BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Terrorism can bring attention

Terrorism can raise the profile of a neglected cause. The hi-jackings of the 1970s and 1980s brought publicity to the Palestinian cause, helping to bring it to the attention of the world.[1]  States can use their wealth and media to put across their side of the story; their opponents do not have these resources and perhaps need to resort to terrorism to publicise their cause. In this way, limited and focused use of violence can have a dramatic international impact. [1] Tristam, P. (n.d.). The 1970 Palestinian Hijackings of Three Jets to Jordan. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from About.com: http://middleeast.about.com/od/terrorism/a/dawson-field-hijackings.htm
Consequentialism

Actions can only be justified by their outcomes, and if the outcome of an act of terror is an overall increase of justice, freedom and welfare, this action is therefore legitimate. Many people around the world suffer on a daily basis from poverty, injustices and violence. Generally, these people did not choose to suffer, nor was it a result of their actions; therefore it can be seen as a logical conclusion that it is a good thing that this suffering is diminished. However, authorities might not always agree to redistribution or an acknowledgement of rights, and more drastic measures are needed to obtain the goal. If, in this case, the use of acts of terror is needed to obtain greater goods such as justice and equality, and this would mean that on balance, more people would gain more utility, the action would be justified. In this way, terrorism can be seen as an effective weapon in a revolutionary struggle that results in progression. A very current example are the terrorist attacks in several Middle Eastern countries that have led to the Arab spring, such as the attack on the Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh.[1] [1] Sinjab, L. (2011, June 3). Yemen: President Saleh injured in attack on palace. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13638787
Terrorism creates a negative abusable portrayal

Acts of terror will not lead to a deeper mutual understanding, but to alienation from the international community. People see acts of violence as a threat, and especially in the context of international terrorists attacks, the fear of escalation prevails. Even more, acts of violence are open to multiple interpretations, which can be used in favour of the oppressing state, that has much more resources to spread its message. Not only can it say it uses violence against these terrorists groups to defend itself, but it can also paint an image of the terrorists as irrational, violent creatures. This plays easily into existing stereotypes of non-Westeners as being violent. In order to counter this scenario, it is wiser to resort to non-violent actions. This has the benefit of conveying a very clear message to the outside world that the people protesting are the victims, and not the perpetrators. For instance, the actions of Mahatma Ghandi were known for their civil disobedience and their political messages that went against the norm, but because of the peaceful nature of his protest, he was able to attract a lot of positive attention and followers.[1] [1] BBC News. (1998, January 29). The life and death of Mahatma Gandhi. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/50664.stm
Corrupt states

States or institutions created in concession to terror are often corrupt, dominated by men of violence with links to organised crime. Nothing is achieved to improve the lives of the people in whose name terror has been used. Terrorist organisations have often a military and violent character. The sort of people who attracted to committing acts of terror often glorify illegitimate acts of violence and justify the possible harm done to civilians by proving their complicity or the outcome of the actions. More precisely, they have only the interest of their ideology or the minority they are supporting. When these people are put in a position of power, they are likely to follow the same lines as before, especially when they do not have a political background. They are likely to be ignorant of how political processes work, and will appoint people that have the ideology in other powerful positions. This will make the whole political system inefficient and biased towards a minority or a fringe interest. As a result, level of corruption could rise, and in extreme cases people with other opinions can be persecuted. Iran went from a Westernizing state to an Islamic one, and is now hostile to dissidents.[1] [1] BBC News. (2012). Iran Profile, Retrieved 17 February 2012 from BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14541327
Terrorism can lead to discussion

Terrorism, in the long term, has far less chances of success than other, peaceful means. It antagonises and angers the community that it targets. It polarises opinion and makes it more difficult for moderates on both sides to prevail and compromise. A lasting and peaceful settlement can only be won with the freely given consent of both parties to a conflict or disagreement. The examples given in this argument are of countries and areas that still counter much instability, and in countries such as Israel and Palestine a sustainable peaceful solution still seems far away. Moreover, the Oslo peace process is the result of long-term, diplomatic efforts on an international scale, and terrorism does not seem to have contributed directly to this process.
Terrorism is relative

States who ignore the Geneva Conventions, for example by mistreating prisoners or deliberately attacking civilian targets, are guilty of terrorism and this cannot be justified. Nor are the Conventions only applicable to warfare between sovereign states - their principles can be clearly applied in other kinds of conflict and used to distinguish between legitimate military struggle and indefensible terrorism. Nor is it reasonable to argue that there are grey areas, and that civilians are sometimes legitimate targets - once such a claim has been made anything can eventually be "justified" in the name of some cause. All too often the political leaderships of protest movements have decided that limited "physical force" is necessary to advance their cause, only to find the violence spiralling out of control. The "hard men" who are prepared to use force end up in control of the movement, which increasingly attracts criminals and others who love violence for its own sake. The original base of support for the movement in the wider population and internationally is alienated. The authorities against whom the movement is struggling also respond by using increasingly repressive measures of their own, generating a spiral of violence and cruelty.
Harm to others is never legitimate

In extreme cases, it is justified to harm others. It can be argued that the population of a nation is complicit in the crimes that their government commits, because they support the regime by paying tax. Osama bin Laden's 'Letter to America' justifies attacking civilians by stating that they are a complicit part in the American military actions abroad because they have chosen their government democratically, and pay taxes to fund their actions.[1] Secondly, attacks on authorities can get rid of dictators or repressive regimes. Thirdly, commodities such as infrastructure can be used by the government for the promotion of certain groups and to marginalize others. During South African Apartheid, townships were created where black people were forced to live, and which had very little amenities, while the areas where white people lived had much better provisions.[2] [1] Laden, O. B. (2002, November 24). Letter to America. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Observer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver [2] SouthAfrica.info. (n.d.). Tackling Apartheid. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from SouthAfrica.info: http://www.southafrica.info/about/arts/615832.htm
The loss of individual liberty is the start of a slippery slope.

If the opposition is citing examples from history then there are just as many examples, if not more, of western governments resisting the corrupting effects of increased power and turning not from good into evil intentions. The fact of the matter is that most of today’s western nations have a relatively good track record. It seems the opposition is once again forgetting the real enemy – the terrorists. In most Western countries we have a fully independent and liberal judiciary, vigorously and vigilantly watching for human rights abuses and protecting civil liberties. For nearly all Western countries, a slippery slope simply does not exist.
It impedes economic progress.

Admittedly, extra-security measures do halt economic growth. But then again, so do a lot of things like inertia, or lack of consumer confidence. It is, however, a matter of degree; if the trade-off is between a lessening of economic growth and lives saved, then it is not hard to decide in which direction reason is behind. When lives are saved the economy benefits as those people will remain productive workers. And having lots of security is not all negative, the security business does very well.
National security is something that must be protected even at the cost of

Terrorism is part of the modern world and is inextricably linked with the rise of modern communications, the internet, and a global community. This is an age in which space and time are bending to the tune of new media – information at your fingertips may sound nice, but for those who want to destroy, it only makes their object easier to attain. And so more strict national security measures must be employed in order to keep up with the enemy. Escalation is the name of the game imposed on governments around the world by terrorists for example the Mumbai terrorists used GPS systems to guide them into Mumbai, attacks were coordinated on cell and satellite phones and Blackberrys were used to monitor the international reaction [1]. In order to keep up states need new powers to stop, deter, and prevent terrorism. The government needs to secure state-security first; only then can the debate on civil liberties begin, and only then. [1] Shachtman, Noah, ‘How Gadgets Helped Mumbai Attackers’, Wired, 1 December 2008, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/12/the-gagdets-of/, accessed 9 September 2011
Western countries already benefit from extremely liberal laws.

The USA is at present far better than most countries in their respect and regard for civil liberties. New security measures do not greatly compromise this liberty, and the US measures are at the very least comparable with similar measures already in effect in other democratic developed countries, e.g. Spain and the UK, which have had to cope with domestic terrorism for far longer than the USA. The facts speak for themselves – the USA enjoys a healthy western-liberalism the likes of which most of the world’s people cannot even conceive of. The issue of the erosion of a few minor liberties of (states like the US’s) citizens should be overlooked in favour of the much greater issue of protecting the very existence of that state.[1] [1] Zetter, Kim, ‘The Patriot Act Is Your Friend’, Wired, 24 February 2004, http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/02/62388, accessed 9 September 2011
The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks.

It would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen.
The loss of individual liberty is the start of a slippery slope.

The proposition puts us in a dangerous place. That situation is the thin edge of a totalitarian wedge – we must take a principled stand for liberty and stop the increasing number of anti-terrorist legislation and over powerful policing powers. 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 and many other groups were persecuted in World War II,[1] something about which Americans are now rightly ashamed. [1] Hummel, Jeffrey Rogers, ‘Not Just Japanese Americans: The Untold Story of U.S. Repression During 'The Good War'’, The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1987 (Vol. 7, No. 3), http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p285_Hummel.html, accessed 9 September 2011
It impedes economic progress.

Extra-security measures only impede, or halt the flow of trade[1], make the country harder to deal with - less internationally ‘friendly’, and disrupt communities. Security states almost always have slower growth than freer states because there is extra red tape, transport networks are slowed down, for example airport check ins take much longer. The U.S. Travel Association, says on average, in the United States as a result of the airport security measures each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening. That amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines and other travel suppliers.[2] And this is even before the losses caused by unproductive hours, and deterred investment. All these things will decrease incomes and GDP growth. [1] Verrue, Robert, ‘Tighter Security Must Not Slow Down World Trade’, The European institute, Spring 2004, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/20040302292/Spring-2004/tighter-security-must-not-slow-down-world-trade.html [2] McCartney, Scott, ‘Aiming to Balance Security and Convenience’, Wall Street Journal, 1 September 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/the_middle_seat.html, accessed 9 September 2011
The apparent loss of liberty is overstated.

If there is even a slight injustice, then there is a problem worth addressing. It is a fact that recent anti-terrorism legislation, in nearly all western countries, has been used for a variety of uses from international banking[1] to petty thievery. This is obviously beyond the original intentions of these measures; something that should not be taken lightly. [1] Wintour, Patrick, and Gillan, Audrey, ‘Lost in Iceland: £1billion from councils, charities and police’, 10 October 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/10/banking-iceland, accessed 9 September 2011
The threat of terrorism and security risks are overstated.

The proposition can point to the clear acts of terrorism of recent years that have proven difficult to combat and fatal to so many thousands. What the opposition is asking is to simply disregard all these facts on principle, and on principle only; this is overly idealistic and naïve to the extent where people’s lives would be put at risk. To question the motives of democratically accountable governments is a separate question; this is about terrorism and how to stop it; it’s about life and death, and how best protect the former and stop (by all means necessary) the latter.
In the public’s eyes, the government seems to suspect everyone.

This is just like any other investigation. Obviously the government has to take a broad approach because any loophole could be exploited by the unscrupulous terrorist. It is a necessity, albeit one with unfortunate consequences, but a necessity all the same. As for negotiations with terrorists, it is the propositions view that this option does not exist  when dealing with terrorists of a fundamentalist background, who are, by definition, not willing to compromise and therefore unable to be negotiated with.
The apparent loss of liberty is overstated.

Negative cases of security abuse are few and have been greatly exaggerated by an emphatic civil rights lobby that has no empathy for the victims of terrorism. Of course, with any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. For example in the UK terrorism suspects were originally detained without charge under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act however the detention was declared unlawful by the law lords in 2005 so the government introduced new scaled back policies such as ‘control orders’.[1] Therefore government has always been willing to scale back its security legislation when the courts believe it goes too far. Nonetheless it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights[2]. The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them. [1] Hewitt, Steve, THE BRITISH WAR ON TERROR TIMELINE, Libertas, 2007, http://www.libertas.bham.ac.uk/publications/reviews/THE_BRITISH_WAR_ON_T..., accessed 9 September 2011 [2] Stratton, Allegra and Wintour, Patrick, ‘Nick Clegg goes to war with Labour over civil liberties’, guardian.co.uk, 13 April 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/13/nick-clegg-liberal-democr..., accessed 9 September 2011
It is with the popular support of the public that security measures are taken.

Let us not forget that is with the consent of the public that these security measures are taken, CCTV for example was a populist measure that has often been considered a threat to civil liberties[1]. It is in line with democratic ideals; the majority of the country wants greater security[2]. For example in 2005 59% of Americans wanted the Patriot Act extended.[3] And because democracy embodies all those values we are fighting for – freedom and equality included- we must adhere to a democratic spirit when deciding on how to organise ourselves or else risk falling into the same mind-set as those terrorists themselves. [1] Norris, Clive, McCahill, Mike and Wood, David, ‘Editorial. The Growth of CCTV: a global perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publically accessible space’, Surveillance & Society, 2(2/4):110-135, 2004, http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles2(2)/editorial.pdf, accessed 9 September 2011 [2] Law Council of Australia, ‘Politics and Populism win out at anti-terror summit’, 30 September 2005, http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=... [3] Langer, Gary, ‘Poll: Support Seen for Patriot Act’, ABCnews, 9 June 2005, http://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/story?id=833703, accessed 9
The threat of terrorism and security risks are overstated.

The threat of terrorism is greatly over exaggerated. Western governments all over the world are effectively selling the threat of terrorism to their citizens in order to increase their powers of control. The threat, however, has to be exaggerated in order for the electorate to believe that the security measures are needed. The motives of governments doing this vary; some just want the new security measures to make their jobs easier; others however, see it as an opportunity to increase state control and power over the average citizen. There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since than it had been for several decades. For example there was the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 killing 270 people or the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut which killed 63.[1] While the scale is smaller than the 9/11 attacks they are just as terrible and were met with a much more measured response that did not involve infringing civil liberties. 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. [1] PBS Frontline, ‘terrorist attacks on americans, 1979-1988’, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html, accessed 9 September 2011
It would be letting the terrorists win

It is the aim of all terrorists to influence by violent means government policy. If we changed how our country was run we would be letting the terrorists win – they would be getting what they wanted. If we changed the way we lived[1], greater security measures or something else, we would be shaping our society to the tune of the terrorist. So more security measures at airports limit the freedom to travel, turning the country into a surveillance society makes everyone nervous; ultimately the country is no longer the same as it was having lost the freedoms which are the best way to combat terrorism. This is something perversely wrong. [1] Symanovich, Steve, ‘If you don’t read this, the terrorists win’, Washington Business Journal, 24 December 2001, http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2001/12/24/editorial2.html...
National security is something that must be protected even at the cost of

Nothing justifies some of the security measures taken by western governments. The ancient western conventions of the accused being innocent until proven guilty and his right to a fair trial have both been undermined[1] by the recent Labour administration in the UK. And all in the name of security. The trade-off has gone too far; liberty is something that must be protected at all costs – it seems that governments the world over have forgotten that the whole point of the state is too protect citizens liberty, not destroy it. [1] BBC News, ‘A brief history of habeas corpus’, 9 March 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4329839.stm, accessed 9 September 2011
In the public’s eyes, the government seems to suspect everyone.

Although the anti-terrorist measures are supposed to be trying to catch certain people, it is the whole of the public who have to suffer on a daily basis: an abundance of security cameras, security checks, and anti-privacy measures continually invade innocent people’s lives and yet it is supposed to be the terrorists who are being punished. The issue of justice, and whether it is actually being done, has to be fully looked at properly. These measures are not solving the problem of terrorism as it does not address the core grievances. Instead other ways such as negotiation to address grievances is necessary, as happened in Northern Ireland[1]. [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Northern Ireland’, The Guardian, 11 May 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/may/11/tonyblair.labour4, accessed 9 September 2011
Western countries already benefit from extremely liberal laws.

The opposition does not except the importance of legalisation like the US Patriot Act, as such legislation is always used for aims it was not originally intended for example when it is being used to investigate media companies dedicated to free speech - Wikileaks[1]. The fact that western countries are already quite liberal should not be an argument for why that has to change. Should we not be moving forwards towards even more freedoms for citizens instead of backwards? [1] IBTimes Staff Reporter, ‘Wikileaks: U.S. Seeks Assange Info Through Patriot Act’, 24 August 2011, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/203200/20110824/wikileaks-cables-patriot..., accessed 9 September 2009
The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks.

The issue would indeed by easy to solve if what the proposition spoke of was the whole story. Unfortunately, the legal measures put in place will always be open to abuse and so, as all power corrupts – and as absolute power corrupts absolutely – the more and more power we give to the authorities the more and more abuse and corruption we will witness. We have seen what happens with big, powerful governments; this is a historical rule, without exception.