BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A local, decentralized authority can provide better opportunities and solutions for Lesotho

Of course, the local Lesotho authorities have a mandate to act upon the interest of Basotho, but the problem is that they are not able to do so; Lesotho is dependent on foreign aid. The state simply doesn’t have to money to fund a health system that could deal with the fact that 1 in 3 Basotho are infected with HIV. Moreover, the problems in SA and Lesotho are not that different. In SA, one in ten people have AIDS and a majority deal with poverty. Of course, economies of scale can deal better and cheaper with problems such as poverty and health issues because of their ability to provide more money, resources and expertise. The point about what kind of influence Basotho might have on the SA authorities is not entirely true. The National Council of Provinces, the upper house, gives each province ten delegates regardless of population size[1]; Lesotho would have an outsized influence. [1] National Council of Provinces, Parliament.gov.za, accessed 28/3/2014, http://www.parliament.gov.za/live/content.php?Category_ID=27
It is not in the interest of South Africa to annex a poor, underdeveloped country

The population in Lesotho might be suffering from poverty but this is not their fault but rather the result of the bad governance. Lesotho is investing 12% of its GDP in education and 85% of its population over 15 is literate. [1] This can provide an knowledgeable, smart workforce for SA which can help develop both countries. On the other hand, South Africa is also dependent on one resource from Lesotho and this is water. Over the past 25 years, a mutual, bilateral agreement has been made between the two sovereign states so that the Lesotho Highlands Water Project can provide SA with clean water. [2] Moreover, the textile industry in Lesotho is competitive and profitable. The industry still contributes close to 20 percent of Lesotho's annual gross domestic product, and is its largest employer.[3] Lesotho would clearly not just be a burden. [1] The World Factbook, 2014, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/lt.html [2] Ashton, Glenn, ‘A Case for Closer Integration between South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland?’, The South African Civil Society Information Service, http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/1335 [3] ‘LESOTHO: Textile industry gets a lifeline’, IRIN, 24 November 2011, http://www.irinnews.org/fr/report/94302/lesotho-textile-industry-gets-a-lifeline
Annexation will allow the free movement of Basotho people, goods and services

For the Basotho in a landlocked country the free movement of their people is a right that is in large part dependent on the South African (SA) government rather their own national one. Its importance is shown by 40% of border crossings into South Africa being from Lesotho.  Acknowledging the fact that Lesotho is an enclave state surrounded by SA, the ability of people to move freely depends on whether they are allowed to enter SA or not. There is corruption at border posts and the number of crossings results in long queues and slow service; 63% of border crossers experience problems.[1] This is sometimes made even more difficult by SA government actions as before the World Cup in 2010 when border restrictions were tightened making it almost impossible for Basotho to leave their country.[2] This happened due to the detention of several Lesotho nationals after a spate of criminal activities along the border. The same situation applies to trade. Lesotho is dependent on the trade with South Africa, even for goods that come from beyond South Africa as Lesotho has no port of its own most goods will have to be transported through South Africa. This dependency is rising. In 1980, Lesotho produced 80% of the cereals it consumed. Now it imports 70%.[3] Annexation would eliminate these borders boosting trade between the countries, helping to make both richer. In the best interest of Basotho is to be able to control and be listened to by the entity that is metaphorically and literally feeding them.   [1] Crush, Jonathan, ‘The border within: The future of the Lesotho-South African international boundary’, Migration Policy Series No.26, http://www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/samppublications/policyseries/policy26.htm [2] Patel, Khadija, Lesotho and South Africa: ‘Good fences make good neighbours’, 19 April 2013, http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-04-19-lesotho-and-south-africa-good-fences-make-good-neighbours/ [3] Smith, Alex Duval, ‘Lesotho's people plead with South Africa to annex their troubled country’, theguardian.com, 6 June 2010 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/06/lesotho-independence-south-africa
The historical reasons for which the state of Lesotho exists are no longer relevant in a post-apartheid South Africa

The reason why Moshoeshoe, the leader of Lesotho, wished to become a British protectorate was because of the Boers of the Orange Free State was trying to take their land. In 1966, when the Kingdom of Lesotho gained its independence from Britain, it remained separate from SA as it had been a separate colony. Lesotho was under direct rule while South Africa was a dominion. There was no incentive to change at the point of independence because SA was ruled by the apartheid regime. Lesotho was a strong public opponent of the regime and granted a number of SA refugees’ political asylum. The African National Congress, the ruling party in SA since 1994, was founded in Lesotho. Moreover, during the struggle against apartheid, the ANC’s armed wing organized its guerilla units from the enclave.[1] We can firmly say that Lesotho vas a very important actor in a post-apartheid SA, but the times have changed. The ANC is now in power in South Africa and SA and Lesotho are closer together than ever before. [1] Smith, 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/06/lesotho-independence-south-africa
There is always a risk associated with surgery and taking such a risk for no particular reason is irresponsible

There are, of course, risks in any medical procedure. However circumcision remains astonishingly safe. Furthermore, denying the parents of a child the right to raise that child in accordance with their own beliefs would represent an unacceptable intrusion by the state into its citizens’ private and religious lives. By implementing the resolution, a western liberal democratic state is obliging, say, orthodox Jewish parents, to compromise some of their most important moral and cultural beliefs. Ultra-orthodox Jewish groups believe, literally and without equivocation, that whoever breaks the covenant with God by not submitting to circumcision will be condemned for all eternity. The state should not compel parents (and children) to endure the moral, psychological and ideological turmoil associated with such a compromise; ultra-orthodox Jewish parents will see the state as forcing infinite harm upon their children. There are risks to giving a child a bike or taking them on a plane. Parents are aware of this but act in what they consider to be the best interests of their child. If we were to prevent parents from every taking a decision that might be risky for their children, they would never cross the street, eat a Big Mac or take up sports.
In any other situation involving minors a precautionary principle would be applied

The precautionary principle is alive and well but risks are inevitable in any procedure. There is no reliable data on fatalities directly related to circumcision. The causes of the 10 million or so neonatal deaths that occur around the world each year are closely linked to the income and educational level of the mother, with diarrhea and malnutrition being the leading causes. By contrast children that are born with access to modern surgery and informed parents are likely to do well.
There is no proven cause of harm and parents routinely make medical decisions for children to give their consent or otherwise

Parents do not have the right to presume their children’s consent for procedures that are medically unnecessary, as in the case of circumcision. Ultimately this is a choice that has more to do with culture than with medical need. The purported benefits are, at best, questionable and the results are irreversible. The medical benefits of vaccination, by contrast, are undisputed and widely publicized. In those interests where the balance of risk is even remotely questioned, as in the case of the MMR vaccine, there is significant public debate and many parents have chosen to avoid the practice all together[i]. [i]  Paul M. Fleiss, MD. "The Case Against Circumcision". Mothering. Winter 1997
A practice that is thousands of years old and has not been found to cause harm during that time is unlikely to now

Just because a practice is old doesn’t make it right. In addition to which societies’ attitudes, especially in the West, have changed radically in relationship to how we view both the body and childhood. There is no other area where the physical violation of a child’s body would be tolerated, regardless of how old the process is. Indeed society tends now to reject ancient traditions as they relate to children, specifically because they are archaic, as is the case with corporal punishment. There is good reason to suspect that what may have been appropriate, possibly even beneficial, for semi-nomadic desert tribes is of little use in modern society.
Parents have the right to use their best judgment, in the light of medical advice, as to what is in the best interest of their child

It is possible to perform this operation at any time during a person’s life and there is no compelling need to perform it on extremely young children. Doing so violates the child’s right to be free from pain. Indeed the deliberate and unnecessary infliction of pain on a minor in any other circumstance would be considered abusive, it is clearly illogical not to consider it so in this instance. The only reason why circumcision is not considered abusive is that it is so commonplace. However, only a couple of generations ago (and to this day in many nations) so was the routine use of physical punishment in schools, which many now consider abusive and repugnant.
Cutting off bit of children’s bodies for no apparent reason is simply wrong

If this is simply a matter of performing a procedure with no apparent benefit to the patient – in most cases a young child – then it does rather raise the question of “Why”. If the procedure were, say, cutting off a toe or an earlobe then all involved would require a clear and compelling case for such a practice. There are grown adults that think that cutting off a finger is the next stage up from getting a tattoo or a piercing[i]. At best most people would consider such a practice odd, at worst unstable. However, these are grown adults who have made the decision to mutilate their bodies for themselves and as a statement they feel appropriate. Consider society’s reaction if the fingers of unwilling adults were forcibly removed. What about unwilling children? What about the fingers of babies fresh out of the womb? The only sane response to such an action would be condemnation – and probably an arrest. The logic of this argument does not change if “finger” is replaced with “foreskin”. Research undertaken by the World Health Organization found that the overwhelming determining factor in the decision as to whether a boy should be circumcised was whether the father had been[ii]. Although the report suggest a correlation with a reduction in the possibility in the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa it also comments, “If correctly planned, increased provision of accessible, safe adult male circumcision services could also increase opportunities to educate men in areas of high HIV prevalence about a variety of sexual and reproductive health topics, including hygiene, sexuality, gender relations and the need for ongoing combination prevention strategies to further decrease risk of HIV acquisition and transmission.” Out with this area the rate of adult male circumcision is very low, suggesting that when the individual is of an age to give consent, they chose not to. Performing an act on a child that would not be consented to by an adult except in extremis would seem a fairly reasonable definition of child abuse. [i] Shannon. “De-Fingered: Finger Amputations in BME News/Publishers’ Ring”. BME News. 11 March 2008. [ii] “Male Circumcision: Global Trends and Determinants of Prevalence, Safety and Acceptability”. World Health Organisation and the Joint United Nations Council on HIV AIDS. 2007.
There is always a risk associated with surgery and taking such a risk for no particular reason is irresponsible

A report by the Royal Dutch Medical Association noted that there was not a single medical body in the world that could point, categorically to a medical need for circumcision of infants. It further concluded that “The fact that this practice is not medically necessary and entails a genuine risk of complications means that extra-stringent requirements must be established with regard to this type of information and advice.” Yet this is a practice that is performed around the world by people with little or no medical training and accepted by parents as an instruction from God. Studies from the US suggest that around 230 baby boys die in America every year as a direct result of hemorrhaging following circumcision[i]. [i] http://www.drmomma.org/2010/10/baby-dies-from-circumcision-surgery.html
In any other situation involving minors a precautionary principle would be applied

Any risk needs to be justified against some benefit. In the absence of any demonstrable benefit then there is no need to tolerate any risk, particularly in the case of a newborn baby who cannot express his opinion one way or another and will not be able to do so for years to come. The risks of circumcision have been repeatedly demonstrated. Though they may be rare, they run from septicemia through to blood hemorrhage and heart attacks. There is little research conducted on the long term effects of the procedure; however there is a growing body of evidence that a surgical complication rate is about 1 in 500 and the post-surgical rate of attrition is believed by many to be higher[i]. [i] Paul M. Fleiss, MD. “The Case Against Circumcision”. Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36--45.
There is no proven cause of harm and parents routinely make medical decisions for children to give their consent or otherwise

Circumcision is akin, in many ways, to vaccination; a routine and simple procedure with miniscule risks and compelling probable benefits. We acknowledge the right of parents to take these decisions on the behalf of their children, even if the benefits in question are primarily cultural and spiritual, and relativistic in character. Parents routinely make decisions with far greater implications for their children’s futures in terms of their education and general welfare on a regular basis and this should really be seen as no different[i]. As has been established, even in the most impromptu settings, male circumcision, unlike FGM, runs almost no risk of causing severe injury or infection. MGM does not endanger or restrict a child's development, or his ability to living and normal, fulfilled adult life. Parents make much more damaging choices for their children all the time - choices that do not involve modification of a child's body. The cost of raising a child as a junior rugby player is an increased risk that the child may sustain life changing injuries. The cost of sending a child to a Montessori nursery as opposed to a curriculum-based institution is the possibility that they may lack personal discipline or respect for authority later in life. Parents are still permitted to make these decisions, despite the impact they may have on a child’s development. Why not allow them to submit their children to a relatively minor and inconsequential aesthetic procedure? [i] Dr. Brian Morris, Professor of Molecular Medical Sciences. "Circumcision Should Be Routine; is Akin to a Safe Surgical ‘Vaccine’". Opposing Views
A practice that is thousands of years old and has not been found to cause harm during that time is unlikely to now

Where there compelling evidence from medical science that a process that predates it had some proven harm then there might be good reason to restrict it but that evidence simply isn’t there. What is known is that circumcisions have been performed for millennia without causing widespread difficulties. In addition, historically, the procedure has been performed in circumstances far less safe than the confines of a modern, well-equipped hospital where it usually takes place now, and to no apparent ill effect. Even using the term ‘abuse’ to describe such a practice shows a lack of respect for those people who are genuinely victims of abuse.
Parents have the right to use their best judgment, in the light of medical advice, as to what is in the best interest of their child

There is compelling evidence that shortly after birth is the best time to perform this operation and that the rate of complications at this age is generally agreed to be between 0.2 and 0.4 percent. When performed later in life the risk of complications increases ten-fold to between two and four percent. In the light of this it is appropriate to recognize the rights of parents to approve a procedure that would be riskier if elected later in life on behalf of their child[i]. [i] Michael Benatar. "How Not to Argue About Circumcision". The American Journal of Bioethics. 2003
Cutting off bit of children’s bodies for no apparent reason is simply wrong

Neo-natal circumcision is an operation that has been performed, perhaps, more than any other. It is performed mostly for cultural or religious reasons but there is also a body of evidence that suggest health benefits. There is very little suggestion in any study of any harm to the child. In all sorts of situations societies allow parents to make decisions on behalf of their child. In the absence of proven harm and in the presence of possible benefits in terms of health and hygiene there is really no danger in allowing the parents this option. Those problems that can arise from the surgery are both very rare and as a result of faulty surgery rather than any risks innate within the process itself[i]. This is mostly a religious or cultural decision that has survived within communities for thousands of years without howls of protest and with no proven harm. In the absence of a sizable body of opinion calling for it to be ended, why do so? [i] Philip G. Koltz MD. “In Defence of Circumcision.” Letters to the Journal, Journal of the Canadian Medical Association. 29 October 1966.
Artists often rely on copyright protection to support dependents and family after, including after they are dead

Artists may rely on their creative output to support themselves. This is certainly no crime, and existing copyright laws recognize this fact. Artists rarely have pensions of the sort that people in other professions have as they are rarely employed by anyone for more than a short period.[1] As a result artists who depend on their creations for their wherewithal look to their art and copyright as a guaranteed pension, a financial protection they can rely on even if they are too old to continue artistic or other productive work for their upkeep. They also recognize the need of artists to be able to support their dependents, many of whom too rely on the artist’s output. In the same way financial assets like stocks can be bequeathed to people for them to profit, so too must copyright be. Copyright is a very real asset and financial protection that should be sustained for the sake of artists’ financial wellbeing and that of their loved ones. [1] The Economist, “Art for money’s sake”, 27 May 2004, http://www.economist.com/node/2714114
The promise of copyright protection galvanizes people to develop creative endeavors

The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people’s intellectual endeavours. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s artistic work, the incentive to invest in its creation is significantly diminished. Within a robust copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the fruits of their efforts will be theirs to reap.[1] With these protections the marginal cases, like people afraid to put time into actually writing a novel rather than doing more hours at their job, will take the opportunity. Even if the number of true successes is very small in the whole of artistic output, the chance of riches and fame can be enough for people to make the gamble. If their work were to quickly leave their control, they would be less inclined to do so. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas. [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007, http://www.jmripl.com/Publications/Vol7/Issue1/Greenberg.pdf
Overlong copyright protection stifles the creativity and saps the time of artists

The artistic drive to create is rarely stifled by having been successful. Individuals deserve to profit from their success and to retain control of what they create in their lifetime, as much as the founder of a company deserves to own what he or she creates until actively deciding to part with it. However, even patents, novel creations in themselves, have far less protection than copyright. While most patents offer protection for a total of twenty years, copyright extends far beyond the life of its creator, a gross overstretch of the right of use.[1] [1] Posner, Richard A., “Patent Trolls Be Gone”, Slate, 15 October 2012, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/10/patent_protection_how_to_fix_it.html
Lengthy copyright protection is extremely inefficient for the dissemination of works

Inefficient or not, artists should have the right to retain control of their creations. Even if they are not making any money out of it, they still have the right, and often the desire, to maintain control of the way their art is used. If artists do not desire such control, they can opt to release their works into the public domain, while allowing those who do not wish to do so to protect their work.
Long copyrights serve to severely limit access by the public to creative works

The problems associated with “orphan works” can be sorted out separate from limiting copyright length. It simply demands a closer attention from executors and legal professionals to sort these issues out. In terms of availability, it must be up to the artist to release the work as he or she sees fit. Encouraging artists and their successors to release their works into the public domain could go a long way to solving this problem without recourse to adulterating existing protections.
Long copyright stifles creative responses to and re-workings of the original work

While there is value in other artists exploring their own creativity by means of others’ work, it does not give them an overriding right. Rather, artists should have a meaningful control over how their art is disseminated and viewed in the world, as it is ultimately their creation. Furthermore, the protections copyright affords means that the responses that do arise must be more creative and novel in and of themselves, and not simply hackneyed riffing on existing work. This helps to benefit the arts by ensuring that there is regular innovation and change.
Artists deserve to profit from their work and copyright provides just recompense

Copyright would still exist, and the artist is able to profit from it, even if the length of copyright is reduced. People deserve recompense, but the stifling force of current laws make for negative outcomes. It would be better to strike a more appropriate balance, allowing artists to profit while they can, which in practice is only during the first few years after their work’s release, and at the same time allowing the art to reach the public sphere and to interact with it in fuller fashion.