BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Agreeing to preconditions can damage a leader’s position at home.

Meeting with the leader of the United States can equally bolster a leader’s support and strengthen his or her position. After all, the US will always prefer and support a leader that is seen as reasonable and willing to compromise rather than a hard liner. Hosni Mubarak is a prime example of a dictator whose position was strengthened by his good relationship and close ties to the US[1]. Therefore, many of these dictators may see it in their interest to agree to preconditions, if that will buy them American favours. [1] Murphy, Dan. “Joe Biden says Mubarak no dictators, he shouldn’t step down.” Christian Science Monitor. 27 January 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egy...
Preconditions are an essential gesture of good will.

Agreeing to sit down and talk can equally be seen as a gesture of good faith. The further requirement to prove themselves and their intentions can put off leaders who are on the fence about engaging the US on their differences. It should be remembered that the mistrust is not only one way; ‘rogue’ regimes leaders also mistrust US intentions. As a result demanding preconditions frames the negotiations, from the onset, from a position of mistrust
Preconditions are like granting a veto to the extremists.

No government is monolithic. In every regime there will be moderate forces willing to use diplomacy and negotiations and extremist elements that do not. By demanding that preconditions be fulfilled before a meeting, all power is given to the extremists. Israel-Palestine is an example of this. By often demanding that violence cease before negotiations can take place, the US and Israel give a veto over negotiations to Hamas, who are the perpetrators of violence. They get to decide if and when negotiations take place. Instead, the president of the United States should always try to engage and strengthen moderates within these regimes.
Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of free speech.

We already frown upon certain forms of speech[1] as we recognise that it is important to protect groups form prejudice and hatred. Allowing the expression of hatred does not automatically mean that ordinary people will denounce it as evil; rather, it normalises hatred and is more likely to be acceptable in the public domain. It also appears to show implicit acceptance or even support from the government when we take no steps to prevent this kind of damaging expression; as such, the government fails in its duty to ordinary citizens to protect them and represent their best interests. [1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Hate speech v free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 10 October 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/10/hatespeechvfreespeech on 09/09/11.
The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the government.

The Internet may be a global resource, but if information on it is have a detrimental effect upon a particular country, it certainly is that government’s responsibility and right to tackle it. If it affects their society and the citizens within it, it affects the government and the means by which they can govern, particularly in relation to social policy. Moreover these websites, and specifically religious opinion websites, often seek to ‘recruit’ others to their school of thought or even to action; their purpose is often to gather support and followers[1]. Therefore there certainly is a risk that these people, who are often very intelligent and persuasive[2], might lure others to them without protection by the government. It is a very real danger, and needs real protection. [1] Kiley, Sam, ‘Terrorists ‘May Recruit On Social Networks’’, SkyNews, 12 July 2011, http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16028962 on 09/09/11. [2] Ali, Iftakhar, ‘Terrorism – The Global Menace’, Universal Journal The Association of Young Journalists and Writers, http://www.ayjw.org/articles.php?id=944449 on 09/09/11.
Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites.

In recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases[1][2]. Given that both physical[3] and psychological[4] damage have occurred through the use of social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals[5]. Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens[6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this. [1] Moore, Victoria, ‘The fake world of Facebook and Bebo: How suicide and cyber bullying lurk behind the facade of “harmless fun”’, MailOnline, 4 August 2009, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1204062/The-fake-world-Facebook-Bebo-How-suicide-cyber-bullying-lurk-facade-harmless-fun.html on 16/09/11 [2] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&page=1#.T0N_1fFmIQo on 16/09/11 [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582 on 16/09/11. [4] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&page=1#.T0N_1fFmIQo on 16/09/11 [5] Counihan, Bella, ‘White power likes this – racist Facebook groups’, The Age, 3 February 2010, http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/white-power-likes-t... on 16/09/11 [6] Brownejacobson, ‘Councils owe vulnerable citizens duty of care’, 18 June 2008, http://www.brownejacobson.com/press_office/press_releases/councils_owe_v... 09/09/11
The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.

We already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’[1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’[2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases. [1] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408 on 09/09/11 [2] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408 on 09/09/11
Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society.

Some governments, such as the Vietnamese government[1], have already seen sufficient cause to ban social networking sites such as Facebook. Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation and destruction as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which rampaged over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire, Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham[2]. Rioters contacted each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to ensure that they could cause maximum damage[3], which resulted in the destruction of property[4], physical violence towards others[5], and even the deaths of three young men[6]. These events prove that seemingly innocent Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands[7]. To protect the population and maintain order, it is essential that the government is able to act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a tool for this kind of behaviour when such disruption is occurring. [1] AsiaNews.it, ‘Internet censorship tightening in Vietnam’, 22 June 2010, http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Internet-censorship-tightening-in-Vietnam... 09/09/11 [2] BBC News, ‘England Riots’, 8 February 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14452097 on 09/09/11 [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582 on 09/09/11 [4] Hawkes, Alex, Garside, Juliette and Kollewe, Julia, ‘UK riots could cost taxpayer £100m’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-cost-taxpayer-100-million  on 09/09/11. [5] Allen, Emily, ‘We will use water cannons on them: At last Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some aged as young as NINE)’, Mail Online, 11 August 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024203/UK-RIOTS-2011-David-Came... on 09/09/11. [6] Orr, James, ‘Birmingham riots: three men killed ‘protecting homes’’, The Telegraph, 10 August 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8693095/Birmingham-riots-th... on 09/09/11. [7] Huffington Post, ‘UK Riots: What Long-Term Effects Could They Have?’, 10 August 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/10/uk-riots-cleanup-could-co_n_9... on 09/09/11.
As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject to regulation just as other forms of media are.

Under the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that could be used malevolently. Newspapers and books are subject to censorship[1], and mediums such as television, film and video receive a higher degree of regulation[2] because it is widely recognised that moving pictures and sound can be more emotive and powerful than text and photographs or illustrations. The internet has many means of portraying information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere on the internet[3], alongside the millions of uploads from internet users themselves[4]. [1] Foerstel, Herbert N., ‘Banned in the Media’, Publishing Central, http://publishingcentral.com/articles/20030215-85-f98b.html?si=1 on 09/09/11 [2] CityTVweb.com, ‘Television censorship’, 27 August 2007, http://www.citytvweb.com/television-censorship/ on 09/09/11. [3] Online Newspapers Directory for the World, ‘Thousands of Newspapers Listed by Country & Region’, http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/ on 09/09/11 [4] Boris, Cynthia, ’17 Percent of Photobucket Users Upload Video’s Once a Day’, Marketing Pilgrim, 9 September 2011, http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2011/09/17-percent-of-photobucket-users-upload-video-once-a-day.html on 09/09/11
Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of free speech.

Censoring particular material essentially blinds the public to a complete world view by asserting the patronising view that ordinary citizens simply cannot read extreme material without recognising the flaws in it. This motion assumes that those who have access to material such as religious opinion sites will be influenced by it, rather than realising that it is morally dubious and denouncing it. The best way to combat prejudice is to expose it as a farce; this cannot be done if it is automatically and unthinkingly censored. Meanwhile, it is paradoxical for a government to assert the general benefits of free speech and then act in a contradictory and hypocritical manner by banning certain areas of the Internet. Free speech should not be limited; even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether.
The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the government.

Given that the Internet is used as an international[1] and public space[2], the government has no right over the information which may be presented via the Internet. In Western liberal democracies, governments are elected on the basis by which they can serve their own country – how they will create or maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will govern the population. The Internet is not country-specific, but international and free. As such, no individual government should have a right to the information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the government as dictatorial and a ‘nanny state’[3], demonstrating a lack of respect for its citizens by assuming that they cannot protect themselves or recognise the nature of extremist or potentially harmful sites and take the individual decision to distance themselves from such sites. [1] Babel, ‘Towards communicating on the Internet in any language’, http://alis.isoc.org/index.en.html [2] Papacharissi, Zizi, ‘The virtual sphere’, New Media & Society, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp 9-27, February 2002, http://nms.sagepub.com/content/4/1/9.short on 09/09/11 [3] BBC. ‘A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state’. Published 04/02/2011. Accessed from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12360045 on
People often react poorly to being censored by their governments.

In countries that do currently practice censorship of Internet information, their citizens often interpret this as suspicious and dictatorial behaviour. For example, in China growing discontent with the government’s constant censorship has led to public outrage[1], and political satire which heavily criticises the government[2]. Censorship can easily be used malevolently and is not always in public interest; this motion supports the ignorance of the population by hiding information and the reality of the situation. Therefore the cost of suspicion by the population of the state makes censorship of any kind less than worthwhile and it is better to allow individuals to make their own choices. [1] Bennett, Isabella, ‘Media Censorship in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011, http://www.cfr.org/china/media-censorship-china/p11515 on 09/09/11 [2] Bennett, Isabella, ‘Media Censorship in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011, http://www.cfr.org/china/media-censorship-china/p11515 on 09/09/11.
Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites.

While in a tiny minority of cases, such social networking sites can be used malevolently, they can also be a powerful force for good. For example, many social networking pages campaign for the end to issues such as domestic abuse[1] and racism[2], and Facebook and Twitter were even used to bring citizens together to clean the streets after the riots in the UK in 2011.[3] Furthermore, this motion entails a broader move to blanket-ban areas of the internet without outlining a clear divide between what would be banned and what would not. For example, at what point would a website which discusses minority religious views be considered undesirable? Would it be at the expression of hatred for nationals of that country, in which case it might constitute hate speech, or not until it tended towards promoting action i.e. attacking other groups? Allowing censorship in these areas could feasibly be construed as obstructing the free speech of specified groups, which might in fact only increase militancy against a government or culture who are perceived as oppressing their right to an opinion of belief[4]. [1] BBC News, ‘Teenagers’ poem to aid domestic abuse Facebook campaign’, 4 February 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12367525 on 16/09/11 [2] Unframing Migrants, ‘meeting for CAMPAIGN AGAINST RACISM’, facebook, 19 October 2010, http://www.facebook.com/events/168254109852708/ on 16/09/2011. [3]BBC News, ‘England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up.’ 9 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14456857 on 16/09/11. [4] Marisol, ‘Nigeria: Boko Haram Jihadists say UN a partner in “oppression of believers”’, JihadWatch, 1 September 2011, http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/09/nigeria-boko-haram-jihadists-say-un-a-partner-in-oppression-of-believers.html on 09/09/11
The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.

Outright banning this kind of prejudice does not directly tackle it – it ignores it. A better way for the government to tackle derogatory and prejudicial speech is to engage with it in a public forum and reasonably point out the flaws and ignorance that it embodies, rather than desperately trying to hide it from public view. In this way, those who are being attacked by these websites would feel as if the government is actively protecting them and their rights and punishing those who have violated them, rather than simply closing a few websites and allowing their authors to continue in other ways. This motion does not solve the problem of prejudice in the way it claims to.
Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society.

Given the number of people who actually use Facebook[1] and other social networking sites, these occurrences were remarkably small[2]. These riots cannot be attributed to Facebook; it was the mindset of the rioters rather than Facebook itself which provided the raw determination for these riots to occur. If Facebook had been censored, they may have simply used mobile phones to co-ordinate their actions instead. Censoring these sites would not prevent such events, and would anger those who use Facebook to communicate with friends[3] and share photos[4] innocently. [1] BBC News, ‘Facebook hits 500m user milestone’, 21 July 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10713199 09/09/11. [2] BBC News, ‘UK Riots: Trouble erupts in English cities’, 10 August 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14460554 on 09/09/11. [3] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic, http://facebook.en.softonic.com/web-apps on 09/09/11. [4] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic, http://facebook.en.softonic.com/web-apps on 09/09/11.
It is prejudicial to other religions to give Sunday a significance not ascribed to the holy days of other traditions

Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest. The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.
It is simply unfair to force low-paid workers to lose a day’s work if they do not choose to do so

Opposition is making an excellent argument for ensuring that workers should be remunerated at a level to support a reasonable level of existence but does not speak to the issue of keeping Sundays as a day of rest. Indeed it is possible to take the issue further and suggest that the understanding that everybody has the right to leisure time would require payment at such a level that would allow that time to be enjoyed. A work-life balance should not be defined purely in terms of time spent active and time spent idle. Rather, it must speak as much to time spent earning and time spent spending and relaxing.
Peoples’ rights to freedom of worship would be undermined if they were compelled to work on a Sunday

The right to freedom of religious practice and association is acknowledged by most countries and is enshrined in Article 18 of UN Declaration of Human Rights[i]. In those countries that can, on the basis of their history be deemed to be Christian nations it makes sense to recognise this fact by acknowledging Sunday, the Sabbath which was made for all mankind,[ii] as a day free for worship or leisure as the individual sees fit. Equally Article 24 of the same Declaration maintains the right to reasonable leisure time. It seems only practical for governments to recognise the confluence of these two principles by reserving the same day. [i] The United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights. [ii] New International Version, Mark 2:27, 2011
A shared day when there is no commercial activity encourages family life and recreation

There is extensive evidence that reserving one day for communal recreation has benefits in areas as diverse as community cohesion and the reduction of childhood obesity. The Colombian initiative, Ciclovia, which closes some streets altogether on a Sunday has demonstrated impressive results in these areas in the thirty years it has been established.[i] An NOP consumer poll in 2005 showed that 85% of respondents in the UK suggested that they would rather have a shared day off for community, family and recreational activities than see shopping hours extended on a Sunday. Representatives of those employed in the retail sector routinely condemn the impact that Sunday trading has on the family lives of those required to work[ii]. [i] Hernandez, Javier C., ‘Car-Free Streets, a Colombian Export, Inspire Debate’, The New York Times, 24 June 2008 [ii] “USDAW lobbyists say extending Sunday shopping hours would be ‘bad news’ for shopworkers’ families” USDAW Press Release. 9 May 2006.
Compelling employers to close for a day is the only way to ensure that marginalised groups are not forced to work a seven day week

Unions consistently argue that vulnerable workers – migrants, part-time workers, the young and other groups – are simply unable to choose their leisure time at their own preference. It is unlikely that all members of a family all of whom are in such employment would be likely to have leisure time to share. It is simply a democratic principle that the right to an active family life and access to shared leisure should not be the preserve of the wealthy. This divide can only be met by enforcing a day shared by all members of society.
People should be allowed to take their leisure at their own convenience and not on the basis of religious decree

It is unfair to compel people to take their leisure at a time that is not of their convenience. Workers who have to work a certain number of hours per week just to cover their costs should not be obliged to take their leisure time at a time when they cannot access services such as shops and banks. For those with no religious conviction there is no particular benefit for Sunday being their day of leisure. Instead a more fluid relationship between work and leisure ensures that those with the least available free time can take it to their greatest convenience.
It is prejudicial to other religions to give Sunday a significance not ascribed to the holy days of other traditions

It is already difficult enough for members of minority religions to have time for their own religious celebrations. It seems unlikely that employers would be likely to respect the rights of other religious groups to celebrate their own days of rest if employers were already compelled to recognise Sundays as a compulsory day of rest. Equally, for the state to identify one particular day as the ‘religious’ day worthy of commemoration would be a statement that one particular religious persuasion was in some way superior to others.