BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Political difficulty of public insurance is no argument against it.

That something is political difficult, with significant opposition, does not mean it is a bad idea. It says nothing about the underlying merits of the plan. In fact, this argument seems to be used frequently as a means to side-step the debate on the merits of the plan, which is distasteful and un-principled. Opposition to the public plan, and in favor of a co-op, should be based on the actual underlying arguments of whether one or the other would be better for America, not on whether one or the other is popular or politically convenient.
Public insurance has succeeded internationally, co-ops have not.

In reflecting on reforming the United States health care system, it is important to look abroad for examples. Interationally, there are virtually no examples of successful national systems based on co-ops. Public health insurance, conversely, has been very successful world wide, and is a part of virtually every industrialized nations' health care systems - almost all of which rank above the United States in World Health Organization rankings (the United States ranked 37th [last among industrialized nations] in these rankings). Based on these proven examples, it would be wise to implement a public insurance plan, not a co-op system.
"Not enough votes" does not justify voting no.

Many Senators argue that there are not enough votes for a public plan (60 are needed for a "filibuster proof" majority). This is foolhardy, because if such Senators decided to vote in favor of the plan, they could sway the difference in favor of the bill. Voting no because "others will vote no" is, therefore, a foolish self-fulfilling prophecy. It is also clearly un-principled, and based solely on "the political winds" of the time. Senators should vote according to their interpretation of the arguments, and what's best for the country, not according to the votes of their colleagues.
Co-ops would compete with and improve health insurance

Matthew Iglesias. "Health Care Co-ops". Think Progress. July 10, 2009: "Q: How could a co-op offer a better alternative? [...] A: Co-ops presumably would reduce or eliminate some costs, including profits, to compete effectively with private insurers. [...] Q: Would that drive insurance companies out of business? [...] A: Unclear. Proponents say co-ops would force private insurers to be more efficient and fair."
Health insurance co-ops have difficulty controlling costs and premiums

"Co-ops, Exchanges, Gateways, and The Need For A Public Plan". The Walker Report. August 14, 2009: "Despite efforts to negotiate lower premiums, cooperatives have only been able to offer premiums that are comparable to those in the general small group market. The cooperatives we reviewed typically did not obtain overall premium reductions because (1) their market share provided insufficient leverage, (2) they could not produce administrative savings for insurers."
Atrophying US nuclear arsenal makes New START unwise.

Baker Spring. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix." Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. September 16th, 2010: "Flaw #3: The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous. Article V of New START permits strategic nuclear modernization, but the U.S. strategic nuclear arse nal has aged, and the weapons enterprise that is necessary to pursue modernization has atrophied over the past two decades. This includes an alarm ing weakening of the industrial base for solid rocket motors. These nuclear modernization problems are not in the text of the treaty or its interpretation, but exist only in relation to the treaty, which exacerbates these problems. The solution to the ongoing problems with the lack of nuclear weapons modernization depends on a commitment between the Obama Administration and Congress to pursue nuclear modernization on a sustained basis. During the consideration of New START, the Senate could amend the resolution of rat­ification with a condition that requires President Obama and congressional leaders to commit to a detailed nuclear modernization agenda that extends for the 10-year life of New START. Specifically, this condition would outline this agenda and require the President to certify that he supports it and that he has received a letter cosigned by leaders of both the House and Senate certifying that they support it."
New START in US interests AND valuable to US-Russia relations

Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell. "The Republican case for ratifying New START." Washington Post. December 2, 2010: "Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But we have here an agreement that is clearly in our national interest, and we should consider the ramifications of not ratifying it."
New START Treaty gives more to Russia than US

Mitt Romney. "Obama's worst foreign-policy mistake." Washington Post. July 6th, 2010: "The treaty also gives far more to the Russians than to the United States. As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. For example, rail-based ICBMs and launchers are not mentioned. Similarly, multiple nuclear warheads that are mounted on bombers are effectively not counted. Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers -- including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads -- without tripping the treaty's limits. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs."
New START Treaty has loopholes for Russian nuclear weapons

Mitt Romney. "Stop START." Boston.com. December 3, 2010: "Does the treaty provide gaping loopholes that Russia could use to escape nuclear weapon limits entirely? Yes. For example, multiple warhead missile bombers are counted under the treaty as only one warhead. While we currently have more bombers than the Russians, they have embarked on new programs for long-range bombers and for air-launched nuclear cruise missiles. Thus, it is no surprise that Russia is happy to undercount missiles on bombers."
New START leaves in place Russian tactical nuclear advantage.

Baker Spring. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix." Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. September 16th, 2010: "Flaw #7: New START leaves in place a large Russian advantage in nonstrategic (tactical) nuclear weapons. While the exact numbers are not public, Russia reportedly has a several-fold numerical advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons.[8] New START does not impose any limits whatsoever on tactical nuclear weapons. As such, the Russian advantage poses a significant challenge for the U.S. in maintaining a credible extended deterrence pol icy for the benefit of its allies. Given the Russian advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, the Obama Administration understand ably chose not to include this subject in the New START negotiations. U.S. negotiators would have no cards to play in the negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons, and the outcome would inevita bly have been strongly in Russia’s favor."
New START important to Russian cooperation on many issues.

Joseph Biden. "The case for ratifying New START." Wall Street Journal. November 25, 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress."
New START deserves a careful look by the new Congress.

Mitt Romney. "Stop START." Boston.com. December 3rd, 2010: "A treaty so critical to our national security deserves a careful, deliberative look by the men and women America has just elected. The president is in a hurry for the same reason he has been in a hurry before: he knows that if his vaunted treaty is given a thorough review by the Senate, it will likely be rejected. And well it should be."
Reducing US-Russian nuclear weapons makes for a safer world.

Dr. David P. "Security, Sin and Nuclear Weapons: A Christian Plea for the New START Treaty." Huffington Post. December 4th, 2010: "The issue on the table is a nuclear arms reduction and verification treaty between the United States and Russia. The treaty, called New START, would reduce Russian and American deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 and delivery vehicles to 700 each. This would be a 33 percent reduction in the existing arsenals, which is worth achieving and celebrating even as we know that countless cities and millions of precious human beings could be destroyed by the use of even part of the remaining arsenals. Still, these reductions would be a great step on the way to a safer world, as would the re-establishment of bilateral, intrusive verification measures for both sides, also part of the treaty."
New START Treaty preserves deployment of missile defenses.

Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell. "The Republican case for ratifying New START." Washington Post. December 2, 2010: "New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses. The testimonies of our military commanders and civilian leaders make clear that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense plans. Although the treaty prohibits the conversion of existing launchers for intercontinental and submarine-based ballistic missiles, our military leaders say they do not want to do that because it is more expensive and less effective than building new ones for defense purposes."
US should not sign New START to bribe Russia on Iran.

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA): "The particular complaints about New START, of which there are many, are waved aside. Instead, we are told that the real purpose of New START is to create a stronger U.S.-Russia bond in a broader international effort to restrain Iran's nuclear weapons program. Such a justification is wrong. Iran's nuclear ambitions are no secret; neither is Russia's past efforts in aiding that program. We seriously question whether Russia is serious about stopping Iran, with or without New START. There is no reason why the United States should be required to sacrifice its own defense capabilities to inspire Russia to a greater degree of diplomatic fortitude. If Russia is indeed concerned with a nuclear-armed Iran to its immediate south, it should need no extra incentive to take the action necessary to stop it."[2]
New START important to Russian cooperation on missile defense.

Joseph Biden. "The case for ratifying New START." Wall Street Journal. November 25, 2010: "The U.S. contribution to this effort will be the European Phased Adaptive Approach, which will include Aegis ships capable of ballistic missile defense, a forward-based radar, and land-based SM-3 interceptor sites in Romania and Poland. Our European missile-defense system will employ cost-effective and proven technologies, using a distributed network of sensors and shooters, making it far more flexible, adaptable and survivable than earlier proposals. This system demonstrates America's enduring commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—that an attack on one is an attack on all.NATO missile defense also provides the opportunity for further improvements in both NATO-Russian and U.S.-Russian relations. NATO and Russia agreed at Lisbon to carry out a joint ballistic missile threat assessment, to resume theater missile-defense exercises, and to explore further cooperation on territorial missile defense—things that were nearly unimaginable two years ago. These agreements underscore the strategic importance the alliance attaches to improving its relationship with Russia. But trust and confidence in our relationship with Russia would be undermined without Senate approval of the New Start Treaty, which reduces strategic nuclear forces to levels not seen since the 1950s, and restores important verification mechanisms that ceased when the first Start Treaty expired last December."
New START does not move US to defense posture.

Baker Spring. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix." Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. September 16th, 2010: "Flaw #1: New START fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack. Given the trends in the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, the most important step that the U.S. needs to take is to move away from the Cold War deterrence policy. That pol icy bases deterrence on the U.S. threatening to retal iate for a strategic attack on the U.S. or its allies with a devastating nuclear counterstrike. The U.S. needs to move toward a deterrence policy based on pro tecting and defending the people, territory, institu tions, and infrastructure of the U.S. and its allies against looming or attempted strategic attacks.[4] New START does nothing to facilitate this transition. The Senate can best remedy the flaw that New START does not move toward a defense-oriented deterrence policy by attaching a declaration to the resolution of ratification stating that the U.S. is com­mitted to defending its population, territory, institu tions, and infrastructure and those of its allies against strategic attack to the best of its ability."
Reducing nuclear arms will not compel others to stop pursuing nukes.

Baker Spring. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix." Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. September 16th, 2010: "the Obama Administration is clearly committed to a policy that asserts that for every neg­ative development in the area of nuclear prolifera tion the U.S. needs to take a substantive step in the direction of nuclear disarmament, and New START is a product of this misguided approach. Ultimately, this approach effectively assumes that the posses sion of nuclear arms by the U.S. is the incentive driving other nations to pursue nuclear weapons programs. Not only is the assumption misplaced, but the policy will undermine deterrence and increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weap ons.[7] At some point, the Obama Administration will need to recognize that it is foolish for the U.S. to take substantive steps toward nuclear disarmament at the same time the nuclear proliferation problem is growing worse."
Nuclear armament will be modernized along with New START.

Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell. "The Republican case for ratifying New START." Washington Post. December 2, 2010: "the Obama administration has agreed to provide for modernization of the infrastructure essential to maintaining our nuclear arsenal. Funding these efforts has become part of the negotiations in the ratification process. The administration has put forth a 10-year plan to spend $84 billion on the Energy Department's nuclear weapons complex. Much of the credit for getting the administration to add $14 billion to the originally proposed $70 billion for modernization goes to Sen. Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who has been vigilant in this effort. Implementing this modernization program in a timely fashion would be important in ensuring that our nuclear arsenal is maintained appropriately over the next decade and beyond."
New START reduces US deterrence in world that is arming, not disarming

Peter Brookes. "Not a New START, but a bad START." The Hill. September 13th, 2010: "Drawing down US Will a U.S. drawdown undermine American strategic deterrence, a bedrock of our defense policy in the nuclear age, encouraging other potential rivals to bolster their current or future arsenals? And in a world that is arming — not disarming — could these major reductions in our nuclear force create (or feed) an image of American weakness and decline, leading to misperception and miscalculation — and conflict? Obama sees it differently, believing U.S. leadership on disarmament (even unilateral) gives us greater moral standing in battling proliferation. But will others follow? Looking around the world, there’s no evidence of 'denuclearization discipleship' so far."
Signing New START saves US-Russia relations for Iranian problem.

On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence."[1]
Reps supported arms reduction in past, should support New START.

Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell. "The Republican case for ratifying New START." Washington Post. December 2, 2010: "Republican presidents have long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers. That is why Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush negotiated the SALT I, START I and START II agreements. It is why President George W. Bush negotiated the Moscow Treaty. All four recognized that reducing the number of nuclear arms in an open, verifiable manner would reduce the risk of nuclear catastrophe and increase the stability of America's relationship with the Soviet Union and, later, the Russian Federation. The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, we urge the Senate to ratify the New START treaty signed by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev."
New START key to nuclear verification between US and Russia

Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell. "The Republican case for ratifying New START." Washington Post. December 2, 2010: "the agreement emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal. Since the original START expired last December, Russia has not been required to provide notifications about changes in its strategic nuclear arsenal, and the United States has been unable to conduct on-site inspections. Each day, America's understanding of Russia's arsenal has been degraded, and resources have been diverted from national security tasks to try to fill the gaps. Our military planners increasingly lack the best possible insight into Russia's activity with its strategic nuclear arsenal, making it more difficult to carry out their nuclear deterrent mission."
New START preserves Russian help on rogue states and loose nukes.

Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell. "The Republican case for ratifying New START." Washington Post. December 2, 2010: "Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism."
New START is not adequately verifiable.

Baker Spring. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix." Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. September 16th, 2010: "Flaw #11: New START is not adequately verifiable.[13] Compared to the expired START’s verification regime, the New START verification regime is signif icantly less robust, even though New START will drive the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal to lower levels. The specific areas that are significantly less robust include: A narrowing of the requirements for exchanging telemetry, A reduction in the effectiveness of the inspections, Weaknesses in the ability to verify the number of deployed warheads on ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), Abolition of the START verification regime gov erning mobile ICBMs, and A weakening of the verification standards gov erning the elimination of delivery vehicles."
Fish farms do more to protect wild fish than to harm them.

Overfishing means that natural stocks are currently severely depleted. For example, cod may die out completely in the North Sea unless there are drastic cuts in the number caught. Fish farming greatly reduces the need to catch wild fish. Unless we stop eating fish, fish farming is the only way to preserve wild fish. Furthermore, trawling in the oceans often results in bycatch, where unwanted animals are needlessly caught in nets and killed (e.g. dolphins, and fish which are too small or from protected or uncommercial species). Long line fishing for species like tuna leads to the death of millions of seabirds who are attracted to the floating bait on hooks trailed behind ships. None of this happens with fish farms.
Fish farming is harmful to wild fish:

Diseases and parasites spread from fish farmed in cages in the sea to wild fish. According to Greenpeace, a typical salmon farm of 200,000 fish produces roughly the same amount of faecal matter as a town of 62,000 people. Faecal matter reduces the oxygen level in water. This leads to toxic algal blooms, which kill marine life. In the northern Pacific, over 1 million farmed Atlantic salmon have escaped from fish farms. These have competed with wild Pacific salmon for food and the number of Pacific salmon has fallen. There has also been interbreeding between escaped and wild fish, weakening the wild stock. To avoid these problems, fish farming should either be banned or be subject to much stricter environmental controls.
Humans do not have the right to subject animals to excessive suffering:

Recent research in the UK, the USA and Canada has shown that fish are able to feel pain. In many countries, including the USA, there are no regulations to minimise pain to fish. Large numbers of fish are packed into small cages, in which lice and infections spread easily between fish. Cases of lice eating down to the bones of farmed fish are common. Fish are not stunned before they are killed, and are sometimes killed by suffocation or being frozen. At very least, fish should receive the protection against cruelty that farm animals (e.g. pigs, cows) receive. It would be better if fish farming was stopped completely.