BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cuba sanctions lost national security rationale after 1991

The initial purpose of sanctioning Cuba was to constrain the broader threat of the Soviet Union following Castro's coming of power and the initiation of relations between the two countries. Indeed, Cuba, was a significant threat to the United States and international security at that time as a proxy of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But, after the Cold War ended, Cuba became a far lower-level threat as it ceased to be a proxy country of the Soviet Union. Sanctions, being leveled against Cuba in the Cold War context, are therefore no longer reasonable, as Cuba no longer presents the same threat to the United States and the world.
Sanctioning Cuba is appropriate punishment for its flouting the UN

Prior to the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights repeatedly reported on the human rights situation in Cuba and took the step of appointing a Special Rapporteur. The Rapporteur was continually denied access by the Cuban government to perform its work in Cuba in examining Cuban human rights violations. Such examples of flouting the UN actually led to UN sanctions and warranted sanctions from other countries against Cuba.
Sanctions are superior to the use of military force.

Sanctions are often a "softer", better alternative to the use of military force. This has some resonance in the case of Cuba. In 1996, two US civilian planes were shot down by the Cuban air force near Cuba. The United States could have responded, on some proportional level, militarily. President Clinton decided, however, to use sanctions instead to punish the Cuban regime with the Helms-Burton Act. Therefore, the continued sanctioning of Cuba through 1996 and to present was, to some extent, the preferred alternative within the Clinton administration to military action against Cuba.
Sanctions against Cuba follow a double standard

How can the United States sanction Cuba for its undemocratic practices and alleged human rights violations when it does not sanction other countries for their tyrannical governments and human rights abuses. It is clear that democracy and human rights are not a consistent criteria in the United States for punishing other countries with sanctions. Such examples as the United States' alliance with Saudi Arabia, who can be criticized as undemocratic and in violation of various human rights standards, can be put forth to demonstrate that the United States is applying a double standard against Cuba.
The significance of the threat from Cuba justifies US sanctions

Cuba posses a significant national security threat, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ending of its support for Cuba in 1991. First, Cuba posses a direct threat to liberalism by continuing to pressure for communism internationally. Communism rests on principles that are directly antagonistic to democracy. Such principles, as was demonstrated during the Cold War, have the potential to be highly destabilizing and threatening to international security. The instability of Cuba itself, under such a communist regime, poses certain international risks as well. In addition, Cuba's record of human rights abuses, nefarious international attacks, and even support of terrorism can be cited as a threat to international security and go toward justifying the current sanctions.
Processing cellulose is more difficult than starches

David Schneider. "Loser: Grassoline's Dark Side." IEEE Spectrum. January 2010: "Compared with sugarcane or corn, though, switchgrass is tricky to use, because it provides cellulose—the natural polymer that gives plants their rigidity—rather than simple sugars. So you need to do some elaborate processing, first to break down the cellulose and then to ferment the resulting sugary brew so that it turns into ethanol, which can be served neat or blended with gasoline. As yet, nobody has succeeded in producing switchgrass ethanol on a commercial scale, and the economics of doing so remain fuzzy."
Electric cars are the future, not fuel-based cars.

Electric cars, which get their electricity from renewable sources such as wind or solar power, are the future. They are far more efficient than cellulosic fuel processes, converting energy much more directly from wind turbines and solar panels into the drive-train of the vehicle. Growing plants on lands, harvesting them, chopping them up, breaking them down with enzymes into ethanol, transporting them to gas-stations, and then burning them as fuel in the end-use vehicle is a far less efficient process than transporting electrons over wires directly from wind-turbines to homes or electric powering stations for electric cars. And, cellulosic ethanol degrades local air quality with non-C02 emissions and entails a variety of other risks (like deforestation) that do not surround electric vehicles.
Cellulosic ethanol can be 0 emissions.

If done sustainable, cellulosic ethanol can emit 0 emissions. This is because the growth of the plants used draws down C02 from the atmosphere. It is true that when these grass-like plants are burned, C02 is released into the atmosphere, but this is only the C02 that was initially drawn-down from the atmosphere. The net result, therefore, is 0 emissions.
Cellulosic ethanol can generate good-paying jobs

"Igniting Cellulosic Biofuel Production." Science Progress. June 11th, 2008: "But next generation biofuels can reduce dependence on foreign oil imports in the U.S. and abroad. In several, but not all developing countries, the development of a broad-based, socially responsible, and sustainable bioenergy industry has the potential to harness substantial agriculture, land, water, and labor resource advantages of those nations. The sustainable production of biofuels will require appropriate climatic and soil conditions, water resources, land availability, transportation and electrical infrastructure, and labor, but an increased emphasis on bioenergy can provide a unique economic development platform. A growing bioenergy industry has the potential to rapidly scale-up agricultural production, diversify crops, expand industrial and transportation infrastructure, and provide new sources of income and jobs in rural communities."
Let forests grow on unused farmland, not cellulosic ethanol

David Schneider. "Loser: Grassoline's Dark Side." IEEE Spectrum. January 2010: "The benefits to wildlife and the carbon storage [of planting switchgrass are] valid if your baseline is traditional farming. But as Searchinger and his colleagues pointed out in their 2008 Science article, truly excess cropland eventually reverts to forest. And when that happens, you’d get all the wildlife-friendly, carbon-storing benefits that ensue. If you plant switchgrass there instead, those benefits are lost. 'You have to look at what you give up,' says Searchinger. As for growing switchgrass along highways or under power lines, that’s all good, but it would put just a small dent in the problem."
There is not enough land too grow sufficient cellulosic ethanol

David Schneider. "Loser: Grassoline's Dark Side." IEEE Spectrum. January 2010: "A simple thought experiment sheds light on the dark side of grassoline. Suppose you replaced all the gasoline the United States now uses with switchgrass-derived ethanol. How much land would that take? The United States consumes 522 billion L of gasoline a year. Because of the difference in energy density, you need about 1.5 L of ethanol to replace a liter of gasoline. So the yearly requirement for ethanol would be about 780 billion L. A hectare of switchgrass can supply about 4700 L of ethanol a year, so the United States would need to devote roughly 170 million hectares (420 million acres) to it. That’s an enormous quantity of land—almost as much as the country now devotes to farming. And even if you covered all that land with switchgrass, it wouldn’t produce enough fuel to supply the country’s diesel trucks and buses, its jet aircraft, or the homes and businesses that use petroleum for heating fuel."
Cellulosic ethanol start-ups are mostly failing

Robert Bryce. "The Cellulosic Ethanol Mirage: Verenium and Aventine Are Circling the Drain." Energy Tribune. Mar. 30, 2009: "I wrote about the myriad problems of cellulosic ethanol in my book, Gusher of Lies. But the hype over the fuel continues unabated. And it continues even though two of the most prominent cellulosic ethanol companies in the U.S., Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings and Verenium Corporation, are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. As noted last week by Robert Rapier on his R-Squared Energy blog, Verenium’s auditor, Ernst & Young, recently expressed concern about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern and Aventine was recently delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. On March 16, the accounting firm Ernst & Young said Verenium may be forced to 'curtail or cease operations' if it cannot raise additional capital."
Cellulosic ethanol land-use harms forests, environment, climate

David Schneider. "Loser: Grassoline's Dark Side." IEEE Spectrum. January 2010: "Carpeting the continent with enough switchgrass to displace all that petroleum use is theoretically possible—but it would be an environmental catastrophe on many counts. For one, it would devastate what’s left of the already besieged wilderness. And according to estimates that Timothy Searchinger of Princeton University and his colleagues published in the journal Science in 2008, it would also exacerbate the world’s greenhouse-gas problem, not help solve it. That’s because even if switchgrass agriculture were limited to established cropland, we’d end up having to convert forests and other land to agriculture just to feed ourselves. That in turn would release huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."
Cellulosic ethanol can be grown on otherwise unused land

David Schneider. "Loser: Grassoline's Dark Side." IEEE Spectrum. January 2010: "Estes argues that switchgrass would be planted mainly on fallow farmland. 'Where we’re looking at growing these crops, there isn’t anything growing there anyway,' she says. Kelly Tiller, director of external operations for the University of Tennessee’s office of bioenergy programs, notes that planting switchgrass 'has good wildlife benefits' and that it stores carbon in the soil. And she points out that there are some places where switchgrass could be grown with no environmental costs at all: within highway medians, for example, or along power-line rights-of-way.'"
Renewable energy mandates ensure market for cellulosic ethanol

Todd E. Alexander and Lee Gordon, Chadbourne & Parke. "The case for cellulosic ethanol." The deal magazine. March 2, 2009: "Among the most important incentives is the renewable fuel standard, or RFS, a federal mandate that requires increasing volumes of renewable fuels -- including advanced biofuels (fuels produced from non-corn feedstocks that have 50% lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emission than petroleum fuels) and cellulosic biofuels (fuels produced from cellulose, hemicellulose or lignin that have 60% lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum fuels) -- be blended into transportation fuel in the U.S. each year."
Cellulosic ethanol is just one (good) part of the solution.

Many critics of cellulosic ethanol say things like, "if all of the cars in the US had to rely on cellulosic ethanol, all of the available farmland would have to be dedicated to switchgrass and this would devastate forests and the farming economy." But, obviously, the idea is only to make cellulosic ethanol a part of a large package of solutions, even within just the transportation industry. The plan is not to switch the entire transportation industry onto cellulosic ethanol alone. This is ludicrous and a strawman for opponents to beat down. Fully electric, hybrid, clean diesel, and hydrogen vehicles will also be in the mix. Cellulosic ethanol will merely be an important contribution to this diverse mix that will help reduce foreign oil dependencies and fight climate change.
General statements in favor of cellulosic ethanol.

"Ethanol production." E85.whipnet.net: "The arguments in favor of cellulosic ethanol as a replacement for gasoline in cars and trucks are compelling. Cellulosic ethanol can reduce our dependence on imported oil, increase our energy security, reduce our trade deficit, and rural economies can benefit in the form of increased incomes and jobs. Growing ‘energy crops’ and harvesting agricultural residuals are projected to increase the value of farm crops, reducing or possibly eliminating the need for some agricultural subsidies. Cellulosic ethanol also provides positive environmental benefits in the form of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution."
Cellulosic biofuel production emits significant greenhouse gases

Elizabeth Rosenthal. "Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat". New York Times. February 8, 2008 - "if American corns fields of average yield were converted to switchgrass for [cellulosic] ethanol, replacing that corn would still trigger emissions from land use change that would take 52 years to pay back and increase emissions over 30 years by 50%."
Cellulosic ethanol packs many times the energy of corn ethanol

David Biello. "Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does." Scientific American. January 8, 2008: "yields from a grass that only needs to be planted once would deliver an average of 13.1 megajoules of energy as ethanol for every megajoule of petroleum consumed—in the form of nitrogen fertilizers or diesel for tractors—growing them....switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies."
Not enough flex-fuel cars to spur demand for cellulosic ethanol

Sebastian Blanco. "Chevy Volt, cellulosic ethanol named two of the year's biggest losers." AutoBlogGreen. Jan 19th 2010: "IEEE Spectrum says there isn't enough farmland in the U.S. to grow enough fuel, and that's leaving aside questions about where the demand will come from, what with all the non-flex-fuel vehicles on the road today."
Converting grass into fuel is tremendously inefficient

Robert Bryce. "The Cellulosic Ethanol Mirage: Verenium and Aventine Are Circling the Drain." Energy Tribune. Mar. 30, 2009: "Despite the hype, cellulosic ethanol is no closer to commercial viability than it was when Midgley first began talking about it back in 1921. Turning switchgrass, straw or corn cobs into sizable volumes of motor fuel is remarkably inefficient. It is devilishly difficult to break down cellulose into materials that can be fermented into alcohol. And even if that process were somehow made easier, its environmental effects have also been called into question. A September 2008 study on alternative automotive fuels done by Jan Kreider, a professor emeritus of engineering at the University of Colorado, and Peter S. Curtiss, a Boulder-based engineer, found that the production of cellulosic ethanol required about 42 times as much water and emitted about 50 percent more carbon dioxide than standard gasoline. Furthermore, Kreider and Curtiss found that, as with corn ethanol, the amount of energy that could be gained by producing cellulosic ethanol was negligible."
State should not regulate spiritual interest in drugs

Terence McKenna. "Non-Ordinary States Through Vision Plants, Sound Photosynthesis." 1988: "We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiosity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibility. In fact, not a religious sensibility, the religious sensibility."[12]
War on Drugs has destroyed valuable hemp industry

The War on Drugs has resulted in the outlawing the entire hemp industry in the United States. Hemp, a variety of Cannabis sativa, the plant that marijuana comes from, does not have significant amounts of psychoactive (THC) substances in it, less than 1%. Without even realizing the plant had been outlawed several months prior, Popular Mechanics magazine published an article in 1938 entitled The New Billion-Dollar Crop anticipating the explosion of the hemp industry with the invention of machines to help process it.[4]
War on Drugs destabilizes producer countries

The United States' "War on Drugs" has added considerably to the political instability in South America. The huge profits to be made from cocaine and other South American-grown drugs are largely because they are illegal in the wealthy neighbouring nation. This drives people in the relatively poor countries of Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil to break their own laws in organising the cultivation, preparation and trafficking of cocaine to the States. This has allowed criminal, paramilitary and guerrilla groups to reap huge profits, exacerbating already serious law-and-order and political problems.[21]
Drug War enables governments to crack-down on cartels

Bret Stephens. "In Praise of Mexico's War on Drugs." Wall Street Journal. March 3, 2009: "The problem is Mexico's record of corrupt, weak and incompetent governance, which has created the environment in which the cartels have hitherto operated with impunity. The same might be said about other countries in Latin America: These states did not become basket cases on account of the drug trade. It is the fact that they were basket cases to begin with that allowed the drug trade to flourish. [...] The government has managed to spark power struggles within and among cartels, and the vast majority of Mexico's murder victims are themselves involved in the drug trade. More important, Mr. Calderón has sent the signal that his government will not repeat the patterns of complacency and collusion that typified Mexico for decades. Whatever else might be said about his government, it's a serious one."
War on Drugs has been effective in many places

Ben Perin. "We are winning war on drugs, say police." Swindon Advertiser. March 11th, 2010: "The war on drugs is being won by Swindon Police after a number of successful raids. [...] It comes after one of the biggest cannabis factories was discovered in the town centre by officers at the former West Bromwich Bank on the junction of Morley Street and Commercial Road on Tuesday. [...] Two men were arrested – a 20 and 40-year-old from Vietnam – at the scene in connection with cultivating the 2,000 plant crop at various stages of growth. [...] Now the head of the dedicated drugs squad Sergeant Scott Hargreave, based at Gablecross Police Station, said his team was winning the war on drugs in Swindon. 'In the 10 months we have been up and running as a drugs team we have arrested in excess of 60 people,' he said. 'Out of these 46 have been charged with intent to supply. We have executed 46 warrants and 80 percent have been positive searches, whereby drugs have been found."
Harm reduction drug policies work in many countries

Ethan A. Nadelmann. National Review Online.: "harm reduction. That concept holds that drug policies need to focus on reducing crime, whether engendered by drugs or by the prohibition of drugs. And it holds that disease and death can be diminished even among people who can't, or won't, stop taking drugs. This pragmatic approach is followed in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, and parts of Germany, Austria, Britain, and a growing number of other countries."
War on Drugs is a good idea even if not "winnable"

John Hawkins. "In defense of the drug war." Human Events. January 25th, 2007: "While it's true that we may not ever win the war against drugs -- i.e. never entirely eradicate the use of illegal drugs -- we're not ever going to win the war against murder, robbery and rape either. But our moral code rejects each of them, so none -- including drugs -- can be legalized if we still adhere to that code."
Drug War in Columbia is failing to cut drug trade

Rory Carroll. "Why the war on drugs in Columbia may never be won." Guardian. February 16, 2010: "Military helicopters continue to scythe over treetops in the Colombian jungle and hundreds of millions of dollars are still poured into the fight – but there is a growing conviction that it cannot be won. [...] It may evolve and change shape, move from jungles to cities and from bloody battles to discreet bribes, but it will not end with a flag planted in the ground and victory declared."
War on Drugs helps combat drug-related crimes

The US Drug Enforcement Administration claims: "Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.— US Drug Enforcement Administration (2003). "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" DUF research indicates that: Frequent use of hard drugs is one of the strongest indicators of a criminal career. Offenders who use drugs are among the most serious and active criminals, engaging in both property and violent crime. Early and persistent use of cocaine or heroin in the juvenile years is an indicator of serious, persistent criminal behavior in adulthood. Those arrested who are drug users are more likely than those not using drugs to be rearrested on pretrial release or fail to appear at trial.[6][7]
Higher price of illegal drugs causes more crimes by users

William F Buckley Statement to New York Bar Association. July 1st, 1996: "This is perhaps the moment to note that the pharmaceutical cost of cocaine and heroin is approximately 2 per cent of the street price of those drugs. Since a cocaine addict can spend as much as $1,000 per week to sustain his habit, he would need to come up with that $1,000. The approximate fencing cost of stolen goods is 80 per cent, so that to come up with $1,000 can require stealing $5,000 worth of jewels, cars, whatever. We can see that at free-market rates, $20 per week would provide the addict with the cocaine which, in this wartime drug situation, requires of him $1,000."
The War on Drugs is not working

"A no-win 'war on drugs'." Los Angeles Times. February 28, 2009: "It has been nearly 40 years since President Nixon began the "war on drugs" in 1971. Its objective from the outset was to suppress the manufacture, distribution and consumption of illicit drugs. By all of those measures -- and by common agreement -- the multibillion-dollar effort has been a failure. Supply is plentiful, distribution sophisticated and consumption steady. Today, there is rare consensus among policymakers, law enforcement leaders and healthcare professionals: Our drug policy, they concede, is not working."
Addicted youth should be helped, not punished.

Scarlett Swerdlow, Executive Director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) said in 2005[13] - "Half of all high school seniors graduating this year have tried illegal drugs at some point. More than eight in ten say it’s easy for them to get their hands on marijuana. Drug policies should take this reality into account and respond sensibly. But instead, the Drug Czar wants to alienate students who have problems with drugs by arresting them, kicking them out of extracurricular activities, and taking away their financial aid for college."
War on Drugs keeps drug trade profitable

Experts like Andreas von Bülow and Milton Friedman concede that almost every serious crime of terrorism is funded by illegal drugs but they don't agree that prohibition can reduce these phenomena. In fact the prohibition protects the drug cartel insofar as it keeps the distribution in the black market and creates the risk that makes smuggling profitable. As former federal narcotics officer Michael Levine states in relation to his undercover work with Colombian cocaine cartels.[8]