BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animals feel and suffer in very similar ways as humans

[9] "Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species, especially the species most closely related to us--the species of mammals and birds. The behavioral signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of the pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on. In addition, we know that these animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically like ours do when the animal is in circumstances in which we would feel pain."
Animals are independent creatures that don't exist to serve humans

Tom Regan. "The Philosophy of Animal Rights". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANIMAL RIGHTS The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares better or worse for the one whose life it is[...] By insisting upon and justifying the independent value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically informed and morally impartial reasons for denying that these animals exist to serve us."
Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare

Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity.
Animals are good research subjects because they are similar to humans

Human beings share over 99.4% of their genes with chimpanzees and about 99% with mice. It is instructive to consider that humans also share approximately 90% of their genes with cows. The physiologies of humans and these animals are very similar, with very similar organ and nerve systems. For this reason, it is useful and productive to study these animals as a means of advancing human sciences. The reactions of these creatures are a very good guide to possible reactions of human patients. "Why do scientists use animals in research?". The American Physiological Society. Retrieved May 3rd, 2008 - "Animals make good research subjects for a variety of reasons. Animals are biologically similar to humans. They are susceptible to many of the same health problems, and they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life-span or across several generations."
Animal environments can be better controlled for research than humans

"Why do scientists use animals in research?". The American Physiological Society. Retrieved May 3rd, 2008 - "In addition, scientists can easily control the environment around the animal (diet, temperature, lighting, etc.), which would be difficult to do with people. However, the most important reason why animals are used is that it would be wrong to deliberately expose human beings to health risks in order to observe the course of a disease."
Animals cannot make moral claims so cannot claim rights

Carl Cohen. "Why animals have no rights. The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research" The New England Journal of Medicine 315, no. 14 (October 2,1986): 865-69 - "The differing targets, contents, and sources of rights, and their inevitable conflict, together weave a tangled web. Notwithstanding all such complications, this much is clear about rights in general: they are in every case claims, or potential claims, within a community of moral agents. Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another. Whatever else rights may be, therefore, they are necessarily human; their possessors are persons, human beings."
Differences between humans and animals can be accounted for in tests

Edythe London, UCLA researcher. "Why I use laboratory animals". Los Angeles Times. November 1, 2007 - "While monkeys receive drugs in the laboratory, they do not become "addicted" in the same sense that humans become addicted. Still, we are able to see how changes in brain chemistry alter the way the brain works -- knowledge that is vital to the design of effective medications."
That the retarded have rights does not justify animal rights

This is frequent argument of animal rights activists; that animals deserve rights because they have at least as much capacity to reason as do some retarded humans, who retain rights. The problem with this argument is that it fails to see rights as a thing that must be shared among a group of creatures, not something that is extended on an individual basis. Therefore, the question is not whether some humans are incapable of having rights, but rather whether human kind, as a species, is capable of having rights. They are. Non-human animals, conversely, as a class of organisms, are not capable of holding rights.
An EU president would not represent individual EU states well.

People dislike the future direction of the European Union. Issues such as CAP, asylum etc. etc. can all be solved without the imposition of a directly elected President who would take power away from the Nation states, thus taking the European Union even further from people’s consciousness. An alternative proposal would be for the Council of Ministers to end the rotating six-month Presidency, and for its member states to appoint a politician to run the Council’s meetings and represent Europe more effectively.[9]
Electing a President increases the power a single individual can hold.

The electing of a President in no way makes the EU a more accountable institution as it invariably increases the power a single person can hold such an outcome only reflects aspects of monarchy where in accountability is at is bare minimum. Also since an elected President will undoubtedly be from a large member state his accountability can also be restricted to just his state, the need for getting votes from his state in the next general elections being an precondition for such an act. Thus resulting in the EU being not only a less accountable institution, but also an institution of unjust accountability.
Election of a President focuses the accountability on one single individual.

The commission, Parliament, council and council ministers all have divergent interests and opinions and thus often speak in their own or a particular state's name rather than that of the entire union, confounding the problem. Since the number of people involved in the decision making process is huge, the responsibility of being accountable is in the hands of many a people thus decreasing the intensity of being accountable. Electing a president rests the responsibility of accountability on one single individual and he has to live up to it due to the constraints of a regular contest for power in the form of elections.
US shouldn't kowtow to sensitivities of extremists

Jack Shafer. "Release the Dead Laden Photos." Slate. May 4, 2011: "Obama and Rogers' idea that news should be calibrated by the government to ease the job of the U.S. military makes for a First Amendment loophole you could drive a motorized regiment through. If al-Qaida and its supporters are more irate with the United States this week than they were last week, it's because U.S. commandos killed Bin Laden. Obama should never have marked him for death if tending the 'sensitivities' of al-Qaida and its allies was U.S. policy."
Death photos destroy myth of Bin Laden's invulnerability.

Eugene Robinson. "Why I would've released the bin Laden photos." The Washington Post. May 4th, 2011: "Because while gory photographs would have inflamed some jihadists and wannabes, I believe they would have disillusioned and deflated others. A heroic myth of invulnerability had been built around bin Laden. He was supposed to have cheated death while fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, walking tall through fields of fire as the bullets somehow missed. He escaped the Americans who cornered him at Tora Bora. He evaded capture for a decade, despite the best efforts of the West’s spies and soldiers. Showing him in death would definitively refute any notion that bin Laden enjoyed some kind of divine protection. The myth would die with the man."
Osama death photos would squelch conspiracy theories

"Editorial: Release pictures of slain bin Laden." Chicago Sun-Times Editorial. May 3rd, 2011: "One picture can be worth more than a thousand conspiracy theories. For that reason alone the Obama administration should release the grisly photographs of the body of Osama bin Laden, who was slain Sunday in Pakistan during a 40-minute gun battle with Navy SEALs. It is either that or listen to years of sinister speculation that the photos have been withheld to keep the secret that the man who was slain was not bin Laden after all. Already, conspiracy theories are flying around the Internet. If they get out of hand, they’ll make those goofy birther theories look mild and sane by comparison."
Withholding Osama photos like censoring death penalty photos.

"Eight reasons why Obama was right not to release photos of Osama bin Laden's body." CS Monitor Editorial. May 4th, 2011: "It's standard practice in US death-penalty cases not to release images of the executed." By comparison and precedent, it is completely acceptable to withhold photos for the purpose of maintaining decency in the images that the government officially releases for public viewing.
Bin Laden photos will only worsen America's image abroad.

Marc Ambinder and Matthew Cooper. "Why Obama Nixed the Photo Release." National Journal. May 5th, 2011: "the administration likely bet that the last image of bin Laden would be the most enduring: a grotesquerie, an Arab man—albeit a murderous one—felled by a Western bullet. Is that really going to enhance America abroad? No, the president decided."
Bin Laden death photos may deter would-be terrorists.

Harold Evans. "Obama Was Right to Censor the Osama bin Laden Photo." The Daily Beast. May 5th, 2011: "[Releasing the photos] could deter would-be jihadists, who would have to think a little harder when they see the bloodied bodies of Osama's men killed in the firefight in his hideaway, photos obtained by Reuters from a Pakistani security officer and rightly released on Wednesday."
Bin Laden photos could not be too gruesome for nation/world.

Eric Golub. "Mr. Obama, release the bin Laden photos." The Washington Times. May 5, 2011: "The 'too gruesome' argument is very weak. Americans have seen photos of 9/11, the JFK assassination and Holocaust atrocities. We are adults. We can handle it. It is not the government's job to decide how much we can stomach. News reporters can warn parents to have their children leave the room, and parents can decide what to do next."
US/world watched 9/11, they can bear to see dead Osama.

"Was Obama right to withhold bin Laden photos?" May 5th, 2011: "If a nation can be trusted to view the horrors of 9/11 in real time, flip through the Abu Ghraib picture book, witness the made-for-video murder of Daniel Pearl, see images of dead Uday and Qusay on the evening news, and gaze upon pictures of dead soldiers coming home as air freight (photos that President Bush, incidentally, tried to ban in the name of managing the news), then it can be trusted to stomach the last photos of Osama Bin Laden -- and whatever turmoil those photos might cause. Why? Because that's what sort of country the United States is."
Exulting over Osama's dead photos barbaric, un-American.

Harold Evans. "Obama Was Right to Censor the Osama bin Laden Photo." The Daily Beast. May 5th, 2011: "I’d find the exultation of exhibiting the vanquished bin Laden to be obscene, ethically not much different from the Tudors, who liked sticking heads and dismembered torsos around London, or the barbarians of al Qaeda. Obama said it well: 'That’s not who we are. We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies.' It's the jihadists who enjoy celebrating death; we prefer to celebrate life."
Osama photos could become icons for rallying extremists

Obama defended his decision to withhold photos of Bin Laden's dead body in an interview with CBS News program “60 Minutes,” saying U.S. officials did not want to give extremist groups the ability to use the photos as “propaganda tools.” He tells 60 Minutes: “I think Americans and people around the world are glad that he is gone. But we don’t need to spike the football.”[10]
Sufficient evidence to prove Osama's death without photos.

"Editorial: No good would come from release of photos." Detroit Free Press Editorial. May 5th, 2011: "Serious people do not dispute the authenticity of bin Laden's death. Al-Qaida forces he led know it as a fact; family members in Pakistani custody have reportedly verified, at least in broad outline, the accounts relayed to the American public by Obama and his subordinates. Millions of TV viewers have seen video of crime scene details that are consistent with those accounts, and those who suspect such videos may have been forged are unlikely to find photographs of Obama's remains more conclusive."
Gruesome photos will overshadow victory of Osama's death.

Philip Gourevitch. "Don't release the photos." New Yorker. May 3rd, 2011: "ABC News is reporting that the first image of bin Laden that the White House may show us is 'bloody and gruesome, with a bullet wound to his head above his left eye.' If it’s released, this is the image that will instantly supplant every other account of Sunday’s raid as the iconic representation of America’s moment of triumph over its most wanted enemy. Is that what we want—the official equivalent of the Saddam hanging video? Did we learn nothing from the past decade about the overwhelming power of crude images of violence to define and polarize our historical moment? The Abu Ghraib photographs were unofficial documents of an official policy that was supposed to be kept secret, but if nothing else, they should have taught us that a photograph of the violence you inflict is always, in very large measure, a self-portrait. In getting rid of bin Laden, Obama as made the greatest step yet toward being able to put that era behind us. Do we want a photo of bin Laden’s bullet-punctured skull to eclipse this moment?"
European missile defense will improve transatlantic security

Peter Brookes. "The Case for European Missile Defense". Heritage. March 14, 2008 - "There are other advantages to fielding a missile defense system in Europe for the United States, too. Hosting a transatlantic missile defense system will deepen, and further unify, the security relationship between European NATO members, especially Poland and the Czech Republic, and the United States, enhancing our mutual national security against external threats from ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction."
Missile defense systems are becoming effective and reliable

Sally McNamara, Baker Spring and Peter Brookes. "Missile Defense: Debunking Arguments Against the Third Site in Eastern Europe". Heritage Foundation. November 6, 2007 - "Myth #3: Missile defense is not well tested or reliable. ... Not so. On September 28, 2007, some 75 miles into space over the Pacific Ocean, a kill vehicle from America's missile defense system destroyed the mock warhead of a long-range missile. This test of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system provides further evidence that its "hit-to-kill" technology works. The GMD interceptor destroyed the mock warhead by the force of collision and did not use an explosive warhead of any kind....Hit-to-kill technology is common to a variety of missile defense interceptors now in either development or deployment. In addition to the GMD system, the technology is used in the Navy's Standard Missile-3, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and Patriot PAC-3 interceptors. Roughly 80 percent of recent tests across all four of these programs have been successful....Yet, critics continue to argue that missile defense will prove ineffective. Congress should reject arguments that cloak policy preference in technical analysis and should protect Americans with a policy of designing and building the most effective missile defense system possible."
US missile defense spending is out of proportion to relative benefits

"Missile Defense: Longest Running Scam Exposed". The Nation. 12 Mar. 2008 - "Rep. Tierney pointed out that we have spent over $120 billion on missile defense in the past 25 years; that the annual budget is expected to double by 2013 to $19 billion; and that the current $10 billion per year is equal to one-third of the Homeland Security budget, roughly equal to the State Department budget, greater than the FEMA budget, 20 times greater than public diplomacy expenditures, and 30 times greater than Peace Corps."
European missile defense is bitterly dividing EU

Matthew Schofield. "Bush’s Missile Defense Radar Plan Riles Czechs". McClatchy Newspapers. July 2, 2007 - "The unilateral U.S. drive for an unproven system has in fact divided Europe, according to Otfried Nassauer, an expert on defense policy at the German research center Berlin Institute for Trans-Atlantic Security. 'In the end, Europeans have to decide whether a theoretical defense system is worth a very real split in Europe,' he said. 'It’s classic Bush. He had a plan and he’s going ahead with it, no matter the costs or arguments against it.'"
NATO members support a European missile defense system

Sally McNamara, Baker Spring and Peter Brookes. "Missile Defense: Debunking Arguments Against the Third Site in Eastern Europe". Heritage Foundation. November 6, 2007 - "Myth #2: NATO is opposed to a U.S. missile defense system in Europe. Quite the contrary. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated after the April 2007 North Atlantic Council meeting: "There is absolutely a shared threat perception...Allies all agree that there is a threat from ballistic missiles."[6] NATO military experts are currently studying plans for a short-range missile defense system to protect southern European nations that will not be covered by the U.S. initiative.[7] Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has indicated that this system will complement the U.S. missile defense system, giving the clearest indication yet that NATO considers U.S. plans vital to Europe's defense.
European missile defense gives EU veto in US security

Taylor Dinerman. "European missile defense: why bother?". 26 Mar. 2007 - "such weapons will give our allies a veto over whether or not an ICBM aimed at a US city will or will not hit its target. Once the system is operational, a British or Polish politician would have, at best, a few seconds to make up his or her mind to allow a GMD interceptor to launch. In the future a European leader might be in a position to decide whether a nuclear weapon would or would not explode over New York or Washington."
European missile defenses would not counter Russia-to-US attack

Peter Brookes. "The Case for European Missile Defense". Heritage. March 14, 2008 - "The Kremlin also insists the limited system would undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent, despite the fact that a Russian land-based nuclear strike on the United States would not be launched on a trajectory over Poland, but would fly toward its American targets over the North Pole, or Iceland and Greenland, depending on the targets. [...] In fact, according to the MDA, the proposed kinetic kill vehicle designated for deployment in Poland is simply not fast enough to catch a Russian land-based ICBM in a tail-chase scenario. These interceptors, therefore, would have no capability against Russia's sea- or air-based deterrence capabilities. (Interestingly, at the time, Moscow did not object to the U.S. decision six years ago to deploy missile defenses at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base and Alaska's Fort Greely to counteract the still-evolving North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile threat.)"
Missile bases are illegitimate without popular approval

The current attempt to place a base here, this time from the other direction, would serve to reawaken the Cold War in Europe and could reignite a new arms race. It is unthinkable that a democratic country should make a decision of such long-range impact, as the acceptance of a foreign military base on its soil, without an open debate. Neither the government nor Parliament has the mandate to make such a decision alone. This is a question which requires the input of the broad public because the population will have to live with the effects of such a base long after the current Parliament finishes its term and all the current polititians are retired. The only responsible way to make such serious decision is by referendum.
Missile defense systems are offensive in nature

Lieber, Keir A. / Press, Daryl G. "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy". Foreign Affairs. 2006 - "the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left."
A European missile defense system threatens and antagonizes Russia

Philip Coyle, Victoria Samson. "Missile Defense Malfunction: Why the Proposed U.S. Missile Defenses in Europe Will Not Work". Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 22.1 (Spring 2008). April 23, 2008 - "The U.S. proposal to establish missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic has exacerbated relations with Russia to a degree not seen since the height of the Cold War"
European missile defense will not incite new arms race

"Missile Defense and Europe". State Department. March 28, 2007 - "The debate should not be, in my view, about issues of 20 years ago and issues of a so-called arms race, and in this context I was struck that today, today in Berlin as a matter of fact, the Americans and Russians are sitting down to discuss post-START issues and transparency issues for the post-START regime after the START Treaty expires. I mention this because the transparency and confidence-building measures which we're going to be discussing are a part and an illustrative part of the developing good strategic relationship between the United States and Russia as we address the new world that we face together. It is also true that the Treaty of Moscow, which reduced arms, reduced warheads on both sides, is being implemented. To remind you, it calls for massive reductions in warheads on both sides, down to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012. The United States is on target to meet reductions. Russia is well on target to meet reductions. So the notion that somehow missile defense has to be seen as part of an emerging arms race between the United States and Russia, which is some of the odd commentary I hear from some Europeans, has no relationship to reality and the debate about missile defense ought to be conducted in a way, it seems to me, that reflects reality."
Backing down on European missile defense implies weakness

Peter Brookes. "The Case for European Missile Defense". Heritage. March 14, 2008 - "In recent years, the United States decided that leaving itself deliberately vulnerable to any weapon system or state, as it did during the Cold War, was foolish. And rightfully so. Deliberate vulnerability can lead to perceptions of weakness, inviting provocation or aggression from another nation or transnational actor. In addition, being perceived as weak and vulnerable can lead a potential adversary to use threats, intimidation, "blackmail" or coercion to achieve its objectives."