BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bosnia power sharing foments conflict and stunts democracy

Anna Jarsted. "Power Sharing for Peace and Democracy?". Paper prepared for presentation at the 47th annual meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego. 22 March 2006 - "Introduction: Ten years after the peace accords for Bosnia and Herzegovina were signed in Dayton, Ohio, the country remains divided. The peace accords served their main aim – to end the 1992-1995 conflict – but their power sharing provisions are now seen as an obstacle to peacebuilding and democratization. The political representatives of the three main ethnic groups have not managed to govern jointly. Instead, the international community’s High Representative has imposed laws and removed several politicians from office. For the sake of efficacy, these measures have substituted normal procedures for accountability and democratic legitimacy. The case raises pertinent questions about governance in post-war societies. In what ways does power sharing facilitate, or obstruct, the transition of divided societies towards a secure democracy?
Dayton/Bosnia failures give cause to Republika Srpska secession

"Who Will Accept The Dayton Agreement?". Washington Post. 1 May 2008 - "In his April 23 op-ed, "Lessons From Dayton for Iraq," Richard Holbrooke asserted that I have "turned away from reform" in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yet he notes I have no Bosniak partner who accepts even the existence of Republika Srpska [...] This is the key question: Will everyone in Bosnia and Herzegovina accept the Dayton Peace Agreement on a permanent basis? Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried recently told Congress: "Reforms may upgrade but cannot supplant Dayton." Bosniak leaders, not just Haris Silajdzic, practice the opposite policy, advocating expressly (and implicitly in their proposed reforms) for a departure from Dayton and the abolition of Republika Srpska. [...] The political leaders of Republika Srpska accept the Dayton compromise and the existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, when many in Republika Srpska prefer an alternative course. In return, we expect the same from Bosniak leaders: to clearly and unequivocally accept Republika Srpska. [...] Through consensus reforms, a decentralized Bosnia and Herzegovina can move forward on the basis of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Forcing a unitary state policy, favored by Bosniaks, would cause its breakup."
Bosnian Serbs fought legitimately in Bosnian civil war

John Laughland. "The Plight of the Bosnian Serbs". The Brussels Journal. 23 July 2008 - "the Serbs were no more the aggressors in the Bosnian civil war than Abraham Lincoln was an aggressor in the American Civil War. The Yugoslav army was in place all over Bosnia-Herzegovina because that republic was part of Yugoslavia. Bosnian Muslims (like Croats) left the army in droves and set up their own militia instead, as part of their drive for independence from Belgrade. This meant that the Yugoslav army lost its previous strongly multiethnic character and became largely Serb. It did not mean that Serb forces entered the territory of Bosnia, or even that the Serbs attacked the hapless Bosnian Muslims."
Kosovo was a victim of state aggression while Republika Srpska was not

Asim Mujkić. "Significance of Kosovo from the point of view of Bosnia and Herzegovina". Spirit of Bosnia. April 2008 - "If we consider Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the position of Kosovo and Republika Srpska as their entities, significant differences become apparent. First and foremost, for several decades now Belgrade’s nationalist politics have proven to be a threat to a significant sector of its population – the Kosovo Albanians. This threat had already been expressed in the shape of ethnic or religious persecution, and culminated in the late 1990s when the Yugoslav army entirely ethnically cleansed Kosovo of its Albanians, prompting international intervention. [...] And what about the position of Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina? It is the very opposite. Republika Srpska cannot therefore enjoy the same status as Kosovo, since Serbia meets both conditions for the loss of legitimacy in Kosovo, whereas Bosnia and Herzegovina is in no position to do so in the territory of Republika Srpska. Bosnia and Herzegovina does not remotely have the capacity to be a threat to a significant proportion of its population, nor is there any marked political platform expressed as a policy of ethnic and religious persecution of the Bosnian Serbs in Republika Srpska, nor is it in a position to exercise institutional racism depriving the Bosnian Serbs in Republika Srpska of their fundamental economic and political rights."
Republika Srpska secession would incite Bosnian Croat secession

"President: Dodik Is The New Slobodan Milosevic". Javno. 10 Oct. 2008: "If Republika Srpska is to split off, Bosnian Croats would do the same, which is dangerous – Mesic concluded. - Republika Srpska is a powder keg which can blow up any moment – Croatian President Stjepan Mesic said."[3]
Republika Srpska cannot break Dayton, which created RS

Valery Perry. "The Republika Srpska Debate in Bosnia and Herzegovina". April 2008 - "Political realists, including the Bosnian Serb leadership and their constituency, Russia, and to an increasing extent the European Union and critics of the international experiment in post-Dayton BiH, interpret the Dayton Constitution as a framework for a highly devolved state in which the center holds the absolute minimum competencies. The war is framed in an “all sides were guilty” lens, and the post-war demographic and geographic realities simply accepted. In this view, the RS is a region that gained its legitimacy through Dayton, and should therefore be viewed as any other regional political unit, such as Flanders or Catalonia."
Kosovo independence set precedent for Republika Rrpska secession

SNP President Dane Cankovic told a press conference at the Tanjug Press Center in Banja Luka, capital of Republika Srpska in Bosnia, in November of 2007. - "The RS and Kosovo-Metohija have nothing in common, provided Kosovo-Metohija remains within the composition of the state of Serbia, since that is in keeping with international law and justice. But there is a connection if the Kosovo Albanian parliament proclaims independence, because that would give the National Assembly the right to proclaim the RS an independent state".[1]
Republika Srpska founded on ethnic cleansing; no right to independence

It is commonly cited that ethnic cleansing was committed by Serbian forces in Bosnia in the Bosnian civil war of the early 1990s. Many sources argue, by extension, that Bosnian Serbs claimed and created much of what is now Republika Srpska from a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Croatian President Stjepan Mesic, for instance, said in June of 2008, "[RS president Milorad] Dodik is well aware of the fact that Republika Srpska was founded upon ethnic cleansing." Many subsequently argue that Republika Srpska does not have the record or legitimacy to claim independence. Others argue, similarly, only territories that have been threatened, victimized, or egregiously governed have a legitimate claim to independence; and that Republika Srpska is the opposite of that.
Serb Republic secession could spark regional war

Dan Bilefsky. "Prospects loom for another Bosnian war". New York Times. 18 Dec. 2008 - "if the Serbian Republic declared independence, Croatia would respond by sending in troops, while the Bosnian Muslims would take up arms. If Banja Luka, the capital of the Serbian Republic, were to fall, he continued, Serbia would be provoked into entering the fray, leading to the prospect of a regional war. [...] 'For the first time in years, people are talking about war,' Latal said. 'They are tired of it, and they don't want it. But it is not beyond the realm of possibility.'"
Republika Srpska secession formalizes divided Bosnia under Dayton

Dan Bilefsky. "Prospects loom for another Bosnian war". New York Times. 18 Dec. 2008 - "the decentralized political system that Dayton engineered has entrenched rather than healed ethnic divisions. Even in communities where Serbs, Muslims and Croats live side by side, some opt to send their children to the same schools, but in different shifts [...] And the country's leaders are so busy fighting one another that they are impeding Bosnia from progressing. Locked in an impasse of mutual recrimination are Haris Silajdzic - the Muslim representative of the country's three-member presidency, who has called for the Serbian Republic to be abolished - and the Bosnian Serb prime minister, Milorad Dodik, who is supported by Russia and Serbia and who has dangled the threat that his republic could secede."
Bosnia has made great progress; Serbs should not secede

Valery Perry. "The Republika Srpska Debate in Bosnia and Herzegovina". April 2008 - "Until the reversals of the past two years, BiH was making progress (albeit non-linear and imperfect) in its state-strengthening enterprise. A constitutional court decision affirmed the equality of all “constituent peoples” (i.e., Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats) throughout all of the BiH territory. Return has happened, though it cannot come close to reversing the wartime displacement. State structures were established. Fear began to evaporate. Hate speech was increasingly removed from classrooms and textbooks. And citizens throughout the country reveled in their shared disgust of politicians, though continuing to vote for them along ethnic lines. But just as these advances were beginning to take modest root, there was a retreat by the international community, and support for moderate voices was steadily withdrawn, allowing hardliners to regroup. The consequences are continuing to play out."
Republika Srpska has a right to self-determination by referendum

"Republika Srpska Has Right To Self-Determination". Javno. 16 Oct. 2008 - "An emergency sitting of the Bosnian Serb entity of Republika Srpska (RS) People`s Assembly adopted the Resolution on the goals and policy measures of Republika Srpska. The sitting was summoned due to the newly developed situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The new Resolution does not mention a referendum on Republika Srpska independence, but it states that Constitutional changes in BH can only be implemented within institutions of RS and BH, Pincom reports. [...] Among other things, the RS Assembly has adopted the Resolution on repudiation of Kosovo independence, while it mentions that the RS has the right to determine its state-legal status via referendum."
Bad calls balance each other out over the course of the season.

Steve Hirsch. "Why instant replay is unnecessary." Huffington Post. June 4, 2010: "An umpire is bound to miss at least a few of them. After all, these guys aren't perfect. Every baseball fan knows that these plays balance out over the course of a season and that you can't get riled up over one play just because it may have had an impact on the final score. In a season, every team will have those games they should have won and those they should have lost. The problem is that we tend to only remember the games we should have won because "if we had only won that game...", fill in the blank."
Baseball transcends perfection; instant replay undermines that

Mark Coatney. "The Greatness and Perfection of Missing the Call." Newsweek. June 3, 2010: "the essence of sport is the pursuit of transcending imperfection. Why we play, why we watch, is for that one-in-a-million chance that something goes incredibly, impossibly right. If we want perfect-every-time scripting, we'd go to the theater."
Many replay systems could adequately reduce time consumed.

One option is to implement the NFL’s red-flag system, which limits teams to two replays per game. Another is a broader option that allows operators in MLB’s central replay office to stop the game to review a call. Both of these systems would significantly limit the time consumed by a replay system. The maximum time added would be something like 5 minutes to a game, in exceptional circumstances. This is well worth ensuring games are won fairly.
"Continuation plays" can of course be exempt from instant replay

Don Hunsberger. "Let's bring meaningful instant replay to baseball" Daily Commercial. June 6th, 2010: "There are, of course, the 'continuation plays' -- unique to baseball -- that can never be subject to replays because more than one thing is happening and the events are interdependent. For example, if the umpire calls a ball foul and replay shows it was fair and the decision is overturned by replay, how do you handle the base runners? These and similar situations must be dealt with before arriving at a perfect solution."
Instant replay should not exist for sake of personal achievements

Steve Hirsch. "Why instant replay is unnecessary." Huffington Post. June 4, 2010: "Even if Major League Baseball decided to implement the use of instant replay, this is hardly the game that should be the deciding factor [the Detroit Pitcher Armando Gallaraga's Perfect Game in June of 2010]. In the end, the only thing that was affected by Jim Joyce's botched call was a personal achievement. The final score was the same and the winning and losing pitchers remained unchanged. [...] If a fan or a player is more concerned with a personal achievement than how their teams finishes in the standings, then that person needs to reorganize its priorities during a game."
Instant replay will make baseball games too long

Steve Hirsch. "Why instant replay is unnecessary." Huffington Post. June 4, 2010: "The most used argument against instant replay is that it would increase the length of games, which is clearly true. The more managers protest, the more plays get reviewed, and the more games get prolonged. I love baseball more than anyone I know, but even I don't want baseball games lasting longer than they already do."
Instant replay does not diminish human element of baseball

Instant replay is merely a tool (like a bat or a baseball mit) that assists in a human activity. It does not change the facts on the grounds as they are played out by humans. It merely allows humans to go back an make sure that the event is properly judged. And, the idea that "machines will be deciding the outcome" is absolutely non-sensical. Has this occurred in all the other sports that institute instant replay? No! Instead, instant replay helps advance the very real human feelings of merit, justice, and finality that should accompany sports.
Instant replay would force overturning of small calls too

Ross Douthat. "Against Instant Replay." New York Times. June 3, 2010: "To avoid the extraordinary bad calls, you have to start overturning the quotidian bad calls, the gaffes and brain cramps that have always been part of the warp and woof of the game and that have never detracted a whit from anyone’s enjoyment of it. And I’m pretty sure that would be a mistake."
Getting rare/important calls right justifies replay.

Events like Galarraga's perfect game are rare (although not that rare). But, there rarity is not an argument against instant replay. The rare and very important call is hugely important. It is important to the fans, important to the players, and important to the legitimacy of baseball. Ensuring that these events are called correctly and fairly is well worth any of the much smaller costs that might come with instituting an instant replay system.
Instant replay ensures fan/player feelings of justice, over anger

Modern society is based on the idea of justice and merit. In sport, the better team should win. Chance in the rules and umpiring should not play a part. When fans find conclusive evidence that a call has been missed and that their team should have won (or whatever), feelings of injustice can turn into rage. This was seen on display with Galarraga's 2010 perfect game that was robbed from him by a bad call. The fans were livid. These feelings can and should be avoided by introducing instant replay into baseball.
Machines shouldn't be determining calls in baseball

Mark Coatney. "The Greatness and Perfection of Missing the Call." Newsweek. June 3, 2010: "Then there's the aesthetic argument, which is why—after athletes sweat and fight it out in a very human arena—should the contest be decided by some deus ex machina that just descends from above and declares, "Beep! This is who won"? It's the same reason no one really cares about chess anymore; everyone knows the computer always wins."
Enough controversial calls occur in baseball to justify replay

Don Hunsberger. "Let's bring meaningful instant replay to baseball" Daily Commercial. June 6th, 2010: "If Joyce's was the only error of its kind [that cost Detroit pitcher Armando Galarraga his perfect game in June of 2010], there would be no controversy. Baseball's ruling elite presumably would get to together and figure out a way to prevent it from happening again. [...] But the situation in Detroit did not occur in a vacuum. On Tuesday night in Toronto, the Tampa Bay Rays were rallying against the Toronto Blue Jays late in the game when third-base umpire Angel Hernandez ruled that Sean Rodriguez missed third base while scoring on a Ben Zobrist single."
Tradition of baseball is flexible and can include instant replay

Mike Celizik. "Beyond time for baseball to use instant replay." NBC. May 22, 2008: "Of course, tradition is a flexible concept. The founders also turned down the idea of night games because it was hard to illuminate a field using gas lights, kerosene lanterns and bonfires. But their descendants, who for many years fought the concept of night baseball, finally embraced it when they realized that they could sell more tickets and make more money playing at night – once science found a way to chase away the darkness."
Instant replay ends umpire shame of making decisive, bad calls

Don Denkinger, a famous umpire whose questionable call in the 1985 World Series helped the Kansas City Royals come back to beat the St. Louis Cardinals, said in 2010: "I had 30 great years ... and I had one call that's all anybody ever wants to talk about. It's not right. But it's the way the game's played, and that's what happens."[4] He now believes in instant replay, and instant replay would have removed the prospect that he would have to live with decades of shame.
Instant replay justified to prevent another Galarraga call

Jamie Samuelsen. "Galarraga call proves that time has come for replay in baseball." Freep.com. June 4th, 2010: "none of us have ever witnessed a play that had such a major impact on history. It didn’t alter a game — the Tigers were going to win that thing regardless. But it took history away from Armando Galarraga. And it may change the course of baseball history. This is the smoking gun that should lead to instant replay in Major League Baseball. There’s no turning back now. The game started as a quiet late spring game between two scuffling teams. It ended as the No. 1 news story in America. It trumped the oil spill. It trumped the silly little waste of time and money up on Mackinac Island. It trumped anything that President Obama said or did. Just look at Twitter — 99.9% of the world’s population didn’t know who Jim Joyce was at 8:50 p.m. Wednesday night. By 9:50, he was the number one trending topic on the social networking site." Another event like this needs to be avoided in the future, by instituting instant replay."
Instant replay is in "the best interests of the game."

This clause is a key element of baseball. It drives all of the rule-making decisions on the game. And, it is clear that a modest instant replay system is in the best interests of the game. It would avoid incorrect calls that have a devastating and unfair consequence on games, players, and fans. This is the most compelling "interest" to consider. All other arguments are based on weaker arguments about "time-consumed" by instant replay (which would amount to only a couple minutes per game if any time at all) and "tradition" (which is totally bogus).
Baseball lends itself well to instant replay

Thomas Boswell. "The right call: More replays." Washington Times. November 10th, 2009: "how long did it take for millions of viewers, partisans in bars and TV announcers to know what the correct call should be? Often, they knew within 20 seconds and almost always within a minute. Has even one controversial play this October required the five, six or seven minutes that NFL replays frequently take? No, I don't think so. [...] Baseball fears that it will adopt replay and inherit the problems of the NFL. Far more likely, it would discover that replay is much better suited to baseball -- both in accuracy and speed -- than any other sport."
Not enough important bad calls occur to justify instant replay

Bill Pollock. "No need for instant replay in baseball." Missouri Net. June 4, 2010: "this call perfectly illustrates my point…that call ultimately did not affect the score of the game, the final outcome…and that has long been my stand against replay for umpires, plus to tie into that, I have not heard a plan yet that is rock solid for baseball. So while bad or missed calls happen, they are not happening with a frequency that has affected wins and losses at enough of a rate to raise enough concern. Just to add technology because it is there, does not mean it’s the best plan."
General statements in favor of instant replay in baseball

Don Denkinger, a famous umpire whose questionable call in the 1985 World Series helped the Kansas City Royals come back to beat the St. Louis Cardinals, said in 2010: "There are so many areas you can use instant replay. Maybe instant replay can clean things up. If a play is missed, it can be corrected. I didn't feel that way in '85, but I feel that way now."[1]
Even replay doesn't always resolve baseball calls

Mark Coatney. "The Greatness and Perfection of Missing the Call." Newsweek. June 3, 2010: "even with replay, sometimes we don't even really know the result. Michael Phelps was awarded one gold medal in Beijing on a race that was so close, even the pool's electronic systems couldn't really determine the winner; basically it was flip a coin. Judgment call."
Appointed judiciaries are more independent to check other branches

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued for the independence of judges. He believed they should be appointed to serve "during good behavior" and insulated from the political process, as this helps them check the legislative and executive branches. The main reason for this is that it is more difficult for a judge that is affiliated with a political party and in need of campaign funds from that party, to pass rulings against their Party leaders in the Congress, Parliament, or executive branch.[3]
Elections pressure judges to craft positions to win votes

Walter Olson. "Judicial elections: a dissenting view". Point of Law. July 17, 2008: "The evils of asking impartial judges to beat the bushes for votes and contributions are so obvious and so (nearly) universally conceded that I won't dwell on them at any length here. (You can find plenty of examples on the website of the Justice at Stake campaign and its blog, Gavel Grab.) Judges seeking election or re-election face constant pressure to "commit" to stances favored by one or another voting bloc."
Judicial elections elevate debate and awareness of judiciary

"In defense of elections". The Record. August 14, 2005: "we don’t mean [judicial elections are] “better” because of who prevailed-this newspaper supported Karmeier-- but rather because of how much was debated. The election raised important issues never before argued publicly in the 5th Judicial District. Thanks to record spending we saw record campaigning and candidate communications-activating a once judiciary-ambivalent electorate."