BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War in Iraq resulted in too many dead or wounded soldiers.

Jim Wallis. "The War in Iraq: At What Cost?" Sojourners. September 1, 2010: "The human cost of the Iraq War is literally breathtaking. I went to a website last night that has documented the number and published the pictures of those who died, 4,400 so far. I couldn’t stop looking at their pictures … so young … so many husbands and wives, fathers, mothers, and those still almost children themselves. I kept thinking about how much they will be so sorely missed by those who loved and needed them. Then I listened to so many stories of the 35,000 wounded, many who lost their arms and legs, their strong young bodies, their long-term abilities, or their emotional and mental health. I winced when I heard there are about 18 suicides each day among returning veterans."
Progress in Iraq does not mean war was worth it.

Francis Fukuyama. "Iraq May Be Stable, But the War Was a Mistake" Wall Street Journal. August 15th, 2008: "Though Iraq remains a very troubled country, virtually all of the trend lines -- Iraqi and U.S. casualties, government provision of basic services, and the ability of Iraqi forces to provide order -- have been moving in a positive direction for the past year. What I absolutely [do] not concede, however, was the fact that this change meant that the war itself was worth it. By invading Iraq in the manner it did, the U.S. exacerbated all of the threats it faced prior to 2003. Recruitment into terrorist cells shot up all over the world. North Korea and Iran accelerated their development of nuclear weapons."
The War in Iraq distracted from the War on Terror.

Malou Innocent. "The Iraq war: still a massive mistake." Christian Science Monitor. April 5th, 2010: "A fourth consequence of the war in Iraq – and one that should determine whether it is deemed a “success” – is that it did little to keep America safe from Al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11. In this respect, what makes “Bush’s war” in Iraq arguably one of the biggest strategic blunders in US history is not just the litany of failures it caused but the opportunities America lost. The disaster in Iraq diverted badly needed intelligence assets, public attention, and congressional oversight from the forgotten war in Afghanistan."
War in Iraq kept Saddam from acquiring nuclear weapons.

John Bolton, U.N. ambassador under Bush, has argued that deposing Saddam's regime was "unquestionably correct" because it kept him from acquiring nuclear weapons. This, he believes, Saddam surely would have done given that the sanctions effort against him was weakening. "Achieving that objective was materially in the interests of the United States, and the world is a better place," he said.
Iraq War undermines US legitimacy on international law

Francis Fukuyama. "Iraq May Be Stable, But the War Was a Mistake" Wall Street Journal. August 15th, 2008: "There are deeper, intangible costs. The Bush administration this week rebuked Russia for its disproportionate military intervention in Georgia; many rightly suspect Moscow's real goal is regime change of the pro-Western, democratic government in Tbilisi. But who set the most recent precedent for a big power intervening to change a regime it didn't like, without the sanction of the U.N. Security Council or any other legitimating international body? Of course, there is no moral equivalence between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Mikheil Saakashvili's Georgia. But the U.S. is scarcely in a position today to rally opposition to Russia on the basis of international law and norms constraining the strong from using force against the weak."
Saddam Hussein caused a comparable death toll to War in Iraq

Richard Miniter. "Was the Iraq War Worth It?" Hudson New York. September 2, 2010: "Finally, let us remember that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not a very safe place. There were bombing and shootings at least on par with 2010 levels, if not higher. No official statistics were kept, and the bombings were not generally reported on state-run media; but anecdotal and other reports show a sustained level of violence in the Saddam years. People tend to imagine dictatorships as solid and stable things; instead, dictatorships are a relentless civil war by the rulers against the majority. A continuing civil war can turn hot, and, in Saddam's era, often did."
War not worth roughly 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed.

IraqBodyCount.org records that between 98 and 108 thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed in the War in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. Such a death toll is catastrophic, outrageous, and scandalous. Almost every person in Iraq - a country of 31 million - knows somebody that has been killed. No war of choice is worth this cost, especially when the benefits were completely speculative. And even in the worst case scenarios with Saddam Hussein staying in power, death tolls approaching this kind of figure are hard to imagine.
War in Iraq teaches how to fight wars of 21st century.

Richard Miniter. "Was the Iraq War Worth It?" Hudson New York. September 2, 2010: "The military also learned some big things, such as how to fight urban wars and small wars -- the two most likely forms of conflict that can be expected over in the 21st century. Thanks to Iraq, a Pentagon, mired in the thinking of World War II tactics, has learned how to fight on future battlefields. The surge in Iraq, and the use of light and nimble forces in Somalia, are among the benefits of our military leaders' Iraq education."
War in Iraq adds to US geopolitical and military credibility.

Richard Miniter. "Was the Iraq War Worth It?" Hudson New York. September 2, 2010: "the war enhanced American credibility. At the end of any diplomatic process, there might be the implied threat of military force. Future presidents will benefit, in their diplomatic efforts, from the vivid memory of American forces confronting the fourth-largest army in the world and defeating its major units in a matter of weeks. The defeat of the insurgency, which was far more difficult, is also instructive to the leaders of other lands. If the world knows that you are not a paper tiger, you do not often have to roar."
If not a threat then, Iraq would have become one

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant with a willingness to use WMD on his own people and in wars with other countries. Although he apparently had discontinued his active WMD program by 2003, he could have easily reconstituted this program, particularly with the sanctions regime against him crumbling. And, considering the regional threats posed by Iran and Syria and their active WMD programs, he probably would have. He was an inevitable threat, even if temporarily subdued in 2003.
Iraq War worsened US reputation in the Muslim world.

Malou Innocent. "The Iraq war: still a massive mistake." Christian Science Monitor. April 5th, 2010: "A third side effect of the war waged purportedly in democracy’s name is that it came at the expense of America’s already frayed reputation in the Muslim world. Far from being seen as a benevolent liberator, the United States was perceived as a blundering behemoth – and an abusive, hypocritical one to boot."
Number of US troops lost in Iraq is relatively small

Richard Miniter. "Was the Iraq War Worth It?" Hudson New York. September 2, 2010: "What about the toll taken on the U.S. military? [...] While every soldier's life is precious, it is astonishing how relatively few Americans were called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice in the Iraq war. Total combat deaths for U.S. forces are 3,491 over eight years. More died in a single day of combat at Antietam (Sharpsburg, Maryland) or on the Normandy landings. [...] If you average the death toll of 57,000 over the 14 years of the Vietnam War, you get 4,071: one year of the Vietnam War was more deadly than all eight years of the Iraq war combined. [...] Clearly, the military has learned a lot about combat medicine, body armor, small-unit tactics and hundreds of other advances that save lives, both military and civilian."
War in Iraq sent message about WMD, sponsoring terror, etc.

Tony Blair wrote in his 2010 memoirs: "After 11 September, the thinking was this: if these terrorist groups could acquire WMD capability, would they use it? On the evidence of 11 September, yes. So how do we shut the trade down? How do we send a sufficiently clear and vivid signal to nations that are developing, or might develop, such capability to desist? How do we make it indisputable that continued defiance of the will of the international community will no longer be tolerated?"[10]
Deposing Saddam was not worth immense costs of war.

Francis Fukuyama. "Iraq May Be Stable, But the War Was a Mistake" Wall Street Journal. August 15th, 2008: "While everyone is better off without Saddam Hussein around, the cost was hugely disproportionate. If you don't believe this, ask yourself whether Congress would ever have voted to authorize the war in 2002 if it knew there was no WMD, or that there would be trillion-dollar budget outlays, or that there would be 30,000 dead and wounded after five years of bitter struggle."
War in Iraq was worth the lives lost

In a 2009 interview between Jim Lehrer and Vice President Dick Cheney: "Q: But Mr. Vice President, getting from there to here, 4,500 Americans have died, at least 100,000 Iraqis have died. Has it been worth that? CHENEY: I think so. Q: Why? CHENEY: Because I believed at the time what Saddam Hussein represented was, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, was a terror-sponsoring state so designated by the State Department. … He had produced and used weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological agents. He’d had a nuclear program in the past. … And he did have a relationship with al Qaeda. [...] And so I think given the track record of Saddam Hussein, I think we did exactly the right thing. I think the country is better off for it today."
War in Iraq sent deterrent message to rogue regimes.

Tony Blair wrote in his 2010 memoirs: "After 11 September, the thinking was this: if these terrorist groups could acquire WMD capability, would they use it? On the evidence of 11 September, yes. So how do we shut the trade down? How do we send a sufficiently clear and vivid signal to nations that are developing, or might develop, such capability to desist? How do we make it indisputable that continued defiance of the will of the international community will no longer be tolerated?"[3]
DREAM Act is very expensive.

Steven A. Camarota. "Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act." Center for Immigration Studies. November 2010: "On average, each illegal immigrant who attends a public institution will receive a tuition subsidy from taxpayers of nearly $6,000 for each year he or she attends, for total cost of $6.2 billion a year, not including other forms of financial assistance they may also receive."
Children not responsible for illegal immigration of parents.

Kavitha Rajagopalan."OPINION: Dream Act makes sense for immigrants and U.S. economy." News Day. November 18th, 2010: "The children who were brought here illegally had no say in their migration, and under the provisions of the Dream Act, they will have spent their formative years as U.S. residents. When we punish them for a crime they didn't commit, we further punish our bruised economy."
Illegals cannot use legalized children to gain citizenship

"Debunking DREAM Act disinformation." The Economist, Democracy in America. Nov 30th 2010: "So, you're Mr Frum's 40-year-old undocumented immigrant. DREAM, which requires you to be between 12 and 35 at the time of application, does nothing for you, even if you did come into the country as a child. But you have a daughter who does qualifies. Woohoo! You're in like Flynn, right? Well, no. Probably not. Suppose DREAM becomes law in 2011. Your kid applies right away and earns status as a "conditional legal resident" (or "CLR"). Now, can you your kid sponsor you for legal permanent residency? No, she cannot. Only citizens can sponsor their parents. Suppose your kid goes to college and stays out of trouble. The earliest she can apply to become an "LPR" or "legal permanent resident" (ie, get a green card) is 5 1/2 years after approval for conditional permament residency. That's some time in 2016 at the earliest. Now, a green card-holder can apply for citizenship after five years. Under DREAM, as I understand it, once a CLR is approved for a green card, the time spent as a CLR counts toward citizenship. So someone approved for a green card under the auspices of DREAM ought to be able to apply for citizenship right away. Let's assume miracles from the bureaucracy and say all these applications are processed and approved at the speed of light. So, thanks to DREAM, your daughter will be a citizen no sooner than 2016, at which point she can finally sponsor you (as long as she's over the age of 21). But don't get excited yet! You entered the country illegally, and were working illegally before applying for a green card, and that means you aren't eligible for a green card. ( See question 10 here.) So, sorry, DREAM can't help you." [Read rest of quote on argument page.]
DREAM Act shows compassion, hope, opportunity to young aliens.

"The message the DREAM Act sends." The Economist, Democracy in America. Nov 21st 2010: "The DREAM Act sends the message that although American immigration law in effect tries to make water run uphill, we are not monsters. It says that we will not hobble the prospects of young people raised and schooled in America just because we were so perverse to demand that their parents wait in a line before a door that never opens. It signals that we were once a nation of immigrants, and even if we have become too fearful and small to properly honour that noble legacy, America in some small way remains a land of opportunity."
No threats to US will be admitted under DREAM Act.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. "How the DREAM Act Would Bolster Our Homeland Security." The White House Blog. December 14, 2010: "To be clear, no one who poses a threat to public safety will be able to adjust their status under the DREAM Act. The bill ensures applicants will undergo a rigorous background check, and individuals who committed offenses that are grounds for removal will be barred from relief. It is a narrowly-tailored, bipartisan bill that would allow a select group of immigrant students with great potential to contribute more fully to America."
DREAM Act encourages bringing kids across for citizenship

David Frum. "A DREAM bill that's more like a nightmare." The Week. November 25th, 2010: "Possibility No. 2:. You’re a 40-year-old illegal alien who entered the country as an adult. You have a third-grade education. You are barely literate even in Spanish. Your back is bothering you; you are not sure how long you can continue working. Quite frankly, no country on earth would regard you as a desirable immigrant. Don't despair. DREAM can offer you too an amnesty and gain you access to a lifetime of taxpayer-funded disability payments. You have kids don't you? If they apply successfully under DREAM, they can sponsor you. While some talk about DREAM applicants as "skilled" immigrants, in fact the law's requirements are so lenient that your kids would have to mess up very seriously to forfeit the law's benefits. All they need to do is enroll in some institution of higher learning or the military and survive there for two years. Graduation is not required."
DREAM Act encourages more illegal immigration

Mark Krikorian. "DREAM On" National Review. December 1, 2010: "3. Another problem with DREAM, which all amnesties share, is that it will attract new illegal immigration. Prospective illegal immigrants, considering their options, are more likely to opt to come if they see that their predecessors eventually hit the jackpot. In 1986, we had an estimated 5 million illegals, 3 million of whom were legalized. We now have more than twice as many as before the last amnesty, and they’ve been promised repeatedly that if they hold out a little longer they’ll be able to stay legally. Any new amnesty, even if only for those brought here as children, will attract further illegal immigration."
DREAM Act allows young aliens to produce more in economy

Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.). "Do the right thing and pass the DREAM Act." The Hill. September 21st, 2010: "Our current law doesn't make sense. Each year, tens of thousands of potential new taxpayers and higher wage earners enter our job market, yet we undermine their ability to contribute meaningfully to our economy. Our high schools are graduating roughly 65,000 undocumented students each year, and these thousands are entering the marketplace far from equipped to improve their circumstances or contribute meaningfully to our economy. [...] Had these students been able to receive, and later pay back, federal loans for university training and eventually a college diploma, they would be able to contribute over $9,000 annually to our economy - that is, roughly $5,300 more in taxes and $3,900 less in government expenses (i.e., social services made available to the general public)." [read rest of quote in argument page.]
DREAM Act is bad for American employment.

Steve King. "Op-Ed: The DREAM Act Is An Amnesty Bill That America Cannot Afford." Free Republic. December 6th, 2010: "President Obama and the liberal open-border leadership of the Democratic Party are pushing for passage of legislation granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. They are doing this despite the fact that this costly legislation will make a difficult job market worse. [...] With the unemployment rate at 9.8 percent the last thing American job hunters need is millions of DREAM Act amnesty recipients competing with them for work.
DREAM Act offers citizenship to youth already "Americans".

Rep Charles Rangle (D-NY). "Why the DREAM Act is so important." Huffington Post. December 13, 2010: "Many of these students may have arrived here illegally by their parents, but they have been raised as Americans. They salute the flag, recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the Star-Spangled Banner. They are Boy Scouts, prom queens and class valedictorians. And they too want to give back by becoming professionals or serving in the military."
DREAM doesn't apply to future illegals; doesn't incentivize immigration.

"Debunking DREAM Act disinformation." The Economist, Democracy in America. Nov 30th 2010: "DREAM is a niggardly, one-time affair. According to the text of the bill, DREAM applies only if "the alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act...' That is to say, DREAM wouldn't apply to kids who came to America three years ago, much less to any kids who comes in the future."
DREAM Act ignores problem of fraud in applications

Mark Krikorian. "DREAM On" National Review. December 1, 2010: "2...all amnesties have at least three harmful consequences, and the DREAM Act ignores all three. The first of these is massive fraud. Perhaps one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the first World Trade Center attack. [...] what does the DREAM Act say about fraud? [...] the measure 'prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc.) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process.' This is like playing a slot machine without having to put any money in — any illegal alien can apply, and if he wins, great, but if he loses, he can’t be prosecuted even if he lied through his teeth about everything."
Better ways to cut oil consumption than Pickens Plan

Vaclav Smil, a professor of environment at the University of Manitoba in Canada. - "What's the point of making natural gas cars?...Why not simply drive highly efficient, old-fashioned internal combustion engines? If everybody drove a Honda Civic, we wouldn't need oil from the Middle East...If everyone used a 97 percent efficient natural gas furnace, we'd be giving natural gas away...That could save much more than Pickens. Within ten years you could use massive natural gas savings to produce clean electricity and then use that to drive all-electric vehicles."[4]
The Pickens Plan will stimulate the US economy

"What Pickens Has Right, What He Has Wrong". ClimateProgress. 28 July 2008 - "A big wind plan would be good for the economy, particularly in the nation's job-starved rural areas. Last time I checked, farmers and ranchers nationwide could earn $5,000 annually for each tiny piece of land they lease to host a turbine. There aren't many crops -- legal crops, at least -- that can earn that kind of money. In windy Nolan County, Texas, wind power has created 1,000 new jobs and is expected to produce $315 million in revenues. In rural Colorado, the Danish wind manufacturer Vestas is building two plants to manufacture wind blades and towers, creating hundreds of new jobs. The company reportedly is manufacturing in the United States because wind turbines built with Euros would be too expensive in the U.S. market at today's exchange rates; it may have picked Colorado because of Gov. Bill Ritter's plan to build a "new energy economy"."
Pickens wisely replaces oil imports with domestic natural gas

"What Pickens Has Right, What He Has Wrong". ClimateProgress. 28 July 2008 - "Pickens’ plan to substitute natural gas for imported oil is consistent with national policy today, but that policy needs to be revised. Natural gas in various forms — liquefied (LNG), compressed (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), a byproduct of natural gas production and oil refining — is classified under federal law as one of the fuels we should be using more to cut oil imports."
Pickens Plan wrongly diverts natural gas from replacing coal

"What Pickens Has Right, What He Has Wrong". ClimateProgress. 28 July 2008 - "That brings us to the second part of Pickens’ plan and to Joe’s correct judgment that using natural gas to run vehicles rather than power plants is a bad idea...Because we need to reduce carbon emissions, because we don’t have limitless supplies of domestic oil and gas, and because we would be stupid to allow even more dependence on foreign resources, domestic natural gas should be treated carefully as transition fuel to a sustainable low-carbon economy. Given the growing urgency for climate action, it makes sense to use natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels, to replace coal, the dirtiest."
Pickens Plan is feasible application of wind technology

Martin LaMonica. "T. Boone Pickens: A man with an energy plan". Green Tech. 8 Jul. 2008 - "On the face of it, the Pickens Plan is not at all radical. The U.S. Department of Energy earlier this year said that the U.S. could get 20 percent of its electricity from wind in roughly the same time period and has called for the creation of a transmission network to the coasts."
That the Pickens Plan is for profit is a good thing

"Critique of Pickens Plan misses the point". Force Change. 7 Aug. 2008 - "Will he make a profit if his plan is enacted? Of course, since he is the biggest developer of wind power in the country. But there is nothing inherently wrong with that[...]Rather, it is the very alignment of profit and national interest that has created the current environment where a proposal like the Pickens Plan or Gore’s 10 Year Plan are actually contemplated. It’s not like we just realized this year that global warming and dependence on foreign oil is a bad thing. Instead, it is that fuel prices have finally gone up enough to make it profitable to pursue alternative sources. This alignment of profit and public interest is our best chance to make a real shift in the way we power our country. To dismiss attempts at change because they have a profit interest related to them is to miss the biggest opportunity we’ve had in a generation to improve the environment and our country."