BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Protesting about the past is pointless

Better late than never! Although admittedly the protests at the behaviour of the financial sector would have been more effective were they mounted before the crisis, the general public did not foresee the recession in this way. At least the people are voicing their concerns now and through emphasising the deep unrest felt by many, world leaders will be forced to take action. Many are dubbing this a 'revolution' and talking of 'the end of capitalism' and in this sense it is not so much a protest about the past but a call for a different future. It may seem that protests lack influence and real direction, thus pointing to their unavailing function as a form of resistance. This is further entrenched now that it has become a `common sense´. Policy-makers and institutions also favour other forms of non-governmental activity before having to negotiate with `critical´ individuals. They rather dialogue with organizations that have adopted and most importantly accepted neo-liberal doctrine, as any project has to work with the grain of the market rather than against it. That is the imperative starting point for any successful negotiation in their minds. Nonetheless, protests may not have direct influence but indirectly they are able to exert pressures on real issues to those outside of the policy-making process, and in that process groups of resistance can form. Remember that protests are one of the basic means for class realization, where individuals can find others than are struggling on the same basis. In a situation of increasing decommunitization fragmenting our society, protests may not be the most desired means for objectives but it may well be the only way.
Anarchy is no better than terrorism

All war is capitalist .. Anyone who supports capitalism has blood on their hands. We live in a capitalist state with capitalist interests that must be protected. The handful of anarchists who broke the windows of the Royal Bank of Scotland made a visual point that a handful of people do not agree with the indifference of these politics and glass. When banks stop robbing people. People will stop robbing banks. But it does not have to be a situation of either or, lets not dive into a realist interpretation. So society does need banks, but in the same way that we need our hospitals, our schools, our roads, etc. Let's start treating bankers not for their prestige, but as simple civil servants. There is no justification out there that legitimizes their ridiculous pay-checks, whilst others in temporary employment are slaving away for a salary that just covers their basic needs. And if it has come to a state of anarchy in protests, these individuals are not complaining for the sake of complaining. There are reasons for their discontent, haven't we learned to listen? If there is no absolute truth, what each of these protesters believe to be the case is of equal value to the belief held by anyone else, be it a politician, a journalist or a teacher. Lets start embracing subjectivity, and stop assume objectivity in the belief of policy-makers.
Anti-Capitalist Values Not Conducive to Healthy Society

The protests by anti-capitalists, anarchists and environmental campaigners have resulted in violent confrontations between riot police and bottle-throwing protesters. Demonstrations for these 'causes' are never going to be peaceful, especially when people turn up with their faces covered. Anarchy and anti-capitalism are not healthy values, not democratic values, and demonstrations by these groups inevitably lead to violence, as happened at the G20 protests on Wednesday. Clearly riled up, the demonstrations were never going to be wholly peaceful, and, sure enough, protesters began chants like "build a bonfire, build a bonfire. Put the bankers on the top, put Gordon Brown in the middle and burn the f…..g lot" - clearly not healthy values to have, decreeing both political leaders to burn to death, along with capitalism! Of course we are in the middle of a terrible financial crisis that the IMF claims the UK will spend the longest time out of the G7 countries recovering from, but these attitudes should not be encouraged. The storming of RBS in London by protesters who threw expensive computers out of the window and basically trashed the place are not to be condoned. These are the kind of repurcussions that occur from protesters who are angry at developments but may be essentially unsure what exactly they are protesting about. We are a capitalist society which should not be trying to intimidate bankers, most of whom are not on salaries the size of Sir Fred Goodwin's and who are not to blame for the financial crisis. What we need are new international rules for banks to adhere to and it should be this we should be demonstrating for - not the end of capitalism as we know it!
Protests have demanded a massive police presence

The G20 summit in London has been described by Scotland Yard as the capital's most challenging police operation in a decade. [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5077798/G20-terrorist-plot-uncovered-by-police.html]] The Metropolitain police are streched to thier limits as an alleged 5,000 police officers drawn from more than 30 forces are in place to control the anarchists and environmentalists, and 2,500 Police officers are patrolling the Square mile alone [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/G20/article6012059.ece]]. Some have even said that figure is an understatement designed to make protestors complacent. According to estimates the policing is costing around 10 million. As well as this being a massive expense in a time of economic hardship, other events such as the England world cup qualifier at Wembley demand a police presence which is probably not forthcoming in the volume required, due to the thoughtlessness of these protestors.
Protesting about the past is pointless

Protestors have directed their rage at the financial sector and the capitalist system, blaming it for the current economic downturn. What do these protestors actually want to happen though? If you listen to their banners and shouts they want to 'storm banks', 'attack City workers' and 'reclaim the streets'. For what exactly? How will this improve the economic situation? If they had protested at the ridiculous mortgage and credit offers in this fashion then perhaps they would have had an effect but these protests after the mistakes have been made will achieve nothing in real terms. They are not making any serious suggestions that G20 leaders can listen to, merely venting their anger about a situation they helped to cause by accepting the loans and mortgages.
Anarchy is no better than terrorism

For all those that willingly abide by the laws of the country, the prospect of thousands that don't is an intimidating thought. The anarchic protestors want to cause disruption, and exact revenge upon those that they believe have wronged them. Are these so very different from terrorist aims? City workers have been advised to 'dress down' and wear jeans not suits amid concerns they will be vicimised by angry mobs. This form of protest is almost as ineffective as terrorism because by it's unreasonable nature it deters co-operation. The police want to control and manage the rioters and bankers are defiant not apologetic. They are still turning up to work despite the disruption and are now able to claim victim status! One City worker on Twitter descibed the protests as a good thing because he got to wear jeans,and was provided with sandwiches for lunch 'in case he was too scared to go out' and Sky news was showing less 'celebrity twaddle'. If the protestors had found an effective intelligent way to voice their disontent rather than resorting to childish taunting and violence thn perhaps the perpertrators would not be getting off so lightly. With free sandwiches.
Abolishment is an unrealistic goal

In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The treaty, which calls for an end to all nuclear testing, includes provisions for extensive and independent mechanisms for the monitoring of nuclear activities. Such mechanisms could easily be co-opted for use in implementing, monitoring and verifying any future nuclear disarmament process. Kimbali The de facto global nuclear test moratorium and CTBT’s entry into force are crucial barriers to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states and are essential to the future viability of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). They are the first two of the 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive nuclear disarmament that were unanimously adopted in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference
The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies.

The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies. Peace during the Cold War was maintained only by a balance of power - neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be confident of victory. This eventually became the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: both sides had sufficient weaponry to totally annihilate one another, and potentially the whole world. However, there is no longer a balance of power. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of their own. It is not clear that the major nuclear powers would then strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups. Would it ever be acceptable to kill thousands of civilians for the actions of extremists?
Nuclear weapons undermine our commitment to international security forces

As an argument against eliminating nuclear weapons: Some of the biggest tragedies of the past two decades – Rwanda and Darfur spring to mind – have been perpetrated not with nuclear weapons but with machetes. That aside, the UN as a military authority? does that entail a United Nations Army, under the command not of the leaders of the states from which the forces will be drawn from or something else? "Were any other country to launch a nuclear attack on Great Britain the UN would step up to the task" how so? nuclear retaliation? from the United Nations non-existent arsenal or from one of its member states who did not give up their nuclear detterent. Or perhaps not nuclear retaliation but some sanctions and a UN mandate for other states to go in to the warring nation whilst not endangering that particular states' sovereignty untill peace is made. Sounds good but would you want to rile a nation that has just shown how it willingly utilises nuclear weaponry offensively, why wouldn't it use them defensively against the UN nations invading? States exist in a system of anarchy, collective security is at best unreliable and given the nature of the international beast it would be foolish at best to give up nuclear capabilities and the abilty for self help. Finally Just because a nation can defend itself does not mean it would nnot defend others take for example Britain's involvement in Sierra Leone or NATO in Kosovo. To suggest that if they had not had nuclear weaponry the powers would have stopped genocides in Africa is misguided at best.
Expense

The cost of propper Nuclear disarmament is huge. It is more than simply putting htem away in storage or burrying them or shooting them into the sun or whatever easy solution you imagine. Rather the correct and safe disarmament is an expensive and technical process. It is actually cheaper to renew nuclear programmes than it is to deconstruct them. A lot of people seem to think the USA should lead the way on the process, should they then bear the costs as well? Theirs is the biggest arsenal and therefore most expensive to dismantle making it already a financially unappatizong suggestion but if they had to bear the brunt of the cost for the world (including in carrying out checks to ensure that disarmament has been carried out propperly) as they had to do with Soviet Russia after SALT 2 the the idea of expense alone would make the idea impossible to agree to. When added to the arguments mentioned above the idea becomes nothing more than an idealistic fantasy.
Risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands

While nuclear weapons can be dismantled, the weapons-grade plutonium which forms their warheads cannot simply be destroyed. Instead, they must be stored in special facilities; in Russia, there are some thousand sites were military nuclear material is stored. It is producing this plutonium which is in fact the most difficult stage in building a weapon - by dismantling missiles, you are therefore not destroying their most dangerous part, and hence the risk of theft does not decrease. In fact, it may increase: missile silos in Russia are still the most heavily funded part of the military, whereas in recent years it has become clear that security at storage facilities is often inadequate. Moreover, it is far easier to steal a relatively small quantity of plutonium than an entire Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Ironically, the safest place for plutonium in present-day Russia may be on top of such a missile.
Abolishment is an unrealistic goal

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to go back. Nuclear technology exists, and there is no way to un-invent it (Robinson, 2001). Much as the ideal of global disarmament is fine, the reality is that it is impossible: it takes only one rogue state to maintain a secret nuclear capability to make the abolition of the major powers' deterrents unworkable. Without the threat of a retaliatory strike, this state could attack others at will. Similarly, the process by which nuclear weapons are produced cannot easily be differentiated from the nuclear power process; without constant oversight it would be possible for any state with nuclear power to regain nuclear capability if they felt threatened.
Nuclear weapons undermine our commitment to international security forces

Were Britain to thoroughly commit to the United Nations instead of merely paying it lip-service (as can be said of a huge number of Western nations - particularly America), then perhaps it could resemble an effective moral and military authority. Some of the biggest tragedies of the past two decades - Rwanda and Darfur spring to mind - have been perpetrated not with nuclear weapons but with machetes, yet the international community has not taken it upon itself to act. Without support from its members, the UN cannot take action. Yet with a nuclear deterrant countries are able to believe that they can still defend themselves independently, at the expense of upholding commitments to defend others. It is time for the UK to accept that its years as an island are now over, replenish it's nuclear arsenal knowing that were any other country to launch a nuclear attack on Great Britain the UN would step up to the task. (At the very least in theory. In practice downsizing our arsenal whilst stepping up our UN commitment could be the working solution.)
Risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands

While nuclear weapons exist, they can fall into the wrong hands. This is particularly true in Russia, which now had control of all of the nuclear weapons which were distributed around the former Soviet Union. The military is disastrously underfunded; technicians and officers who were used to a high standard of living are now finding themselves without pay, sometimes for years. At the same time, other states and extremist groups are willing to pay substantial sums for their services, and to gain access to nuclear weapons. The danger of a weapon being stolen, or - in consideration of the current political instability in Russia - a nuclear base being taken over by disgruntled members of the military or other extremists, can only be ended by destroying the weapons (Allison, 1997).
All nuclear weapons threaten health and quality life of people

Any nuclear weapon is a potential terrorist bomb, yes potentially it is, in fact any weapon isa potential terrorist weapon however most of them are much easier to use. If a terrorist does manage to get their hands on a nuclear warhead, a high yield ballistic misslie warhead, for example where are these non-state actors going to then construct their ICBM launch site? If the security of the weapons is light then perhapsit is with ease that a terrorist may get a hold of the weapon, but building a placeto launch it is not so easy to do without the support of the state they're building it in. Remeber the Cuban Missile Crisis? Aerial photos of the construction just because the Cold War is over does not mean similar measues are still not being taken. But perhaps the terrorists are just using a tactical nuke or want to simply detonate their device in-situ. The bomb then has to travel, completely undetected, accompanied by rather anxious, possibly know terrorists, accross multiple borders, arrive at the destination and then finally be detonated. It seems quite a big ask either way and thats without mentioning the appropriate skills and funding required that would rule out the majority of would-be city destroyers. Furthermore, eliminating weaponry does not eliminate the existence of nuclear material in reactors and waste dumps. This material itself is potentially very dangerous were it to fall into the wrong hands - a so-called "dirty bomb" would cause mass panic at the very least, and there have been indications that terrorists have been trying to construct one for some time. It is surely better to keep nuclear material under high security in secret military bases than large, insecure waste dumps.
Would leave nations vulnerable and result in more death.

Nuclear Weapons should not be abolished because not everyone would destroy there's and terrorist groups would make their own. This would leave terrorist groups and countries that don't destroy there missels at an advantage over the ones that do. As much as everyone hates the devastation and horror that took place in Japan at the end of the second world war, it was nesisary and saved lives in the long run. Japan would not have surrendered and it is estimated that the U.S. would lose 200,000 people that number alone is more then the lives lost in japan from the bombs. If the bombs had not dropped more of there people would have died fighting then thos that did in the blast. Also the threat of nuclear war stops wars from even occuring. Countries that would have gone to war now don't becuase they do not want nuclear war to happen.
Nuclear Weapons are a hedge

We don't know what the future can bring. Just as no one predicted 9/11, we don't know if we will face major challanges to the US in the future - from Russia, from China, from unknowns. We need to keep our powder dry and be ready just in case. Nuclear weapons do provide a measure of defence against other nuclear states. A strike by one country against, say, the US, would easily be detected and while measures would be deployed against the incoming missiles (see the 'son of star wars' program), retaliation could only be in the form of a nuclear strike. The knowledge that other states possess nuclear weapons is a reason not to attack those states.
All nuclear weapons threaten health and quality life of people

Any nuclear weapon anywhere is a potential terrorist bomb. There have been cocnerned for over 15 years about the security fo nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Now, however, those concerns are more wide-spread. Unrest in Pakistan and uncertainties in China have raised the alarm about the security and instability in other countries. The recent news that 6 nuclear weapons took a joy ride on a B-52 without the knowlegde or permission of base commanders or proper authorities reminded people that security in the United States is also far from perfect. We know terrorist groups have stated their desire to acquire nuclear weapons. If security over the weapons we have is imperfect, and we know sub-national groups are trying to acquire them, then to protect ourselves, the best way to proceed is to eliminate all nuclear weapons ro ensure they never fall into the wrong hands. If the nukes have terrorist bomb potentiality, then the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the fact that nukes have heavy destruction at high blast overpressure and threanten the health and life of people. People there now are still exposed to the radiation, let alone the people then. The evarge leukemia rates and other radiation-ralated desease rates are much highter then those in other earas. The bombing in Ngasaki is in certan respects the fitter symbol of the nuclear danger that still hangs over us. Once nuke is used, nobody can ganrantee that no way it will be again. So, for the sake of the health and quality life of the people, we should eliminate all nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Weapons have ceased to be useful

Nuclear Weapons have been effective so long as they have a purpose and in this current age I would contend that the reasoning for having them. During the Cold War nuclear weapons acted as a terrifyingly effective way of detterring both the USA and USSR. But however you can't just use nuclear weapons against terrorist or transnational forces. I mean what is Israel going to do if Hizbollah decides to detonate a nuclear bomb or threatens to . Nuke Lebanon or Syria? No that would be seen as an overreaction and the price of the collateral damage would be too high.
Hand ALL Nuclear weapons over to the UN.

The idea is unfortunately Utopian. Firstly, as all the UN’s permanent Security Council members are Nuclear powers, and all posses a Veto the UN would never be able to actually authorise a strike against one of the nuclear powers (the only people capable of starting an actual Nuclear war!), obviously removing any deterrent. The suggestion is to go to the court of justice. Not only is it practically difficult but would put the political decision as to whether to use the ultimate force into non-elected hands. Not only is that morally dubious, but how could we possibly ensure an impartial hearing on the issue of Nuclear war? Further, how is it proposed that the UN would be able to move to vote on whether to retaliate to a Nuclear attack during an attack. This is not to mention the practical limitations to the scheme. Just a few examples: how do you stop an American base in America manned by Swiss soldiers from being retaken by the Americans whenever they need to? How do you fire a Nuclear ICBM when the tracking system is linked up to GPS, run by the Americans? What do you do about tactical weapons stored on ships, subs and planes? How do you ensure that EVERY weapon worldwide is under UN control? How do you stop UN corruption or betrayal? Yet perhaps the most important question of all remains: why would the nations involved do it? There is no advantage to Russia, say, of doing this, and until that materialises it would never be done in the real world.
Both the use and threat of nuclear weapons is illegal

The International Court of Justice in 1996 declared unanimously that any use or threat of nuclear weapons had to be compatible with existing international law relating to armed conflict (International Court of Justice, 1996). Furthermore, a majority of the judges present felt that any such use or threat would ‘generally be contrary’ to those rules of international law and therefore, unanimously, ‘there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control’ (International Court of Justice, 1996).