BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ICC is there to prosecute war crimes – there has been evidence of a war crime

In any conflict, the apportionment of blame for individual crimes committed against civilians to a standard of proof that would be acceptable in a court is extremely difficult, even such a high profile crime as attacks using chemical weapons have been disputed.[1]  That is why the ICC typically gets involved after conflicts, rather than during them because it provides the time for thorough investigations, availability of witnesses, and means the investigators will not be at risk. Whenever the indictment is issued, the conflict would be likely to have finished before the ICC would be able to actually have the defendants in the dock. This therefore would be no help in ending the conflict. [1] Radia, Krit, ‘Putin Rejects Syria Chemical Weapons Accusations as ‘Utter Nonsense’’, ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/International/russian-president-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-accusations/story?id=20125419
The threat of investigation could deter future war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons

Atrocities have continued on both sides of the conflict throughout this war. Military threats of intervention have not caused any reduction in hostilities – they just ramped up tension. There is a very real prospect that an ICC intervention could just fan the flames of the existing warfare; UN weapons inspectors being in the country did not deter the use of chemical weapons, they were used only a few miles from where the inspectors were staying. Also, the ICC has not been a useful deterrent in other situations, such as Darfur, which while referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council is still an ongoing conflict.[1] One of the few academic studies done on the issue suggests ICC involvement simply damages the prospects of peace by ensuring that an actor who may have been willing at some point to negotiate has to fight on.[2] Combatants are already fearing death – would the prospect of spending 30 years in a European prison cell really add too much of a deterrent? [1] Kristof, Nicholas D., ‘Darfur in 2013 Sounds Awfully Familiar’, The New York Times, 20 July 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/darfur-in-2013-sounds-awfully-familiar.html?_r=1& [2] Ku, Julian, and Nzelibe, Jide, ‘Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian Atrocities?;, Washington University Law Review, Vol.84, No.4, 2006, pp.777-833, http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/84-4/KuNzelibe777.pdf pp.181, 832
The ICC would prevent show trials

Even if the ICC brings proceedings, that does not guarantee that individuals, even if captured by forces that oppose them, will be transferred over to the ICC – the new Libyan government is still holding Saif Gaddafi.[1] The ICC can also only act when the state is unwilling or unable to provide a trial – this this is the principle of complementarity. However there is not ICC force that can act to arrest a suspect. This means in effect that it will be down to the forces on the ground which may mean summary justice by those who capture the suspect if they think it won’t get a sufficiently stiff sentence at the ICC – there is no death penalty. At any rate, many in Syria would want to see a fully military conclusion to the conflict, rather than any result through the international courts or a political settlement. [1] Aliriza, Fadil, ‘Is Libya too scared to put Said Gaddafi on trial?’, The Independent, 16 August 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/is-libya-too-scared-to-put-saif-gaddafi-on-trial-8771495.html
An ICC referral may be the only UNSC option.

Just because a reference to the ICC is possible does not mean it would be effective. It would still require individuals to be captured, and enough evidence to be ascertained in order for a conviction. Also, Russia has a track record of opposing the reference of the Syria case to the ICC, or any other involvement in the Syria issue. Negotiating with Russia could amount to a fruitless exercise Also, such a reference could cause problems if a Western military intervention were to take place later, possibly exposing foreign peacekeepers to liability if any incident were to occur.
It isn’t necessary

We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful. The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7]
Animals don’t have human rights

To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]
Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved

The point of animal research is that animals are harmed. Even if they don’t suffer in the experiment, almost all are killed afterwards. With 115 million animals used a year this is a big problem. Releasing medical research animals in to the wild would be dangerous for them, and they would not be usable as pets. [4]. The only solution is that they are wild from birth. It is obvious that it’s not in the interest of animals to be killed or harmed. Research should be banned in order to prevent the deaths of millions of animals.
Testing is needed for really new drugs

The real benefit of animal testing is making totally new drugs, which is about a quarter of them. After non-animal and then animal tests, it will be tested on humans. The reason why the risk is low (but not non-existent) for these brave volunteers, is because of the animal tests. These new chemicals are the ones most likely to produce improvements to people’s lives, because they are new. You couldn’t do research on these new drugs without either animal testing or putting humans at a much higher risk.
Research animals are well treated

Animals used in research generally don’t suffer.  While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild. As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat.
Animals shouldn’t be harmed

The difference between us and other animals is a matter of degree rather than type [2]. Their bodies resemble ours, as do their ways of conveying meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. We believe other people experience feelings like us because they are like us in appearance and behaviour. An animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If people have a right to not be harmed, we must ask ourselves what makes animals different? If animals feel what we feel, and suffer like us, to condemn one to testing because of them being of a different species is similar to racism or sexism.[3]
Parents are guardians and should be trusted to vote in their children’s interests

This is an odd idea; should parents not be voting for themselves not their children? If they are voting for their children rather than themselves are they not themselves disenfranchised? The fact is that children and their parents have different interests on account of the age gap that is likely to be at least 20 years. Someone who is 16 is much more interested in university fees than someone who is 40 who will be more interested in how much they will have at retirement. Furthermore with turnouts that are often less than 50% a great many children are not being represented by their parents at all. Adults have the choice to not vote, when their parents are choosing not to vote children don’t get this opportunity.
Rights should be gained progressively

16 year olds already have other rights. For example, in many countries they have the right to leave school and leave home, and the rights to have sex, marry and have children, they can rent accommodation and consent to surgery[1]. It is not reasonable to have different ages for different rights. It makes sense for the right to vote to be at a younger age precisely because the individual has fewer changes to deal with at a younger age, they will therefore find it easier to learn to vote.[2] If young people are considered old enough to make important choices about their own future, why can’t they have a say in deciding the future of their country? [1] Thesite.org, ‘What age can I?’, 5 May 2013 [2] Franklin, Mark N., at al., ‘The Generational Basis of Turnout Decline in Established Democracies’, Acta Politica, March 2004, pp.8-9
Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote

Young people are not the only ones who vote for extremists, the elderly are also more likely to vote for far right parties.[1] It is important in a democracy to include as wide a range of opinion as possible; a tendency to vote for more radical ideas should not be a reason for disenfranchising someone, or even more so disenfranchising a whole group. There are however also reasons to believe that 16 to 18 year olds could potentially use their votes more wisely than their elders. When looking at Austria it was found that those in education paid more attention to political news than those in work. 30% of people working followed political news less than once a week compared to only 15% of those in education.[2] As students are therefore better informed it would seem to be likely they would use their votes more wisely. [1] Arzheimer, Kai, and Carter, Elizabeth, ‘Political Opportunity Structures and Right-Wing Extremist Party Success’, European Journal of Political Research, 2006, p.4 [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.10
16 year olds are mature enough to vote

16 year olds are mature enough to make important decisions such as voting. If the government agrees that 16 year olds can have sex, join the army, and apply for a passport, then surely they are mature and responsible enough to decide who runs their country and makes important decisions that affect them. Their bodies are fully adult, they have been educated for at least 10 years, and most of them have some experience of work as well as school. By this time, it is likely a teenager will have developed “Advanced reasoning skills...the ability to think about multiple options and possibilities. It includes a more logical thought process and the ability to think about things hypothetically”.[1] This means they are able to form political views and they should be allowed to put these across at election time. Indeed by 16 children are as tolerant as adults and their political skill (the perceived ability to participate effectively in civil life by writing to political leaders and by speaking publically at meetings) is as high at 16 as for those in their late twenties.[2] There is no magic difference between 16 and 18 - indeed, many 16 year olds are more sensible than some 20 year olds. [1] Morgan, Erin, and Huebner, Angela, ‘Adolescent Growth and Development’, VirginiaTech, 1 Mary 2009 [2] Atkins, Robert, and Hart, Daniel, ‘American Sixteen and Seventeen Year Olds are Ready to Vote’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 633:201, 2011, p.210
No taxation without representation

It is unfair to have taxation without representation. Many 16 year olds work and pay tax on their earnings just as any other worker would. Yet unlike other workers at present they are not allowed to have a say in how the government spends their money, nor in how much should be collected from them in taxes. This was famously the grievance of the thirteen colonies that sparked the American revolution. In 2011 in the UK 7.2% of 16-18 year olds were in employment but not being given fair representation.[1] Policies such as the minimum wage and working hours and conditions are also set by governments, and if young people are old enough to have jobs they should be able to have their say in these issues. [1] ‘Participation of 16 to 18 year olds in education and training, England’, Department of Education, 21 February 2013, Table 1
Voting at a lower age would increase participation

There is a problem of apathy in many western countries, with low turnouts at elections. Young people are taught citizenship or civics at school with the aim of building “Knowledge and understanding about being informed citizens...Developing skills of enquiry and communication...Developing skills of participation and responsible action”[1] however they don’t get a chance to put this knowledge into practice for several years. Is it surprising that they lose interest in public affairs during this time? Because national elections are usually only held every four years or so, many people have to wait until they are 20 or 21, years after that civic education, before their first chance to cast an important vote. It is noticeable that political interest is much higher among those in education than those who are not. In Austria it was found that 68% of 16 to 18 year olds in education were interested in politics against only 45% of those who are working.[2] By demonstrating trust and promoting inclusion, young people would feel more confident in their views, become less disillusioned and eventually teach their children the same values. Introducing a lower voting age can only have long term benefits for the expansion of democracy. [1] House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, ‘Citizenship Education’, House of Commons, 21 February 2007 [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.9
Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages

There is a notable difference between how young people and the elderly are treated. Giving the vote to teenagers would force politicians to take them seriously. Policies on education (e.g. student loans) would have to take their views and interests into account for the first time. 16 year olds today are well-educated and media-savvy, so they can express informed opinions. But at the moment young people’s views are easily ignored by those in power because they don’t have the vote. The vote for 16-18 year olds would help redress the growing age imbalance which is occurring as a result of aging. In the rich world by 2050 one in three will be a pensioner and one in ten over 80.[1] These voters will clearly be looking after their benefits at the expense of the young. [1] The Economist, ‘A slow-burning fuse’, 25 June 2009
Parents are guardians and should be trusted to vote in their children’s interests

Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, join youth parliaments, etc. It is notable that sixteen year olds themselves are divided on whether they should have the vote,[1] if many of them trust their parents to vote for them should not the government? [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004
Rights should be gained progressively

Just because 16 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn’t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 16 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 16 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. The more difficult and complex the choices involved in that right and the greater the impact the later a right should be given. Because voting is so important, involves complex decision making, and can potentially have a large impact, it should be one of the last rights to be gained. It then makes sense that it voting should be granted at the time we consider adulthood to be beginning, which was agreed in the declaration of the rights of the child is 18.[1] [1] Archard, David William, ‘Children's Rights’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote

It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they will be more likely to make their decision on which party had the best image; so will vote for parties that put up celebrities. They are also more likely to vote for extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!). It is notable that in late 1990’s Russia 80% of the Communist party’s members were under 30, and a far right nationalist party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has called to lower the voting age to 16.[1] A study from the University of Nijmegen found that younger people are over represented in voters for extreme right wing parties,[2] and the same goes the other way with younger people more likely to support left wing populist measures at the expense of democracy, rights, and freedoms.[3] [1] ‘Extremists push for young voters’, Times Higher Education, 7 December 1998 [2] Lubbers, Marcel et al., ‘Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 41, 2002, pp345-378, p.364 [3] Seligson, Mitchell, A., ‘The Rise of Populism and the Left in Latin America’, Journal of Democracy, Vol.18 No.3, July 2007, pp.81-95, p.91
There needs to be a cut off

Everyone would agree that there has to be a minimum voting age. Most people believe that the line should be drawn at 18 rather than 16. Although some 16 year olds may be mature enough to vote, most have not yet formed political views of their own yet. On average, young people are much more likely to be ready for the responsibility of voting at 18. There is then no reason why 16 would make a better cut off point than 18. At both ages some rights are given, at both there will be some who pay tax who are not given representation, at both some will be immature. There is no clear dividing line so there can be no clear reasoning for lowering the voting age to 16.
16 year olds are mature enough to vote

The UK electoral commission agrees that “there is no single definition of maturity”[1]. However it is not the case that most 16 year olds are mature enough to vote. Rather, teenagers are emotionally immature and tend to behave as though “they are “on stage” with the attention of others constantly centred upon their appearance or actions. This preoccupation stems from the fact that adolescents spend so much time thinking about and looking at themselves”.[2] The large majority still live at home and go to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18 young people have become much more independent and are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents’ opinions or else will pull away from their parents and as a result “the peer group takes on a special significance... Members of the peer group often attempt to behave alike, dress alike... and participate in the same activities”[3]. [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 [2] University of Maryland Medical Center, ‘Adolescent Development-Overview’, University of Maryland, 17 January, 2011 [3] ibid
Voting at a lower age would increase participation

Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010
Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages

Since 18-24 year olds already ignore their ability to vote there is no reason to expect that 16-18 year olds will be any more interested. At the moment over 50% of 18-24 year olds don’t vote even though they are eligible.[1] So this kind of change is hardly going to offset aging. It is also wrong to suggest that voters vote according to their age; the elderly are likely to have grandchildren whose interests they may well respect when voting. [1] Dunleavy, Patrick, and Gilson, Chris, ‘Is the UK Electorate Disengaged?’, British Politics and Policy at LSE, 12 March 2010