BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Settlements are seen by Palestinians as a sign of bad faith on the part of Israel, and therefore weaken the hand of Pro-Peace elements

The settlements at the current time occupy less than 3% of the West Bank,[1] and even if one were to take into account the land needed for their security in any settlement, most have predicted that at most 9-11% of the region would be affected, much less than the area currently controlled by the settlements,[2] and this would be subject to compensation elsewhere. The vast majority of this growth is taking place existing settlements or adjacent to them, so even large amounts of proportional growth are not shifting the percentages sharply. Furthermore, a time factor is far from a uniform negative. A large portion of the Palestinian strategy from the mid-1990s onwards has arguably been to drag out negotiations while hoping that a better international climate would lead other countries to exert pressure on Israel for concessions. This strategy has seen their negotiating position deteriorate and undermined support for an agreement within Israel. By adding a time element, it incentives the Palestinians to think seriously about pressing for an agreement now, rather than looking to fantasy solutions like potential UN recognition that would do nothing to alter the fundamental fact that any possible agreement will have to be made with, and therefore be acceptable to, Israel. [1] Fleischer, Tzvi, ‘How much land do West Bank settlements take up?’, Australian/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/how-much-land-do-west-bank-settleme... [2] CBS News, ‘Group: Israel Controls 42% of West Bank’, 6 July 2010, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/06/world/main6650897.shtml
Settlements remove Palestinians from their own land, and they produce a self-perpetuating cycle in their sear

First of all, the security precautions are not a perquisite of settlements in and of themselves, but a consequence of the violent condition of the West Bank. Similar settlements in the Negev do not require anywhere near the degree of investment in security and protection. Such precautions will almost certainly be removed not only in a final settlement but also in any intermediate ones. Israel has already shown a preparedness of to lift travel restrictions on Palestinians in exchange for reductions in violence.[1] [1] Hass, Amira, ‘Israel to lift restrictions on Palestinian Jordan Valley travel’, Haaretz.com, 26 April 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-to-lift-restrictions-on-palestinian-j...
Deterrence is still necessary.

The Trident Weapons System while it may be a "horrific part of our system" is still necessary even in today’s post-Cold War world. Firstly through deterrence it protects us from being blackmailed by any other states, and in particular so called "rogue states" like North Korea and potentially in the future Iran who could threaten our vital interests – such as closing the straits of Hormuz.[1] Moreover having a second strike capability, the ability for nuclear weapons to survive a nuclear assault by an opponent so allowing retaliation, is also still necessary.[2] It may currently seem unlikely that any of the major nuclear armed states will threaten the United Kingdom however we do not know what may happen in the future and by the time a threat appears it would be too late to build a new nuclear second strike capability. [1] The Secretary of State for Defence and The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’, Ministry of Defence, December 2006. [2] James Wirtz in "Contemporary Security Studies" Oxford University Press, First Edition 2007, Chapter 15, p276
Trident allows the UK to maintain its global status

Currently the UK is recognised as a nuclear power by the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty along with the USA, China, France and Russia. All of whom are either modernising or maintaining their current nuclear arsenals. This means to not replace Trident would mean that we'd suffer a severe loss of status in relation to the other permanent members of the UN Security Council. This would also raise questions of whether the UK even deserves its place as a member there as it would show the UK’s declining global role and military power. Other countries that can be considered "more representative" such as India (the world's largest democracy) now would be an obvious replacement at the top table.[1] Churchill said that the H bomb that it was "our badge to the Royal Enclosure [at Ascot]"[2] and today Trident remains one of our master keys to the Britain’s status at organisations such as the United Nations Security Council. There are already plenty of reasons why other countries might be more deserving of a security council place than the UK; we don’t need to add another. [1] James Wirtz in "Contemporary Security Studies" Oxford University Press, First Edition 2007, Chapter 15, p273 [2] Adamson, Samuel H., ‘Supreme Effort: A lesson in British decline’, BC Journal, Vol. 16, 2010.
The cost of replacing trident is prohibitive

Britain is in the longest recession it has ever been in – longer even than the great depression of the 1930s – with the economy not having recovered to pre-recession levels four years after the start of the downturn.[1] This is obviously completely the wrong time to be wasting money on ruinously expensive new weapons systems.  The cost of replacing trident is disputed with the Government saying it would be between £15 and £20 billion[2] but campaign group Greenpeace puts the total cost at £97billion once running costs over the missiles thirty year lifetime are included.[3] Both figures are incredibly costly for a system which we hope we won’t ever have to use and for which we have allies with similar systems. The money should instead be spent on helping to get the economy moving or services that benefit society such as health and education. [1] Oxlade, Andrew, ‘Economy watch: What caused the return to recession and how long will it last?’, This is Money.co.uk, 4 May 2012. [2] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Trident replacement’, 22 September 2010. [3] Greenpeace, ‘£97billion for Trident: five times government estimates’, 18 September 2009.
The UK should encourage others to reduce their own stocks of nuclear weapons.

Britain as a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty the United Kingdom is obliged to pursue “nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”[1] While complete disarmament by all states with nuclear weapons is a long way off the United Kingdom could make a good start by getting rid of its own weapons. A Nuclear Weapons state giving up its weapons after sixty years would show that nations can manage without nuclear weapons and so act as an encouragement to others to do the same. [1] ‘Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’, International Atomic Energy Agency, INFCIRC/140, 22 April 1970, Article VI.
Nuclear weapons are no longer needed

When the United Kingdom first tested Nuclear Weapons in 1952 she was still a great power with a large empire to defend. In the early 1980s when trident was being conceived[1] the UK fought a war with Argentina and the Cold War was perhaps at its deepest following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The Country was therefore in an international situation in which nuclear weapons were potentially required to deter the Soviet Union. A study of the vulnerability of Nuclear Weapons states shows that the UK is the least vulnerable nuclear weapons state because the country is surrounded by allies and is nowhere near any states that may potentially become failed states.[2] The only conclusion from this can be that the UK no longer has any need for nuclear weapons. [1] Fairhall, David, ‘£5 billion Trident deal is agreed’, The Guardian, 16 July 1980. [2] Asal, Victor, and Early, Bryan, ‘Are We Focusing on the Wrong Nuclear Threat?’, Foreign Policy, 24 May 2012.
Trident is not an independent weapons system

Britain tries to maintain that it has an ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ but this is just a fiction. Britain has not had an independent nuclear deterrent for fifty years. The United Kingdom has used American missiles since the Polaris Sales Agreement of 6 April 1963 first with the United States supplying Polaris missiles and then Trident missiles.[1] The UK does not own its missiles, they are leased, and the UK is completely dependent on the US for the maintenance of the missiles and even for targeting data.[2] The United States certainly appears to consider Britain’s deterrent to be dependent on them; wikileaks revealed that the US handed over the serial numbers of the missiles it transfers to the UK over to Russia to help the Russians verify the number of UK missiles.[3] [1] Jimmy Carter: "Sale of Trident I Missiles to the United Kingdom Exchange of Letters Between the President and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom. ," July 14, 1980. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [2] ‘UK’s Trident system not truly independent’, Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence, 7 March 2006. [3] ‘Geneva: Agreed statements meeting, 10Geneva135 26 February 2010’, The Telegraph, 4 February 2011.
Deterrence is still necessary.

A deterrent is useless if no one thinks it will ever be used. The only conceivable use of Britain’s nuclear deterrent would be in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK, and if that has happened then there is little point in firing the missiles as there will be nothing left to save. Any blackmail today is likely to be much smaller, no state is going to threaten the use of nuclear weapons in order to get their way on trade. The only real possibility of nuclear blackmail is by terrorists who could not be deterred by a nuclear armament.
Trident allows the UK to maintain its global status

Status in the world is not based upon having one extremely powerful weapon; there are much more important factors such as a country’s economy and use of diplomacy. Britain would still be a major financial centre, a major economy, a member of the UNSC (which is not based on nuclear weapons) as well as being one of the biggest contributors to peace and security in the world through peacekeeping and aid. ‘Status’ is one of the popular justifications for acquiring nuclear weapons. However while countries like North Korea that develop nuclear weapons may acquire deterrence they don’t gain any more diplomatic clout. Britain giving up its deterrent or combining it into a European deterrent would help to undermine this perception by showing that nuclear weapons are not needed to maintain a powerful role in the world.
The UK should encourage others to reduce their own stocks of nuclear weapons.

One country disarming is not going to persuade others, particularly those like China and Russia that still consider themselves great powers, to do so. At the same time the United Kingdom’s situation can never be compared to other countries; Israel would argue it is surrounded by enemies, China that it needs them if the US has them etc. These countries would only consider whether to disarm based upon their own national interests not what other states have done. We should do the same and renew trident as being necessary for the defence of the realm.
Nuclear weapons are no longer needed

That Britain is not currently threatened with nuclear Armageddon as it was during the cold war does not mean that such a threat could never again occur. Britain must remain prepared for any eventuality which has to include the unthinkable such as the United States no longer being an ally. The world is not yet a safe place there are many unstable states, such as North Korea, developing nuclear weapons capabalities. Beyond these dangers it is easily conceivable that the world will once again face tensions similar to those of the cold war. Given the length of time it would take to rearm should such tensions occur Britain would be safer to keep its nuclear armament.
Trident is not an independent weapons system

Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons.[1] It is independent in the way that matters. [1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005.
A one way street

Religion is at the heart of people’s identities and is based upon belief rather than reason so it is not surprising that religious groups sometimes take offence both quickly and easily. While political ideologies, or in certain scientific theories, may be believed as feverently religion by some with these beliefs come an acceptance that there are contrary opinions and a need to reason to persuade. This leaves open the possibility that they can be persuaded through reason that they are wrong. The stakes involved are very different, an eternity in Hell versus losing the next election. A political believer can afford to be malleable in a way a religious believer cant. Increasingly religious groups offense seems to lead to threats of, or actual, violence[i], the concerted apologies of elected representatives around the world and a total loss of any sense of proportion. If something is offensive to Christians or Muslims then, apparently, other considerations have to take a back seat. Whether it’s Christian homophobia in the Deep South or Islamic Xenophobia in the Middle East, offensiveness is a line that cannot be crossed. Or, at least, it cannot be crossed in one direction. For a group of creeds that are so quick to take offence, those religious groups that are the first to call foul seem happy enough to dole it out in the other direction. Even the basic tenets of the major faiths, say the eternal reality of Hell for non-believers[ii], could be seen as offensive by those judged worth of being tortured for all eternity simply for getting on with their lives. The very predicate of extreme faith – that everybody else lacks a moral compass and is going to suffer tortures for eternity as a result – is fairly offensive – and palpably untrue[iii] - by any standard. Once the discussion moves on to specifics, the insults become more pointed; perverts, fornicators, sinners and murderers (homosexuals, unmarried couples, divorcees and anyone involved with abortion, respectively). Their wrath isn’t limited to individuals, entire nations can be written off as corrupt and evil and damned to an eternity of suffering in the blink of an eye and for little apparent reason. In fact no reason, per se, at all. If offensive statements are to be prohibited, then surely it should be a general rule. Many secularists find it offensive that theists of all stripes assume that there can be no morality without divine instruction, so that could be the first set of offensive comments to go, closely followed by religious opinions on what people should do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and the doctrines of salvation by faith. Any other position would be too inconsistent to be worth much consideration. [i] Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide. Vexen Crabtree. 31 August 2009. [ii] Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Paragraphs 1033 – 1037. [iii] The Daily Telegraph. Atheists ‘just as ethical as churchgoers’. 9 February 2010.
Special pleading

Why are religious creeds given special license to block others freedom of expression? We live in a world of laws, supported by evidence on the basis of what can be perceived in the world around us. This applies in the fields of politics, law, science and others. Only when it comes to religion (and, possibly national identity) do we tolerate arguments made on the basis of unproven belief. There is of course a role for fantasy in life but protests as a result of people pointing out that it is fantasy seems to be taking things a little far. Nobody appears to be suggesting that the film Innocence of Muslims was anything more than a badly made, ill-conceived, puerile bit of adolescent vitriol. By any reasonable scale it pales into insignificance compared with, for example, blowing up embassies or issuing death threats against foreign nationals[i]. Were politicians to take action to urge the blocking of free speech on the rather more significant reasons for offence of misrepresentation of scientific data, libel, corruption of legal evidence or the, absolutely routine, misrepresentation of a political position, as President Obama did when calling Google,[ii] they would be written off as a lunatic. However, dress the idea up in a cassock and everyone seems to think that there is a meaningful issue to be discussed. There is no definable difference between saying something inaccurate or (in this case) impolitic about Nero, Plato, Sejong, Al’Khwarizmi or any other historical figure than about Christ, Mohammed or Moses other than the fact that the followers of the last three are more likely to resort to violence. Since when did that become a moral argument? [i] Bermuda Sun. Obama on Religion. 28 September 2012. [ii] Greenwald, Glenn, ‘Conservatives, Democrats and the convenience of denouncing free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 16 September 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/conservatives-democrats-free-speech-muslims
Stifling progress and the right of others

The particular subjects areas often chosen by theists to find offensive make for an interesting list; Freedom of expression, The rule of law, Scientific progress, Medical progress, Artistic expression To name but a few. There are remarkably few areas of human progress and development – intellectual or societal – that have not caused ‘offence’ in some religious community somewhere. The best known is of course the Catholic Church’s forcing Galileo to recant his research in the 17th century. There is no need to seek out obscure fanatics for this purpose, mainstream religious figures seem to genuinely believe that the equality of women is still a difficult issue. To take just one example, in 2012 the supposedly moderate and progressive Anglican Communion is still unsure as to whether the ability to be a senior manager should be determined on the basis of somebody’s gender[i]. With the exception of a handful that are in thrall to religious dominance, every nation state, company, charity, university and scholarly discipline has resolved this question and found itself better as a result. Most religions haven’t even started the process. Now that’s offensive. [i] BBC Website. Trevor Timpson. Women bishops: Anglicans still unsure over new wording. 17 September 2012.
Realpolitik

Freedom of expression should be exercised with care. Everyone who exercises this right has to remember that there are consequences of their actions. The Innocence of Muslims is a good example of this. Dropping explosive comments or artworks into situations[i] that are already fraught with historical tension – sectarian divisions in Europe, religious tensions in the Middle East, the interwoven politico-religious stresses of the United States – should not be done without very good cause. Those who chose to exercise their freedom of expression in this case are at least partially responsible for the protests, and any injuries, that resulted. It should be recognised that there need to be curbs on the offensive use of freedom of expression in order to prevent the consequences that may result from such expression. National interests dictate that states should take into account religious sensitivities in order to avoid unnecessary conflict. [i] The Guardian Film Blog. Peter Bradshaw. Innocence of Muslims: a dark demonstration of the power of film. 17 September 2012.
The interests of the majority

Although it may not prove the issue, it is certainly worth being aware of the fact that when referring to “theists”, proposition is talking about the overwhelming majority of the world’s population and then attempting to portray a small, fundamentalist minority as typical. Even talking mostly secular China into account – where determining religious affiliation is fantastically complicated – fewer than one seventh of the population of the planet profess no religious faith. A probable, although unproven, majority take their religion for granted but see it as no obstacle to free speech. There is no need to indulge in majoritarian assumptions to accept the basic principal that the opinions of the overwhelming majority are at least worth treating with some respect. After all, with odds of 7:1 against, even the most hardened, fire-breathing of secularists would have to concede that they might have a point. For the rest of humanity, simple experience suggests that avoiding religious groups offending each other is a sensible way of avoiding wars[i]. So whether it’s an odds game for secularists or just altruistic self-interest for others not causing offence would seem to be the more sensible option. [i] Wikpedia. Religious wars.
A one way street

It is a massive over-generalisation to suggest a link between those who take offence from blasphemous or sacrilegious statements and violence[i]. Furthermore within the predicates of religious thought an offence against god has to be of a magnitude different from one against a temporal power – to question that basic fact is to question religions being religious; it’s nonsensical. Most religions claim a total, but self-supporting, basis for their concept of truth. It is all true or none of it is; it’s nonsensical to believe in an omniscient being who is only one view among many. However, contrasting those traditions with the European Enlightenment tradition – and, apparently, criticising them for not sharing its values is not only contrary but hypocritical – the basis of the offence is the conflict between the two traditions. [i] Greenboro News and Record. Anti-abortion violence negate pro-life goals. 11 October 1998.
Special pleading

Quite different claims are made about the origin of the authority of the other thinkers prop mentions. Their authority derives from the contents of their works whereas that of the prophets derives from a supreme being. To question their words is, therefore, to question the power and judgement of the supreme being to establish that authority in the first place. As a result, it is not ‘special pleading’ but an entirely different premise underpinning the ideas that are being profaned. Any attack on that authority starts to undermine the whole religion and its beliefs which is different from secular authors where their works are simply the starting point of a discourse. It should also not surprise us that politicians act when a religious group is attacked but not as a result misrepresentation of scientific data; religions are large interest groups who may effect a future election. It is the politician’s job to decide whether he needs to take action to placate that group.
Stifling progress and the right of others

The fact that religious thought tends to be subverted to defend the status quo is hardly a compelling argument as the same can be said for almost all forms of thought. There is a natural backlash from vested interests against any innovation and religion should not be blamed for having this same tendency. We should however not rule out the need to take a moral approach to some things for example; using stem cells might have huge medical benefits but it still needs to be considered whether it is morally right.
Realpolitik

Realpolitik is not a reason to compromise our ideals. Comments and artworks about “explosive situations” are a fundamental part of free expression. Opposition seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that free-expression is okay, so long as nobody minds. If nobody objects to it, there’s no need to have a right to do it. In short we wither accept freedom of expression or not; if there is freedom of expression then we must be consistent and defend the freedom for everyone.