BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spain's discovery and control of Malvinas was recognized in treaties

Embassy of Argentina in Australia - "For most of the 16th century only navigators in the service of Spain travelled the maritime routes along the South American coast, advancing southwards in their search for an inter-oceanic passage. In this process the Malvinas Islands were discovered by members of Magellan’s expedition of 1520. From that moment on they were recorded on European maps under a variety of names and remained under effective control of the Spanish authorities."
The issue has no real effect over Argentine-British relations in other areas

There has never been or is there likely to be any sanctions imposed against the British by Argentina, let alone South America. Trade between the two nations is like any other outside the EU as is travel, sporting competitions and immigration issues. The British Bank HSBC has a tower in close and clear view of the Plaza de Mayo and Casa Posada government house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plaza_de_Mayo_0022.jpg The fact that anyone would think this issue effects any relations in any capacity with the other Latin American nations to Britain’s regret is completely without evidence and proves the sheer magnitude of the ignorance and arrogance of these people.
Spain had purchased the Islands from France in 1767.

France was the first country to establish a settlement on the Islands. By international law, mere sightings of new territories are considered insufficient to establish legal claim to them. On the basis of the Treaty of Utrecht, signed in 1713, England and France formally agreed to Spanish sovereignty over its traditional territories in the Americas, including the Islands, Spain had objected. France, Spain's ally, was willing to negotiate and sold Port Louis to Spain in 1767.
Relations with Argentina are not important to Britain.

Britain already has a working relationship with Argentina. In 2001, Tony Blair became the first British prime minister to visit Argentina since the 1982 conflict. The agreements made with the Menem government show the potential for peaceful cooperation without returning the islands. Kirchner’s sabre-rattling will probably decline after the presidential election in 2007. In any case, direct relations with Argentina are of little strategic or economic importance to Britain, except where they affect the Falkland Islands. Trade policy is handled on both sides at a supra-national level, through the EU and Mercosur respectively. The Falkland Islands are simply not like other examples of decolonisation. Elsewhere Britain has given independence to the indigenous peoples of its former colonial possessions, responding to their desire for self-determination. The Falklands have no indigenous population – their inhabitants regard themselves as British in identity and have no desire to be ruled by Argentina.
Britain never renounced it's claim the Nookta Sound treaty supported the 1771 agreement

. Also Argentine did renounce it's claim by failing to protest for two lengthy periods and by an all encompassing treaty between the two nations. After 1833 the Buenos Aires province under governor Rosas protested to the British until 1850. In 1850 Britain and Argentina signed the Convention of Settlement Treaty which settled All differences and created Perfect relations between the two nations and the islands remained in British control. There were no further protests from Argentina until they completed their annexation of Patagonia. The then Argentine goverment under President Celman tried their luck by protesting in 1888 and offering to take the matter to arbitration. However Britain refused, in view of the 1850 treaty and considered the matter was closed. The Argentine goverment did not continue the protest to Britain and there was not another protest to the British until 1941. In the 90 whole years of non-protest between 1850 and 1941, there were several adminstrative acts on the islands including the formation of a government and immigration without any interference from Argentina. Failure to protest is a form of acceptance.
Nootka Sound Convention does not apply to UK in Falklands.

It is debatable that it applies to the Falklands. It refers to adjacent islands. The Falklands at 300 nautical miles from Argentina are not adjacent to Argentina. Second, it was suspended in 1795 due to war between the two countries. It may or may not have been renewed in 1814 after the war. Third, it's a reciprocal treaty. Both countries, Spain as well as Great Britain (the respective subjects), were forbidden to form establishments on the coasts mentioned. Spain, by forming settlements late 18th -early 19th century in what is now San Clemente del Tuyú (directly south of the Banda Oriental -now Uruguay), was in breach of the Convention. See the argument page for an extension of this argument.
The Nookta Sound convention did not affect Britains rights to the islands as they already had an agreement with Spain where both nations rights were secured in 1771

. On the contrary, when Argentina interfered this allowed Britain to intervene as they were a third party, and had no right to be there. In any case a treaty can only be cancelled by mutual agreement and it is only up to the parties involved to protest if they feel it has been breached. This has nothing to do with Argentina.
Argentina's historical and territorial/geographical claims to the islands are spurious.

Argentina has only ever achieved effective control of the islands, as invaders, for 2 months in 1832 and 2 months in 1982. On each occassion they were ejected by the rightful owners. There has never been a population of 'Argentines' on the islands, nor was there any indigineous indians there before the British claimed the islands in 1765. The islanders are therefore the rightful people of the islands and their rights of self determination are fully protected under the UN Charters and Resolutions.
Britain has peacefully controlled the Falklands for two centuries.

Spain had control over Puerto Soledad between 1767 and 1811 and never ventured outside of that restricted area as deemed by the agreement of 1771. After 1811, Spain never returned and effectively abandoned its claim. The British claim runs from 1765 and has never been abandoned, having been continued, in the absence of a garrison, by whaling and sealing ventures. Having peacefully controlled the Falkland islands for nearly two-hundred years now (since 1833), Britain has upheld the doctrine of prescription, which states that sovereignty of a territory can be established by peaceful occupation over a period of time.[2]
Brits now dominate the Malvinas; self-determination cannot apply

Argentina does not recognize the right to self-determination of the inhabitants of the Malvinas/Falklands, citing that they are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833. In other words, Britain illegitimately settled the Falklands and now is trying to give these settlers the right to determine their future, which would obviously favor keeping the Malvinas under the British flag. It is illegitimate, therefore, to use "self-determination" to settle this dispute. Argentina's historical and territorial/geographical claims to the islands are paramount.
Argentina's historical claim to the Falklands is too outdated.

Nations often can claim that they, or their ancestors, once controlled a territory. But, if all of these claims were recognized, the world's boundaries would be in turmoil, as many separate peoples would have a legitimate claim to some territory. To get around this problem, we must give precedent to more modern and contemporary historical claims. Since Britain has controlled the Falklands for nearly two-hundred years, its claim takes precedence. Moreover the arguement is backed by the unanimous support of the islanders themselves claiming to be British citizens.
Argentina can claim Malvinas and uphold the way of life of inhabitants.

Embassy of Argentina in Australia - "The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich and the corresponding maritime and island spaces, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and in accordance with the principles of International Law, are a permanent and irrenounceable objective of the Argentine people."
Returning the Falkland Islands would be an insult to dead soldiers.

6. If Britain returned the islands, it would be a profound insult to the soldiers who fought and died to liberate them in 1982. The campaign was honourably fought in defence of the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to determine their own future. It was fought against a military dictatorship which used the campaign in a cynical attempt to divert domestic attention away from its oppressive, corrupt and incompetent rule. One of the positive consequences of British victory was that the military junta fell from power and Argentina became democratic. So Britain, Argentina and the Falkland islanders all have cause to celebrate the outcome of the 1982-83 war.
British occupation of Malvinas Islands perpetuates colonialism

Britain's control over the Falkland islands, a group of islands thousands of miles away, appears colonial in nature. This is bad for Britain's image and its post-war policy of decolonisation, which has seen it withdraw from almost every other colonial possession since 1945. Not only has Britain withdrawn from India, Africa, Malaysia and much of the Caribbean, it has also handed back Hong Kong to China – surely a similar case to that of the Falkland islands and Argentina.
The 1820-1825 Jewett/treaty story is a fallacy

. The British had no reason to believe Argentina had inherited the islands in 1816 as there was no BsAs authority on the islands at the time of independence. The claim Argentina took possession of the Islands in 1820 with the arrival of the American Privateer David Jewett is also a falsehood. There is no evidence of the Argentine government giving Jewett orders to take possession of those Islands, so it obviously couldn’t be taken as so by anyone present on the islands. When Jewett returned he wrote a report mentioning nothing of the claim. Also the then BsAs government made no public announcement of the ‘taking of possession’, so there could be no reaction. When the UK signed that treaty in 1825, there was nobody from Argentina on those islands, so there was no authority to recognise. The treaty made no reference to the extent of the BsAs controlled territory let alone mentions the islands. http://www.wildisland.gs/atlantis/gettingitright.pdf
The Argentine government conquered land from the native peoples in South America years after the British re-establishment, prompting hypocrisy

The fact these people who are mostly white are accusing anyone of stealing land would make a horse laugh. BsAs control grew from the province of BsAs in 1810 to a nation the size of India in 80 years, annexing much land from the native peoples in particular Patagonia. They themselves mounted a campaign of implanting populations in Patagonia during the 1850-1888 period to seize control of land that was left by the Spanish and South American governments for the natives without their consultation. These implanted people, many ironically of British decent (Welsh) are perfectly entitled to Self-Determination according to the Argentine government.
Falkland Islanders have a right to self-determination

Dr. Lyubomir Ivanov. "The Future Of The Falkland Islands And Its People". Feb. 2003 - "The Falklanders are a nation same like the Scots, the Welsh or the English -- or the people of Tokelau for that matter. Moreover, their right to self-determination has already been officially and formally recognized and guaranteed by the British Government through the process of enacting the 1985 Falklands Constitution. This act of transfer of prerogatives from London to Stanley entails that any future decisions regarding the sovereignty of the Islands would be up to the Falklanders alone to make, and this is irreversible. Once recognized/granted, the self-determination cannot be taken away."
Argentina’s allegations are unproven in an international tribunal

Unless Argentina's allegations are proven in an international Court the Islanders cannot be subject to any sanctions of any kind regardless. Argentina has deliberately avoided taking the matter to the International Court of Justice, attempting to use the 'veto' excuse. This of course is nonsense, as it never stopped Cameroon taking Britain to the ICJ in 1971 and the USA and USSR taking each other. Argentina recently took Uruguay to the ICJ.
Spain vacated her settlement in 1811.

Any argument against Britain allegedly abandoning its claim to the Falklands is negated by the fact that Spain abandoned its settlements in the Malvinas in 1811. If both abandoned there claims for some period of time, neither can use the other's abandonment of the islands as evidence for their side. If Spain was the only one to abandon its claim to the Falklands, Britain can use this argument in its favor.
The vast majority of Falkland Islanders want to remain British.

The wishes of the current inhabitants of the islands should be paramount. The islanders overwhelmingly consider themselves British and do not want to be ruled by Argentina. In an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances. Their right of self-determination should be respected. Unless and until the islanders want to be ruled by Argentina, Britain should not abandon them.
Britain’s occupation of the Falklands was/is illegal.

Both Argentina and the islands were ruled by Spain. Spain ruled the islands from Argentina – they were therefore part of the same territory. Upon independence from Spain, Argentina rightfully asserted sovereignty over the former Spanish territory. Britain did not claim sovereignty over the islands when Spain left them in 1811. Nor did Britain immediately challenge Argentina’s assertion of sovereignty in 1816. For these reasons, Britain's invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was illegal under international law; Britain could not make a legitimate claim to the country.
Britain usurped the Malvinas in 1833 by illegitimate means

"The Argentine Seizure Of The Malvinas (Falkland) Islands", History and Diplomacy. Global Security. 1987 - "Argentines insist they perfected their title to the Islands during the years from 1829 to 1833 and that displacement of her citizens by Britain in 1833 was 'an act of usurpation carried out by illegal means.'"
Vernet and his settlers had British permission to be on the islands.

The Argentine forces did not and they were expelled. Britains rights to the islands were secured by the 1771 agreement and the intervention of a third party (BsAs authority) on the islands allowed the UK's return under the Nookta sound convention. There was no binding universal law or tribunial that proved Spain and Britain lost their rights to the islands or that BsAs had gained them.
Rights to self-determination not limited to aboriginal peoples.

There is nothing in international law or in any UN resolution that limits the rights of self-determination to territories with aboriginal peoples. In fact several territories that are or were on the UN's list of Non Self-Governing Territories do not have aboriginal populations: Currently on the list: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena (inc Tristan da Cunha), Turks and Caicos Islands, US Virgin Islands. Formerly on the list: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Cabo Verde, Cocos Islands, Guadaloupe, Jamaica, Martinique, Mauritius, Réunion, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Seychelles
Britain acted entirely legally.

Vernett's settlement was with the permission of the British Consul who had been approached by Vernett. There is some evidence that Vernett was playing both sides against the middle. Not that Vernett's settlement was affected by the British actions in 1833. HMS Clio required only the trespassing Argentine garrison to leave and that garrison had only been on the islands 2 months. Charles Dawin's diary clearly shows that on his visit on 1st March 1833 there were 22 'settlers' most of whom were Argentine workers for Vernett. He also mentioned one Englishman who had been on the islands "for some years". Vernett added 7 more workers to the settlement shortly afterwards. In ejecting the illegal Argentine garrison, HMS Clio was asserting the British claim of 1765. Jewett's claim of the islands for 'Argentina' in 1820 cannot stand because: a)the claim was for the United Provinces of South America which had ceased to exist as a unified 'nation' that same year, and went on to become Argentina, Bolivia and Uruguay, b) the islands already had two claimants neither of which had 'abandoned' their claims, and c) in the eyes of the two existing claimants, Spain and Britain, there was no such place as 'Argentina' (recognised by the British in 1825 and Spain in 1859). As such Jewett was merely restating the Spanish claim.
Spain's prerogative to complain about Britain's actions in 1833 not Argentina's.

In 1833 Spain had not relinquished her own claim to the Falklands, in fact she did not begin to relinquish any of her territories in the Americas till 1836, did not recognise Argentina till 1859, and when she recognised Argentina no transfer or cession of sovereignty over the Falklands took place, so it was Spain's prerogative to complain about what Britain did in 1833 not Argentina's. And Spain never did.
There was no binding universal international law in the 1800's that supports Argentina's inheritance claim and plenty of evidence to support Britains

The only international laws where treaties amoungst nations. Argentinas claim of uti posseditis is a self-righteous fallacy as there was no binding universal international law back then that supported it. Argentina never got it's independence in 1816 through devolution, it was unilateral. A unilateral state can only claim what it controls at the time of independence, nothing more. There is no evidence of anyone being ordered by the BsAs government to go to the islands before independence or 1823 (that includes Jewett in 1820). The UK's rights to the islands were recognised by Spain in 1771 and it's right to return by third party intervention (Nookta Sound Treaty) http://www.wildisland.gs/atlantis/gettingitright.pdf
Argentina's inheritance claim is self righteous as there was no binding universal international law at that time, meaning no rights for inheriting land they did not control during their unilateral independence

Uti Possidetis juris was not international law until the 1940's. The ancient theory of Uti Posseditis what was never the international law at the time. It was just a theory or 'principle' back then as there was no no binding universal international law in the 1800's to control nations. So this claim is nothing more than a self righteous falsehood, and cannot be legally binding. It was never Argentina's right, especially when they never controlled it during the independence period.
The Malvinas are far closer to Argentina (300m) than Britain (8000m).

The Malvinas are closer to Argentina than any other country in the world (300 miles). They are, however, on the other side of the Earth from Britain (8000 miles away). Modern nation states should not have territorial claims on the other side of the Earth, particularly when a modern nation state directly adjacent to the territory under consideration claims the territory. In this sense of the relative distance of the Malvinas islands from Britain and Argentina, Britain's claim to the islands is reminiscent of Britain's colonial past, is wrong, and should be ended.
Britain first claimed the Falklands in 1690 and never renounced the claim.

Britain never accepted the Spanish claim to sovereignty, based on the purchase of the islands from France. Britain asserted sovereignty when it left the islands in 1774, leaving a plaque. It therefore had no need to re-assert sovereignty when Spain left in 1811. Britain’s claim far predates Argentina’s. Argentina had no right to assert sovereignty over the islands in 1816.
Argentina’s independence was unilateral; no claim to Falklands.

A unilateral state is only entitled to claim what it controls at the time of independence nothing more, and that has never been any different. There is no evidence of anyone being ordered to travel to those island by BsAs authority until 1823, 7 years after your own unilateral independence of 1816. Argentina tried to colonise the islands that's the truth. Argentina often attempts to make the comparison with the USA's independence claim. However this is false as the USA only claimed what they controlled what at the time of independence, the 13 states.
The Malvinas Islands are part of the South American continental shelf.

Argentina claims the islands partly on the basis of the fact that the Malvinas are on the South American continental shelf, adjacent to the Argentinian coast. Because the islands are geographically contiguous with the South American continent, they should be either owned by Argentina or become entirely independent. Again, British ownership of these South American islands is reminiscent of its colonial past, is wrong, and should be ended.[1]
Unilateral secession does not confer rights of territorial inheritance.

A territorial inheritance or succession requires a territorial cession. Argentina achieved its independence by violent means against the opposition of Spain who did not begin the recognise the independence of any of her American colonies till 1836. When she recognised Argentina in 1859, no cession of sovereignty over the Falklands took place. Argentina can no more inherit what Spain never ceded to her, than a man can inherit from his father what his father never left him in his will.
Puerto Rico would outrank 26 states in size/representation.

"Statehood for Puerto Rico --- Why It is a Bad Idea!" English First: "Pre-1990 census data indicated that the new state of Puerto Rico would instantly outrank 26 other states in population size, entitling it to as many as seven Congressman as well as two Senators. The Puerto Rican delegation to Congress would be the size of Alabama's or almost twice the size of West Virginia's."
Puerto Rico violates idea of states with English as official language

Tim Schultz. "A Spanish 51st State?" National Review Online. March 8th, 2010: "The foreignness of English in Puerto Rico is greater in magnitude than it was in any state at any time in our national experience. Census data show that just 20 percent of the island’s residents speak English fluently. By comparison, California has the lowest proficiency rate among the 50 states, but its 80 percent proficiency rate dwarfs Puerto Rico’s. The deeply rooted preference for Spanish makes Puerto Rico’s 1993 elevation of English to “co-official” status practically irrelevant. Authentic “official English” policies increase English learning, but they will not work when English is merely an add-on to a pre-existing official language that is spoken in 95 percent of homes. Congress should condition statehood on making English the sole official language, which would still allow Spanish translations for a population in transition while insisting on acceptance of the lingua franca of the Union."