BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Recruiters mislead kids about military service

Recruitment officers often give misleading pitches. They play up the excitement and chances to travel, as well as the pay and benefits such as college fees and training in special skills. They don’t talk about the dangers of military life, the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the thousands of young soldiers who have lost limbs in recent years. And they don’t mention the impact of war on soldiers’ mental health, or the lack of support when they leave the military. If we must have the military in our schools, then they should be made to give a much more realistic view of military life. All of this is why military recruiters have received the reputation of being like "used car salesperson," according to one source.[3]
17-year-olds Not Ready to Join

Though parental consent and a High School Diploma or equivalent is required for military service, teenagers are not ready to commit themselves to war when they cannot be considered responsible enough to vote, drink alcohol, buy tobacco or pornography, or sign a legal contract. The fact is our children look up to a highly romanticized image of military personnel from an early age and that fact should not be capitalized upon until they have at least turned 18.
Military recruiters wrongly have access to student info.

Washington Truth in Recruiting: "According to Dave Meserve in Arcata, Calif., localities can avoid the consequences of the No Child Left Behind law (which turns students' names and contact information over to recruiters) not only by helping students and parents to opt out of recruitment lists or by challenging the ability of recruiters to be on school campuses, but also by prohibiting any recruiting activities that involve kids under 18."
Military recruiters often harass kids to join

Ari Rosmarin, coordinator of The New York Civil Liberties Project On Military Recruitment and Students’ Rights: “recruiters are using heavy-handed tactics to harass students, violate students’ privacy rights, and target poor students and students of color. [...] In the recruiters’ manual there is a lot about school ownership. They are encouraged to befriend the administration, become coaches for sport teams and organize after-school activities. We hear a lot of instances where recruiters will go as far as taking a student out and buying them lunch. We just want to ensure students are given the right to pursue an education without being harassed and hassled everyday."[4]
The military actively strives for honesty among recruiters

Dean Paton. "Rift over recruiting at public high schools". Christian Science Monitor. May 8, 2005 - "Douglas Smith, a US Army spokesman, said the job of recruiters is not to make promises but to show applicants possibilities and career options. 'As for a recruiter making promises and not following through, the recruiter's not in any position to promise anything. We hope that all our recruiters are communicating honestly with our applicants,' Mr. Smith said. But he added, 'In the contract [between the new soldier and the Army] it says, 'Anything the recruiter may have promised me is moot."
Military should not recruit youth that can't vote/judge.

The army is short of manpower due to high casualty rates and the unwillingness of current soldiers to reenlist. This means that they are very keen to get into schools to sign up young people. But it is not right to let them get at students who are too young to vote, or even drive. 16 and 17 year olds are not grown-up enough to make life and death decisions, like joining the army. They may not be able to see through exciting presentations or resist a persuasive and experienced recruitment officer. Schools should be safe places to grow and learn, not somewhere to sign your life away before it has even properly begun.
Students should know about options/benefits in military.

Diego Cupolo. "Military Recruiters In High Schools." Gotham Gazette. January 2007: "And some young people think the military is a good option for them. Today, joining the military gives soldiers more perks than in previous decades. The Army offers money for education, health care, vacation time, family services and cash allowances to cover the cost of living, according to goarmy.com an Army Web site. Paying for a college education is also a big bonus for prospective recruits. Depending on the soldier’s enlistment period, the Army can help pay up to $72,900 in education expenses. The Army also offers classes to active duty and reserve soldiers through online universities and learning facilities in Army posts."
Military does not equate educationally disadvantaged students necessarily as good soldiers.

The military almost always aim their recruitment towards possible and able candidates who are able to serve full time once given the proper training and guidance. There is clearly no research so far that can justify that these students who are capable of being in the military usually are handicapped in their studies or are deemed unfit for the schooling environment. Furthermore, the military will not discriminate recruitment of students just because of their education level because even students with much higher intellectual capabilities can pique the interest of the military. Simply on the basis that they can very well serve in the military from behind the scenes under intelligence gathering or technological development. On the other hand, the recruitment of disadvantaged students, whom usually are associated with attitude problems, will not make training them into soldiers as easy as it sounds. This is because of the obedience of these problematic children; it will waste more time to train them and will not benefit the military in any way. In short, the military will not necessarily target disadvantaged students because the attitude problems in these students will degrade their recruitment chances and that the military also does focus recruitment on intellectually capable students because they have soft skills and learning capabilities which may be put to good use.
Military recruiters are the nation's first line of defense

"First line of defense: military recruiters." Chaotic Synaptic Activity. December 16th, 2010: "Staffed with service members, if you have wanted to say “Thank you” to someone in uniform, there’s your sign. Next time you’re driving by, take a few minutes to stop in and shake hand or two. Why? These men and women are the ones who get us men like SSGT Guinta and SGT J.D. Williams and so many others, who’s names we’ve read and those most all of us will never hear the names of, but know it took them all to defend the Nation. It’s the recruiters are the ones who either go out and find them to talk to, or have to assess them as they walk in to volunteer."
Military wrongly targets disadvantaged communities.

There is evidence from both the UK and the USA that military recruiters target disadvantaged areas. They seem to think that poorer students will have few other career options, so they will be more likely to join up. It isn’t right that young people from poor backgrounds can be exploited in this way. Why should they be expected to risk their lives much more than students from better-off areas? Instead schools and governments should make sure all students get equal chances in life.
Israel's anti-missiles can protect against nuclear Iran

Yaakov Katz. "'Arrow can fully protect against Iran'". Jerusalem Post. March 30, 2007 - "Recent modifications made to the Arrow enable Israel's ballistic missile defense system to successfully intercept and destroy any ballistic missile in the Middle East, including nuclear-capable missiles under development by Iran, Arieh Herzog, the head of the Defense Ministry's Homa Missile Defense Agency, has told The Jerusalem Post."
A nuclear Iran will spark an international arms race

An October 2005 report by the Army's Strategic Studies Institute argues that, "Iran’s continued insistence that it acquired its nuclear capabilities legally under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) would, if unchallenged, encourage its neighbors (including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey,and Algeria) to develop nuclear options of their own by emulating Iran’s example, by overtly declaring possession (in Israel’s case)or by importing nuclear weapons (in Saudi Arabia’s case). Such announcements and efforts, in turn, would likely undermine nuclear nonproliferation restraints internationally and strain American relations with most of its key friends in the Middle East."
Iran can be deterred from using a nuclear weapon

Senior Associate and Director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment Joseph Cirincione stated on April 4th, 2006, "The threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb is not that Iran is going to get the bomb and attack the United States, or attack Israel, or that they are going to give it to a terrorist group to wage those attacks. No, deterrence is alive and well. Iran understands that such an attack would be the last attack of its regime. It would be a regime suicide move to actually use the bomb."[2]
Iran would respond to an attack by disrupting oil prices

Joseph Kirschke. "A Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Facilities: Assessing Potential Retaliation". Global Geopoltics. December 06, 2007 - "Kenneth Katzmann, a senior analyst for Persian Gulf Affairs for the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress, quoted a former Air Force planner as saying 400 targets must be struck including 75 that would require 'penetrating munitions' to sufficiently disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions (2.) – as evidence emerges of some facilities being placed inside populated areas. (3.) [...] A response by Iran, he noted in an interview, could very easily take on economic dimensions. 'What they’re going to do is drive up petrol prices,' he said, noting that even threatening speeches by Iranian leaders can impact world oil prices. 'We feel they’re going to do something ‘out of the box.’' For example, he said, Iran could disrupt shipping in the Straits of Hormuz – the channel at the mouth of the Persian Gulf through which two-fifths of the world’s oil passes. 'They may even use their influence to get the Basra oil workers to walk off the job,' said Katzmann, 'to not only get Iranian oil off the market, but Iraqi oil off the market, too.'"
A nuclear Iran may supply the weapon to terrorists

Joshua Muravchik. "Opposing View: Iranian Bomb 'Intolerable'". USA Today. November 20, 2007 - "The dangers an Iranian bomb would present are intolerable. Iran is the pre-eminent sponsor of terrorism. Iranian weapons are responsible for a large share of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Our forces in Afghanistan have intercepted Iranian arms shipments to the Taliban. Argentina has indicted Iranian officials for blowing up a Buenos Aires Jewish center. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said Tehran was behind Hamas' armed takeover of Gaza. Iran provides haven to fugitive leaders of al-Qaeda. The list goes on. [...] A nuclear attack by terrorists would be almost impossible to deter. Against whom would we threaten retaliation?"
"Tolerating" a nuclear Iran means using every tool but war.

Tolerating a nuclear Iran does not mean sitting idly by. Rather, it means implementing every diplomatic, strategic, counter-alliance, and funding measure to contain the country and ensure that it does no damage to our allies and to international security. It is important to make this distinction, as it is certainly true that complacency is not an option in the face of a nuclear Iran, which is recognized as a greater security risk to the world. "Tolerating" Iran simply means avoiding the bad choice of going to war with the country, instead pursuing the other means of containment described below.
Allies of Middle East will prevent a nuclear Iran from dominating

Dr. Barry Posen writes in a February 28, 2006 article in the New York Times: "Because many of Iran's neighbors lack nuclear weapons, it's possible that Iran could use a nuclear capacity to blackmail such states into meeting demands - for example, to raise oil prices, cut oil production or withhold cooperation with the United States. But many of Iran's neighbors are allies of the United States, which holds a strategic stake in their autonomy and is unlikely to sit by idly as Iran blackmails, say, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. It is unlikely that these states would capitulate to a nuclear Iran rather than rely on an American deterrent threat. To give in to Iran once would leave them open to repeated extortion."[7]
Nuclear weapons in radical Iran are an intolerable risk

Iran's leadership holds radical, Islamic views that make it more likely than other countries to take-up the risk of using a nuclear weapon. This radical ideology discounts the faculty of reason, making it difficult to count on Iran making a sound cost-benefit analysis that using a nuclear weapon is not in their interests, and would, likely, lead to their annihilation. In this way, the risks that the Iranian regime will use its nuclear weapons against another country are intolerably high.
A nuclear-armed Iran will not provoke a Middle East arms race

Dr. Barry Posen writes in a February 28th article in the New York Times: "A Middle Eastern arms race is a frightening thought, but it is improbable. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, among its neighbors, only Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey could conceivably muster the resources to follow suit. Israel is already a nuclear power. Cairo depends on foreign assistance, which would make Egypt vulnerable to the enormous international pressure it would most likely face to refrain from joining an arms race. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has the money to acquire nuclear weapons and technology on the black market, but possible suppliers are few and very closely watched. To develop the domestic scientific, engineering and industrial base necessary to build a self-sustaining nuclear program would take Saudi Arabia years. In the interim, the Saudis would need nuclear security guarantees from the United States or Europe, which would in turn apply intense pressure on Riyadh not to develop its own arms. Finally, Turkey may have the resources to build a nuclear weapon, but as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it relied on American nuclear guarantees against the mighty Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. There's no obvious reason to presume that American guarantees would seem insufficient relative to Iran."[11]
Military strikes on Iran would invite painful retaliation

Richard Haass. "A nuclear Iran: live and let live, or die another day?". The Sydney Morning Herald. January 14, 2009 - "There would be serious consequences [following an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities]. Iran could be expected to retaliate by attacking US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, unleashing terrorist attacks throughout the region and the world, and interrupting the flow of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The last thing the world economy needs is a $200 barrel of oil, but this could be the result."
A nuclear Iran would use oil as a weapon

"An 'Intolerable' Threat". Wall Street Journal. February 3, 2006: "A nuclear Iran could also wield a predominating influence in OPEC. It could disrupt maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf and force the U.S. Navy out of its narrow, shallow waters. It could menace Europe, and eventually the U.S. homeland, as its ballistic missile capabilities develop. It could arm Palestinian terrorists with sophisticated weapons, turning Gaza into a risk not just for Israel but the entire Mediterranean basin."
Air strikes on Iran would be limited to self-defense

Joshua Muravchik. "Opposing View: Iranian Bomb 'Intolerable'". USA Today. November 20, 2007: "Only strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities can forestall these terrible scenarios. This would not require a 'declaration of war,' an antiquated concept that has not been employed since World War II and rarely before. We would send no troops, conquer no land. Rather, we would act in pre-emptive self-defense."
Iran would be deterred from giving nucs to terrorists

Joshua Muravchik. "Opposing View: Iranian Bomb 'Intolerable'". USA Today. November 20, 2007 - "The danger of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons exists, if barely. This would be possible only with a nuclear state’s complicity. The political plausibility of any government giving terrorists control of such weapons is next to nil, considering the risks involved for the benefactor state. The technical and logistical complexity of such an operation would also be great."
A nuclear Iran undermines prospects for democracy there

"An 'Intolerable' Threat". Wall Street Journal. February 3, 2006: "It's [...] important to consider the effect that a nuclear Iran would have on the potential for a democratic Iran. Its nuclear project is often portrayed as a matter of national prestige, the implication being that any strike against it would rally the regime's domestic opponents to its side. What Iranian dissidents tell us is closer to the opposite. A nuclear Iran would enhance the mullahs' sense of invulnerability and facilitate domestic repression."
Boycotting the Olympics only punishes athletes.

The Olympics are meant to be the pinacle of sporting and a sacred set of games that athletes strive to compete in from the time they realize their true talent. When a country boycotts the games the only people they are hurting is their athletes that have worked very hard their whole lives for possibly their only shot at competeing against the greatest from all over the world. We, in America, can voice our opinions as much as we want and try to get China to change their concepts of dealing with Tibet and Darfur, but by penalizing our athletes and not going to the games, we would only be hurting our countrymen and women who want to go over there and represent our nation and bring back the gold.
The Olympic games should not be politicized

Even if China is not abiding by human rights standards, this should not be a factor in whether or not the Olympic games should be held there and/or whether states should attend. The Olympic games have historically been a non-political arena of sports. Attendance should not be seen in the political context, but merely in the context of national athletes competing in sports. If politics are allowed to enter as criteria in hosting and attending the games, many unfortunate demands or conditions could be made by states. The games would become part of the politicized, geopolitical context.
China's unwillingness influence Burma's crisis justifies an Olympic Boycott

Burma's atrocities against its Buddhists in 2007 were significant. It is the role of international, geopolitical leaders - such as China - to use whatever reasonable measures are handy to positively affect the behavior of misbehaving states. China is fully capable of doing this, and yet it chose not to. Edward McMillan-Scott, vice president of the European Parliament said to Reuters in September, 2007, "The consensus around the European Parliament is that China is the key. China is the puppet master of Burma. The Olympics is the only real lever we have to make China act. The civilized world must seriously consider shunning China by using the Beijing Olympics to send the clear message that such abuses of human rights are not acceptable."[3]
China's 2008 Olympics will accelerate its civil society

Susan Brownell, a Fulbright Scholar studying the effects of the Olympics on China, and who wrote Beijing's Games: What the Olympics Mean to China (2008), said the international event will speed up the "formation of a civil society in urban China by perhaps as much as 5-10 years."[1] Therefore, even if China's civil, democratic institutions and practices are not good currently, the Olympics is likely to help advance them into the future.
Boycotting China will be against the spirit of the Olympics

The Olympic Charter clearly states that one of the missions of the Olympics is to "oppose any political or commercial abuse of sport and athletes". Boycotting China will go against this, as the athletes will lose one of their very few chances to compete in the Olympics, something they have worked towards for years, and taking away this well-deserved chance because of political discrepancies will fall under the "political abuse" of sports and athletes.
Boycotting the Olympics will bring China to respond to the Darfur crisis

- Above anything, China responds to targets to its image. When actress Mia Farrow widely publicized her attack on China's inaction regarding the Darfur crisis, China responded, the first time to do so. China will now respond to such public and open criticism, and boycotting the Olympics will be one of the greatest forms of publicized criticism available to the international community.
China did not intervene in Burma's 2007 crisis due to its non-interventionism

China is not responsible for taking action against Burma. China has a foreign policy not to interfere in other countries' affairs. It's inaction during the Burma crisis of 2007, therefore, is consistent with this policy, which is generally an acceptable international principle, with many nations choosing to adopt neutral or reserved foreign policies. While Americans may adopt a more moralistically interventionist stance, obviously this has led to many consequences in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Panama, and in many other countries around the world. The case can certainly be made that a non-interventionist policy is ideal.
A boycott of the 2008 Olympics would antagonize the Chinese people

- The Chinese people are very excited about the Olympics in their country. To boycott the event would send a strongly negative and antagonizing signal to them. Feelings of alienation would last for years that could have negative consequences in China's relations with the world. And yet there is no reason to believe that China's anger at a boycott could be translated into any positive impacts on the policies of the Chinese government.
The Olympics have always been politicized

While it is easy to say that sports and politics should exist separately, particularly in the context of the Olympics, the reality is that the Olympics have always been politicized. The 1972, 1968 and 1936 Olympics were all politicized in a significant way. Even in the 2004 summer Olympics in Greece, President Bush used it as an opportunity to argue that the War on Terror had made it possible for Afghani and Iraqi athletes to compete. So, while it may sound appropriate to claim that the Olympics should not be politicized, the reality is that it always has been, and that there continues to be a legitimate place for it to express national and international interests.
China will not reform as a result of Olympic boycott

"Our Tibet Protests Won't Work". Washington Post, Post Global. April 14th, 2008 - "On this issue, the Bush administration has so far followed a wiser course, forgoing the grandstanding taking place in Europe and on the campaign trail. It has been urging the Chinese government quietly but firmly to engage in serious discussions with the Dalai Lama. Diplomacy can be scoffed at, but every multinational business that has had success in persuading the Chinese government to change course will testify that public humiliation does not work nearly as well on the regime as private pressure."
Only boycotting the Olympics sufficiently protests China's abuses.

In regards to sending a powerful message to the Chinese government that they need to improve their human rights record, there are few other tools at a country's disposal than boycotting the Olympics. The United States has passed resolutions that condemn the Chinese human rights abuses, but this has no real international impact on the Chinese. Neither will protests at the games themselves send a sufficiently powerful message. Only a boycott will send this message sufficiently.