BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If the information is accessible in another format, it is wrong to claim that this is an issue of free speech.

This is a little reminiscent of Anatole France’s comment that “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”[i] Those who feel uncomfortable with a method of delivery are less likely to use it and are therefore excluded, in part at least, from information delivered in that format. To further exclude a group who are already denied some graphical representations of information another form of delivery does exclude them and limit their ability to speak freely as they are denied the information that is its root. Additionally, oppositions argument only works were there is real action to take up new technologies rather than letting Braille die off without investing in replacement technologies, which has been seen in several jurisdictions including India[ii]. [i] McBride, Nicholas J., ‘The Importance of Law’, in Letters to a Law Student, 2010, http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk/ema_uk_he_mcbride_letters_2/142/36409/9320853.cw/content/index.html [ii] Government turns blind eye to Braille Press. Rohit, P.S. The Times of India. 4 May 2012.
Readers of all kinds are adapting to books being produced in new formats, publishers need to respond to this decline.

All of that may well be true, however it does not make the two approaches mutually exclusive. Demonstrating that digital is good does not make analogue bad. Attacks on libraries have been driven more by austerity cuts, that are forcing 20% of the staff at Library and Archives Canada to go,[i] and the situation is similar in other countries such as the UK,[ii] than by the diminishing popularity of the book in particular or libraries in general. Indeed, the book has never been more popular as the ranks of those who like digital formats have been swelled by the digital natives of the Internet age. [i] CBC News, ‘Federal libraries, archives shutting down’, CBC, 2 May 2012, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/05/02/ottawa-libraries-archives-closing-budget-cuts.html [ii] Hall, James, ‘Scale of library cut-backs revealed’, The Telegraph, 16 March 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9146818/Scale-of-library-cut-backs-revealed.html
The increasing effectiveness of the African Union

Increasing the number of peacekeeping missions does not always mean that the result will be peace; clearly if there is a need for peacekeeping or even more so combat troops then peace has broken down. The United Nations has almost 70,000 peacekeepers deployed in Africa ,yet new conflicts and crises keep erupting; in 2013 there were new conflicts in Mali, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic. In the case of Southern Sudan this is despite there being 7500 UN peacekeepers in the country.[1] [1] Raghavan, Sudarsan, ‘Record number of U.N. peacekeepers fails to stop African wars’, Washington Post, 4 January 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/record-number-of-un-peacekeepers-fails-to-stop-african-wars/2014/01/03/17ed0574-7487-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html
War is in human nature

While we know that so long as there has been recorded history there has been war, we do not know that war is a part of human nature. Indeed there is some evidence that it is not. Research by Abo Academy University has found that primitive societies – tribes that don’t rely on agriculture or domesticated animals – don’t have group conflicts; violence is almost exclusively between individuals. As these societies are a good analogue for society before what we term civilisation arose it is likely that war is a result of civilisation not human nature.[1] [1] BBC News, ‘Primitive human society ‘not driven by war’’, 18 July 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23340252
Gains may be reversed; events can’t be foreseen

While events cannot be foreseen, fixing fragile states to make conflict less likely is possible. Eradicating poverty is already an international goal and improving governance is a regular concern among donors. The AU recognises that development, democracy and good governance are necessary to ensure stability and peace.[1] [1] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘Towards a Continental Early Warning System for Africa’, ISS Africa, paper 102, April 2005, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=99193, p.2
No mechanism to prevent crises and war exists

While the AU cannot completely prevent conflicts from breaking out it is establishing a Continental Early Warning System. This will use publically available information and involve organisations at all levels from international to local to enable the AU, and any threatened states, to take preventive action in the common good. This is linked to regional organisations such as ECOWAS which has its own conflict prevention mechanisms and has the authority to react with peacekeeping, mediation of disputes or other peace building mechanisms.[1] The AU can also ensure any conflicts that do break out are ended quickly. The creation of the African Standby Force should give the AU the strength to react to crises and prevent conflicts escalating. [1] Cilliers, 2005, pp.1, 10
The Solemn Declaration

The Solemn Declaration did not just highlight the goal but also that it would be achieved through three techniques: by 1, addressing the causes of conflicts – economic and social disparities, strengthening judicial systems to ensure accountability, and reaffirming collective responsibility, 2, preventing emerging sources of conflict such as piracy getting a foothold, and 3, engaging in conflict prevention.[1] Africa has been building the African Peace and Security Architecture to address these causes of conflict. It has created the Peace and Security Council that facilitates the AU’s response to crises; it can engage in actions from humanitarian assistance to military intervention if there are particularly grave circumstances such as genocide.[2] When it does authorise action, this action is coordinated by the AU commission. When it comes to peaceful resolution of conflict, the AU has a ‘Panel of the Wise’ made up of former presidents and others with lots of influence and moral authority who use preventative diplomacy to try to resolve conflicts.[3] [1] African Union, 2013, p.5 [2] Williams, Paul D., ‘The African Union’s Conflict Management Capabilities’, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011, http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/IIGG_WorkingPaper7.pdf, p.7 [3] Ibid, p.12
Progress in ending conflict in Africa

Conflict in Africa is slowly being ended. In 1992 there were 18 conflicts in Africa; by 2009 this had been halved to 9.[1] But a decline in the number of conflicts is not the only positive trend in African conflicts: there has also been a decline in the size of wars. They have changed from wars between two organised armies to being small scale insurgencies. In 1984 the conflicts were on average causing more than 20,000 battle deaths per year, but by 2008 only around 1,000. Even the number of incidents of genocide and mass killing has been going down from 9 in the 1980s to five in the 2000s.[2] Ending war might therefore be considered to be ambitious but it is not against the trend and not inconceivable. [1] Straus, 2012, pp.183-184 [2] Straus, 2012, pp.189-191
The increasing effectiveness of the African Union

The African Union has been taking a much more active stance in preventing and resolving conflict. Since 2003 responsibility for peace in Africa has been with the Peace and Security Council. This body has authorised AU interventions in Somalia, Sudan, Burundi, and the Central African Republic.[1] The African Union is not the only organisation engaged in peacekeeping; the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has also been actively engaged in peacekeeping, having been deployed in numerous conflicts since the 1990s, most recently in Mali where they took part alongside French forces in defeating an Islamist insurgency.[2] The AU is also boosting its collective capacity to respond to crises creating the African Standby Force made up of five regional brigades of 4000 soldiers. This force, when complete, will enable rapid deployment anywhere in Africa so helping to prevent crises becoming full scale wars.[3] [1] ‘Peace and Security Council’, peaceau.org, 23 July 2013, http://www.peaceau.org/en/page/38-peace-and-security-council [2] News24, ‘Ecowas urges members to send troops to Mail’, 23 October 2013, http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Ecowas-urges-members-to-send-troops-to-Mali-20131023-5 [3] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘The African Standby Force An update on progress’, Institute of Strategic Studies, March 2008, http://africacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/The-African-Standby-Force-An-Update-on-Progress.pdf
Not all conflict is war

What is War? The AU’s declaration does not define it. Ending all conflict is ambitious, ending only inter state war in Africa on the other hand is not. The vast majority of conflicts in Africa have been internal. The only true inter state conflicts have been the wars between Israel and Egypt, the Eritrean-Ethiopian war, the Uganda-Tunisia war, and the Second Congo War.[1] None of these are ongoing. The only conflicts that might count as inter-state that might be considered ongoing are the situation in Western Sahara and border clashes between the Sudans. Western Sahara might be considered to be frozen with very few deaths as a result of it and the Sudan conflict is in large part a result of the border being new.   [1] Wikipedia, ‘List of conflicts in Africa’, accessed 10 January 2014, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa
War is in human nature

War and conflict between groups is in human nature. As Hobbes famously wrote “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short… Nature should thus dissociate and render men apt to invade and destroy one another”.[1] Although the motives have changed, conflict has been a constant throughout human history. The first militaries were created around 2700 BC but conflict between societies almost certainly occurred before this.[2] Pledging to end all war is high minded, but it is unlikely to actually succeed in overturning human nature.  [1] Hobbes, Thomas, ‘Chapter XIII of the Natural Condition of Mankind as concerning their felicity and misery’, Leviathan, http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html [2] Gabriel, Richard A., and Metz, Karen S., A Short History of War, 1992, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0002.htm
Africa is the most warlike continent

In 2012 Africa had the most distinct conflicts of any region with 13 ongoing conflicts.[1] While Africa and Asia have throughout most of the last fifty years had roughly similar numbers of conflicts – approximately 10 per year[2] - Africa has had many more non state conflicts and the number has not declined since 2004 when there were 20 non-state conflicts; in 2011 there were 22.[3] All in all there is little hope of managing to end all these conflicts by 2020. [1] ‘Armed Conflicts 2012’, Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2013, http://www.pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/196/196101_armedconflicts_2012jpg.jpg [2] ‘Armed Conflict by Region’, UCDP, 2013, http://www.pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/196/196111_conflict_region_2012jpg.jpg [3] ‘Non-state Conflicts by Region, 1989-2011’, UCDP, 2012, http://www.pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/122/122566_non_state_region_2011jpg.jpg
Gains may be reversed; events can’t be foreseen

Africa still has many fragile states. The Institute of Strategic Studies Africa identified 26 ‘fragile’ states (meaning they have weak governance, conflict and violence, inequality and poverty) including DR Congo and Ethiopia and forecasts that there will still be 11 fragile states by 2050.[1] This rather implies that war will not be ended by 2050, let alone 2020. Even in countries that are considered stable events can quickly spiral into conflict. Mali was considered to be democratic and reasonably stable before a coup in 2012: there were multiparty elections in 1992, it held regular elections that passed international inspections, its first president Konaré willingly stood down, there was comparatively good freedom of speech and media.[2] Yet after a coup in 2012 it went downhill to the point of requiring intervention by French troops in early 2013. [1] Cilliers, Jakkie, and Sick, Timothy D., ‘Prospects for Africa’s 26 fragile countries’, ISS Africa, p.7, http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/AF_8_14Oct2013V2.pdf [2] Whitehouse, Bruce, ‘What went wrong in Mali?’, London Review of Books, Vol.34, No.16, 20 August 2012, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n16/bruce-whitehouse/what-went-wrong-in-mali, p.17
No mechanism to prevent crises and war exists

Within countries it is the state that ensures that conflict does not occur: the state has a monopoly on the use of force so ensures law and order. There is no such hierarchy between states. African nations, as with most other states in the world, believe in the sovereign right of states to manage their own affairs. In the same document as there is a pledge to end war “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each of its [AU’s] Member States” is reaffirmed.[1] While states are considered sovereign there is no possible way to create a mechanism to ensure that conflicts do not happen. The AU cannot dictate to its members to ensure they avoid internal conflicts even if the AU knows a conflict is coming as those members are the stakeholders.[2] All that the AU can do is react to ongoing conflicts when it is already spilling out of control and encourage good practice. [1] African Union, 2013, p.1 [2] Williams, 2011, p.9
The Solemn Declaration

Having a system is useless if it is not sufficiently funded to fulfil its objectives, at the moment the AU does not provide sufficient funding for peacekeeping.[1] Moreover, reaction does not prevent war -  just shortens it and reduces the intensity. The Panel of the Wise is one method of attempting to stop conflict before it becomes really violent but external mediators can only do so much in preventing conflict; most needs to come from the parties in conflict. [1] Williams, 2011, p.12
If we have been to the moon surely we could go back.

Expense is the simple reason. It cost more than $4 billion a year for 9 years, since this was more than 40 years ago there is alot of inflation to factor in.[[Ned Potter, Apollo 11 Anniversary: Debate Continues, abc news, 16th July 2009, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Apollo11MoonLanding/story?id=8090280%5D%5D Once we have been why should it be necessary to go again? According to Val Germann, president of the Central Missouri Astronomical Association in 1970, "they cancelled three [missions scheduled to fly to the moon] because of budget problems. Quite frankly the moon is giant parking lot, there's just not much there. Space is dangerous place. There's a lot of radiation. And humans become ill in low gravity. It's not comfortable -- it's not someplace you want to live."[[Christina Caron, Refuting the Most Popular Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Theories, abcnews, 19th July 2009, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Apollo11MoonLanding/Story?id=8104410&page=2%5D%5D
Hubble

The moon is about 240,000 miles away from the earth, whereas the Hubble Telescope orbits approximately 380 miles above the earth. Its a long distance to want to take a photograph of a small flag. Unfortunately Hubble is not able to photograph such a small object. Furthermore there is no need for photographs to prove we were there. The US left behind a reflective half cube that reflects lasers and other EM waves back to the earth to the same spot they came from. Amateur and professional astronomers all over the world have confirmed this, and it's not too hard to do (you just need a powerful enough laser)
the USA had every incentive to lie

Governments bungle things and secrets come out eventually, such conspiracy theories hold little water precisely because government is inefficent. Space scientist Professor John Zarnecki, from the Open University, said: "I think it would have been a far greater achievement to have mocked the whole thing up AND to have kept it quiet for four decades."[[Apollo 11 hoax: one in four people do not believe in moon landing, The Telegraph, 17th July 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5851435/Apollo-11-hoax-one-in-four-people-do-not-believe-in-moon-landing.html%5D%5D
the USA had every incentive to lie

It was the middle of the cold war, the space race was on, indeed the Russians seemed to be winning, they were the first with a satellite into space, first animals into space, first mammal and first human into space.[[ http://www.thespacerace.com/timeline/%5D%5D America seriously needed to get the big one of a man on the moon for prestige reasons, even if this meant faking it!
There are problems with the pictures

1, In the video and pictures the flag is still moving as it was just put there the effects of the motion are still present in the flag (afterall there is little friction from the atmosphere). The flag pole also got bent several times by being knocked against with the motion created giving the appearance of the flag being in a breeze 2, He does, it is simply mounted at chest level rather than having to be moved up to the visor. 3, The moon’s surface is reflective (hence we can see it so brightly from earth) meaning there is a lot of glare as they were taking pictures at an exposure 1/150th or 1/250th of a second the stars don’t show. 4, the engines were fired before landing so the module landed softly and did not hover while firing its thrusters. Moreover the rocket exhaust fired out sideways rather than straight down. 5, there were several light sources; sun, earth, lunar glare, even reflected light off spacesuits and the module. 6, the lunar surface is a fine powder it compresses very easily, the shape would then remain due to the vacuum. 7, The odd lights in the picture are simply lens flares. For many of these they would be very silly mistakes, would people believe that there are no stars on the moon, why not put them in if done in a studio, why not edit out those mysterious reflections etc[[8 Moon-Landing Hoax Myths – Busted, National Geographic News, 20th July 2009, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/%5D%5D
There are problems with the pictures

1, The American flag seems to be flapping around as if it was windy, there is no wind on the moon 2, there were two astronauts on the moon at a time yet you can see the 2nd in the visor of the first and he has no camera. 3, there are no stars in the pictures, this is space, we can see stars from earth so why not the moon? 4, the land the module is sitting on is reasonably undisturbed, the decent and landing with the firing of thrusters should have kicked up alot of dust and left a crater. 5, Shadows look wierd, they are inconsistent, not always in parallel, some objects in shadow appear well lit. 6, footprints are too clear 7, there are mysterious reflections
All Lies, The Sheeple Follow

You can never convince me that all the technology in this world will not allow beautiful close up photos from the moon. But, they don't exist? That is simply because the moon landings were a lie, the astronauts never want to share their real experiences, not even Buz Aldrin who is the only astronaut to remain in the public eye, and much of what he says never really agrees or says that they really went to the moon. You can tell, he his covering for government lies and worst yet, he knows many things that are secret that he won't and can't say. Plus, they all have gone through a debriefing that erases much of their memory of what they really saw and the first this process was not fine tuned like it is now to erase the experiences from their mind. So, the real reason why there are no good photos is simple. The moon has much alien activity and the governments of the world deal with the aliens politically to not expose them until they want to be known to mankind. No doubt we are factions of their creation and in some cases food as well as slaves (the Bible like to use the words; servants and sacrifices). That is why, they will never let you see the truth until you are in a vat of sodium solution on floor 7 of the Dulce underground base stewing for aliens to eat you.
Adults do not play with Barbie dolls

We cannot systematically blame Barbie dolls for the female populations low self esteem. Adults do not play with Barbies, they are no longer influenced by Barbie, and yet they still hold this low self esteem and body image. It is not the Barbie doll we should be seeking to blame. It is something altogether more sinister; living human beings. It is the celebrity world that creates a mental image for adults, not a plasticized Barbie. Real people is the cause of our mental image. Although it is a lot easier to blame the plastic doll, for the sake of truth and solutions, we should see the real answer; real human beings.
Children do not buy Barbie any more

This debate point must have been put forward by somewhat of a relic! Barbie is not the major trend setter amongst children anymore [[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1673&dat=20080223&id=nbIjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WSQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1788,5472705]]. There has been a year on year slump in sales. Barbie no longer dominated the best selling Christmas toy list and Barbie no longer takes up several aisles in a store. Times are changing. Bratz are taking over. Given that these dolls have over inflated heads, and removable feet, I am sure that these dolls do not affect body image amongst young girls; and due to Barbies dying popularity, I very much douibt they are affecting the thoughts of young girls either.
Body image shaped in childhood can be conveyed into adulthood

Barbie doll alone is not enough to shape mental images of ourselves. Almost every woman played with a barbie doll when they were little yet not every woman suffers from negative image of themselves. Media, consumption, beauty market, celebrity culture and beauty ideals are ubiquitous and women are exposed to those every step they take. These are the real factors affecting mental images we create for ourselves and in face of these Barbie doll doesn't seem as powerful.
Body image shaped in childhood can be conveyed into adulthood

Playing with a Barbie plays important role in how girls shape their ideas about perfect body type. It is not surprising that girl aspire to look like a beautiful Barbie, who seem to have everything any girl could dream of - skills, hobbies, ponies, men etc. There's no surprise they associate Barbie's success with their body-type, either. The way Barbie doll body is distributed is particularly disproportionate, unrealistic and unattianable. No woman has breast this large and with the waist this small. Yet the research show that girls aspire to have Barbie-like body type after being exposed to the dolls. Similarly to grown-up women, who learn about beauty from beauty/fashion magazines, and through which they internalise ultra-thin body images, girls who spend years playing with Barbie dolls can internalise their body type and start to feel inadequate and grow a negative perceptions about their own bodies as a result. Most of people agree that we remember messages and lessons we learn in childhood and transfer them into adulthood. Early years spent on admiring Barbie's assets in the world where beauty and body image are emphasised, can surely increase our susceptibility to messages about body ideals, no matter how unrealistic they are. The risk is not only for girls but also for boys who can aspire to have a Ken-like, muscular body which is similarly unattainable as Barbie's thin body. Helga Dittmar, reader in psychology at Sussex University These ultra-thin images not only lowered young girls’ body esteem but also decreased their satisfaction with their actual body size, making them desire a thinner body.