BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Could retain sovereignty without acquiring new territory

While this is technically the case, and indeed the Seychelles would even maintain some territory, it would not be a viable long term option. While other countries would maintain recognition of a territory-less state for a while would they do so over the long term? The Seychelles government would meanwhile have immense problems exercising any kind of authority. How would a state with no, or very little, territory collect any taxes? Without a functioning government with revenues providing any of the services of a state to its citizens would be impossible. Meanwhile its citizens would likely be scattered and there would be a clash between any services offered by the state they are staying in and a government in exile trying to exercise control.
Moving is an imperative

It is clear that if the Seychelles wishes to remain as a sovereign nation it will have to relocate almost all of its population and it makes sense for this to be in one place so keeping the nation together. The way to do this is through purchasing land and sovereignty from another country that has land to spare. There is clearly little other choice and some of the small island states have already accepted this. Kiribati for example has already bought land from Fiji with the intent of using it as a last resort for its people.[1] [1] Yu, Bobby, ‘The Sinking Nation of Kiribati: The Lonely Stand Against Statelessness And Displacement from Rising Oceans’, The Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 11 January 2013, http://www.ajelp.com/comments/the-sinking-nation-of-kiribati-the-lonely-stand-against-statelessness-and-displacement-from-rising-oceans/
Small size makes for ease

The Seychelles, as with the other nations whose very existence is threatened by climate change, is small. It is twice the size of Washington D.C., so smaller than many cities. As such finding enough land to relocate the country should not be a problem. Several of the states closest to the Seychelles; Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, and Madagascar, have plenty of land that they could give up without any inconvenience to their own state. Kenya, the smallest, is more than 1200 times bigger than Seychelles
Shared sovereignty

If there are no countries willing to cede complete sovereignty over territory then some kind of shared sovereignty could be considered. “This conferred jurisdiction must include rights to become a citizen, migrate, work, access health care, and access social security.”[1]Additionally there would almost certainly need to be sovereignty over justice, law and order. However this would potentially leave large areas of sovereignty in the remit of the host nation; such as providing defense. The most notable compromise by both might be to maintain sovereignty over people rather than just territory. There have been suggestions such as by Krasner that shared sovereignty should be considered, and become much more normal. And some forms of shared sovereignty have happened before such as foreign control over some tax revenues, or the status of forces agreements the USA had with Germany that restricted German ability to make war after WWII.[2] Or more obviously the members of the EU increasingly cede some sovereignty to the international entity. As the deal would be voluntary for both the Seychelles and its host country and both would potentially gain such a deal would seem feasible. [1] Yu, 2013, http://www.ajelp.com/comments/the-sinking-nation-of-kiribati-the-lonely-stand-against-statelessness-and-displacement-from-rising-oceans/ [2] Krasner, Stephen D., ‘The case for shared sovereignty’, Journal of Democracy, vol.16, No.1, January 2005, http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/PPA-730-27/Krasner.pdf, p.77
Other nations have an obligation to help

The President of Vanuatu has noted “If such a tragedy [the disappearance of a state] should happen, then the United Nations and its members will have failed in their first and most basic duty to a Member and its innocent people, as stated in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations.”[1] As long ago as 1992 developed nations accepted “the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command” and that “polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution”.[2] There is also a Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in which article 10 demands that any redrawing of borders must not render a person stateless, the principle behind which would equally apply to a disappearing state.[3] The small island states are losing their countries through no fault of their own it is therefore the responsibility of other states to provide them with alternatives; be this land or the resources to purchase land. [1] McAdam, ‘’Disappearing states’, statelessness and the boundaries of international law’, UNSW Law Research Paper, 2010,  http://ilsa.org/jessup/jessup13/Disapearing%20States,%20Jane%20McAdam.pdf, p.4 [2] The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, unep.org, 14 June 1992, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163 [3] United Nations, ‘Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness’, unhcr.org, 1961, http://www.unhcr.org/3bbb286d8.html
Other states would not want to waste resources on a refugee state

The Seychelles are not a particularly rich place. Their main industries are tourism and tuna fishing accounting for 32% of employment,[1] both of which are unfortunately entirely dependent upon the territory of the islands themselves and cannot be moved. The result is that the Seychelles have little to offer those states that might consider giving up territory. The country will therefore have difficulty rebuilding its economy and would likely be a drain upon its host making countries unwilling to take on the commitment. [1] The World Bank, ‘Seychelles Overview’, October 2013, http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/seychelles/overview
New countries forged by those fleeing disaster

There have been very few countries that have been created in circumstances that are at all similar to that which would happen when island nations are forced to abandon their homeland. The closest parallel is Israel when Jews arrived en mass first because they were promised the land after WWI, when it is notable that they purchased the land they occupied,[1] and then after the disaster of the Holocaust. The Palestinians have not been happy about the loss of territory. Indeed there have been few examples in history of peoples’ willingly giving up land to a new arrival whether it is due to colonialism or migration. The result, especially if sovereignty is involved, is usually conflict.   [1] Pipes, Daniel, ‘Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel’, National Review Online, 21 June 2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270064/not-stealing-palestine-purchasing-israel-daniel-pipes
Could retain sovereignty without acquiring new territory

While it is normal for states to have exclusive sovereign control over territory this has not always happened in the past. There have been governments in exile that have remained recognised as a result of wars or revolutions. Most notable perhaps was during world war II where there were governments in exile as a result of invasions by Germany and Japan.  For example Philippine President Quezon set up The Commonwealth government in exile in Washington D.C. which remained the recognised government by the allies and therefore much of the world.[1] A state therefore does not have to have control over a populated territory to maintain a sovereign government and for the world to recognise it as such.[2] Having a population on the territory over which the state has sovereignty matters little; migrants don’t always change citizenship when they move to live in another country. Indeed 56.9% of Samoans live outside their own territory.[3] [1] Jose, Ricardo, T., ‘Governments in Exile’, University of the Philippines, http://www.smc.org.ph/administrator/uploads/apmj_pdf/APMJ1999N1-2ART8.pdf, p.182 [2] Yu, 2013, http://www.ajelp.com/comments/the-sinking-nation-of-kiribati-the-lonely-stand-against-statelessness-and-displacement-from-rising-oceans/ [3] McAdam, 2010, http://ilsa.org/jessup/jessup13/Disapearing%20States,%20Jane%20McAdam.pdf, p.8
Bullfighting is too dangerous to humans to justify

Many cultural and sporting events involve serious risks. Football, American football, rugby, boxing, acrobatics, and many other cultural and sporting events involve serious, inherent risks to humans. But, they are not banned. Bullfighting should not, therefore, be alienated for the risks that it entails. Also, the risks of bullfighting bring out courage and bravery. If there were no risks, there could be no bravery in bullfighting. The matador wants to take these risks so that he can demonstrate his courage, and the fans honor that ultimate risk-taking. These risks should not be shunned, but celebrated, just as they often are in other cultural and sporting events.
Bullfighting is an art-form and an important cultural tradition

Many traditions have been defended for their cultural, traditional value. Stoning women for immodesty is one of them. Such tradition-for-tradition's-sake arguments do not actually prove anything, as cultures are constantly evolving and changing -the ban on bullfights can be just one more such change.(11) The bullfighting tradition is based on cruelty to bulls, and so simply being 'old' and 'traditional' is not enough of a justification. Cruelty is cruelty no matter where in the world it happens. Our understanding of animals has improved a great deal in recent times. There is no place in the 21st century for a ‘sport’ which relies on animal cruelty for ‘entertainment’. Moreover, people need not see a bull die in order to understand death. Video, pictures, books, and news reports all make it possible for individuals to learn about and understand death. It's occurring around us naturally all the time. It is completely unnecessary, therefore, to artificially produce death in the bullfighting arena in order to create an appreciation of the cycle of life and death, etc. Nature watching is also a good alternative. Or even hunting or fishing, in which an individual generally attempts to quickly and decently kill an animal that they will then eat. Torturing a bull for entertainment is unnecessary when compared to these outlets for understanding life and death. Furthermore, majorities in bullfighting states oppose it as well. Recent polls have shown that in Spain 67% are not interested in bullfighting, and in France, 69% of people oppose public funding for bullfighting.(3)
Bullfighting is no more harmful than the alternatives for bulls and cows

There is nothing noble or poetic about the death of a bull in a bullring. The bulls in a standard bullfight are drugged and confused animals, debilitated and run in circles by others who stab them with spears before the matador approaches to make the "kill shot" with his sword. Anyone who believes this fight to be fair is mistaken. By the time a matador approaches to actually kill the bull, the animal typically has enough spears in his neck and back muscles to prevent him from fully lifting his head.(7) By contrast, most nations have laws regulating slaughterhouses to ensure that animals killed for meat endure as little pain as possible. The animal is unaware of 'dignity' or 'poetry', but rather only knows its suffering, and consequently this all that the state should take into consideration, with the logical conclusion being to ban bullfighting to protect the animal.
Bullfighting is economically important for some regions

Tourists will visit Spain and other bullfighting countries regardless of whether or not bullfighting exists, and as people become more ethically aware and act accordingly while on holiday, tourist attendance at the shows looks set to fall even further. Indeed, a poll commissioned in April 2007 found that 89% of the British public would not visit a bullfight when on a holiday.(11)(3) Therefore the loss of tourist income will be minimal, as bullfighting does not even appeal to most tourists. Those profits which do ensue from bullfighting generally end up in the hands of a small bullfighting elite, not the general population. Moreover, almost everywhere bullfighting requires significant government subsidies to function. The subsidies that prop up this declining industry take money away from serious social problems such as access to public health, education, infrastructures, the elderly, public safety, social housing and environmental policies.(11)
Bullfighting is a form of animal torture

Bullfighting constitutes animal torture because it is exactly the suffering of the animal from which the entertainment of the crowd is drawn, and the level of suffering inflicted is on the level of that caused by torture. Jeremy Bentham argued that "Cock-fights and bull-fights, the chase of the hare and the fox, fishing, and other amusements of the same kind, necessarily suppose a want of reflection or a want of humanity; since these sports inflict upon sensitive beings the most lively sufferings, and the most lingering and painful death that can be imagined."(1) The want of humanity even in modern bullfighting is shown by the sadistic cruelties inflicted on the bulls: According to anti-bullfight veterinarian José Zaldívar, in the great majority of cases, the matador missed the vital spot that would cause the bull to die quickly. "These provoke internal bleeding. It is a slow, agonising death – as the high acidity of their blood proves."(2) At the end of the fight, the bull may not be yet dead while his body parts are cut-off to be kept as trophies. Spanish bull breeders receive EU agricultural subsidies, meaning that, in the EU, taxpayers' money from all countries (not just those with legal bullfighting) goes to support this terrible industry.(3) Also, in order to reduce the risk to the matador, sometimes the bull’s horns are shaved. This can inflict some pain on the bull and can also make it more sensitive to other forms of pain during the fight.(3) Moreover, bulls are not the only creatures to suffer in bullrings. The tormented bull does not understand that it is the man on the horse's back that is causing his pain, only that he is in agony. He therefore sees the horse as his enemy as much as the man. It's not unusual for horses used in bullfights to be so badly gored by the bulls that they have to be killed, but only after they have been dragged from the ring and the view of the spectators.(4) All this suffering makes bullfighting as unacceptable as the many other kinds of animal cruelty which most countries ban, such as cockfighting, dogfighting or any other form of grievous harm inflicted on an animal for 'entertainment' purposes.(2) We have these laws because governments have generally acknowledged the truth of Bentham's words: "It doesn't matter if they can reason; it doesn't matter if they can speak; what does matter is if they can SUFFER."(5) All nations need to follow through on this principle by making bullfighting illegal, just like any other form of animal torture.
Harming animals for entertainment is immoral

If a creature suffers then there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. All animals are sentient beings that experience joy, happiness, fear and pain, in the same way that human beings do. As Bentham previously noted, it does not matter that they cannot express this suffering in the same way as humans can (by speaking about it) or reason about their suffering in the same way -the important thing is that they can suffer in the first place. We can have no right whatsoever to make them suffer for our 'enjoyment'. If any torture inflicted to an animal deserves condemnation, bullfights are the worst kind of torture since they are performed solely in the name of entertainment. We must end the animals' torture and stop these shows of brutality and violence. It is too small a step from the intentional infliction of pain on an animal to the torture and killing of human beings.(5) Bullfights perpetuate the idea that injuring and killing an animal for amusement is acceptable, and that is not an idea which any state with any concern for animals, or for its human citizens, should wish to be prevalent. Part of the 'attraction' of bullfighting for crowds is witnessing death. Advocates of the practice make this into an argument for the practice. But, a desire to see death in front of one's own eye's amounts to bloodlust. Why should humans be accommodated in such a morbid pursuit?  Eric Gallego, an animal rights protester, said in 2010: “Bullfighting is a bloody entertainment. We must stop this cruelty because we don’t want to be a barbaric society in Europe.”(6) This argument applies just as much to any other country in the world: why would we want to encourage people to enjoy pain and suffering, as we have laws which make causing pain and suffering illegal (both for humans and animals) in almost every other context? Bullfighting is therefore immoral, and encourages cruel and immoral behaviour in other areas, and so it should be banned.
Bullfighting is too dangerous to humans to justify

Many matadors are gored each year. In 2010, famed matador Julio Aparicio was gored in the throat by a bull during the Festival of Saint Isidro. The bulls horn went through his neck and throat and up through his mouth. Such gruesome scenes, and the risks that matadors must take with their lives, have no place in a modern society.(7) The culture and audience pressure of bullfighting actually increase the danger for matadors. The bullfighters perceived and praised as 'the best' are the ones that come closest to the bull, letting its horns pass inches by the fighter’s side, etc. The greater the risk for the bullfighter, the greater the reward from the crowd. The bullfighter is not trying to stay as far away as possible in order to make a riskless kill; they are trying to demonstrate their courage and bravery in the face of potentially fatal risks.(8) In Spain and most other countries with bullfighting, the horns of bulls are not shaved, but rather kept sharp, increasing the danger for the matador.(8) The state bans many other kinds of activities on the grounds that they are harmful to the participants: taking narcotics is illegal, driving without a seatbelt is illegal, and in many countries even legal guns are required to be fitted with safety devices to protect the user. This is yet another instance where, if the state did not step in, individuals would enter into certain activities which would be harmful to them. The need for the state is especially keen here due to the pressure to take risks put on matadors and others by the audience and the bullfighting community, which may lead many of them to take risks, and suffer injuries, they otherwise would not, for fear of losing 'face'. Bullfighting is just too dangerous to humans to allow, and so the state should step in and ban bullfighting to protect all those involved.
Bullfighting is no more harmful than the alternatives for bulls and cows

Robert Elms argued in 2010 that "Those who see bullfighting as cruel are, of course, right. It is cruel that man should breed and kill animals for his enjoyment whether as a dinner or a dance. But to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beefburgers."(10) Moreover, Bulls are celebrated and honored in bullfighting. In most bullfighting countries, bulls are honored as mystical creatures of immense strength and beauty. Statues of bulls regularly stand outside of bullfighting stadiums, and depict the animals in the most majestic, strong, and beautiful way possible. These statues frequently standalone without an accompanying matador in the depiction.(8) This respect and appreciation of the bull is a demonstration of the decency with which the art form treats the animal.  All members of the bullfighting community, fighters and crowds alike, prize quick and relatively painless kills. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8) Therefore there is no compelling moral reason to ban bullfighting, as in many ways it is either no worse or even superior to the other roles assigned to cows and bulls in Western cultures. If anything, the end result (death for human enjoyment) is the same if the animal is eaten or dies in a bullring, but at least in a bullfight the cultural value and artistic expression gives the creature's life and death a poetry and nobility which it will never have in a mechanical slaughterhouse or a butcher's shop.
Bullfighting is economically important for some regions

"The ban will be economically disastrous for Catalonia, and not just because of direct losses," the head of Spanish bullfighting lobby group Mesa del Toro, Eduardo Martin Penato, told the online edition of daily newspaper Publico in January of 2010. Following the ban in Catalonia, sector representatives could demand as much as 400 million euros in damages in courts to compensate for losses caused by the ban, including to hotels, restaurants and other establishments.(12) A conservative lawmaker in the Catalan parliament noted that this "is enough to build six hospitals, 100 schools or fight against unemployment." Top Spanish matador El Juli said about the Catalonia ban that it "would cause big losses for an important economic sector, which provides a livelihood for many families." The bullfighting sector directly employs about 40,000 people in Spain, according to some sector estimates. International accounting network BDO has also estimated that bullfighting generates about 2.5 billion euros a year for the Spanish economy, drawing 14 million spectators last year.(12) This sort of economic harm would be mirrored across bullfighting nations, as they would also lose out on tourist revenue which brings in vital foreign capital. These benefits to the economies of these (often poor) regions far outweigh any harms to the bulls.
Bullfighting is a form of animal torture

Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8) It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.