BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Russian mountains seem to have hidden its politics and created a shadow of deception upon the world Russian cold weather seems to have kept its intentions in the dark of the Siberian tundra...

." Does the power of Russia leave it's neighbours powerless?", Wth all due respect that's the title of another debate and is not relevant to whether Russia is a democracy or an autocracy. Anyway with that being said Russia may have a lot of problems with regard to disputes within the democracy but it is still a democracy in form structure and certain norms that are observed. And no Russian mountains don't seem to have hidden it's politics but the cold war mentality seems to have blown up a mist around it
Russian mountains seem to have hidden its politics and created a shadow of deception upon the world Russian cold weather seems to have kept its intentions in the dark of the Siberian tundra...

Russia is a big and powerful country that is now visible more than ever but this power is in many ways abused and Russian interest is put before the interest of many other nations in the region or further...What we see today in this Eastern country is far from democracy.The opponents of the regime are removed from the political scene,the freedom of expression is in many aspects suppressed but still in comparison to the state this country was in before these seem to be the golden ages.And again we see the same question before us:Does the power of Russia leave its neighbors powerless? Russia maintains democractic values in that there are elections, however this is limited as they are not 'free and fair'. Electoral fraud is rife in elections within the past 10 years, a practice which can't be eliminated internally as the executive branch of government maintains control of the courts
Elections 'not fair'

The joint observer team for the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticised the election as "not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections," with "abuse of administrative resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party". The polls "took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited political competition" meaning "there was not a level political playing field". The 2007 parliamentary election resulted in United Russia gaining 64.1% of the vote.[[Monitors denounce Russian election, BBC News, 3rd December 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7124585.stm%5D%5D
lack of academic freedom

The European University at St Petersburg has been forced to suspend teaching after officials claimed its historic buildings were a fire risk. This forced all academic work to cease. The University had been running a program that advised Russian political parties, including how to ensure elections are not being rigged. The project they are involved in called Interregional Electoral Chains of Support was to develop and raise the effectiveness of electoral monitoring in Russia's regions. The university has also been attacked for having close ties to the west, particularly US and UK universities.[[Luke Harding, Russian university that advised on election monitoring closed as fire risk, The Guardian, 11th Febuary 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/11/russia.highereducation%5D%5D
Structure of a democracy

Russia has the attributes of a democracy. It is a federal state with a constitution. It has a two chamber legislature; the lower house is the Duma with 450 members elected from nationwide party lists based upon proportional representation. The Upper house; the Federation Council has two representatives from each of Russia’s 89 regions and republics that are chosen by the regional governors and legislatures. Elections for the President are every four years who then appoints the prime minister who in turn appoints the government.[[http://www.economist.com/Countries/Russia/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Political%20Structure]] Russia therefore appears to have the necessary structure to be a democracy as each of the branches or government are independent.
Question of whether abuses are being conducted by Russian government itself

Whether the murders are being done by the government or not does not really matter. If the Government had no hand in the crime it cant change the fact that in Russia there is a large amount of politically motivated murder and this no matter the cause dammages democracy. Does it matter if it is not the government who is scaring off (or killing) democracy advocates, the result is the same; less people willing or able to say what they think. Being a large country with a small population does not seem to make Australia or Canada less democratic!
Question of whether abuses are being conducted by Russian government itself

The murders of Anna Politskayva and Natalia Estemirova amongst other human rights activists are both tragic horrific events but there is a question of whether they were committed by the Russian government or even for that matter whether the government had a hand in it at all. There have been oppressive anti democratic elements that have operated outside governments in the past such as the Ku Klux Klan and there will continue to be. Also a Russian film said it best "It is always much easier to organise inhumanity in our country than anywhere else" I would add to that comment that it is easy for independent elements in Russia to organise abuses in Russia because it is a large country.[[http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/039/00.html]]
There is still a democratic right to freedom of speech in Russia

Shortly after Estimirova's death the head of the human rights organisation she was working for Memorial issued a strongly worded statement alleging the involvement of state authorities and the area's premier Ramzan Kadyrov [[ BBC Online "Vow to Catch Chechen Assassins http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8153613.stm.%5D%5D This statement was not suppressed in Russia and means that there is a significant amount of freedom of speech. There maybe a strong amount of state control of the press similar to Italy which is a problem but the right still remains.
Representative democracy better caters to a bigger electorate

In countries like China which spread out to hundreds of kilometers, it is virtually impossible to conduct referendums for the sake of direct democracy on a regular basis. Whenever a public vote has to be taken on an issue, the real problem is ensuring a fair vote in the whole country. Since direct democracy works by taking the views of the majority on every major policy decision, it involves ensuring a fair poll which makes the process very difficult. Not only will this be a challenge in bigger countries but it will also require significant financial resources, apart from that a large workforce will have to be employed at polling stations, a government holiday will also has to be declared for such polls, even after paying a huge price a fair vote cannot be ensured. Countries who are currently struggling with their finances will never be able to follow such an approach as it would heavily strain their resources and bring down the overall productivity in the country. Under the status quo, direct democracy is not used often because it is very difficult to ensure a fair vote, in which all the people can express their views on a certain policy, it is much more efficient and convenient to elect representatives and have them express the views of the population as in representative democracy. Another underlying assumption with direct democracy is how people assume the population of a country will be willing to participate in the voting process on a regular basis at the expense of the their own personal resources. In countries like Japan where people work for long hours every day ,just to earn a living, they would be content having to elect a representative with strong values they agree to , as present in his/ her manifesto every 4-5 years, than to be a part of the polling process on a regular basis. Even when elections for choosing representatives take place, we see how voter turnout is constantly declining which proves how impractical having polls on a regular basis is.
Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could ...

Slow political processes are often vital to make sure that laws are properly written. Debate and strong political opposition means that legislation must be well written, balanced and clearly explained. Slower processes also remove the risk of over-reaction by people. For example, support for the death penalty often rises suddenly after news about terrible crimes, but then returns to lower levels soon after. If people could change laws instantly, then some very extreme proposals might be accepted.
Direct democracy gives power to people by by-passing other organisations. Governments are constantl...

Businesses, unions and charities, etc. may not be 'citizens' as such but their opinions are still very important. Ordinary voters can never understand as much as they do about the economy or social issues. And also, very often what is good for these organisations is good for the whole of society. As they cannot vote, it would be damaging to exclude them from politics altogether. In any case, those organisations with enough money to buy political advertising would have too much power in a direct democracy.
Direct democracy would lead to better decision-making than we get under representative democracy. E...

Direct democracy would lead to worse decision-making and could harm many people in our society. Deciding laws simply on majority vote could lead to minority groups being picked on. Worse, referendums may have such low turnouts that laws could be passed by minority groups who care a lot about the issue in question, and get their way because most people cared less and didn’t bother to vote.
Representative democracy forms a more stable set up

Under the model of representative democracy, an elected individual or a group of individuals are made responsible for the affairs of the state. This means that the elected representatives are responsible for making the policies, as well as for the outcomes of all such decisions. In contrast under direct democracy, the general population of a country is responsible for all policy making. This means that according to the changing views of the general population, policies may be changed or altered frequently which would take a toll on the overall stability of the state. Further substantiating the matter, for example if the people of a country like China agree to change their export and investment policies, it would drastically affect the economy, if they decide to overturn such policies again, it would push the country’s economy into long term decline as such frequent policy shifts will cause the investors to be more cautious. Under representative democracy, the elected individuals will be responsible for making policies which will be more stable and consistent and would hence be beneficial to the people. While this shows how policies would be consistent, it’s important not to confuse this idea with dictatorship as there are mechanisms in place to impeach a representative who doesn’t work according to the will of the people.
Representative democracy ensures the long-term betterment of a country

In a representative democracy it is in the government's interest to make decisions and take measures that ensure the long term prosperity of the people even if it means less favourable economic or social conditions enjoyed by the populace in the near future. Indeed, many a time such measures might be against the wishes of a significant majority of the population since the populace is likely to oppose any possible reduction in the short term gratification of its wants. Austerity measures being introduced all over Europe and more specifically Greece and the widespread often violent opposition they have received are an excellent example of this phenomenon. The government in Greece understands that if these measures are not enforced, the Greek economy and thus the Greek population would suffer in the long run. However, the measures, if taken, would result in reduced economic benefits/remuneration for the Greek population in the short run and thus are opposed , often to the extent of violence, by the vast majority of Greek population. Indeed in a recent survey by the ALCO 75% [[http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2011/05/28/public-poll-75-greeks-say-governmentausterity-measures-wrong/]] of the Greek population are against the imposition of the austerity measures. The government however understands that if it does implement these measures, even against the immediate opinion of the population, it stands to gain significant political ground in the long term, since it will be held responsible for the economic prosperity these measures bring later on; it will gain significant public favour in the next elections or the ones after that, and thus will introduce these measures. Thus under a representative democracy the people’s long term interests are looked after and preserved by the government in a responsible manner.
Direct democracy gives power back to the people. Getting to vote only once every 4 years (for examp...

Elections might only happen once every few years, but governments are still very concerned with what people think in the meantime because know that they will have to be elected again. Also, any changes in the economy, laws or government services often take many years to show the benefits (or problems). Four or five year gaps between elections give us the time to see how good governments really are. Holding referendums all the time will lead to policy switching to and fro with the popular mood, to no good effect.
People today are apathetic and distrustful about politics, which is very unhealthy for a democracy. ...

If people are uninterested or uninformed about politics, then it is not clear that giving them more control over it is a good idea. People may be easily swayed by clever media or advertising campaigns, even if the law in question is not good for them. Just as people can be persuaded to smoke even though it is unhealthy, they could be persuaded to vote for laws which might not be in their interests. In a direct democracy, the owners of big media companies would end up with too much influence.
In a democracy, everyone's opinion should be equal, because there are no right or wrong beliefs abou...

It is important that politicians sometimes follow their own opinions. Firstly, this shows us what kind of opinions they truly hold. If they just followed the crowd, how would we ever know what they stood for? Secondly, politicians often know more, and can call on greater resources (such as researchers) to decide about issues. And they have time to hear a range of viewpoints and carefully consider the consequences of new laws. There may not be right and wrong answers to political questions, but there are certainly more and less informed ones.
Using Representative Democracy is the only way of ensuring the rights of minorities

One of the most essential duties of the state is to guarantee the rights of minorities. Under the model of direct democracy the rights of minorities might never be ensured. In conservative societies around the world we see how, for example religious minorities are sidelined from main stream society and are not granted their fundamental rights. This is because under direct democracy, the majority will rule and will not grant basic rights to minorities just because they can do so. This Is a very crucial issue in modern world, where minorities are oppressed just because the majority is able to discriminate against them. Under such circumstances, the role of the state becomes more important then ever. The state is responsible for ensuring that all its people are given all their rights regardless of their religion, caste, color, creed or sexuality. Even if the minorities are oppressed, it is essentially the role of the state to make sure they are provided security, along with their basic rights as well as equal opportunity in all spheres of life. The only way all these rights will be fulfilled will be through representative democracy. Some might argue that even democratically chosen representatives might discriminate against minorities, but for that there are already safety mechanisms in place, for example we can rely on the international community to exert pressure on such representatives and to overturn such policies which discriminate against minorities. In Switzerland where direct democracy is practiced, the Minaret Ban discriminated against minority Muslims by prohibiting them from building minarets in mosque buildings [[http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/11/2009112915164769444.html]] So in essence, under representative democracy, the rights of the minorities will be ensured and even in case the representatives themselves indulge in discriminatory behavior against minorities, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with that.
Representative democracy leads to national unity

Under the model of representative democracy, the democratically elected representatives are determined to maintain their popularity in the masses by gaining the support of different segments of society in their policies. To maintain their popularity they make policies which are generally acceptable to all of society. In the process of doing so, they try to find common ground between different parties in case of a conflict among the people and this leads to unity in society. This is the very basic concept of leadership which unites people with different views in a country. The reason democratically elected representatives can be relied on to fulfill this duty is the mere fact that they must maintain their popularity in all different communities in a society. They must resolve any difference of opinion and hence follow the path of reconciliation between two parties to resolve a conflict in order to come up with a unifying policy acceptable to all sides and stakeholders.
We would be letting down our species not to.

This does not fit into a logical argument. Yes, every species does seek to ADAPT to suit its environment, but species do not seek immortality of the individual. They want their young to survive, and their young following that. This is entirely selfless. However, to seek immortality of the individual, immortality of the self; that is selfish and therefore unethical. By seeking immortality of the self we are taking away from the cycle of life. We should die knowing that we have left behind something to help. Not to continue living making resources hard to come by.
Life extension is a science.

It is unethical since the science will not be freely and equally distributed in when/if it is practiced. Seeking physical immortality by religion; could mean averting God's judgment or attempting to be at an equal standing with God. In this sense it is arrogant,selfish and unethical. From a point of view, that puts religion aside: Those who can get to be immortal by Lord Acton's principle "Power corrupts, absolute power, corrupts absolutely" will be moral filth as a direct consequence of immortality. Power is a relative concept if everyone is immortal( those who do not die; will be, in the scenario where a few people acquire the trait) then there is no issue. However Immortals like the Gods in Greek mythology will bully and abuse the mortals; playing games with them; this would be amoral; as well. [[http://www.megaessays.com/essay_search/euthanasia_justified.html]] [[http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/007/3-4.pdf]] Nip it in the bud they say; a cause of evil is evil itself.
All major religions in the world promise an immortal afterlife/lives(for those who believe in multiple reincarnations)

Death is mortality. Immortality is the afterlife requires mortality in this one at least in the physical sense. We are encouraged to employ various strategies to bring us closer to heaven/a-better-next-life. Religions are deeply entrenched in the war context. If a soldier dies he is honoured/honored for fighting bravely and serving his Lord, the Lord. This act of bravery is selfless and humble whereas not going to war to kill or be killed is thought to be cowardly. The pursuit of immortality/longevity in this life at all costs is thus discouraged as, in this context it is cowardly,selfish and unethical. All purely selfish pursuits are put down by religion. If you do everything you can to be immortal while others die around you; you are not doing anything moral. Fasting, an act required, by most religions is a process by which you deny food/sex(the ultimate luxury?) for yourself to experience the pain of the deprived or less-fortunate. Deprivation & sacrifice to feel deprivation is considered ethical in religion; thus. Suicide motivated by the"One less mouth to feed"logic, is the ultimate act of selflessness/sacrifice, it cannot be unethical.
It will widen the rich/poor divide.

The difference in life expectancy is already massive between those who can afford a decent standard of living, quality of health care etc. and those who can't. Immortality, however it is attained, will have a cost, some will be able to afford it and some won't. Death is the 'great leveller', it comes to everyone equally, and if there is such thing as immortality treatment, the difference between rich and poor will be so great we may even become two different species.
The old will outnumber the young.

In our society, adults already oppress and undermine the values of young people, because adults are generally in positions of power and young people aren't. Immortality will mean that there are far more old people than there are young, as people will be living to more advanced ages and not necessary wanting to have children. Age and experience would to an even greater extent mean dominance in a heirarchy, people wouldn't be able to empathise with youth. We would become a stagnant society with no fresh ideas, or newcomers might even die out altogether and we would be left with only the same people, like a dying Internet forum.
Mental health problems will be exacerbated.

Imagine if your problem was nothing to do with sickness or old age – if you had a non-organic mental health problem, for instance, or a long term problem with your life that you couldn't sort out, such as if your partner died before the immortality treatment became available and you were left without her – and it ended up lasting for thousands of years. You would go completely insane. Such a situation would not exist without immortality, and so if we choose to create the situation by introducing immortality, we are responsible for the suffering it brings with it, and so it is an ethical consideration. People with mental health conditions should not feel they need to kill themselves in order to relieve a burden on others. Nor should outcasts feel that they are less important than 'everyone else'.
Immortality without a task suited to immortality is meaningless.

In this mundane, restrictive consensus reality, there simply isn't anything interesting or satisfying worth doing for however many thousands of years we are expected to live. Our everyday goals – the pursuit of power, money etc. won't amuse us for that long. There won't be the need to protect family if they won't die either, relationships will soon become stale as people become bored of their routines with each other, nothing about life that was valuable because it was brief and fragile will be worth anything any more. In a fantastical situation where someone becomes a God, or brought to life as the eternal guardian of some holy relic or the operator of the control systems that maintain the planet's atmosphere, this is different, but ours aren't the kinds of lives suited to immortality.