BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Libyan rebels need more weapons to succeed

Fawzi Bukatif, the commander of the Martyr’s Brigade, part of the forces battling Gaddafi, told Al Jazeera: “We’re manoeuvring … we are starting … we are checking what kind of forces they have there but we are standing at Hagela now – almost 100km from Sirte.” But Bukatif said the rebels’ progress was hampered by a lack of weapons, and a reliance on “old Russian weapons”. “The … problem we have is we have run out of weapons,” he said. "You know our weapons are traditional ones; the old ones; the Russian weapons. We need ammunition. We need new weapons. We need anti-tanks; we do not have facilities [but] we have the soldiers left behind by Gaddafi ... “If we do have weapons and ammunitions that we need at the moment, we can move strongly and faster.”[1]
Arming rebels requires training them (greater involvement).

"Washington in Fierce Debate on Arming Libyan Rebels." NYTimes. March 29th, 2011: "Some administration officials argue that supplying arms would further entangle the United States in a drawn-out civil war because the rebels would need to be trained to use any weapons, even relatively simple rifles and shoulder-fired anti-armor weapons. This could mean sending trainers. One official said the United States might simply let others supply the weapons."
Israel uses sham legal tools to justify settlements

"Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank". The Israeli information Center for Human Rights. May 2002: "Particularly evident is Israel's manipulative use of legal tools in order to give the settlement enterprise an impression of legality. When Jordanian legislation served Israel's goals, Israel adhered to this legislation, arguing that international law obliges it to respect the legislation in effect prior to the occupation; in practice, this legislation was used in a cynical and biased manner. On the other hand, when this legislation interfered with Israel's plans, it was changed in a cavalier manner through military legislation and Israel established new rules to serve its interests."
Israel uses violence to unlawfully back settlements

Stephanie Kuory. "Israeli Settlements Illegal and Getting Worse". The Middle East Research and Information Project. September 24, 2005: "Settlements are constructed under Israeli military or private security protection. Israel's Ministry of Defense provides weapons to settlers, which are then used by militants to harass Palestinians into vacating their land. Reports on settler violence by B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, document that settlers fear little or no retribution from Israeli law enforcement because of a history of superficial investigations -- only 8 percent of Palestinian complaints are probed -- and light sentencing or pardons for the few settlers ever convicted. The same reports note that Israeli military and police often do not intervene to prevent attacks although they are present at the time."
Israeli-only roads were built to protect against attack

David Meir-Levi. "Occupation and settlement: the myth and reality". Front Line Magazine. June 24, 2005: "It is also important to note that the so-called 'apartheid roads' did not exist prior to Arafat's 1994 ascent to power, nor are they apartheid. During the decades from 1967 on, Israelis and Arabs used the same roads, many of which ran as main streets through the towns and villages of the West Bank, bringing in millions of tourist dollars to hitherto impoverished small-town Arab merchants. Only after Arafat began his terror war, and Israelis driving through Arab towns found themselves in mortal danger, did Israel build the 'Israelis only' (not 'Jews only') roads. Rather than take punitive measures against Arab offenders who murdered or injured Israeli motorists (Jewish, Christian, and Moslem), the government decided instead to create this by-pass system so that Israelis could reach WBGS destinations without exposing themselves to terrorist attacks."
Settlements create separate/unequal laws for Israelis/Palestinians

"Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank". The Israeli information Center for Human Rights. May 2002: "This has taken place although in formal terms the West Bank is not part of the State of Israel, and the law in effect there is Jordanian law and military legislation. This annexation has resulted in a regime of legalized separation and discrimination. This regime is based on the existence of two separate legal systems in the same territory, with the rights of individuals being determined by their nationality."
Israeli settlements should be able to expand "naturally"

The "natural expansion" of Israeli settlements is important to allow. This is a situation in which population growth as well as modest immigration into settlements expands a settlement, modestly. It is instructive to consider what it would mean to "freeze" such "natural expansion". It would almost necessarily mean placing limits on the number of offspring couples could have as well as the number of jews that can immigrate into a settlement. This is practically infeasible. And, for this reason, the "natural expansion" of Israeli settlements should be allowed.
Jews have historical right to return to West Bank

Michael Freund. "Israel Has Every Right to Expand Settlements". The Chicago Sun-Times. May 15, 2002: "It was 35 years ago this month that Israel prevailed in the 1967 war, returning to places such as Hebron and Shilo. For two thousand uninterrupted years, Jews had lived in the ancient Jewish quarter of Hebron, near the Tomb of the Patriarchs where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are buried. Only in 1929, when local Arabs massacred them, was the Jewish community forced to flee the city. What could be more historically just than to rebuild the Jewish presence there? [...] Jews have a moral, legal, historical and Biblical right to settle the territories. Israel's settlements matter, then, because they are at the forefront of righting a historical wrong, one in which Jews were previously barred from living in their ancestral homeland due to Arab rejectionism and hatred."
Settlements undercut Palestinian rights to land

Stephanie Kuory. "Israeli Settlements Illegal and Getting Worse". The Middle East Research and Information Project. September 24, 2005: "While expanding settlements Israel simultaneously contains Palestinian development. It unlawfully confiscates property, denies Palestinians the right to register their land and restricts Palestinian growth to limited areas, thereby reserving available land for settlement expansion. In order to ensure Israeli citizens have access to their settlements, Palestinians face restrictions on movement, including 600 physical barriers on West Bank roads, and endure long waits at checkpoints."
Israeli settlements do not impede creation of Palestine

Elliott Abrams. "The Settlement Freeze Fallacy". The Washington Post. April 8, 2009: "Is current and recent settlement construction creating insurmountable barriers to peace? A simple test shows that it is not. Ten years ago, in the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap to make up half of the 6 percent Israel would keep. According to news reports, just three months ago, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 93 percent, with a one-to-one land swap. In the end, under the January 2009 offer, Palestinians would have received an area equal to 98 to 98.5 percent of the West Bank (depending on which press report you read), while 10 years ago they were offered 97 percent. Ten years of settlement activity would have resulted in a larger area for the Palestinian state."
Israel encourages settlements; they are not growing "naturally".

"Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank". The Israeli information Center for Human Rights. May 2002: "The Israeli governments have implemented a consistent and systematic policy intended to encourage Jewish citizens to migrate to the West Bank. One of the tools used to this end is to grant financial benefits and incentives to citizens - both directly and through the Jewish local authorities. The purpose of this support is to raise the standard of living of these citizens and to encourage migration to the West Bank." It is difficult, therefore, for Israelis to say that the "natural expansion" of settlements is justified and should remain into the future. There is nothing "natural" about the growth of Israeli settlements; it has been directly encouraged by the state. All future requests to allow the "natural growth" of such settlements should, therefore, be met with significant skepticism and doubt.
Jewish settlements are not part of any "illegal occupation"

Michael Freund. "Israel Has Every Right to Expand Settlements". The Chicago Sun-Times. May 15, 2002: "Israel did not 'occupy' these territories, as the Palestinians and others would have you believe. In the 1967 Six-Day War, Arab armies massed on Israel's narrow borders, vowing to destroy the Jewish state. In a war of self-defense, Israel succeeded in overcoming its enemies, in the process taking control over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Under international law, territories are considered 'occupied' only when they are taken in an act of aggression - something which clearly does not apply to Israel's case."
Jews and others have right to live in Palestinian territory

Michael Freund. "Israel Has Every Right to Expand Settlements". The Chicago Sun-Times. May 15, 2002: "Indeed, there is something very troubling about the fact that a US Secretary of State would object to the erection of a house based on the religious or ethnic identity of its owner. In the olden days, we had a word for such views - it was called racism. And segregation. [...] To deny people the right to live in a certain area because they are Jews is no different from denying African-Americans or Hispanics or any other ethnic group the right to live where they please. And to suggest that the exercise of that right is somehow an "obstacle to peace" and must be halted is to capitulate to the haters and allow them to dictate who may live where. We can not allow that to happen."
Privatization of Soc Sec has disappointed in most places

Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation: "Reason #4: privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere.": "Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.” [read extended quote in argument page].
Social security is net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries.

Lawrence Kotlikoff. "Privatizing social security the right way." Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: "Social Security represents a bad deal for postwar Americans. Moreover, the deal has gotten worse over time. Baby boomers are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Generation X=ers and today=s children will lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. These losses assume no adjustment to Social Security=s taxes or benefits. But, as indicated above, major adjustments are inevitable unless the system is privatized. If OASI taxes are raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an ongoing basis, baby boomers will forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. Those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn."
Social security is basically a giant ponzi scheme.

"Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?" CATO Institute. May 11th, 1999: "Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors,' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to earlier, now retired, taxpayers. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new "investors" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme."
Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders.

"LETTER: We should privatize Social Security." Wausau Daily Herald. October 25th, 2010: "Additionally, the scare tactics of Feingold make it sound like the Social Security money those under 55 invest would have to go to Wall Street. That is not the case at all. The investment choices could be desigend so they would be at the individual's discretion. For those who feel the government can do a better job of investing their money than they themselves can, I would encourage them to give thought to allowing the government to handle not only the money they have contributed to their Social Security, but all of their savings as well. With its record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, forgive me if I am not going to stand in line to join in."
Privatized social security restores individual liberty and ownership

Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Voters are tired of big government. They are tired of bailouts and government taking over various private sector industries. With personal accounts, voters now have a chance to reduce the power in Washington, and reclaim some of the economic liberty that was taken away from them. Candidates for Congress should adopt that message and support it loudly."
Costly privatization of Soc Sec would dampen econ growth

Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation.: "Reason #3: creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken social security's future finances. Privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and debt significantly while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline—all of which could reduce long-term economic growth and the size of the economic pie available to pay for the retirement of the baby-boom generation. An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the president’s proposal would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, $3.5 trillion in the following decade, and trillions more thereafter."
Privatization is the least bad option.

Lawrence Kotlikoff. "Privatizing social security the right way." Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: "As described above, the U.S. Social Security System is badly broke and is treating the vast majority of its current contributors very badly. Privatization is far from a painless panacea, but it does represent an opportunity to resolve, once and for all, most of the System's financial woes and to rationalize a program that is intragenerationally as well as intergenerationally highly inequitable, replete with inefficiencies and economic distortions, and extraordinarily uninformative about the benefits it is providing in exchange for its mandatory contributions."
Social security taxes damage ability of poor to survive.

Americans living at the poverty level must usually spend every cent of their disposable income just to survive. Few in the lower-middle class have the funds available to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. Thus, they must rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement age. Unfortunately, the current social security payouts are at or below the poverty level. The money you earn in benefits based on what you pay in is less than what you'd earn in a passbook savings account.
Americans support increasing taxes to fund Social Security.

Stephen Dick. "Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone." CNHI News Service. November 19th, 2010: "the American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare. With Republicans back in power, when it comes time to cut spending, they'll be looking at Social Security until the American people tell them to back off. "
Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy.

Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "An important side benefit of Social Security privatization is that it would give every American--including poor Americans--an opportunity to participate in the economy by owning a part of it. In effect, a privatized pension system would act as a nationwide employee stock option plan, which would allow even the poorest workers to become capitalists. Through Social Security privatization, workers would become stockholders. The division between labor and capital would be broken down."
Privatization would not increase capital for investment.

Eliot Spitzer. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. February 4th, 2009: "And that fact makes clear the fallacy of the next argument often proffered by privatization supporters: They claim that the flow of dollars into the private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. The problem is that for every dollar put into the market through a private account, the government would have to borrow a dollar in the market to cover existing payouts. Thus the supposed benefit is entirely eliminated, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero."
Social security not in crisis; no need for privatization

James Roosevelt, President & CEO Tufts Health Plan. "Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. August 11, 2010: "The truth is that Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. Estimates are that the Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through the year 2037. After 2037, Social Security would still be able to pay for 78 percent of benefits even with no adjustments to revenues or benefits."
Privatizing social security helps the poor.

Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "Critics of Social Security privatization often warn that such proposals hold serious dangers for the elderly poor. However, a closer examination of the evidence indicates that the poor would be among those who would gain most from the privatization of Social Security. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. Although the current Social Security system is ostensibly designed to be progressive, transferring wealth to the elderly poor, the system actually contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are much more likely than their wealthy counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs."
Odds against individuals investing retirement accounts wisely

Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation: "Reason #5: The odds are against individuals investing successfully."]: "Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But studies by Yale economist Robert J. Shiller and others have demonstrated that individual investors are far more likely to do worse than the market generally, even excluding the cost of commissions and administrative expenses. Indeed, research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market." [read extended quoted in argument page.]
Budget shortfall has more to do with misguided tax cuts, spending.

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. December 7th, 2004: "It's true that the federal government as a whole faces a very large financial shortfall. That shortfall, however, has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one."
Privatized social security accounts vulnerable to downturns

Most stock market experts will point out that the long-term return on stocks has always been positive, despite temporary setbacks now and then. In other words, the market may go up 150 percent one decade, then down 50 percent the next, then up 60 percent the next, then down 25 percent the next. Overall, the return may be positive, but what happens to the retirees that hit age 65 during one of the downturns? Hopefully they were wise enough to gradually put most of their money in safer investments, but there's no guarantee they did the right thing.
Private accounts would require costly new govt bureaucracy

Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation.: "REASON #8: PRIVATE ACCOUNTS WOULD REQUIRE A NEW GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—147 million in 1997. Many workers’ accounts would be so small that they would be of no interest to profit-making firms. [...] the government would need to hire ten thousand highly trained workers just to oversee the accounts and answer questions from workers. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 percent of annual revenues."
Privatization would hasten depletion of Soc Sec trust funds.

Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea." The Century Foundation.: "Diverting up to four percentage points of the payroll tax to create private accounts as the president has proposed would shorten significantly the time until the Trust Funds become depleted. In part, this is because funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The government would have to start borrowing from the private sector almost immediately to be able to meet commitments to retirees and near-retirees. As Figure 1 shows, the Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion.