BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The development of nuclear weapons creates a self-perpetuating cycle of proliferation among other states.

The development of nuclear weapons encourages other countries to develop them as well. Rationally governed states without a nuclear deterrent are unlikely to allow themselves to be placed in a position where a nuclear armed neighbour can mount attacks against them with impunity. They therefore feel that they too need nuclear weapons in order to prevent the new nuclear power from taking advantage of their new capability. For instance, the presence of an Iranian weapon would immediately threaten the Gulf States. Already unable to compete with Iran on a conventional level due to the vast disparity in size and population, states like the UAE would have every reason and motive to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent.[1]  A Saudi Prince actually floated the idea in 2011 that if Iran developed Nuclear Weapons, Saudi Arabia might follow.[2] As more countries develop Nuclear weapons, the likelihood that someone will use them, either deliberately or by accident, goes up substantially. [1] Lindsay, James M., ‘After Iran Gets the Bomb’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2010, http://www.cfr.org/united-states/after-iran-gets-bomb/p22182 [2] Burke, Jason, ‘Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns’, guardian.co.uk, 29 June 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-build-nuclear-weapons-...
[Iran specific] Others, particularly Israel, would act if the United States did not

A failure of the United States to act would motivate Israel to do so.[1] Israel is under much more pressure to act as it would be the most affected by Iran going nuclear. The result would be catastrophic, as Iran would be able to portray itself as a victim of Israeli aggression, leading to a massive outpouring of pro-Iranian and anti-American sentiment in the middle east and central asia. It could easily spark a regional war across the middle east as Iranian proxies strike back against Israel and U.S. forces around the region.[2] The US would get all the harms of direct intervention with none of the benefits, and efforts to fight Hezbollah and Hamas, both within Palestine and elsewhere, would be undermined by their newfound sympathy in the region and the need of Arab governments to pander to it. [1] Ravid, Barak, ‘Report: U.S. preparing for an Israeli strike on Iran’, Haaretz.com, 14 January 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-u-s-preparing-for-a... [2] Benhorin, Yitzhak, ‘Attack on Iran would ignite regional conflict’, ynetnews.com, 3 November 2011, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4143358,00.html
No country has an inherent right to invade or use aggression against another.

Given the moral bankruptcy of the NPT, and existing views of the United States in much of the developing world,[1] any move by the United States to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons by force will be seen for what it is: an act of neo-colonialism. This would be the case with any act to enforce a treaty that is considered unfair towards most of the world. This is especially true in areas where there is a long history of US support for regional actors who are less than popular. In moving against Iran, the United States will be perceived as a stalking horse for Israel, whilst any efforts to invade North Korea Would cause great alarm in China as well as in neighbouring South Korea despite being a U.S. ally where some Koreans believe the US is more of a threat to the nation than the North.[2] In both cases, the image of the US in the region will be badly damaged, and the United States will face a hostile insurgency within the countries that they invade. [1] Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2011, http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=1 [2] Larson, Eric V. et al., Ambivalent Allies? A Study of South Korean Attitudes Towards the U.S., RAND Corporation, March 2004, p.93 http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2005/RAND_TR141.pdf (n.b. before north detonated nuclear bomb)
[Iran specific] Iran has not invaded any other country in three and a half centuries; the same cannot be said for US allies including Israel, Pakistan, etc.

For all the censure Iran has faced as a rogue state, it has not, in fact, invaded another country for more than three centuries and despite internal aggression against western embassies the Iranian revolution seems to have made little difference. On the other hand, it has faced invasion on numerous occasions, whether from Russia, Britain or Iraq. Both Britain – whom the Iranians are still extremely suspicious off due to events such as the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mosadeq[1] – and Russia – who together with Britain occupied Persia during world war II[2] - are nuclear weapons states. Iran therefore has legitimate defensive reasons for developing Nuclear weapons. While Iran’s current government has pursued destabilizing policies in Lebanon and Israel/Palestine, the presence of Russia on its northern border and tensions with the United States justify their development. This is one reason why Iran’s nuclear program predates the current government and in fact goes all the way back to the Shah’s time.[3] Rather than being the product or continuation of Iran’s policies in the region, the nuclear program is independent of them, and justified on those basis. [1] Abrahamian, Ervand, ‘The 1953 Coup in Iran’, Science & Society Vol. 65, No. 2, Summer 2001, pp.182-215, http://www.webcitation.org/5kg6nFIXE [2] Globalsecurity.org, ‘Azerbaijan crisis (1945-1948)’, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/azerbaijan.htm [3] Milani, Abbas, ‘The Shah’s Atomic Dreams’, Foreignpolicy.com, 29 December 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/29/the_shahs_atomic_dreams
Nuclear weapons can fall into the wrong hands.

Preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists is a serious concern, but terrorists tend to be stronger in weak states than strong ones. That is one reason why Pakistan has figured so prominently in weapons sales in the past. Invading a country like Iran would be more likely to destabilize things than stabilize them. This argument is underlined by analysis of the second Iraq war. Al Qaeda and Shi’a insurgent groups became a far stronger presence in Iraq following the coalition invasion than before the arrival of American and British troops.[1] As a consequence, it is unclear if invading these countries is a better way of preventing transfers of nuclear technology than sanctions and other methods of coercing their governments. [1] Mazzetti, Mark, ‘Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terroism Threat’, The New York Times, 24 September 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewan...
Promoting democracy promotes peace.

By most accounts, there has not been a war between two democracies in the past 200 years. Immanuel Kant argued in Perpetual Peace (1795) that a) democratic governments are more constrained by their people's opposition to war and b) that a democratic culture of negotiation, as well as the checks and balances inherent in such a system, make war less likely. Thus by promoting democracy through imposing it, we increase the chance of a peaceful world. Furthermore, terrorism may be less likely to arise in democratic countries, where people are allowed to air their views and human rights norms prevent feelings of marginalization. This is good for human rights worldwide, including the rights and safety of individuals in our own country.1 1"Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC.
Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed.

Democratic government is not only government for the people, but also government by and of the people. A foreign-imposed government is not a government established by the people which it rules, meaning that it lacks the legitimacy necessary to claim democratic status. It is wrong to force a government upon people, and imposers of 'democracy' do just that. This is exacerbated by the fact that foreign-imposed democracies often have a great deal of trouble governing themselves independently (like the Iraqi and Afghani governments, which are still very much reliant on the United States), thus de- legitimizing the government even further1. 1Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post. improve this
The desire for, and fight for, democracy must come from within or else democratic government will not be sustainable.

Unless the people within a country want democracy, they will not respect it. Unlike military dictatorships, democratic governments do not rely solely -- or even mainly-- on force to enforce the law. Rather, most people obey the law at least in part because they believe those laws are legitimate, as the result of free and fair elections. If citizens do not want such an electoral system, then there is no reason for them to obey the law, pay taxes etc. and the government will be unable to maintain order. Indeed, foreign-imposed democracies often slide back into authoritarian regimes because they find that they cannot uphold the law (at least without foreign support). Enterline and Greig found in a 2007 empirical study that half of imposed democracies fail within 30 years, and that this failure reduces the likelihood of democracy being successfully established in the future1/2. 1Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael. "Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq &Afghanistan." 2Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post. improve this
Attempting to impose democracy may escalate conflict.

Intervening in a country, and attempting to impose a different government, is likely to a) result in backlash and b) destabilize the country by destroying infrastructure and disrupting services. Both these things make it far more likely that violent conflict will emerge, either between the country and the imposers, or within the country, as rival factions are forced to compete for scarce resources and rights protection. Iraq is a prime example of intervention causing a civil war. The previous gulf war combined with sanctions and weeks of bombing destroyed Iraq's infrastructure resulting in what General Odierno called 'societal devastation'1 and the disbanding of the army and debaathification forced the experienced administrators who ran the country out of their jobs.(Kane, 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', 2011) The result was the attempt to impose democracy was bloody and only partially successful. 1 Parrish, Karen, "Odierno, Crocker: Iraq's Future Still Hinges on U.S. Support", American Forces Press Service, November 15, 2010, 2 Kane, Sean., 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', ForeignPolicy.com, April 27, 2011, improve this
Imposing democracy can be a way to support individuals unable to fight for democracy themselves.

First, it is not clear whether such a position is topical. Second, it is better to support protesters in this case, rather than taking the lead. To begin with, it is not clear that assisting individuals in the fight for democracy is a valid interpretation of the phrase "imposing democracy": if the majority of people want it, perhaps it is not really an imposition. But second and more importantly, if internal movements exist, foreign nations should seek to strengthen and support those movements rather than impose a government. Democratic governments gain legitimacy through popular support: both in origin and in survival. A government chosen and filled by the citizenry is far more legitimate, and thus more likely to command respect and maintain order, than one enforced by a foreign regime. improve this
Because democracy is the best form of government, it is not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who do not have it.

There are two problems: democracy is not necessarily the best form of government, and even if it is that does not mean it is our obligation to impose it. First, just because we believe that political self-determination is an important value, it does not mean that it is logically more important than other values. If, for example, a society places great value on stability, it may not want a government that changes every few years. If a society is very religious, its people may prefer to be ruled by a government claiming divine authority. Second, even if democracy is objectively better than other governments, that does not mean we must or should intervene in other countries to impose it. Perhaps we should intervene in the case of serious rights abuses-- such as genocide-- but the lack of complete political freedom is not a life-threatening issue.
Unilateral action is burdensome, and dangerous.

To rely on multilateral action is utopian. First, the motion does not exclude multilateral cooperation; this house may impose democracy with the support of others. But second, the UN doctrine of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of independent nations means that unilateral or bi-lateral actions are often the only realistic possibilities. This is especially important given that China has a veto on the Security Council and other Security Council regular members are not themselves democracies. If other countries are not willing to help us impose or fight for democracy, why should we not try ourselves? improve this
Imposing democracy can be a way to support individuals unable to fight for democracy themselves.

If the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been destroyed without outside intervention1. 1Traub, James. "Stepping In", Foreign Policy improve this
Because democracy is the best form of government, it is not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who do not have it.

Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused1. 1Fish, Stanley. "Why Democracy?" The New York Times.
Unilateral action is burdensome, and dangerous.

POINT The motion suggests that a particular government is imposing democracy, but in fact it is far better to try and encourage democracy multilaterally. Multilateral assistance, like the UN Democracy Fund which seeks to "strengthen the voice of civil society, promote human rights, and encourages the participation of all groups in the democratic process"1, is better, because it makes the support seem less political and colonial, and more honest. By using the international community to encourage democracy in a given country, we increase the chances of the people in that country respecting and supporting our attempts, rather than viewing them with suspicion2. 1 United Nations Democracy Fund, 'About UNDEF', 2010, 2Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post. improve this
The imposition of democracy violates national sovereignty

Countries have a right to choose the form of government they want, and we do not have the right to violate this right by imposing the form of government we think is best. Nations may want to be ruled by, for example, religious or tribal law, or a Communist system which aims to remove government altogether. We can encourage nations to adopt democracy if we think it is better, but ultimately nations are self-directing entities which can only be interfered with in extreme situations. The United Nations has states as equals no matter their government and only authorises force in the case of an act of aggression towards another state1. 1 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1945, improve this
Promoting democracy promotes peace.

First, democracies are not necessarily more peaceful than other governments. Second, imposition of democracy is likely to fuel terrorism. First, it is not entirely clear that democracies have not gone to war: for example the Central Powers in WWI, although not classified as democracies per se, did have elected parliaments just like the Allies. Further, just because democracies have not gone to war in the past does not mean they will not in the future: a culture of negotiation within the democracy does not necessarily translate into a lack of aggression externally. Second, even if democracies are more peaceful, the imposition of democracy can threaten to world peace by fuelling terrorist movements. Invasions, particularly by Western nations, increase East-West tensions, galvanize terrorist groups by validating their claims that Western nations pose a threat. Indeed, in Osama bin Laden's public "letter to the American people," he cited interventions in Somalia, Palestine, India, Chechnya, Lebanon and Iraq as reasons for the 9/11 attacks1/2. 1"Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC. 2bin Laden, Osama. "Full Text: bin Laden's 'Letter to America.' The Guardian. improve this
Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed.

Imposed democracy is better than no democracy. Ideally, every democratic government would be created by the people. However, given that this is often not possible -- corrupt governments are too powerful, populations lack the unity to organize, the lack of democratic tradition precludes effective transition without external guidance-- it is surely better to have imposed democracy than no democracy. Even if theoretically a democratic government is formed by the people, practically speaking that may not be a possibility, and we should not let abstract philosophical ideas prevent us from effecting real positive change. improve this
The desire for, and fight for, democracy must come from within or else democratic government will not be sustainable.

Even if individuals within a nation do not overtly support democracy, that does not mean that democracy does not serve their interests, and that they will not support it once it exists. There are two reasons this might be true. First, individuals may be too scared to show support for democracy, for fear of repercussion. Second, individuals may not realize that they want democracy, but come to understand and appreciate it once it is there. Power analysis theory helps us understand how individuals are manipulated into supporting systems that work against their interests: for example anti-feminists during the early and mid 20th century, who accepted male dominance as a necessary and desirable fact of life. Thus, it may take some foreign intervention to create support for democracy. And, despite the fact that imposed democracy often does fail, there have been success stories (as well as Germany and Japan, less oft-cited examples, like Sri Lanka), suggesting that democracy can be imposed with the right strategy and under the right conditions. improve this
Attempting to impose democracy may escalate conflict.

Governments can take actions to help reduce conflict. Most people agree that the strategy behind the Iraq War was extremely weak. Furthermore, it was clear that the American government had ulterior motives and that establishing democracy was not the only -- or even the most important -- goal, thus reducing the American government's legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis and the international community. Alternately, in nations where backlash against dictatorships causes violent conflict -- like in Syria or Libya -- imposing democracy could bring a chance of stability and a government that people actually trusted. improve this
Interventions can be successful given the right conditions.

Certain factors may increase the chance of success: for example imposing democracy on a nation with which there were once colonial relationships increases the expected lifespan of the democracy. Democratic transitions in general also tend to be more successful if economic conditions are better. Obviously we are not advocating imposing democracy on every country which does not have it, but if there are strong enough institutions and conditions, imposition can work and there have been past successes like Germany and Japan post WWII that show the worth of imposing democracy1/2. 1Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael."Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq & Afghanistan." 2Przeworski et al "What Makes Democracies Endure?" Journal of Democracy.
Palestine has its own infrastructure and government and is, in all meaningful ways a state

Regardless of what people may wish, Palestine is not a state. It is probably the most recognised issue in twentieth century politics that the statehood of Palestine is a matter of dispute. The United Nations is the forum for those states that recognise each other’s existence to debate matters of mutual concern, it is not an opportunity from grandstanding and point-scoring over matters that are still under dispute. Absolutely any group can design a flag, appoint a president, elect a congress, print stamps and undertake all sorts of similar activities, that does not make them a state. When squatters in a London road in 1977anounced that they were declaring a unilateral declaration of independence from the UK[i] they were not recognised as a state just because they wanted to be. Although the stakes are much higher in the case of Palestine, the principle is the same. [i] Wikipedia. Frestonia.
Palestine is a legal entity and deserves to have its voice heard on an equal footing with Israel

International negotiations take place with many organisations that are not states in their own right. When the leaders of nations meet with trades union or corporations, pressure groups or networks it does not endow those bodies with statehood. Likewise, regional governments and authorities routinely meet with national and international representatives without requiring representation at the UN. If Palestine were to be given voting rights at the General Assembly then one might as well give them to the International Olympic Committee, which already enjoys permanent observer status[i]. Put simply, having global recognition does not make an entity a state. [i] “UN General Assembly Approves Olympic truce for London Games 2012”. 17 October 2011.
The issue of Israel/Palestine has been a major one for the UN for sixty years, it is simply unfair that one of the parties represented and the other one is not

In law this point was settled with the creation of the state of Israel. The map of the Middle East, as with much of the rest of the world, was redrawn at the end of the second world war. The resulting nations, many of them newly created following the collapse of the European empires, formed the constituent members of the UN. The very fact that the Palestinians have successfully mounted their case to the international community in a way that, for example, Kurds or Australian Aboriginals have not, would suggest that they have no need of a seat at the UN to be heard.