BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Life imprisonment better punishes a terrorist than assassination (martyrdom)

. "Do We Have a License to Kill?" BBC, Talking Points, John Mitko, Spain. June 18 2002 - "War means death. Having presumably carried out the attacks on the USA Bin Laden has also presumably accepted the risk of personal retribution, and as he is living in a war zone he is increasing the odds against him of surviving the current attacks. His personal, religious desire is, presumably, to die defending Islam and reach paradise. However he dies - in war or by assassination - he will be content. On this basis it would be better to capture him and put him on trial. Then if he was handed a life sentence, it would humiliate him by denying him the ultimate penalty. The US armed forces probably have a better record of effectiveness than the CIA. It would be better to leave the special forces and the SAS to carry out the job."
Illegitimate tyrants can be assassinated if it's the only way to freedom

If a tyrant comes to power by illegitimate, undemocratic means and directly suppresses, harms, and kills the citizens of a state, that tyrant loses all legitimacy to the continued occupation of office. If it is impossible to depose the leader by more subtle means of opposition and democratic voting, the only route to freedom may be assassination. In such cases, assassination is certainly justifiable.
Crime cameras offer conclusive, unbiased evidence in court.

New Orleans Mayor Nagin said in 2005 when unveiling his crime camera program: "These cameras not only record crime, they are witnesses that cannot be intimidated."[6] Indeed, when crime cameras capture a crime, they expose the reality of those involved and the details of their actions. They reveal the truth, upon which justice relies. This stands in stark contrast with less detailed testimonies and heresy, making cameras particularly valuable to the justice system.
Crime cameras violate privacy no more than corner store cameras.

Ken Garcia. "Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.". The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - "The people who complain about the use of cameras on the street say nothing about their presence in their corner store, the post office, the subway, Macy’s, Safeway or just about every commercial enterprise in existence. They’re now found in taxis, buses, trains and of course, airports, let alone public buildings, such as the one that played back the proceedings at the Police Commission for a cable TV audience."
Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols.

Police typically patrol neighborhoods with a certain frequency. It is possible for police to reduce the frequency of their patrolling in neighborhoods with crime cameras. This is due largely to the fact that crime cameras help deter and reduce crime, reducing the demand for police patrolling in a certain neighborhood. In addition, newer crime cameras can help detect criminal activity and alert officers to attend to suspicious activities. This is why cameras are often viewed as "extra crime-fighting eyes". By helping reduce the need to patrol certain areas, crime cameras can help reduce the costs required to support such police patrolling.
Crime cameras are cost-effective only when used properly

Benjamin Wachs. "Crime cameras work, but SF doesn't work the cameras". SF Weekly. June 27, 2008 - "Even by the standard of San Francisco’s pretty lousy records, SF’s crime cameras have a pretty lousy record. As SF Weekly has previously reported, they’ve cost nearly $1 million, led to only 1 arrest, and have provided police with virtually no useful information [...] But here’s the funny thing … by which I mean sad: other municipalities have had crime camera programs that work. We’ve previously reported about the success of Washington D.C.’s crime cameras, which reduced crime by 19 percent in areas covered by cameras and helped catch suspects.[...] How do they do it? [...] Simple: Like D.C., Rochester actually has real people watching the cameras. SF … for some reason … doesn’t." [the issue, therefore, is not whether crime cameras are good or bad, but how to best build a strong crime camera program with practices that ensure crime cameras are being used effectively.
Crime cameras have not had a significant impact on crime rates

Heather Knight. "Crime cameras not capturing many crimes". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - "The cameras have been installed in phases on some of the city's roughest streets since 2005 with large concentrations of them in the Western Addition and Mission District and others in the lower Haight, the Tenderloin and near Coit Tower. [...] The cameras have contributed to only one arrest nearly two years ago in a city that saw 98 homicides last year, a 12-year high. The video is choppy, and police aren't allowed to watch video in real-time or maneuver the cameras to get a better view of potential crimes."
Crime cameras help reduce crime rates,

"Cameras have cut violence, study says". The Washington Post. February 21, 2008 - "The report, prepared for the D.C. Council by the office of Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, says violent crime increased about 1 percent citywide last year. But, it says, violent crime decreased 19 percent within 250 feet of each of the cameras, which the city began installing in August 2006. Property crimes increased 5 percent overall last year but 2 percent in the camera areas, the report says. 'In the seventeen months since cameras were first installed in D.C.'s neighborhoods, the cameras have continued to have a positive impact on public safety in the city,' the report says."
Maintaining crime cameras costs too much.

"Mayor Nagin: Please handle your business". New Orleans Citizen Crime Watch. November 19th, 2008 - "Councilwoman Stacy Head said the city has spent $7,500 per camera this year for maintenance and upgrades to each of the 240 cameras, while it costs only $6,240 to buy and install a new camera. The $1.6 million proposed for maintenance and restoration in 2009 is more than it would cost to buy all new cameras."
Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety

In December, 2008, an armed robbery attempt in New Orleans failed after the victim, according to police, "...advised the suspect that there were several surveillance cameras in the area," and walked safely away from the criminal.[4] The episode suggests that the victim felt that the cameras provided a critical layer of protection against the assailant. While law enforcers did not suggest that others pursue the same course of action as the victim in this story, it is clear that the crime cameras provided a real sense of safety for this man and probably for other members of his community as well.
Crime cameras are too costly for too few benefits

"If New Orleans' crime cameras are useless, cut them from the budget". Times-Picayune. November 15, 2008 - "New Orleanians have patiently waited for the Nagin administration and its contractors to deliver on promises to install up to 1,000 working crime cameras that would help convict violent offenders and reduce crime. [...] What residents have gotten instead is a program dogged by waste, technical problems and scant evidence that it's making a substantial difference in the fight against crime."
Crime cameras with ID technology deeply violate privacy

"Under the Watchful Eye". American Civil Liberties Union - "Threat to Civil Liberties from Combined Technologies Government-run video surveillance can radically alter the relationship between law enforcement and the public. By itself, pervasive video surveillance threatens privacy rights. But even more disturbing, the threat multiplies when government combines cameras with emerging technologies such as automated identification software, face and eye scans, radio frequency identification (RF ID) tags, and databases accessible to law enforcement. In that context, video surveillance provides a critical pillar of a surveillance infrastructure. It creates the potential for the government to monitor people in public space, in a way envisioned only in futuristic novels."
Crime-ridden communities have right to demand and install cameras

Ken Garcia. "Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F." The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - "You can expect any issue that loosely covers the term civil liberties to bring out the masses in San Francisco [...] Yet, thankfully there was one argument that commissioners just couldn’t brush aside. And that is that people who live in and near neighborhoods rife with prostitution, drug-dealing, robberies and frenetic gang acti- vity desperately want surveillance cameras, and the more the better. It’s a cry that’s been heard for some time around town, and given the relatively paltry cost of the equipment. it seems but a trifle to fret over."
Cameras can deter anti-social behavior such as littering

Adrienne Isnard. "Can surveillance cameras be successful in preventing crime and controlling anti-social behavior?". Australia Institute of Criminology. August 2, 2001 - "Originally surveillance cameras systems were installed to deter burglary, assault and car theft but their use has been extended to include combating 'anti social behaviour', such as littering, urinating in public, traffic violations, obstruction, and drunkenness (Davies 1998)."
Crime cameras lead to slippery slope of Big Brother surveillance.

Crime cameras are only the beginning of a host of violations of civil liberties on the part of government. While the objectives of surveillance may be modest in the beginning, they are likely to include in the future certain video ID schemes that track every individual's movements and actions at all times in search of suspicious or subversive behavior. The risks are real of crime cameras leading to the police state scenarios depicted in George Orwell's 1984.
Crime cameras often have no one watching due to limited resources.

"Shambles over crime cameras". Western Daily Press. November 28, 2008 - "Crime in Cirencester town centre is going unmonitored because there is no one to watch the CCTV full-time. Cotswold District Council has failed to replace the contract to monitor the cameras in the town. Police community support officers have had to be drafted in to fill the breach on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. But at all other times the cameras have been on automatic, with police reviewing tapes after an incident."
Crime cameras in public spaces do not really invade privacy.

Ken Garcia. "Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F." The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - "I count myself among those opposed to more government interference in personal privacy, but that’s not really a big issue here. These cameras are going on public streets, not in bedrooms, and those who object are ignoring the obvious, ideology serving here as a highly effective blinder."
Crime cameras cannot deter criminals that do not fear the law

Theodore Dalrymple. "Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence". City Journal. October 16, 2007 - "A recent study demonstrating this failure to improve the clear-up rate, however, could not also show that the cameras failed to deter crime in the first place. Common sense suggests that they should deter, but common sense might be wrong. For if the punishment of detected crime is insufficient to deter, there is no reason why the presence of cameras should deter."
National bailouts have succeeded with tough austerity measures

Sam Norton. "Necessary Evil: Why the US Should Push for a Greek Bailout." American Foreign Policy. March 28th, 2010: "Critics contend that past interventions that imposed austerity have had disastrous consequences. While this did occur in the short term in some cases, such as the Asian economic crisis of 1998, in the long run, budgetary restraint is the only way to set countries on the path toward sustainable growth, as opposed to a temporary expansion followed by yet another crisis. Countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea, all of which accepted IMF loans in the late 1990s, rooted out corporate mismanagement and other practices that inhibited productivity, and the result was protracted economic expansion over the course of the past decade."
Greece bailout is illegal under EU law

"Five Reasons Not to Support a Bailout of Greece." The Heritage Foundation. May 2010: "Article 125.1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union expressly forbids one member state bailing out another. It states: 'The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.' Lord Lamont, Secretary of the Treasury when Britain, pointed out that the Maastricht Treaty specifically ruled out such bailouts so that responsible members of the Eurozone would not have to subsidize irresponsible ones."
Default is the best option for Greece

Jeffrey Miron. "Let Greece Default". Forbes. May 2010: "Rather than bail out Greece, the E.U. and IMF should allow it to default. This will hurt Greece's creditors, but those entities assumed the risk when they loaned to a country long known for its profligate ways. If Greece does default, its economy may suffer in the short term. External credit will be scarce to non-existent, so Greece will have to live within it means. But however painful this adjustment may be, it is unavoidable if Greece wants to join the first rank of nations; current policies are unsustainable from every perspective, so the sooner Greece abandons them the better."
Eurozone publics do not support the Greece bailout

"Five Reasons Not to Support a Bailout of Greece", The Heritage Foundation, May 2010 "It is not difficult to see why Germans and other Eurozone publics are opposed to bailing out the profligate Greek government. Having introduced a constitutional requirement to balance its budget, the German government is now asking the public to forego tax cuts in favor of its less responsible Mediterranean neighbor. A poll by British think tank Open Europe in June 2009 found that 70 percent of German voters were opposed to bailing out other Eurozone countries in financial trouble."
IMF bailouts failed in the Asian financial crisis

Daryl Montgomery. "Will the Eurozone Crisis Crash World Markets?" May 2010: "A small country with a currency problem causing major problems in the global financial system has a recent precedent in Asia in 1997. The Thai baht, which was pegged to the U.S. dollar, came under speculative attack in May of that year and the government was forced to drop the dollar peg and float the currency on July 2nd. The problems in Thailand, a relatively small economy, then spread throughout East and South Asia. They eventually washed up on the shore of the U.S., with a mini-crash in the stock market that dropped the Dow Jones Industrial Average 7% in one day. The selling may have been worse, but stock trading was halted early that day. While events in 1997 had their biggest impact in East and South Asia, echoes of the problem wound up impacting U.S. and other stock markets into 1998. The current situation is much worse in 2010 than it was in 1997. Bailouts were used to deal with the problems in 1997. Governments and central banks have already used this tool to a massive extent for the last two years. If we are having another crisis, clearly it isn't working."
Bailout forces Greece to accept unfair conditions

"Bailing out Greece is not the answer". Allister Heath. February 2010: "Greece and any other European economy that benefits from a bailout would officially have to fulfill extremely strict conditions; they would in effect lose their fiscal independence, a move which would be unlikely to fill the Greek unions with joy. Mass anti-cuts demos are already taking place; in truth, Athens is stretching credibility beyond breaking point when it claims that it will slash its budget deficit from 12.7 per cent of GDP in 2009 to 2.8 per cent by 2012."
US only indirectly helping Greece through IMF contributions.

The United States is not actually making a direct low-interest loan or gift to Greece. Rather, the US makes annual contributions to the IMF of around 17% of its annual funds, which are used for a variety of international financial loan and stabilization packages. In this case a good portion of those funds will - rightly - be directed to Greece. It is wrong, therefore, for conservatives to use the talking-point of a the "US is bailing out Greece". This is not the case. US funds are merely being used by the IMF, as they always are, to do exactly what they are supposed to do: ensure global financial stability and, in the process, US interests.
Bailout addresses wrong problem: liquidity not solvency

Felix Salmon. "Why the Greek bailout won’t work." Reuters. May 3, 2010: "The fact is that the bailout package really doesn’t address the problem, which is one of solvency rather than liquidity. The European loans are being extended at about 5%, which while much lower than market rates is still not low enough to make anything approaching a dent in Greece’s debt dynamics. And by the time the bailout package is exhausted, if Greece even gets that far, its debt-to-GDP ratio will be significantly higher than it is right now, thanks to both a rising numerator and a declining denominator."
No true success was achieved in the Mexico peso crisis

"A Retrospective on the Mexican Bailout", The Cato Institute, Winter 2002 "Proponents of those views rarely mention the high costs of the IMF’s intervention to ordinary Mexicans, and they downplay the cost—namely in the form of moral hazard—to the world economy. More importantly, policymakers have never seriously considered market-oriented alternatives to official bailouts in Mexico or elsewhere, yet the evidence strongly suggests that market solutions offer greater benefits and lower costs."
Stabilizing Greek/EU crisis is essential to US economy

Sam Norton. "Necessary Evil: Why the US Should Push for a Greek Bailout." American Foreign Policy. March 28th, 2010: "With the US facing significant economic challenges of its own, it is easy for it to overlook the impact of the so-called “Great Recession” on the rest of the world. In today’s interconnected marketplace, however, economic problems in foreign countries can have major political ramifications for the rest of the world. Just as the Great Depression contributed to the rise of authoritarian regimes in Europe, today’s economic downturn could lead to the destruction of the American-led liberal order if the negative repercussions of the crisis cannot be contained. [...] One of the most prominent trouble spots in the global economy is Greece. The government’s massive and rapidly expanding debt burden has raised concerns that the nation might be forced to declare bankruptcy. In light of this danger, the US ought to take action to resolve Europe’s internal dilemma. It should push for measures to contain the crisis while preventing similar situations from arising elsewhere."
Greece bailout essential to stabilizing the Euro

Sundeep Matharu. "Europe's $1 trillion Bailout Might not be Able to Save the Euro from Going Down." TopNews. May 2010: "The Euro's largest player, the European Central Bank, has yielded to political demands and, amongst other things, will start purchasing sovereign bonds in the market. This transmits the danger of default from financially extended countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain to the Euro zone all together. And the ECB has to finance it by successfully printing Euros, further weakening the currency. A feeble Euro will make exports more gung ho. But if the Euro goes too down, its rank as a reserve currency will deteriorate."
Keynesian economic policies fail in the long term

"Keynes’ Folly Hits Home in Greece", Dan Amoss, February 2010 "The endgame of Keynesian policy is on display in Greece right now. The reputation of loose government spending as a serious policy will, by the end of 2010, be dealt some deserved blows. These policies ultimately lead to bankruptcy, not prosperity. When responding to a criticism of the long-run costs of his prescriptions, John Maynard Keynes, (the economist so revered by fans of big government) quipped, 'In the long run, we are all dead.' Well, he may be dead now, but plenty of people are still alive, and living with the consequences of his distorted view of reality. Production comes before consumption."
Bailing out Greece is too expensive for EU

"Counting the cost of a euro-zone bailout". The Press. May 2010: "A three-year bailout of Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain could potentially cost €544 billion, or roughly 6 percent of the entire euro zone's gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009. David Mackie, an economist at JP Morgan, expects such a bailout would cost 8 percent of the GDP of the unaffected euro zone countries."
Greece does not present a threat to the Euro

Patrick Barron. "Greece Needs Capitalism And Freedom." The Bulletin. May 2010: "The Greek crisis is simply that the Greek government is spending more Euros than it receives in tax payments, and private banks are balking at lending it more. Since the Greeks no longer have a national currency, they cannot debase it and pay off their creditors with cheapened drachmas. So, the Greek government is left with the choice of raising taxes, cutting spending, or some combination of the two that will satisfy its creditors. Now, would someone please tell me why and in what form this Greek financial crisis, serious as it is to the Greeks themselves, constitutes a threat to the Euro?"
EU has the will to defend the Euro

"Statement following the meeting of the Heads of States and Government of the Euro Area Brussels". José Manuel Durão Barroso. May 2010 "The important point common to all these agreed elements today is that we will defend the euro whatever it takes. We have several instruments at our disposal and we will use them. The European Institutions – Council, Commission, European Central Bank and of course the Euro area Member States. This was the clear decision unanimously taken today."
U.S. does not have adequate funds to bailout Greece

Bailout of Greece is Important to America, By T.F. Stern, May 2010 "The United States is supplying 17% of the IMF money handed over to Greece; that’s US taxpayer dollars being spent to keep Greece afloat and money we have to borrow from places like China because we don’t have the money either. I want you to think about that for a moment; we’re borrowing money and going deeper in debt to help another country which is even deeper in debt. What’s wrong with this picture?"
IMF bailouts worked in the UK in the 1970s

"A Primer on IMF Bailouts". The New York Times. December 22, 1997: "In early 1976, a steady loss of confidence in the pound stirred amid expectations that the budget deficit, current account deficit and inflation were set to worsen, and that the government would encourage a depreciation to boost the economy. In late September, after a one-day fall of 4 percent in the pound, Denis Healey, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, unveiled plans to seek $3.9 billion from the IMF. The new policies worked quickly, in part because the forecasts of worsening deficits proved too pessimistic. Within one year, Britain beat its IMF budget deficit target, the current account was back in the black and the government was trying to restrain the pound's rise."