BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sponsorship is a good way of getting people who otherwise wouldn't give to charity to donate their money.

People should not need this kind of “feel good factor” in order to give to charity – it is very selfish. People all over the world need help from richer people, and instead of helping just one they have the ability to help many. By focusing in on one single example, people may also get a very narrow view of life in poorer countries – they may feel that the developing world can't look after itself and as a result won't support very important changes to things like government that could actually help the people more than their sponsorship. The “personal connection” is also sometimes made up by the charity organisations, who translate and edit letters sent between the rich and poor to make sure they do not get too emotionally attached to one another [13].
Sponsorship is an inefficient way of giving to charity.

Stories about ridiculous administration costs are not only rare but are often untrue. For example, in the case of one of the largest sponsorship organisations - World Vision - “Of the funds given in 2010, 81.1 per cent went directly into programs that help children, 13.9 per cent went to fundraising services, 5.0 per cent was allocated to administration". Charities are not out to rip people off, their aim is to give money to people who need it most. There are always going to be some administration costs in any organisations, and even if those charities who offer child sponsorships have higher costs than others, the positive long term effects of this giving are far more important. Often it may be a choice between giving a sponsorship and not giving anything at all - helping some people is surely better than helping no-one at all.
We need to address the causes of poverty rather than treat the symptoms (outward signs).

Many of the organisations that run child sponsorship schemes are dedicated to improving all of these aspects of life – indeed the way in which these schemes focus on the improvement of a specific area or community make it perhaps a more complete way of giving money to the poor. Charities can hardly be expected to incite political change or cure deadly diseases instead of helping those who are sick. More than eight million children around the world are sponsored by Western sponsors [18] - giving this large number of children the basis for a good future and the possibility of them learning enough to get themselves and their future families out of poverty is surely a good enough reason to encourage the sponsoring of children to build for a better future alongside other charity projects.
Sponsorship is often more about the intentions of the donors rather than the needs of poor children.

In an ideal world it would be easy to say that charities should not try to change the religions and cultures of poor people, but given the dire nature of the situation for the poorest people in the world, surely we do not have the luxury to argue over what ideas should or should not be given to these people. Is it not better that they survive as Christians rather than die from hunger and disease? Religion provides the incentive many people need to think about giving money to charity. We must also consider that only a minority of organisations seek to change the people they help in this way – there is a lot of choice out there for people who don't want to impose cultural change [21] so this does not work as an argument against the idea of child sponsorship as a whole.
Sponsorship is better than other kinds of charity because it is a long term commitment.

Over the years $30 a month, or perhaps even more, adds up to thousands of dollars’ worth of aid spending - this is different to other forms of charity because the main focus here is on “long-term changes"[2]. Unlike a one-off donation, this method of giving ensures that poor people get support for a long time without costing people too much in one go. It also ensures that people keep giving to these needy causes, and makes people realise that they can afford to make a difference.
Child sponsorship brings about greater understanding between people from different countries and cultures.

Personal letters, charity reports, photographs and even visits help to build a bridge between the developed and developing world[5]. More and more people are able to talk to each other around the world, and it is important that less fortunate people in poor countries are connected to the rest of us and have the opportunity to communicate with us. Sponsorship creates a personal connection - the children get to learn about their sponsors and the sponsors get to learn how their money helps people. This continued attention to the positive effects of sponsorship is really important to help poorer countries, especially at a time when worldwide economics are in trouble and charities are most at risk from begin forgotten [6].
Sponsorship also contributes to all aspects of life.

This includes drinking water, food, education, medical care, shelter and sanitation - often charitable donations are more specific (they only provide for one of these aspects of life). By putting children at the heart of charity programs it is hoped that a stronger foundation will be made for the future - the young people who are helped today can maintain a better lifestyle in the future [8]. Giving all this to an individual child also produces more tangible results than giving to a vast organisation, whose work is can often over-ambitious and more open to corruption [9].
Sponsorship is a good way of getting people who otherwise wouldn't give to charity to donate their money.

Unlike most other forms of charity, sponsorship creates a direct link between the person giving money and the person receiving it. People are able to see the ways in which their money is helping others, and this makes them feel good about it – as World Vision International says - “You get to see and feel the difference your support makes" [12]. Although this is probably not the best reason for people to give their money to those in need, practically speaking (in the real world) it is one of the most effective (it works very well) in encouraging people to give.
Ethnic borders erase a wrong of history

Imperialism and Colonisation is one of the great wrongs of history where much of the globe was carved up without any reference to the facts on the ground. When the west drew borders peoples were split, and kingdoms and cultures carved up. Independence may have ended some of the worst aspects of imperialism but it exacerbated the problem of borders.[1] Africa has since seen the problems that this has created and should realise the need to break from the colonial legacy. [1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.4
Preventing conflict

Redrawing borders could help resolve conflict in Africa. Michalopoulos and Papaioannou find "civil conflict intensity, as reflected in war casualties and duration, is approximately 35% higher in areas where partitioned ethnicities reside." Conflict duration is 18.5% higher.[1] They identify seven different ways in which artificial borders lead to, or intensify conflict; 1, partitioning ethnicities creates irredentist demands 2, partitioning makes an independence movement more likely 3, when borders are not marked the ethnic group has a reason to attempt to change the border 4, patronage politics leads to discrimination against minorities 5, splitting ethnicities encourages smuggling and criminalisation 6, splitting resources that were previously part of an ethnic group’s homeland will leave the ethnic group trying to engineer the resources return 7, partitioning reduces development so increases inequality with and resentment towards the center of the state.[2] Getting rid of all of these reasons for conflict would help make Africa more peaceful in the long run. [1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.22 [2] Michalopoulos, 2011, pp.4-6
Redrawing could be democratic

A redrawing of borders would allow for democratic participation in the building of new African states. There would have to be plebiscites in local areas to determine where borders should run and extensive consultation so that the borders are drawn based on the wishes of the people this time. The opposite of what happens at the moment. For example much of the Bakassi homeland was ceded by Nigeria to Cameroon as a result of an International Court of Justice ruling on the colonial border and many people are asking Nigeria to resettle them as they don’t share Cameroon’s culture.[1] Clearly the people would surely much prefer to have their destiny in their own hands than letting the borders be settled by an international court pouring over 19th century maps.[2] [1] Chinwo, 2012 [2] Fisher, 2012
Encourages Secessionism

There are at least 834 different ethnicities in Africa[1] and could be as many as 3315.[2] If the ethnicities along the borders are being allowed to choose where they belong then every other ethnicity should, anything else is inconsistent. This is necessary to solve long running campaigns for independence such as by Western Sahara where the people would not want to have to choose between Morocco and Mauritania.[3] On the other hand if only groups which are already in revolt are asked whether they wish independence then such a proposal is simply hypocritical failing to take into account that groups that have been non-violent may also wish independence. [1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.1 [2] Wentzel, 2013 [3] BBC News, 2013
Damages dreams of African unity

The African Union Constitutive Act has as an objective to “achieve greater unity and solidarity”. This is something that is damaged by making borders open to question. Borders at the moment are a settle but redrawing borders will open up disputes between African countries as every state will fear losing valuable pieces of territory. It will make that the primary international issue for decades setting back cooperation on peacekeeping or a common market. If African unity is the ultimate objective then borders should not matter.
Ethnic borders allow nation states

A great many of the world’s leading states are multicultural/ethnic rather than ethnic states. The United States, Brazil, India, and Indonesia to take just a few. These states have been able to construct national identities that are not just based upon ethnicity. For cosmopolitan democratic states the border being an accident of history does not matter[1]; this is what African states need to do as well not carve themselves up. [1] Ratner, 1996, p.591
Encouraging development

First changing borders encouraging development relies on the assumption that there won’t be conflict. Second if independence movements gain independence then there will be a lot more international borders and the barriers to trade these impose. Finally we need to think about this the other way around; when there are ethnic groups on both sides of the trade they are encouraging and facilitating trade between the two states – this is something to be encouraged not changed. Having the same ethnicity on both sides of the border works in the same way as having emigration in encouraging trade. Because of networks overlapping between the two countries trade will increase. In Spain for example doubling the number of immigrants leads to an increase in exports to the immigrant’s country of origin by 10%.[1] Economic development is not always stifled at borders; two of the four Nigerian states with GDP per capita of over 2000NGN are on the border with Benin.[2] [1] Peri, 2010 [2] AlifArabia, 2013
Violates current states sovereignty

It has since been accepted in the 1989 Guinea-Bissau/Senegal case that a colony gaining independence need not be bound by agreements concluded by the imperial power.[1] Borders have never in the past been fixed, they have changed usually as a result of conflict but also more peaceful changes such as demarcation or unification. African states should not be binding themselves to an out of date territorial system forced upon them by their imperial oppressors. [1] Ratner, 1996, p.620
Ethnic borders allow nation states

In Africa borders are artificial often running through ethnic groupings without consideration for culture or even local geography with the exception of water courses.[1] Altering these borders to reflect ethnicities and culture would help states to create their own national identity as their identities would not be split. Having the whole of an ethnicity within one state will help prevent misappropriation of culture and history by another state.  [1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.19
Encouraging development

Using data from satellites measuring luminosity Michalopoulos and Papaioannou find that border areas with partitioned ethnic groups are up to 60% less developed than those towards the centre of countries so are not artificially split. Ethnicity is significant for trade. For example between Niger and Nigeria prices of millet increase at the border by 23.2% when it is also the border between ethnicities but only 9.3% when the same ethnicity is on both sides of the border for cowpea the figures are 20.2% and 14.4%.[1] Moreover internally where there is an ethnic border between markets there is a similar increase of 21% for millet and 22% for cowpea.[2] Ethnicity may also affect the ability to gain credit from other traders.[3] It therefore makes sense economically to have borders at ethnic boundaries due to the natural trading relations within an ethnic group. Splitting an ethnic group creates unnecessary hardship by making it more difficult to trade. [1] Aker, 2010, p.16 [2] Ibid, p.21-2 [3] Ibid, p.25
Violates current states sovereignty

One of the core principles of sovereignty is that of territorial integrity. In the process of decolonisation this was expressed through the principle of uti possidetis, that the administrative divisions of the previous state should form the borders the new states so as to prevent gaps in sovereignty and the conflict that would create.[1] The OAU in 1964 went so far as to solemnly declare “that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence.”[2] Any alteration to borders would be attacking this principle. No African state is going to accept a change that is likely to redraw many of their borders, open disputes with neighbours and possibly create new states. [1] Shaw, 1997, p.356 [2] OAU, 1964
Would create odd borders.

Unfortunately ethnic groups don’t all live in a block with clear dividing lines between them and the neighbouring group. Borders reflecting ethnicities will be squiggly. Often there will be enclaves. Even enclaves may not be enough to get everybody from each ethnicity in the ‘right’ nation. This is shown in the former Yugoslavia where when a nation for Kosovars was created Serbs were suddenly on the wrong side of the border. This is the problem with not going based upon administrative borders. The question is immediately raised; how finely grained should the border be calibrated? A border cannot be moved to suit every individual.
Preventing conflict

That such a move will reduce conflict relies on a lot of assumptions; most notably that the changes won’t spark a lot of new conflicts. Territory is the biggest source of violent conflicts among states and this will create a large number of new such conflicts. When there is a response 76.6% of the time it will be military when territory is in dispute compared to 49% when something else is the cause, and such disputes are three times as likely to escalate to war (7.3% to 2.5%).[1] The redrawing process would also mean suffering as states attempt to pre-empt new borders by moving those of the ‘wrong’ ethnicity and as insurgencies are stepped up. The Abyei area of Sudan shows what is likely to happen; it was to have a referendum to decide whether to join the North or South but the north occupied the region before it could be carried out.[2] [1] Hensel, 1998, pp.20-1 [2] Copnall, 2011
Encourages Secessionism

In addition to meeting the demands of some independence movements, there could be a decrease in the number of such organisations due to reduced prospects. If it is unlikely to get a whole province then they may be less inclined to attempt to secede.[1] There have been conflicts in Kivu, DR Congo, but the Banyamulenge the main group involved only makes up around 4% of the population[2] – would they desire to split from Congo if they were not likely to take the whole province? [1] Ratner, 1996, p.591 [2] Wikipedia
Suspending Habeas Corpus makes it easier for terrorist organisations to demonise the US and its Allies, and thus to recruit more terrorists in its fight against the West.

By suspending Habeas Corpus, the US is playing into the hands of terrorists and creating more would-be terrorists for the future. Enemies of the West aim to demonstrate that the US is an oppressive state in order to make its model less attractive to others. In particular, they wish to show that America is at war with Muslims in order to radicalise young Muslims both at home and overseas. The US should take heed of the precedent in Northern Ireland, where widespread internment without trial radicalised many Catholic youths in the 1970s and drove them into the arms of the IRA.
Restricting Habeas Corpus is necessary in the face of the new and dangerous threat which modern terrorism poses.

There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.
Enemy combatants are not US citizens and as such they should not enjoy any protection which a US citizen enjoys under the Constitution.

Via legal precedent,[1] Habeas Corpus protections extend to foreign nationals detained in the US. Furthermore, to focus solely on the immigration status and purported guilt of suspected terrorists ignore the fact that Habeas Corpus exists to protect us all. Eliminating the rights for “bad people” necessarily eliminates them for the innocent as well. [1] Supreme Court of the United States, Boumediene v Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html
Habeas Corpus has often been suspended in times of conflict, when it has been deemed necessary.

The current war on terror is not comparable to past wars during which Habeas Corpus was suspended. Both the Civil War and World War II were openly declared wars of limited duration following invasions by hostile forces. The “war on terror” is nebulous and open-ended. In any case, history has harshly judged arbitrary detentions during wartime. Lincoln’s Civil War detentions and Roosevelt’s Japanese internment camps of the 1940s are embarrassing chapters in US national history. The fact that former presidents improperly suspended Habeas Corpus is all the more reason to exercise caution now. Additionally, the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the UK in 1971 arguably strengthened the cause of the IRA, and made it easier for the organisation to recruit members. Western governments should be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past
Suspending Habeas Corpus undermines the moral high ground of the US and its Allies, and strengthens the cause of the terrorists which these nations are fighting against.

Global terrorism calls for aggressive responses. We cannot allow our respective nations to be besieged by terrorists while we stand aside and do nothing. Our enemies are well aware of the legal framework in which the US authorities and their Allies operate, and will exploit it wherever possible. Constitutional freedoms are extremely important, but the security and continued existence of our nations must come first. The US and its Allies must make a stand and demonstrate that terrorism will not be tolerated.
Suspending Habeas Corpus makes it easier for terrorist organisations to demonise the US and its Allies, and thus to recruit more terrorists in its fight against the West.

The hatred that terrorists feel for the US and its Allies does not depend on details of their respective legal systems. Their hate stems from our success in building a tolerant, democratic society at odds with their narrow vision of harsh conformity. Their propaganda seeks to radicalise young Muslims across the world not by arcane appeals to Habeas Corpus, but by twisted portrayals of Allied military actions against civilians in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. If the prisoners currently held without trial in Guantanamo Bay were released, they could untold damage to the US and its Allies. The risk of this occurring clearly outweighs the ethical issues concerning the suspension of Habeas Corpus protections.
Restricting Habeas Corpus is necessary in the face of the new and dangerous threat which modern terrorism poses.

Restricting suspected terrorists’ rights to challenge their detention is necessary to ensure that that individual cannot participate in future terrorist activities. The attacks of September 11th constituted a catastrophic and unprecedented attack on US soil, and the measures undertaken by the US at Guantanamo Bay, in holding many terrorist suspects without trial, are necessary to prevent future attacks of that nature. Terror suspects still have recourse to military tribunals, which contain many of the same safeguards as the federal court system
Enemy combatants are not US citizens and as such they should not enjoy any protection which a US citizen enjoys under the Constitution.

Unlawful enemy combatants are not US citizens. The only connection they have to the US is the desire to destroy it. As such, they do not fall within the group of people the Constitution is intended to protect.[1] [1] BBC News, ‘Guantanamo appeal denied’, 12 March 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2842093.stm
Habeas Corpus has often been suspended in times of conflict, when it has been deemed necessary.

There is a longstanding tradition of suspending Habeas Corpus protections during times of war and conflict. For example, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.[1] Habeas Corpus was also suspended briefly in the Hawaii during World War II, immediately after the attacks on Pearl Harbour.[2] In the UK, Habeas Corpus was suspended in 1794, after the French declared war on Britain,[3] and in 1817,[4] in order to arrest parliamentary reformers. In 1971 Habeas Corpus was again suspended in the UK in order that IRA suspects could be arrested and detained.[5] 9/11 and other Al Qaeda plots require that Western countries respond in just as determined a way. The war on terror may not follow the rules of traditional warfare, but it is a war nonetheless. These precedents show that, in certain circumstances, the suspension of Habeas Corpus is both necessary and justified. [1] Lincoln, Abraham, ‘Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus’, teachingamericanhistory.org, 24 September 1862, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425 [2] Anthony, J. Garner, Hawaii under Army Rule, Stanford University Press, p.5, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V66lAAAAIAAJ [3] Holmberg, Tom, ‘Great Britain: Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 7 May 1794’, The Napoleon Series, July 2002, http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/british/c_habeus.html [4] ‘Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill’, Hansard, 24 June 1817, vol.36, cc1145-55, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1817/jun/24/habeas-corpus-suspension-bill [5] Wilkinson, Paul, Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2006, p.82, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uq6oCZF7iHcC&dq