BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Arts pay their way in film, heritage and design industries

The major film, theatrical, dance and other artistic ventures of any nation provide an enormous benefit in terms of reasons to visit as country, or travel within one. Going to the theatre, for example, has knock on benefits for the catering, transport, and retail sectors as well as crating employment in its own right for many who never went anywhere near a degree in the Arts[i]. For many nations one or two key sectors of the arts are massive revenue generators – especially film, television and music. Theatres and galleries have considerably more pulling power than heavy industry or high finance for tourists[ii] – and Prop has been very quiet on the subject of architecture, without which the bankers and financiers they so admire would be homeless. The arts may not square up to banking in terms of the amount of money earned for the economy but they also have much less of a record of damaging the rest of the economy through sparking crises. Even just focussing on the finances of the sector, the Arts justify their presence not only through their own revenue but also through those other sectors that benefit as a result but pay nothing towards their development[iii]. [i] Lord, Clayton, ‘The Value of Arts is Not Going to be Found in Economics’, New Beans, 19 May 2011. http://www.artsjournal.com/newbeans/2011/05/the-value-of-arts-is-not-going-to-be-found-in-economics.html [ii] The National Campaign for the Arts. Theatre: Contribution to the Economy. 2010. http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/index.php?option=com_quickfaq&view=items&cid=13:contribution-to-the-economy&id=76:theatre-contribution-to-the-economy&Itemid=152 [iii] National Endowment for the Arts. ‘Art and GDP.’, http://www.nea.gov/research/notes/104.pdf
Rounds of sanctions and engagement does not bring a solution any closer

The United States has its own interests in the North Korean question, not only does it have troops in South Korea and security guarantees to maintain with its ally but it is also concerned by nuclear proliferation. If there is a chance to get rid of North Korean nuclear weapons through negotiations, or even a peace treaty should the USA not take that when it is in the US national interest?[1] [1] DiFilippo, Anthony, ‘Time for North Korea Peace Treaty’, The Diplomat, 11 April 2012, http://thediplomat.com/2012/04/11/time-for-north-korea-peace-treaty/3/
North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers

North Korea is not an irrational regime, and is certainly not going to use its missiles to hit one of its neighbouring great powers. North Korea has shown time and time again that its number one objective is regime survival[1] and its provocations are one method it uses to try and ensure such survival through getting concessions and building deterrence against any possible pre-emptive attack either by the South or the United States.[2] North Korea will therefore never invite such retaliation from the surrounding great powers. All provocations it takes are just to the extent that it thinks it can get away with them. It is notable that since South Korea altered its stance from ‘controlled response’ to ‘manifold retaliation’ in the wake of the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island[3] the provocations from North Korea have been much less provocative i.e. missile testing rather than military actions. [1] Lankov, Andrei, ‘Weep Not for Kim Jong Il’, Foreign Policy, 23 December 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/23/weep_not_for_kim_jong_il [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012, http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dossier/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/ [3] Mc Devitt, Michael, ‘Deterring North Korean Provocations’, Brookings, February 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/02/north-korea-mcdevitt
Ignoring North Korea wont resolve the situation

So far engagement has done little to resolve the situation in North Korea either; the regime is practically immune to pressure from those states that are willing to pressurise it. There are occasional hopes that China will put more pressure on North Korea but so far these have proven to be false hopes, and indeed China is investing heavily in North Korea, for example creating a port at Rason to serve Manchuria.[1] When the Korean question is resolved it will be through the collapse of the regime, something that is as likely to come about through ignoring it as engaging with it. [1] Bloomberg News, ‘North Korea Investment Zone Promoted to Chinese as Next Shenzhen’, Bloomberg, 13 September 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/north-korea-investment-zone-promoted-to-chinese-as-next-shenzhen.html
South Korea can handle the situation itself

The two Koreas should be able to solve the situation themselves without recourse to all the neighbouring powers – whose interest does not seem to have spurred a solution to the frozen conflict anyway. With the Cold War over South Korea is more than capable of handling its own security. South Korea is economically far ahead of the North with its economy thirty seven times bigger.[1] Its military is also more capable than the North’s as the International Institute for Strategic Studies argues “As measured by static equipment indices, South Korea’s conventional forces would appear superior to North Korea’s. When morale, training, equipment maintenance, logistics, and reconnaissance and communications capabilities are factored in, this qualitative advantage increases.”[2] So should be able to deter aggression on its own and pull its own weight in negotiations without the need of a multilateral process. Moreover no one would argue that an invasion should be ignored however the South should be the one who responds to North Korean actions on its own. [1] Oh Young-Jin, ‘South Korean economy 37 times bigger than NK’s’, The Korea Times, 5 January 2011, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2011/01/123_79235.html [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012, http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dossier/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/
Providing attention simply encourages the regime

North Korea has an attention seeking cycle on the go that was used by Kim Jong Il and now seems to be used by his son Kim Jong Un. Essentially North Korea takes a provocative action (as big or small as it thinks necessary – this may be a missile launch, right up to some kind of military attack) in order to grab the world’s attention. There is then a period where there are condemnations and threats to increase sanctions that usually don’t get anywhere as they are blocked by China. The North Korean regime will then proclaim a willingness to do business and negotiate giving minor concessions on the issue of the provocation in return for aid or whatever the regime happens to want at the time. Of course whatever concession it gives is easily reversible so setting up another round.[1] This is a good deal for North Korea as it essentially gets aid in return for bad behaviour, it is therefore not surprising that the North is willing to continue engaging in bad behaviour. [1] Hong, Adrian, ‘How to Free North Korea’, Foreign Policy, 19 December 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/19/how_to_free_north_korea
Rounds of sanctions and engagement does not bring a solution any closer

The responses to North Korean provocations do not bring a solution any closer. North Korea has yet to sign a peace treaty with the South and the United States. It is however particularly interested in signing a treaty with the United States rather than the South. In 2010 the North Korean foreign ministry proposed that "If confidence is to be built between [North Korea] and the US, it is essential to conclude a peace treaty for terminating the state of war, a root cause of the hostile relations, to begin with".[1] The North wants a peace treaty with the US so as to drive a wedge between the USA and South Korea to prevent US support for the South in the event of war.[2] Ignoring such efforts at negotiating with the USA without South Korea in the room, and indeed all advances and provocations would force the North to accept that it has to negotiate with the south or with no one. Ignoring North Korean actions and reducing the number of allies negotiating while maintaining security guarantees prevents any chance of the North dividing the USA and South Korea. [1] Walker, Peter, ‘North Korea calls for peace treaty with US’, guardian.co.uk, 11 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/11/north-korea-peace-treaty-us-nuclear-talks [2] Cheon, Seongwhun, ‘Negotiating with South Korea and the I.S.: North Korea’s Strategy and Objectives’, International Journal for Korean Studies, Vol XVI No 1, Spring 2012,  http://www.icks.org/publication/pdf/2012-SPRING-SUMMER/7.pdf p.153
North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers

North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct "any launch using ballistic missile technology" and urges it to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme"”[1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms. It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases.[2] [1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20690762 [2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17399847
North Korea is an unresolved conflict it can’t simply be ignored

Even if the provocations are sometimes relatively small and ineffective, such as the failed missile launch in April 2012, as a conflict zone they cant simply be ignored by anyone even if they themselves are unlikely to be drawn into any potential conflict. After Rwanda the United Nations promised never again would it allow genocide;[1] how much worse would it be to ignore something that could be a spark to a conflict that could cost millions of lives when we already know there is the potential. The United Nations was created “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace… to bring about … settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”[2] therefore all nations should be attempting to resolve this frozen conflict that could so easily become a shooting war. Wars in Korea have in the past drawn in all the surrounding powers; the Imjin war involved China and Japan, China and Japan again fought over Korea in 1894-5, and the Korean War 1950-53 brought in both the USA and China while Russia and Japan were both involved as supply bases. Clearly the possibility of conflict is not something any power with a stake in Northeast Asia can simply ignore. It is essential that there is a reaction to every incident just in case that is the incident that spins out of control. [1] Power, Samantha, ‘Remember the Blood Frenzy of Rwanda’, Los Angeles Times, 4 April 2004, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/pdf/RememberBloodyFrenzyRwanda.pdf [2] ‘Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are:’, United Nations, 26 June 1945, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
Ignoring North Korea wont resolve the situation

While the great powers can try to keep on with business as usual how will this be helpful? The situation is unstable and needs to be resolved which is something that ignoring the North will not do. Commentators thought that the North would collapse as a result of the withdrawal of support that was given by the USSR in the early 1990s but it did not happen. The regime will likely be able to hang on in the status quo situation pretty much indefinitely. There is also no reason to believe that the provocations may not become bigger should smaller provocations be ignored. While North Korea can attract the world’s attention with a missile test launch it is likely to keep doing such small and relatively harmless actions. Should such actions fail the regime may resort to bigger incidents such as the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010 which resulted in 46 deaths which may have been an attempt at coercive diplomacy against a regime that was unwilling to engage in negotiations.[1] [1] Cha, Victor, ‘The Sinking of the Cheonan’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, 22 April 2010, http://csis.org/publication/sinking-cheonan
Gender roles.

These kids won't be completely deprived of models from the opposite sex to their parents'. They will still have contact with grandparents, teachers, friends, etc. But even if they didn't, why would the opposition just assume that gender roles are a valuable thing to learn? Why would we want to teach children to act and think differently based on being a boy or a girl? Parents should help them develop as individuals, based on their own interests and propensities. improve this
The government's interest in protecting traditional families.

These studies often confuse correlation and causation. The reason why children do best in these unions is not because there is some type of magical component to traditional marriage. It is the quality of the relationship not the form of it that benefits children. The government should encourage people to be stable, committed, loving parents, regardless of their marital status or gender. The stability of a relationship is what causes children to thrive, and it is merely usually correlated to heterosexual marriage, not produced by it. Also, there are more children up for adoption than there are opposite-sex couples willing to adopt, in this sort of a world it is clearly better for children to get out of the foster care system and into a loving home. Gay parents have also faced more discrimination and exclusion than most straight parents, which makes them especially able to help children who feel unwanted or out of place in the world.
The welfare of the adopted child as the primary concern of the state.

Even if it were true, that the ideal environment for a child is a mother and father, which studies show it isn't, that still wouldn't justify a flat-out ban. Most governments still allow single people to apply for adoption, and even single gay people1. That is because there won't be an 'ideal' family available for every child who needs a home. So other options should be considered. After all, a child is better off with 'non-ideal' parents than with no parents at all. With adoptions, there is generally great demand for babies and toddlers, but older children are generally unwanted2 and end up in foster care until they're 18. Proposition fails to tell us what studies they are referring to which does leave the question open whether these studies have taken into account other factors such as whether or not the biological parents were drug users. The heritage left by the biological parents needs to be remembered.  1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011) 2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States,(accessed 2nd August 2011)   improve this
Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households.

There are still many ways for gay people to become parents. Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and then raise the child with a gay partner. In effect, what this law does is make it impossible for two gay people to have legal rights over a child they may already be raising together. These kids deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. If being raised by gay parents is really that harmful, why would the law allow two gay people to raise a child together as parents but refuse to legally recognize them as such? improve this
There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.

The overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society. 1 Carey, Benedict. "Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue". New York Times. 29 January 2005. (accessed 2 August 2011). 2 Wikipeida. "LGBT adoption status around the world".(accessed 2 August 2011). 3 Foster Care 1999 Statistics. Adoption.com .(accessed 2 August 2011).
Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.

Discrimination is the practice of treating people differently based not on individual merit but on their membership to a certain group. The adoption bans are a clear example. Rather than assessing gay couples individually, it is simply assumed that they would all make bad parents because they are gay, while straight couples are assessed based on their individual merit. This breaches the fundamental right of all people to be treated equally under the law and it should be stopped. This principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; article 1 "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."1 And also many other national and regional legal texts (e.g. The US Constitution,2 The European Convention on Human Rights). 1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011) 2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States,(accessed 2nd August 2011)
Gay people have the right to a family life.

Getting married and raising a family is considered in most societies one of the most important and fulfilling experiences one can aspire to. It is so important it is considered a human right (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."1) It is considered so important for people to be able to become parents that some governments (the UK, for example) fund fertility treatments for couples who are reproductively challenged, and a majority of the population supports that policy2. But members of the LGBT community are stopped from pursuing this human right by repressive and discriminatory laws. 1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950,( accessed 2nd August 2011) 2 Schwartz, John. "Florida Court Calls Ban on Gay Adoption Unlawful". New York Times. 22 September 2010.(accessed 2 August 2011).
Gender roles.

Children raised by gay couples will find it more difficult to learn appropriate gender roles in the absence of male and female role-models. Although not an exact match single parents provide a similar case where there has not been someone of the other gender as a role model. Although the evidence is not nearly as conclusive as is often claimed1 there have been many studies that have shown that two parents from different genders is beneficial to the child in its development2. Similarly it is often claimed that boys develop negative attitudes to study because there are very few male teachers in primary schools3. 1 Flood, Michael, Fatherhood and fatherlessness, The Australia institute, Discussion Paper Number 59, (November 2003), p.xi ,(accessed 2nd August 2011) 2 Sarkadi, Anna et al., 'Father's involvemen and children's developmental outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal studies, ActaPaediatrica, 97 (2008) pp.153-158, p.155 (accessed 2nd August 2011) 3 Gerver, Richard, 'Lack of male role models a primary concern', The Telegraph, 22nd March 2009, (accessed 2nd August 2011) improve this
The government's interest in protecting traditional families.

Numerous studies have shown that children do best when they are raised by two married, biological parents1. In the case of adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best environment to raise children, the government has to encourage and promote these traditional unions, not undermine them. Allowing gay couples to legally become parents, would legally and socially redefine what a family is and society as a whole may suffer. Children who are adopted already face bullying and exclusion in school because of their difference, placing them in same-sex households will double their exclusion and make their lives much harder than if placed in an opposite-sex household.  1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)
The welfare of the adopted child as the primary concern of the state.

The focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child, not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. Being raised in a traditional family, by a mother and father, is the best environment for a child. Studies have shown that children who are raised by homosexual couples can have problems with substance abuse, violence and 'at risk' behaviour. Therefore the state has the obligation to try to provide the child with that environment.
There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.

The scientific debate is not as settled as proponents of gay rights claim. The studies, while positive in their conclusions, have generally been based on very small samples, not more than a dozen families. Some experts claim that there is also a volunteer bias, with the subjects of these studies usually supportive of the gay rights agenda and therefore keen on reporting positive results. Lastly, the researchers themselves can be biased and willing to find evidence to back a political agenda1. 1 Parke, Mary. "Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?".Center for Law And Social Policy. May 2003. (accessed 2 August 2011). improve this
Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.

States place many restrictions on adoptions. China, for example, does not permit adoptions by couples who are too old, have disabilities or are obese1. It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with being overweight, old, or disabled. But the Chinese authorities are trying to decrease the likelihood of the adopted child losing a parent before the age of 18, which for these kids can be especially traumatic. If the parents being gay can be shown to be inherently harmful or less desirable for a child than straight parents, then such a ban would not constitute discrimination. It would be a decision based on a relevant and valid criterion. 1 Belkin, Lisa. "An End to Gay-Adoption Bans?". New York Times. 28 July 2010.(accessed 2 August 2011) improve this