deceptions on children unless it’s for a greater good. Children will eventually become sceptical about Santa Claus and ask questions about him, for example how he could possibly travel around the whole world in such a short period of time. Instead of encouraging this scepticism and helping children come to a reasonable conclusion about whether Santa Claus is even possible, much less real, most parents discourage scepticism by telling tales about Santa’s supernatural powers.
Santa is a counterrevolutionary symbol

Santa would only be a class oppressor if he was taking the excess value of the toys his elves produce and keeping it for himself.  Given that his operation is wholly altruistic he is really a symbol of the socialist ideal. It is right and proper that children be given incentive and rewards for good behaviour, for that is how the bonds of society are built and maintained. Belief in Santa is no different than that of any other supernatural being with omniscient powers that judges the moral choices of individuals, other than the fact that unlike the others Santa actually provides material rewards.
Reality is objective and the objective truth is that Santa does not exist

Lying to children can be justified.  Firstly, the ideas of magic, and better things give a kid something to believe in. If you go to a child's house during Christmas time, who believes Santa is real, you will see the brightness on his face, and you can tell he has "adopted the Christmas spirit". A child who knows Santa's mythical existence is more absorbed by the ideal of receiving than the spirit in which we give at Christmas. Santa can be abstract. We need to think of Santa not as a person with a long white beard, but as a state of mind. We all need something to believe in. You don't have to be religious to believe in Santa, you just need to believe in Santa. His comforting laugh can cheer anyone up and give them the "Christmas spirit".
Santa is a source of hope and joy and faith in the world

“Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.” Written in answer to a child’s letter by Francis Pharcellus Church and published in the New York Sun’s Editorial Page in 1897. [1]
Belief in Santa stimulates the economy

Belief in Santa Claus is also economically necessary. Without Santa to set an example of generosity, gift-giving at Christmas could go out of fashion. And once you take Santa out of Christmas, what else would be stripped away - Christmas trees, lights, tinsel, Christmas dinner? Huge sectors of our economy depend on belief in Santa Claus, from the department store grottoes to the entertainment industry, from toy shops and manufacturers to the makers of wrapping paper, stockings, red hats with bobbles on, etc. Trust is the basis of all economic exchange, and the consequences of doubt in Santa Claus, in terms of bankruptcies, closures, unemployment and stock market and currency slumps are too awful to imagine.
Santa is a counterrevolutionary symbol

Santa is a class oppressor - for he always seems to give the most and best presents to children in the richest families while those who are poor get little or nothing. And he has been enlisted as a bogeyman in the fight to make children do what their parents want. All those, “You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not shout… I’m telling you why” threats that bad children won’t be visited by Santa are just designed to scare children and keep them under control. Such a figure is not worthy of our belief.
Reality is objective and the objective truth is that Santa does not exist

We should have a strict regard for the truth, and see the world as it is regardless of the consequences. Our children deserve to be told the truth about Santa Claus, as well as about the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the possibility of fairies at the bottom of the garden. If they start off believing in these things, one day they will become disillusioned and maybe psychologically scarred for life by the experience. And once parents start to lie to their children about Santa Claus, then other dishonesty and mistrust can all too easily follow. Instead of giving all credit for Christmas cheer to (a saint from late-Roman Asia/ a Northern European pagan winter spirit - delete as applicable) we should celebrate our humanity. Teaching children to share and feel the pleasure in giving, as well as receiving is much better for them, rather than outsourcing all generosity in a rather embarrassed way to Santa Claus.
Many people agree that Santa Exists

Belief in Santa Claus is not rational. For a start his supposed activities would break all the rules of physics - how could anyone fly around the world in just one night visiting every child? How would his sleigh stay up in the air? And how could he get into so many bedrooms - most people nowadays don’t have chimneys to come down, and he wouldn’t fit down one even if they did? And do we have any proof for the existence of elves, or of reindeer? Secondly, if Santa existed don’t you think that someone would have seen him delivering the presents, at least once? Sure, there are lots of Santa Clauses in malls and stores, but despite the red suit and hat they all look a bit different from each other. And some of their beards don’t seem very convincing to me at all.
Belief in Santa is not confined to Western culture

It is a shame that this western capitalist icon is taking over Christmas around the world, and driving out other traditions - e.g. the Babushka in Russia, or St Nicholas in parts of Europe. The popularity of Santa Claus in other countries is cynically driven by multinational companies, eager to create new markets for their toys and other good as potential gifts. It is another downside of globalisation as unique cultures are drowned under a wave to Americanisation.
Santa is an outdated and slightly worrying figure in the modern world

Far from being outdated, Santa Claus is right up to date. Although he has a long and distinguished history, he has taken care to move with the times in order to be relevant to each new generation. Our modern view of Santa was shaped by Clement C. Moore’s description of him in The Night Before Christmas, and by Victorian illustrators drawing upon their European heritage to give them clues about his appearance. In the early twentieth century the most common image of Santa Claus/Father Christmas was popularised by Coca-Cola advertising posters. And as well as updating his image, Santa has also adjusted his methods, leaving presents under a tree or on the lawn if there is no chimney to climb down, and making use of a sack instead of a stocking if necessary.
Santa undermines the true meaning of Christmas

Santa Claus, especially under his British name of Father Christmas, harks back to old folk ways and pagan mid-winter festivals (e.g. the Viking Yule). He reminds us of the need for life and generosity at a time when men and women were huddling depressed in the cold and dark with little to eat. Centuries ago the Christian Church adopted these festivals and tried to turn them to its own ends by locating its own celebration of the birth of Jesus (undated in the gospels) at the same time of year. But the Christians couldn’t drive out all the old beliefs and for centuries they have coexisted. The Church now should be grateful that Santa Claus allows it to get a free ride by using the popular mid-winter festivities to publicise its own beliefs.
Misleading children about Santa Claus leads to a spiral of dishonesty

We are not entirely truthful with children all the time in furtherance of their best interests.  Children are not adults and do not have the decision making and analytical abilities of adults.  Sometimes they need to be told white lies in order to influence them to make the right decisions, if not for the reasons that an adult would use for them. Children will eventually become sceptical and investigate Santa Claus for themselves, but there’s no difference there with any other fact or belief that is imparted to children by their parents.  Scepticism is a natural part of growing up that by its nature happens independently of encouragement or discouragement.
Many people agree that Santa Exists

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. Millions of children worldwide wake up on Christmas morning to find that their stocking has been magically filled with toys and candy overnight. Everybody agrees that it was Santa who was responsible - and surely if it was anyone else they would want to take credit for their generosity. Further evidence can be found in the way in which cookies, mince pies and drinks left out for Santa have been consumed in the night - often leaving crumbs.
Governments can always raise more money.

The Eurozone means that European countries are much less able to just raise more money when required. European countries do not have control over their central bank and therefore over their currency. This means that these countries that are within the Euro do not have control over the money supply and as a result they cannot control inflation as they wish. While the opposition may claim that more tax can simply be raised later to pay back the debt in a globalized world this is no longer true. Corporations and wealthy individuals are very mobile and will move to avoid tax resulting in less tax being paid. For example within the US from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas.[1] Some taxes also reduce economic growth because they reduce investment, if the entrepreneurs have fled abroad to avoid taxes they are more likely to invest abroad as well.[2] [1] Moore, Stephen, ‘Soak the Rich, Lose the rich’, The Wall Street Journal, 18th May 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html [2] Laffer, Arthur B., Moore, Stephen, & Williams, Jonathan, ‘Rich States, Poor States’, American Legislative Exchange Council, (Washington, 2009), pp.34-36, http://www.alec.org/publications/rich-states-poor-states/
Excess government borrowing crowds out private investment.

Government bonds compete with private company bonds.[1] Furthermore, government bonds are often more reliable than private bonds, the UK for example prides itself on having never defaulted,[2] thereby giving the government an additional advantage over private companies. This is especially the case in a financial crisis or economic downturn where there are worries about the creditworthiness of companies. Crowding out creates a vicious cycle; less investment in the private sector leads to less growth, thereby increasing the need for government programs, which increases the need for government spending and more government bonds on the market. [1] Simon Johnson and James Kwak, “National Debt for Beginners,” NPR, February 4, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99927343 [2] Warner, Jeremy, ‘Britain has never defaulted – or has it? (technical)’, The Telegraph, 21 February 2012, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100015105/britain-has-never-defaulted-or-has-it-technical/
Over time, budget deficits lead to large public debts, impacting a country’s credit in the international market.

Italy’s current debt exemplifies the problem with compiling debt by running even small deficits over a long period. Italy’s budget deficit is low at 3.9% of GDP in 2011[1] less than France’s 5.3%,[2] and even has a primary budget surplus (before the interest payments on debt is included). Italy’s crisis is not new with its debt having breached 100% of GDP two decades ago in 1992.[3] The problem is that this high debt makes Italy very vulnerable to economic shocks. It cannot afford to, for example, bail out banks or increase welfare and spending to boost the economy. Italy’s credit rating in the 1990s was the highest rating, triple A, it has since declined to A+.[4] As this rating shows how likely governments are perceived to be to default declines in credit ratings mean declines in confidence and increases in interest rates. If investors lose confidence and interest rates on its debts rise then it will be paying much more of its budget simply to repay loans. If interest rates rise by 1% Italy would have to pay an extra €38bn over three years.[5] Large debts are therefore not sustainable and reduce the ability of the government to pay for other things. [1] Vasarri, Chiara, ‘Italy’s 2011 Deficit Narrows More Than Expected’, Bloomberg, 2 March 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-02/italy-s-2011-deficit-narrows-more-than-expected.html [2] Associated Press, ‘French minister: 2011 deficit drops to 5.3 percent’, Yahoo News, 13 March 2012, http://news.yahoo.com/french-minister-2011-deficit-drops-5-3-percent-185029283.html [3] Foxman, Simone, ‘The Weirdest Part about the Italian Debt Crisis’, Business Insider, 9 November 2011, http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-09/markets/30376768_1_gdp-debt-burden-european-central-bank [4] Mahn, Kevin, ‘Should the U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade Really Concern You?’, Forbes, 8 August 2011, http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2011/08/08/should-the-u-s-credit-rating-downgrade-really-concern-you/ [5] Armitstead, Louise, ‘The problem with Italy’s debt is its size’, The Telegraph, 9 November 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8878970/The-problem-with-Italys-debt-is-its-size.html
Once a country starts to get far into debt, getting out becomes more and more infeasible.

Japan, whose national debt stands at 200% of GDP,[1] has accumulated debt partially due to social programs for its aging population.[2] Today, Japan struggles merely to make interest payments on its debt, thereby preventing it from directing its funds towards reducing the debt itself.[3] Europe has the same problem, albeit in a less severe form. Once government entitlement programs are established, they are very difficult to get eliminate. Once these programs become unaffordable, the government finds itself in a situation of perpetual debt that it cannot get out of. This is a particular problem in Europe as the continent is aging. Every member of the European Union has an aging population. Encouraging economic growth in countries that are old and getting older is difficult because they are less inclined to take risks and be innovative.[4] While growth and thus tax take slows the costs to the government will rise due to increasing healthcare costs and pensions. Thus, a balanced budget must be a government’s first priority. [1] Kevin Voigt, “Japan’s New Leader: A Snowball’s Chance,” CNN, August 30, 2011. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-30/world/japan.noda.profile_1_fukushima-narita-international-airport-demand-for-japanese-automobiles?_s=PM:WORLD [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] McArdle, Megan, ‘Europe’s Real Crisis’, the Atlantic, April 2012,  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/europe-8217-s-real-crisis/8915/
The government has a duty to its people and often oversteps its boundaries by incurring debt.

Excess government debt can have devastating consequences for a nation’s population. For example, when Germany lost WWI and was forced to pay reparations it could not afford it resolved its debt through hyperinflation which devastated civilians’ savings. Although this is an extreme example, governments must default, make big raises in tax rates, print more money, or otherwise manipulate currency in order to resolve debt crises. When individuals go into debt, they suffer the consequences themselves. When government leaders decide to have an unbalanced budget, the entire country suffers for their mistakes. The government is abandoning its duty to do what is best for its people when it gets too far into debt. It is not right for governments to take such risks that can have such devastating effects.
Domestic spending to prevent recessions is a form of investment.

Individuals take out loans to pay for an education or home in order to improve their standards of living. We would not discourage a student from attending college because they will have temporary debt; this debt will pay off in the long run as they will be able to getter a better job if they have graduated from university. Similarly, when a government invests in better roads, education, or economic stimulus, it helps society to be more productive, thereby generating more wealth.[1] The harmful effects of refusing to generate debt can be found in Russia, which is heavily criticized for failing to use temporary deficits to stimulate long-term growth.[2]   [1] Johnson, Simon and James Kwak. “National Debt for Beginners.” NPR, February 4, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99927343 [2] “Russia: Forecast for the Next 12 Months,” The Association of International Credit and Trade Finance Professionals, 2011.