BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Universal benefits of human rights

All humans benefit from the protection of the human rights of others. For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they should lose the ability to protect themselves which they may enjoy in the present. This fear would lower the quality of life for all, and make society worse. Therefore, it could be argued that, even if fundamental human rights do not exist, it is still beneficial for us to believe in them and protect them, as we are all better off as a consequence. This applies internationally as well; the conception of universal human rights which everyone possesses has meant that many modern instances of humanitarian disasters, such as the 1984-1985 famine in Somalia, have been met with a vigorous response by nations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights, helping to alleviate the human suffering there.[1] This can be compared to historical examples in times when there was less concern with universal human rights and where therefore much less action was taken to alleviate famines and human suffering, such as occurred in the Irish Potato Famine between 1845 and 1852.[2] [1] de Waal, Alex. “Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa” African Rights and the International African Institute, 1997 [2] Kinealy, Christine. “This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52.” Gill & Macmillan 1995
Relative perceptions of human rights

If fundamental human rights really existed, then they would be equally and identically recognised in all cultures, localities and times. This clearly is not and never has been the case. Firstly there are differing conceptions of what fundamental rights are originating from different cultures and traditions, which often contradict each other. For example the former Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia Lee Kuang Yew[1] and Mahathir bin Mohamad have both cited 'Asian values' which differ from Western conceptions of human rights by having a greater focus on community stability, order and loyalty at the expense of personal freedoms.[2] Even within similar historical traditions conceptions of 'fundamental' human rights differ. The 'right to keep and bear arms' is considered fundamental under the constitution of the USA[3] but is not found in either the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights[4] or the European Union's European Convention on Human Rights.[5] Therefore no fundamental human rights exist, as if they did they would be recognised in all cultures, but they are not. This furthermore makes their application across different cultures highly difficult, and such culturally-relative conceptions of human rights may be used as excuses by more powerful cultures to control less powerful ones in the name of protecting 'fundamental' rights. [1] McCarthy, Terry. “In Defence of Asian Values: Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew”. TIME Magazine U.S., 16/03/1998. [2] bin Mohamad, Mahathir. “Agenda for a New Asia”. Address at Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Fall Gala Dinner 28/10/2000.  [3] United States, Constitution of the United States, May 1787. [4] United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948. [5] Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 1 June 2010.
Human rights contradictions

Many human rights are not compatible with each other. If two things are both 'fundamental' then they must both be equally true and important. However the protection of any human right requires the violation of others. For example the right to security of person requires the existence of a police force, which must be funded by taxes coercively obtained, which violates the right to property. Similarly the right of a wife to divorce her husband to protect her own happiness may compromise his own happiness. A right cannot be 'fundamental' if it must be weighed up, balanced against and possibly compromised in light of another 'fundamental' right, as this would mean they exist in conflict with each other.
Homosexuality exists in nature and is therefore part of God’s plan

Homosexual behaviour occurs naturally – both in humans and in the animal world, it has been observed in over 1500 animal species of all different types from mammals to crabs to worms.[1]  It must be a misunderstanding of God’s plan to say that homosexuality is unnatural – it forms a part of the world that He has created and therefore must form part of His plan. The substance of what the Bible says about sexuality is that what matters is having a stable and loving relationship, not who that relationship is with.  [1] NewsMedical, ‘1,500 animal species practice homosexuality’, 23 October 2006, http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
The Church has adapted before, it can adapt now

The Church has adapted over the centuries on a number of social and natural issues as it seeks to re-interpret and re-explain God’s message of love in the terms of modern society. For example Churches have adapted to the problems that science has thrown up, even the Catholic church, often the slowest to embrace change did eventually agree with Galileo over the earth going round the sun.[1] The acceptance of homosexuality and admission of gay priests is a necessary next step for the Church today. There will be others in the future. [1] Butt, Riazat, ‘The Vatican may be cosying up to science but it will never go all the way’, Notes&Theories guardian.co.uk, 23 February 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/feb/23/vatican-science-evolution-stem-cells
Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible

Homosexuality is "a grievous sin" in the Bible (Gen 18:20), a capital crime (Lev 20:13), and punishable by exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10). Christians - especially priests - must accept the Bible as the ultimate authority. Christian ministry is therefore incompatible with homosexuality. Jesus was a radical teacher and overturned Jewish tradition where He saw it was necessary to do so; His silence on homosexuality indicates that He saw no need in this case.
The Church condemns all sex outside of marriage, hetero or homosexual in nature

There can be no doubt that the Bible and Jesus strongly condemn sex outside of Christian marriage (or ‘fornication’). Indeed for much of Christian history sex even within marriage has been seen as a necessary evil that should only be for creating children, as a result priests, monks and nuns had to be celibate.[1] Although Jesus spent time in the company of adulterers, He loved "the sinner, not the sin" - and ordered them to cease their behaviour. His response to homosexuals would have been just as unequivocal. [1] Bacchiocchi, Samuele, ‘Marriage and Sex’, The Marriage Covenant: A Biblical Study on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/3.html
Ordination is not a right.

Ordination is a privilege of service granted to men deemed mature enough in all aspects of their lives to be able to be faithful to that service It is Catholic doctrine that Homosexuals are incapable of perceiving human nature as God as created it, consisting of male and female persons meant for mutual attraction, complementarity, and, God-willing, marriage and children. Instead, they see members of their own gender as mutually attractive in a sexual sense. They do not see females as such. In other words, they do not see or experience objective reality. Since this is so, it follows that homosexual priests possess a serious handicap which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to serve well as ordained ministers.[1] [1] Abbott, Matt C., ‘Three priests speak on ‘gay priest’ ban’. September 2005. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/050922
Homosexuality exists in nature and is therefore part of God’s plan

Infanticide is a part of nature, as is cannibalism.  What separates humanity from the rest of the natural world is our ability to appreciate morality beyond ‘what is natural’.  One of the moral rules that God has imparted to us is that the only moral sexual behaviour is between man and wife.  Other moral systems obviously take a different view of sexual ethics, but they aren’t relevant how a Christian Church should organise itself.
Sexuality is an intrinsic part of personality

There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality of Christ. We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given to use in him. Those who understand themselves as homosexuals, no more and no less than those who do not, are liable to false understandings based on personal or family histories, emotional dispositions, social settings and solidarities formed by common experiences or ambitions. Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class race or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" heterosexual; therefore there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humanity in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation.[1] [1] The Lembeth Conference 1998. Resolution I.10 http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm
Priests have to represent their congregations

Priests act as representatives of God towards members of their congregation, not vice versa. The argument against women priests is that, while women are children of God and part of the church, they cannot represent Jesus in performing the communion service simply because he was male. The same applies to homosexuals; they cannot represent Him in the same way.  The rule against gay priests but not against gay laity is not hypocritical but merely reflects the application of differing standards of discipline.
Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible

The part of the Book of Leviticus which sentences homosexuals to death also: permits polygamy, bans tattoos, prohibits eating meat that isn’t well-cooked, prohibits eating rabbits, pigs or some forms of seafood, and prohibits the wearing of clothes made of blended textiles (such as polyester). Most Christians accept that parts of the Bible were written according to the out-dated social opinions of the time and can be taken lightly. The only New Testament comments about homosexuality come from the moralising apostle Paul; there is nothing directly from Jesus, in the Gospels themselves.
The Church condemns all sex outside of marriage, hetero or homosexual in nature

Condemning homosexuality as sex outside marriage is unfair, since it is the Christian church which does not offer the right of marriage to gays and lesbians. If it were to do so, they could enjoy sex within loving relationships, sanctified by the Church, just as heterosexuals do. Jesus’ main teaching was clear - "love your God and love your neighbour" - and there is clear difference between adultery and homosexuality in this respect; the former causes pain and has a victim (the betrayed partner), the latter can be a purely loving relationship.
Success depends on military intervention.

There is no reasonable chance of success for the opposition movement absent substantial military re-enforcement by the West. The Syrian government is uniquely placed for several reasons to be able to quell any opposition movement and to rule by fear and force for an indefinite amount of time. Bashar al-Assad’s legitimacy is and never has been based on any type of democratic mandate or popular support. He rules based on control and, as such, has built up many institutions to entrench this capacity to control the Syrian public over the years. Oil revenues are high and Assad has very deep monetary reserves that allow him to buy loyalty from his military and equip himself beyond the capacity of any domestic opposition group could feasibly do. Due to these two factors, the only way that Assad will fall is by force and by force that is far greater than can be attained without the support of the West. Therefore, for the humanitarian situation to be solved, the West must invade Syria.
Invasion is not yet justified.

There is no obligation to try every other option if the other options are unlikely to work. People are unjustly suffering now, and we have an obligation to end that suffering as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Sanctions and asset-freezing are notoriously ineffective on oil-producing countries like Syria. Going through the motions of attempting to pass authorization for these actions through the United Nations Security Council, attempting to get the entire world to comply with the sanctions and then watching these actions not help anything. All this will do is prolong the suffering of the Syrian people.
Invasion is not yet justified.

Invasion is an option of very last resort, especially when dealing with a country of such strategic importance such as Syria. Invasion is an option of last resort because of the collateral damage it necessarily leads to, the impediment on sovereignty it entails and the escalation of conflict it entails. It’s the nuclear option that is reserved for the very last resort due to the severity and unpredictability of its results. With regards to Syria, we simply aren’t at the point of last resort yet. The UN hasn’t even levied sanctions against the Syrian government yet[1], never mind frozen Assad’s assets, tried negotiations or mediations, assisted domestic opposition groups or applied strong diplomatic pressure beyond a general condemnation. The danger you expose the citizens of Syria to combined with the unknowable outcome of an invasion means that it simply isn’t justified to even consider invasion until all other means have been exhausted, which they haven’t been. [1] "Syria: UN Human Rights Committee Condemns Crackdown." BBC News 23 Nov 2011.
The nature of the opposition movements makes this an unwinnable war.

The disunity of the opposition movements is the exact reason why we need to invade Syria. The other measures that are usually used to avoid war to aid opposition movements in oppressive dictatorships such as Syria, as outlined in Opposition Argument One, will not work. The only way we can end the slaughter of the Syrian people is through an invasion for this very reason. Although it may be messy, we have a very real obligation to invade. This is one of the reasons that underpinned the decision of the international community to authorize intervention in Libya, an intervention that can be seen to be broadly successful in ending the brutal oppression in Libya[1]. [1] Clark, David. "Libyan Intervention was a success, despite the aftermath's atrocities." Guardian 28 Oct 2011.
The nature of the opposition movements makes this an unwinnable war.

The lack of coherent and unified opposition in Syria means that a Western invasion force will have very low chances of meaningful success. Western intervention always carries the risk of fracturing a conflict by splintering opposition movements into those who do and those who do not support Western involvement in achieving their cause. This is problematic at best. With Syria specifically, this issue is augmented further still due to already existing lack of coherence and unity in the opposition movements. Absent a proper hierarchy and structure the opposition movement is going to be near impossible to cooperate with and will quickly splinter into an insurgent-style conflict. There are multiple issues with this. First, there is very low chance of success in such a situation. Second, this set-up is the type that is most likely to lead to a long, protracted conflict that does not serve the interests of the West or the people of Syria.
We have a duty to launch a humanitarian intervention in Syria.

Even if we do have an obligation to end mass suffering and indiscriminate killing, invasion is not the way to do so. Western intervention will inevitably increase the collateral damage by escalating the conflict into a full-scale war. Moreover, there is no guarantee that intervention will solve this conflict in the long-run instead of simply causing another endless war like the one in Afghanistan or Iraq. Therefore, even if we have an obligation to intervention, invasion is not the way to do it.
We have a duty to launch a humanitarian intervention in Syria.

Widespread indiscriminate killing of human beings is something that everyone in the world has an obligation to end. Mass killing of people is something that affronts the very basic meaning of what it is to be human. It denies the basic empathy and value we afford to each person on the basis of simple personhood and its occurrence is a black mark on all human beings who allow it to occur when they hold the power to end it. In Syria today, the government forces are making their people live in fear of death and are routinely taking the lives of innocent people in order to control their population through fear. This week alone, 33 people were slaughtered by government forces include 6 children[1]. The West has the moral obligation to intervene in Syria to protect the lives of the innocent people and end the reign of terror of Bashar al-Assad. [1]  "Syria: UN Human Rights Committee Condemns Crackdown." BBC News 23 Nov 2011.
Success depends on military intervention.

Although it is true that Bashar al-Assad has very strong entrenched powers of control in Syria, there are less risky and damaging ways to undermine this to help support the domestic opposition movements if this is your aim. The crux of this case comes down to the capacity of the government to outspend the opposition movements, international sanctions and freezing of state and personal assets of high-ranking leaders in Syria combined with funding of the opposition movements in Syria would gain this same end without involving Western troops on the ground.
The ICC has an anti-African bias

Every person indicted by the ICC so far has been an African, for events which occurred in Africa, all bar one case, the Libya situation (in which no trials have started and seem a long way off), are in sub-Saharan Africa. The ICC has not brought actions against anyone involved in conflict in Colombia, or for the conflict in Sri Lanka or for human rights abuses around the world. The ICC is simply selectively prosecuting.
An African Criminal Court would be better

Instead of the ICC structure, the African Union has proposed an African Criminal Court. An ACC could not only bring justice home to Africa, by creating a court which will not appear to African nations as being imposed by outsiders, but also be able to have additional remits to address other issues in Africa that the ICC does not have powers to deal with, such as coups, corruption and drug trafficking[1]. An African Criminal Court may also have a chance of being seen as more legitimate than the ICC, which had only 39% support in Kenya in July 2013[2]. [1]              IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012,  http://www.irinnews.org/report/95633/analysis-how-close-is-an-african-cr... [2]  Ipsos Synovate, “The ICC Issue and Raila’s Political Future”, Ipsos Synovate http://www.ipsos.co.ke/home/index.php/ipsos-kenya-news/21-the-icc-issue-and-raila-s-political-future
Tool for external interference.

The ICC creates a way that foreigners, and in particular the west with its tendency towards intervention, can remove and imprison African leaders[1]. Uhuru Kenyatta, the President of Kenya, who has been indicted by the court, has referred to it as a “toy of declining imperialist powers”[2]. The court is largely funded by Western countries, with the European Union providing over half the cost. So it should not be surprising if the west has a lot of power over the court. Moreover the west is dominant in the United Nations Security Council so potentially controls both the methods of referring a country to the ICC without its permission. [1]              Monbiot, George “Imperialism didn’t end. These day’s it’s known as international law”, The Guardian, 30 April 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/30/imperialism-didnt-e... [2]              Kenyatta, Uhuru, “Uhuru: ICC is a toy of declining imperial powers”, CapitalFM Blogs, 12 October 2012, http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/eblog/2013/10/12/uhuru-icc-is-a-toy-of-declin...
Detriment to peace process

The ICC has not been particularly effective in dealing with the situation in Uganda, the ICC prosecutions having been a distraction to local community reconciliation and leading to further violence [1].   Similarly, the situation in Darfur has not been helped by ICC involvement, with mass destruction of villages by people already indicted by the International Criminal Court[2]. Due to his indictment, a diplomatic solution has become harder as Rome Statute signatories are under a legal duty to arrest Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, although many have just ignored this.[3] [1]              Sinclair, Jessical, “The International Criminal Court in Uganda”, Undergraduate Transitional Justice Review, 2010, http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/undergradtjr/vol1/iss1/5 [2]              Human Rights Watch, “Sudan: Satellite images confirm villages destroyed”, hrw.org, June 18 2013, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/18/sudan-satellite-images-confirm-villag... [3]              Cooper, Belinda, “The ICC: The Politics of Criticism”, World Policy Journal, 4 December 2013, http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/12/04/icc-politics-criticism
No impunity

The ICC means an end to impunity. It has meant that warlords such as Germain Katanga have been able to be prosecuted for things like using child soldiers, which are universally reviled. What the African Union leaders are simply advocating by withdrawal from the ICC is impunity for themselves. They see one of their own – Uhuru Kenyatta, who has to face very serious allegations over his part in the mayhem after the 2007 elections which killed over a thousand people – being prosecuted and then claim it is selective. The only selection going on is that those who do not have a case to answer are not being prosecuted.
ICC necessary to provide fair trials

Domestic legal systems will often suffer from a lack of judicial independence and potentially politicised prosecutions, and are also open to allegations of victors’ justice, or whitewashes by a judiciary biased towards the winners of the conflict. The ICC, as an effective court and with an independent judiciary, provides a suitable and unbiased climate for these cases to be heard in.  While it is difficult to give any former head of state a fair trial, it is even more so in cases involving states divided along ethnic and political fault lines where any conviction could be seen as one based on continuing hatreds rather than evidence and criminal procedure. In addition, the principle of complementarity means African states can prosecute on their own if they wish.