BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a large threat to our security. The current level of international tensions is likely to i...

There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since the 1960s and 70s. Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events.
Negative cases of security abuse are few. In any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bo...

Many evil events in history started with good intentions and few cases of injustice. Allowing even a few abuses as an acceptable side effect of improved security will change the tolerance level of the public and lead to a belief that rights such as the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus (which prevents the state from imprisoning someone without charging them with a crime and then trying them) are a negotiable luxury. Furthermore, abuses of the system are likely to victimise certain minority groups (e.g. Muslims, Arab-Americans) in the same way that Japanese-Americans were persecuted in World War II, something about which Americans are now rightly ashamed.
The USA is at present far better than most countries in its regard for civil liberties. New securit...

If the US, the example-setting country of cherished civil liberties, allows the loss of its liberties to terrorism, it will show that terrorists have succeeded in forcing us to change our way of life. Lots of apparently minor measures can quickly add up to a significant loss of liberty. Other countries will take their cue from the US and use security as an excuse for a crackdown on political opposition movements and minority groups (examples of this can be found in Russia, China, Hong Kong, India, Liberia and the Central Asian republics). Rights mean nothing if they are ignored and eroded as soon as hard cases come along.
It is possible to keep a balance between international travel facilitation and security maintenance ...

The great increase in international travel requires faster and more efficient work from customs services all over the world. Heightened security measures make control procedures slower and cause lots of frustration among travellers, particularly those who are on business trips. There have been lots of cases when customs officers were not able to finish check in processes prior to the scheduled time of the departure of an aircraft. As a result, flights are delayed or the clients are left behind. It is, of course, of a great inconvenience for travellers, but also hugely costly for the air companies who are obliged to change the ticket. Recently many new security devices has been introduced in an attempt to fight with terrorism. Terrorists and smugglers, however, are becoming more and more inventive and knowledgeable about how to carry through the prohibited articles aboard without being detected by those machines. Security persons themselves recognise inefficiency of the devices they have introduced as a method of fighting with terrorism. Others fear that terrorists will no longer have to smuggle weapons or explosives on to a flight to succeed in hijacking an airliner, but can do so by overcoming an armed “sky marshal” and using their weapon.
Random searches that have caused so much frustration among travellers are not random in fact. Peopl...

Fruitless random searches of elderly women, toddlers, and uniformed airline pilots have become mainstream in U.S. airports as more and more innocent passengers are treated like suspects rather than customers. Some of the red flags for CAPPS system are person’s last name; methods of payment (tickets paid in cash are highly suspect); whether a rental car is waiting. Those criteria that one can find online are very vague, do not allow the targeting of real suspects but harass many.
Governments have a duty to their citizens to protect their rights to security of person and freedom ...

Governments are likely to use terror as a convenient excuse for tightening laws and restricting freedoms in order to crack down in areas such as immigration, drug smuggling, fraud, etc, with insufficient public debate. Such an erosion of liberties has a long-term impact and, in practice, is unlikely ever to be reversed as it is not the nature of state bureaucracies ever to give up power. Democratic mandates are insufficient reason to erode liberties; a key purpose of civil liberties is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
The main objective of the United Nations at its founding was to prevent future wars and suffering on...

Despite horrific suffering in many countries, the world has avoided another devastating global conflict in which tens of millions might die, and for this the UN can take much credit. It has also resisted aggression in regional conflicts in Korea and the Middle East, helping to deter future invasions, and acted as an intermediary in making peace in many other conflicts, e.g the Iran-Iraq war. Consider how much more violent the world might have been without the United Nations.
Another key objective of the United Nations has been to promote human rights worldwide, yet these co...

Human rights abuses usually take place within states, often in civil wars, so the UN has no mandate to intervene directly against them – as it was explicitly set up with a policy of non-interference in internal affairs it is unfair to count this a failure. Nonetheless, it has placed human rights on the international agenda, making billions of people aware of what are considered norms and shaming many regimes into improving their policies. Even China makes great efforts to claim its human rights record is better than that of countries such as the USA, albeit differently defined.
Another key objective of the United Nations has been to promote human rights worldwide, yet these co...

Another key objective of the United Nations has been to promote human rights worldwide, yet these continue to be violated by many regimes, often on a horrific scale, as in the genocidal civil wars in the Balkans and Central Africa in the 1990s. Given that voting rights in the UN General Assembly are not linked to a regime’s human rights record, and that gross human rights abusers such as China sit on the UN Security Council, it is no surprise that the UN has failed in this part of its agenda.
The UN suffers from a bloated bureaucracy, in which seniority is not linked to ability, resulting in...

Errors in strategic decision-making are not the fault of the UN secretariat but of its masters in the Security Council. There have been past abuses, but these are used as a stick to beat the UN with by those, principally in the USA, who are against the UN for other reasons. In recent years considerable progress has been made in improving the efficiency and meritocratic nature of the secretariat, although this has been hampered by the failure of the USA to pay its dues, which are needed to compensate those made redundant by restructuring.
The UN suffers from a bloated bureaucracy, in which seniority is not linked to ability, resulting in...

The UN suffers from a bloated bureaucracy, in which seniority is not linked to ability, resulting in painfully slow decision-making and operational failure in such crises as Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Some UN organisations, such as UNESCO have been viewed as so corrupt countries such as the USA and the UK have withdrawn from them, while the US Congress has long withheld part of the dues it owes to the UN in protest against corruption and money-wasting.
There are also institutional problems associated with the General Assembly and the Security Council,...

Since the end of the Cold War UN decision-making has been much improved, as key votes in the Security Council are no longer likely to result in deadlock between eastern and western blocs. In any case, P5 countries try to avoid using their veto power if at all possible, due to the negative image this creates at home and abroad. Instead the Security Council acts as a forum in which positions can be explained and compromises hammered out, even if action is not necessarily collectively authorised. Clearly the workings of the Security Council could be changed to diminish the importance of the P5, and to make action easier to take, but this does not in itself render the unreformed UN a failure.
There are also institutional problems associated with the General Assembly and the Security Council,...

There are also institutional problems associated with the General Assembly and the Security Council, whereby GA resolutions with widespread support can be stymied by a single veto from one of the Permanent 5. This has led to unilateral action by countries such as the USA and organisations such as NATO, undermining the authority of the UN, and to a lack of credibility for the UN in dealing with issues such as Israel and Palestine, where the USA among the P5 has strong interests.
Much of the international progress made since 1945 has not involved the UN at all. The Cold War and...

Other organisations have also been important in bringing greater peace and prosperity to the world, but none have the authority the UN derives from the participation of almost every state in the world. In international crises the Security Council is the forum for discussion, deal-making, arbitration and understanding. The UN has also made huge contributions to global progress through its agencies, particularly those dealing with refugees, the World Health Organisation and Unicef. By its efforts smallpox has been eliminated, healthcare improved and education promoted. Such programmes are not often noticed, but the UN’s responsibility for them should be seen as a key part of its success.
Rebuttal to opposition, part 2: "Positive discrimination towards women should not be allowed"

In the post, "Positive discrimination towards women should not be allowed", you stated: "There is no such thing as 'international law' in the USA, except for treaties which are ratified by the Senate. Consequently, the so-called 'international law' must be subservient to USA law and interpreted accordingly. Thus, positive discrimination does NOT violate international law -- because 'international law' does NOT exist in the USA. Women should certainly be granted positive discrimination, and men should give every advantage to them." Actually, there is such a thing as international law; and the one's we are talking about have already been agreed to by the United States Congress. It is not, nor must it be subservient to U.S. law. The United States signed the treaty known as the Charter of the United Nations[1]; wherein the United States agreed to be bound by it's articles, including chapter IV, wherein the United States agreed to adhere to the resolutions of the General Assembly. One such resolution was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2], which stated in Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty" One of the rights and freedoms set forth in the declaration, that was alluded to in the post, "Positive discrimination towards women should not be allowed" was the right to be equals before the law, as set out in Article 7, which states: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." The United States Congress has already signed this treaty and is therefore obliged to comply with it, at the legislative level. That is why 'positive discrimination' against men is already in violation of our laws and international law; and, why it can't be permitted. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *1- The United Nations Charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Charter) *2- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights)
Positive discrimination towards women should be allowed

Women require positive discirmination because in the past they were considered slaves in a patriarchal society. Presently, they are still dominated by men in a lot of social enviroments: family, work, on the street, and many others enviroments. For this reason women should have more benefits in society as an attempt to even out their disadvantaged status. "If anyone is disadvantaged it is men". This quote sums up the idiocy of the oppositions argument. How many female presidents have there been? How female CEO's are there of the worlds top companies?
Not true equality

If men and women are truly equal, there shouldn't be a need for a particular legislation to classify them as such. Laws are inherently complicated and the wording can be interpreted in a variety of ways. If we propose to legislate 'equality' rights for women, that could have the negative effect of restricting the rights as lawyers examine the legislations finding alternate interpretations. Ending up in constricting rights that is already given in general laws applying equally to every man woman and child in this country. Positive discrimination serves little purpose, women shouldn't need a specific set of laws telling them what they can do, if they truly believe they are equal to men in every way. The basic laws such as Human Rights Act 1998 should be sufficient.
Will Cause Resentment Between Men and Women

Positive discrimination is seen as favouring one over the other, the other side will harbor resentments and jealousy. Women and men need to work together in society; and, they can't do so with such hostility between them. Such steps will engender a feeling of despair in men, when they are treated as less that of women. They will resent women, particularly for attempting to justify the discriminations against them. In no way, shape, and form could biases against men, contribute to a healthy society, nor will they mend any problems we have now. On the contrary, they would make relations between the genders far more problematic than they already are. As for your question, about my origins, I'm from Mars, if you're from Venus.
It does not address the underlying issues

Positive discrimination is merely a 'stop-gap' measure. It only helps women in the 'end result' ie getting a job - it doesn't address why they might not be having the access to these opportunities in the first place. If women are not being offered jobs at the top end of industry, why not? If as in some countries it is because they do not have equal access to education, then addressing this base issue would have a more positive and long lasting effect. If women do not have access to jobs through discrimination reasons then discrimination legislation needs to be implemented or more strictly enforced. Positive discrimination may help the current generation of disadvantaged women but fails to address future generations issues.
Rebuttal to opposition, part 1: "Not True Equality"

In the post, "Not True Equality", you stated that: "your premise is incorrect. All men and women should be treated equally. A woman keeping a man-slave for chattel does not make that slave inferior but if the law does not say that they are equal she'll have the right to treat that man as an inferior and keep him as her slave; undermining him in everything. bullying people does not make someone superior, fact is more men bully women than vice versa and the law needs to state that the sexes are equal to diminish harassment from either side." It is your premise that is incorrect. You can not state that you think men and women should be treated equally, when you are arguing in favor of women being given special advantages in society. Secondly, the law does state that the sexes are equal; but, it isn't applied that way. For example, only men are required to register for the draft. If it is equality you seek, then the answer is just that: equality. Inequality can not be fixed by advocating for more inequality. Thirdly, where on earth did you get that men bully women, more often than vice-versa? You gave no citations; and, you need to add them. You outright claim it's a fact; but, you go on to give no factual evidence. Furthermore, how is that relevant to the discussion at hand? Bullying has no barring on the subject of how the law should treat different groups.
Positive discrimination towards women should be allowed

Discrimination is never 'positive'. In a civilized society, it is not exceptable to treat people differently, on the basis of gender. Furthermore, the claim of women having a "disadvantaged status" is preposterous. A quick examination of our laws and societal practices shows that women have an incredibly advantaged status. They are not required to register for the draft[1], like men are. They have a government council devoted solely to them[2] [3], whereas men do not. They have female-only scholarships and grants[4], whereas men do not. They have shelters to escape domestic violence[5], whereas men do not. They are protected from circumcision by law[6], whereas men are not. Their names are hidden when they accuse others of several kinds of crimes, whereas men are not[7]. If anyone is disadvantaged, it's men. Men are 80% of suicides[8], 40% of colleges students[9], 40% of degree earners[10], 80% of the homeless[11], 80% of the layed off[12], and 92.7% of the job deaths[13]. Men are more likely to die from every major cause of death[14], and yet there exists no amount of medical funding and research for them, on par with that of women. And this is to say nothing, of the blatant discriminations, under the law, that men suffer, as mentioned above. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *1- The Selective Service Act (http://www.sss.gov/PDFs/MSSA-2003.pdf) *2- Executive Order 13506 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-5802.pdf) *3- Executive Order 11126 (http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo11126.htm) *4- Scholarships.com (http://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarships-by-type/scholarships-for-women/scholarships-for-women.aspx) *5- The Violence Against Women Act (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:h3514ih.txt.pdf) *6- The Federal Prohibition on Female Genital Mutilation Act (http://www.fgmnetwork.org/legisl/US/federal.html) *7- Rape Shield Law and Statutes (http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/vaw_rape_shield_laws_may_05.pdf) *8- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf) *9- National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/ch_3.asp) *10- National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_258.asp) *11- The Conference of Mayors (http://usmayors.org/HHSurvey2007/hhsurvey07.pdf) *12- The Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d28c79d6-2d11-11de-8710-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1) *13- The Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0238.pdf) *14- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; Health, United States, 2003 with Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans, pages 136-139 (http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/TopCausesDeath2000.pdf)
Not true equality

your premise is incorrect. All men and women should be treated equally. A woman keeping a man-slave for chattel does not make that slave inferior but if the law does not say that they are equal she'll have the right to treat that man as an inferior and keep him as her slave; undermining him in everything. bullying people does not make someone superior, fact is more men bully women than vice versa and the law needs to state that the sexes are equal to diminish harassment from either side. In the post, "Not True Equality", you stated that: "your premise is incorrect. All men and women should be treated equally. A woman keeping a man-slave for chattel does not make that slave inferior but if the law does not say that they are equal she'll have the right to treat that man as an inferior and keep him as her slave; undermining him in everything. bullying people does not make someone superior, fact is more men bully women than vice versa and the law needs to state that the sexes are equal to diminish harassment from either side." It is your premise that is incorrect. You can not state that you think men and women should be treated equally, when you are arguing in favor of women being given special advantages in society. Secondly, the law does state that the sexes are equal; but, it isn't applied that way. For example, only men are required to register for the draft. If it is equality you seek, then the answer is just that: equality. Inequality can not be fixed by advocating for more inequality. Thirdly, where on earth did you get that men bully women, more often than vice-versa? You gave no citations; and, you need to add them. You outright claim it's a fact; but, you go on to give no factual evidence. Furthermore, how is that relevant to the discussion at hand? Bullying has no barring on the subject of how the law should treat different groups.