BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reparations demonstrate a true concern for the developing world.

Even alongside the colonial justifications for providing reparations, there are also many other strong reasons why former colonial powers should grant reparations. Former colonial powers tend to be economically developed, like America, Britain and France. The developed world should recognise the dire poverty and social challenges fed by the developing world today. Giving aid as an act of charity can sometimes be seen as derogatory[1], and is even rejected by the potential recipients[2][3][4]. However, reparations  allows a transfer of wealth between these countries in a way which is sensitive to the history between them, and which also demonstrates a desire to improve their relationship. It allows aid to be given to the developing world in a means which is dignified but not spurious. [1] Accessed from http://www.casacollective.org/story/opinion/development-pushers-foreign-aid-and-microcredit-modernization-not-poverty-reduction on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://en.rian.ru/world/20091108/156752104.html on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/22/somali-militants-maintain-aid-ban-and-reject-famine.html on 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302053/Taliban-tells-Pakistan-reject-Western-flood-aid-number-victims-soars.html on 12/09/11
Such reparations would do little to actually improve the developing countries.

Reparations are an incredibly short-term economic measure. To have any substantial impact, long-term systems would need to be put in place to truly benefit such countries, and it would be far better to encourage sustainable growth[1] than a one-off bumper payment. Developed countries should look towards improving their long-term relationship with former colonies and establishing measures such as fairer trade rules or debt relief as an efficient measure. This would allow the aid to be focused in the places where these countries need it most.             The symbolism of reparations is also potentially dangerous. Firstly, paying reparations may bring the belief that former colonial powers have ‘paid their debt’ and no longer have to seek to improve their own conduct of foreign policy. Secondly, this measure would allow dictators such as Robert Mugabe to feel justified in their declarations that colonial powers are independently responsible for all the problems affecting their countries[2][3][4]. In this way, Mugabe tries to hide his own shortcomings and place blame entirely on the West, which has negative impacts on the potential for international relations. In the case of Italy’s reparations to Libya, this could be seen as strengthening the Gaddafi dictatorship at the expense of the Libyan people and the West, particularly as Gaddafi is prone to blaming the West[5] or indeed anybody else he can[6]. [1] Accessed from http://www.ausaid.gov.au/makediff/gec.cfm on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://www.therightperspective.org/2008/12/13/mugabe-blames-racist-britain-for-cholera/ on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24935379/ns/world_news-africa/t/mugabe-blames-west-zimbabwes-shortages/ on 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08179/892972-153.stm on 12/09/11 [5] Accessed from http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/10079687/libyas-gaddafi-scorns-rebel-rats-blames-france/ on 12/09/11 [6] Accessed from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360343/Libya-Gaddafi-blames-Osama-bin-Laden-hallucinogenic-pills-Nescafe-uprising.html on 12/09/11
The very payment of reparations exerts a neo-colonial power over former colonies.

The recognition that many former colonies are in desperate economic need only adds to the sense that former colonial powers desire to hold sway over them. Giving reparations induces dependency and can weaken the appearance of government in the former colonies, and may allow the donor government to exert influence over policy areas within the recipient country[1]. Far from giving the recipient country the means to develop itself as an independent nation, this motion simply recalls the old power structure which existed during colonisation. [1] Accessed from http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5003_24_46.html on 12/09/11
Reparations would be a step towards closing colonial scars.

This proposition line does not lead to a situation where developing countries forgive their colonisers and forget the suffering of the past; rather, it will lead to a situation where they identify those colonial forces as the source of their suffering, but also as the power which tried to undermine their human integrity by paying them off. Such developing countries will always view reparations as ‘insufficient compensation’[1], because there is no lump sum on money which can atone for the acts and atrocities committed against human life. This motion is not only ineffective but will exacerbate the current situation by portraying the West as a place where money has a higher value than the human lives of developing countries; as such, there is no reason for former colonies to believe that their have gained any status other then an ‘opportunity’ for the West. [1] Accessed from http://romethesecondtime.blogspot.com/2011/03/libya-bitter-fruits-of-italian.html on 12/09/11
Reparations would effectively right the economic imbalance caused by colonialism.

Most of the Western world is currently undergoing a financial crisis[1]. However prosperous these former colonies might have been, in the modern world they simply do not have the money to provide reparations to these countries on any scale which might come close to closing the economic gap between them. America’s enormous debt almost caused a complete economic collapse in August[2]; Britain was struggling under £2252.9 billion of debt as on July 2011[3]. The proposition’s naive balancing argument fails to take into account the realities of the economy and debt in raising this motion – it would be impossible to achieve. [1] The Telegraph. ‘Double-dip fears across West as confidence crumbles’. Published on 30/09/2011. Accessed from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8731894/Double-dip-fears-across-the-West-as-confidence-crumbles.html on 12/09/11 [2] BBC. ‘IMF calls for US to raise debt ceiling and cut spending’. Published 25/07/2011. Accessed at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14282351 on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ on 12/09/11
Time has removed the opportunity to truly make reparations to those who may have deserved it.

Given that many former colonies remain poor (even after so many years), it is very unlikely that these people would have no need for such money. The difference in timescale is irrelevant; what is relevant is that such former colonies have a demonstrated need for this money, and that atrocities occurred during the colonial era. If it became to hard to track down specific people, it would also be easily possible to give money to the government as Italy did to Libya[1], in which case the potential for improved infrastructure and basic living conditions could have a nation-wide benefit. Just because it may be difficult does not overrule the many powerful arguments that we should do this. [1] Accessed from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1838014,00.html on 12/09/11
Reparations unfairly target the taxpayers of former colonial powers who had nothing to do with the deeds committed under colonisation.

Taxpayers already fund the foreign aid which is distributed habitually[1][2]; they are not to blame for a famine in Somalia, for example, but they continue to pay for it[3]. There is frequently a disconnection between the people who pay for aid and the people who receive it. However, we recognise that the need is great enough in such countries to make it not only legitimate, but a moral duty. Most citizens of former colonial powers can recognise that some of the acts committed during colonial times was wrong and deserves repairing. Given that this is a productive means of doing so, and already has the precedent of foreign aid more generally, it is entirely appropriate. [1] The Daily Mail. ‘Foreign aid budget to cost every family £500’. Published 22/10/2010. Accessed from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322745/Foreign-aid-budget-cost-family-500-Fat-cats-earning-90k.html on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://ifamericansknew.org/stats/cost_of_israel.html on 12/09/11 [3] BBC. ‘Somalia famine: UK insists aid is “getting through”’. Published 18/08/2011. Accessed from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14574053 on 12/09/11
Reparations would be a step towards closing colonial scars.

It is difficult for former colonies to feel as if they can move on and develop a wholly independent identity when their ties to the past, and to their former colonisers, have not been definitively ended. For example, while it is important to remember those who suffered under slavery, the overwhelming memory of it[1] overpowers the history of those countries and innately links them back to former colonial powers. Furthermore, many of the problems now faced by former colonies can be traced back to the actions of colonial-era masters, for example the birth of ethnic tensions between minorities in Rwanda[2] and Burundi[3]. In order to move on from that damaging legacy, and to conclusively prove that such prejudices are always wrong, it is necessary for former colonial powers to show a tangible move towards closing that colonial chapter of their history. In this way they can begin to move towards a fresh, equal and co-operative relationship with the developing countries which were their former colonies, without the background of history which currently warps such relationships. Italy’s payment of reparations to Libya[4] allowed Libya to ‘mend fences with the West’[5] and to improve international relationships. This is a step to recognise developing countries as a nation, rather than an economic opportunity. In this way, reparations would be an effective way of demonstrating a global community and spirit. [1] Accessed from http://www.cambriapress.com/cambriapress.cfm?template=4&bid=403 on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://umuvugizi.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/how-colonialism-affected-the-rwandan-genocide/ on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from http://www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v3/v3i3a5.htm on 12/09/11. [4] Time. ‘Italy Pays Reparations to Libya’. Published 02/09/2008. Accessed from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1838014,00.html on 12/09/11. [5] Accessed from http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/libya-italy-to-sign-compensation-deal-957/ on 12/09/11
Reparations would effectively right the economic imbalance caused by colonialism.

Given that much of the motive for colonisation was economic, many former colonies have suffered damage to their natural resources[1] or human resources,[2] which has left them less able to sustain a healthy economy. Colonists targeted countries with rich natural resources and little ability to defend themselves from invasion and manipulation. By this method, they could supply their own markets with the natural resources which they had already exploited at home[3], and find cheap (or free) human labour for their markets[4]. Given that powerful countries such as Britain[5] and France[6] gained their own economic prosperity through the exploitation of the economic potential of the colonies, it is entirely appropriate and logical that they should pay reparations as compensation. In this way, the economic disparity between former colonies and colonists would be equalised. [1] Accessed from http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html on12/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from http://www.donaldstark.co.uk/essays/1815-1914/exploit.pdfon 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from http://www.afterslavery.com/ on 12/09/11 [5] Accessed from http://valkyrian.tripod.com/essays/gmt11e.html on 12/09/11 [6] ‘The Haitian Revolution and its Effects’. Patrick E. Bryan. Accessed from http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q9owdkOc0wgC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=France+prosperous+through+Caribbean&source=bl&ots=II4V1fhhpK&sig=q6EgtGJ4jY_jkBNR-HQ-aNhUgdE&hl=en on 12/09/11.
Time has removed the opportunity to truly make reparations to those who may have deserved it.

Reparations are used to make ‘amends for wrong or injury done’[1]; it is impossible to truly achieve this when the victims of wrongdoing are long since dead. Moreover, reparations which may have been made immediately after colonisation could have had a specific purpose – for example, to rebuild property which was destroyed, or to restore items which were wrongfully taken. However, the development of both countries has led to a very different state of affairs in both, and there may no longer be an obvious end for the money from reparations. There is also no precedent for giving reparations to countries after so long a period of time. For example, Germany began paying reparations to Israel in 1952[2], only 7 years after World War II ended in 1945.  Time also makes it very difficult to judge who the ‘victims’ are now. The descendants of original victims may well be independently wealthy now – would it be right to financially cripple of Western country and their people, already suffering from economic depression, to pay people who may not need it now? In any case, it would take a very long to even work out how we could pay reparations, let alone whether we should. [1] Accessed from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reparation on 12/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,517538,00.html on 12/09/11
Reparations unfairly target the taxpayers of former colonial powers who had nothing to do with the deeds committed under colonisation.

It is unclear who exactly is being punished under this mechanism. Ordering reparations rather than, for example, a public apology from a monarch or  government, only serves to harm tax-paying citizens whose money would be used to pay such reparations. There is a huge disconnection between the people who actually committed wrongs and the people who are now forced to literally pay for them. This is likely to lead to an increase in hostility from the taxpayers who do not understand why they are being punished, towards the people of former colonies. It is no longer a case where reparations could ever be paid from the direct profits of exploitation as any profit from that must have been spent long ago. It is wrong to impose undue guilt and obligation of payment on to people who are entirely disconnected from that history.
What happened during the colonial era was morally wrong.

This is a very one-sided assertion of past events. It was not only the colonists who acted in an unacceptable manner; for example, during the Indian Mutiny, a party of sepoys ‘execute[d] the 210 women and children’ with guns and knives[1]. Some, though horribly wounded, remained alive until morning[2]. History is very complex; while there were certainly atrocious events, it is unfair and untrue to apportion blame to only one party – namely, the colonists. In any case, in the face of such atrocities, it is completely superficial to imagine that mere money could wipe the slate clean. Reparations are used to correct a past wrong[3]; it would be derogatory to assume that we can pay people off for acts such as these, and that they require no more hindsight or consideration. [1] Accessed from http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/indiancampaigns/mutiny/mutiny.htm on 11/09/11 [2] Accessed from http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/indiancampaigns/mutiny/mutiny.htm on 11/09/11 [3] Accessed from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reparation on 11/09/11
There is already a precedent for paying reparations to such states.

These reparations have done little to satisfy the recipient countries. For example, Israel asked Germany to improve the reparations agreement[1], which resulted in Germany withdrawing reparations entirely[2] and only served to increase tensions between the two nations. Furthermore, Israel has become reliant on German reparation money[3], suggesting that reparations do not in fact allow the recipient country to develop their whole national identity without ties to former dominating countries. Moreover, despite the payment of reparations from Italy to Libya, Libya still believes that it was ‘insufficient compensation for colonial damages’[4]. Just because reparations have been made in the past does not, by any means, show that they were successful or indeed that they are the best option available in the present day. [1] Accessed from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312579,00.html on 12/09/11. [2] Accessed from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312579,00.html on 12/09/11 [3] Accessed from http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2968661,00.html on 12/09/11 [4] Accessed from http://romethesecondtime.blogspot.com/2011/03/libya-bitter-fruits-of-italian.html on 12/09/11
Reparations demonstrate a true concern for the developing world.

Disguising the purely economic balance illustrated here as a demonstration of heartfelt regret undermines the principles outlined by previous proposition arguments. This is, in fact, a hollow gesture – one that is disguised as a reparation to overcome a country’s right (though we may not agree with it) to reject the aid which is offered to them. The rejection of aid is a demonstrative action in itself; it sends a message that the recipient country does not wish to associate themselves with the donor country. By trying to use reparations as a loophole, this concept simultaneously criticised the recipient country’s right to choose whether they receive aid or not, and undermines the value of reparations elsewhere as a genuine gesture.
It was not the powerful arguments that are made in Mein Kampf that led to the atrocities of Nazi Germany, mostly because there are none.

The content of the book is not grounds for supressing its publication or use and so, all other things being equal, there should be a presumption in favour of publication. There is an entirely understandable interest in the publication of the book in a country where it is so notorious. It’s important to bear in mind that this is not a bomb making manual and most experts feel that the arguments are weak to the point of absurdity[i] – and the commentary will serve to enforce that point. The content of the book, in and of itself, were not therefore grounds for continued suppression of the text. Generally speaking, it seems a relatively sensible rule of thumb that if there is no direct harm that can be shown as a result of publication and there is sufficient interest to merit doing so then it would normally be published[ii]. By doing so ahead of the end of the copyright, the state will prevent commercial publishers making a profit and this should dampen down the impact of its arrival. It is standard to take such a presumption in favour of publication in many other circumstances, even where some groups may find doing so offensive – the Satanic Verses being a case in point.[iii] There is no doubt that the book also has an iconic significance but that might also be said of Das Kapital and, more explicitly, the works of Lenin and Mao but they remain in print for both scholarly and popular consumption. It seems sensible to treat Mein Kampf as just another book. If this were a recently discovered autobiography by another significant historical figure, it would almost certainly be published - even if it wasn’t very good. [i] Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German edition since WWII. BBC Website. 25 April 2012. [ii] Viewpoint: Let Germans read Mein Kampf. Stephen J Kramer. BBC News. 10 May 2012. [iii] Devji, Faisal, ‘Does Salman Rushdie exist?’, Free Speech Debate, 13 March 2012, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/rushdie-redux/
Banning the book would have simply increased its role as an iconic symbol.

Extreme parties frequently thrive when they are able to present themselves as being suppressed by a supposed elite. Their ability to portray themselves as being unfairly silenced by a capricious elite has long been used to attract support by parties on the far-right in Europe and elsewhere. For example the far right National Democratic Party went to court to get its newsletter delivered by the postal service.[i] Indeed, given the weakness of many of the arguments they make, silencing them has frequently been far more self-defeating than opening up their beliefs to scrutiny[ii]. As long as Mein Kampf remained unavailable it acquired the inevitable allure of the unattainable. The book could be presented as having a status far beyond what it is – the ill thought-out and self-indulgent ramblings of a bad writer. At the moment the book is not, per se, banned, it’s just that the owners of the copyright haven’t allowed publication until now. As a result, come 2016, there would have needed to be an intervention in the normal flow of events to prevent its subsequent publication; Munich’s Institute for Contemporary History had already said it would publish the book.[iii] This would have given the impression that mainstream German society was in some way afraid of the book or its contents and given credence to the suggestions of extremists that there is no effective response to their arguments. By publishing the book in this manner, the state removes both the allure of the hidden icon for devotees and any commercial interest for other publishers. Added to which, those prepared to plough through it (even Mussolini said that it was boring) will at least be rewarded with historical insights from leading scholars. [i] Reuters, ‘German far right in legal battle over free speech’, Yahoo News, 29 June 2012, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/german-far-legal-battle-over-free-speech-161918096.html [ii] Bavaria to publish ‘unattractive’ new edition of Mein Kampf. Tony Paterson. The Independent. 26 April 2012. [iii] Relax News, ‘’Mein Kampf’ to see its first post-WWII publication in Germany’, The Independent, 6 February 2010, http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/mein-kampf-to-see-its-first-postwwii-publication-in-germany-1891347.html
The ban achieved no practical impact in the Internet age as it was not global.

If there were not already easy access to the book through the Internet[i], then it might be possible to argue that there was some practical purpose to be served by continuing its suppression. However, when any disaffected teenager can gain easy access to the text while sitting alone in their bedroom, it seems foolish that it cannot also be examined in the cooler light of their history class. The issue is not access to the text; it’s not even really about ownership of the book – both of which are already possible – but rather about how the book is treated. Not publishing or using the book up until now has simply maintained a situation that was put in place after WWII, which in some ways served a purpose, of saying there was no particular reason for a change at any particular time during that process. However, as the seventieth anniversary of the end of the war comes into view, it seems reasonable that the book should be treated as exactly what it is; an interesting historical artefact, to be examined as one might any other. [i] For example through Project Gutenberg, here.