BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Taliban failed to provide good government for Afghanistan.

It was not the fault of the Taliban that there were several years of drought in Afghanistan, something which would cause great suffering in any peasant economy. And while some Afghan refugees specifically fled the Taliban’s austere regime, most were displaced during two decades of warfare that preceded it, or left the country for economic reasons. Nor is it surprising that the Taliban had difficult relations with the representatives of the United Nations, as it is not recognised by the UN, where the Afghanistan seat in the General Assembly was still held by the discredited regime the Taliban overthrew. The opposition seems to think that negotiations equal to condoning human right's violations and handing over a sort of Carte blanche to the Taliban. Whereas talks pressurize such groups effectively to give up their evil ways. The point of talks is to give very little power on very definite humanitarian conditions/terms. To trade. If there are no talks; then the Taliban will proclaim victory (as they do already) once the coalition forces are withdrawn and continue fighting local governments at the cost of civilian lives in the region. (The eventual withdrawal of coalition forces is not being debated).The war is in an economic loss and the people/governments of the democratic nations of the UK and USA frankly care more about their/our failing economies than the state of Afghan civilians who have been suffering with the coalition's knowledge since before 1989. To clarify further for the opposition seems to not be wary of this; in democracies, countries should and in time do; work according to the will of their people.
The war is too expensive, so a deal needs to be made to end it.

President Obama himself has said, “Ultimately as was true in Iraq, so will be true in Afghanistan; we will have to have a political solution.” At a time when fiscal policy has become a major concern among western legislatures and commentators, the increasing cost of the war is proving to be politically contentious. Therefore, a political solution to the conflict is no longer merely desirable, but necessary. Continuing the war will cost too much, both in political and budgetary terms. USA and UK have to make financial considerations in light of the continuing aftermath of the global financial crisis. One glaring estimate suggests that America will spend over 700 billion U.S dollars on the military in 2010. The conflict in Afghanistan cost approximately $51 billion in 2009 and was expected to hit $65 billion in 2010. The purchase of air conditioning systems for Afghani facilities accounts for more than $20 billion of this figure. Obama's policy of deploying more and more troops has cost the American people significantly more than the status quo would have. Every extra thousand personnel deployed to Afghanistan costs about $1 billion.[1] In the current financial climate taking on such exorbitant costs is not in the economic interest of the USA. It is not only sending troops (and reinforcements) to Afghanistan, but also the medical treatment of war veterans when they return that is costing America huge sums of money. The number of psychologically ill soldiers; as well as those suffering from near-fatal and/or debilitating injuries is still climbing tragically upwards, furthering the cost. To top that, war veterans feel that Americans are not paid enough. Mr.Obey, Rep. John P. Murtha and Rep. John B. Larson have proposed levying an annual tax of $30,000 on US citizens to 'share their(the military's) burden.[2] [1] Doug Bandow, «A War We Can't Afford The National Interests», January 4, 2010, http://nationalinterest.org/article/a-war-we-cant-afford-3344 [2] ibid
Afghan history shows failings of foreign invasion, so this campaign is also doomed to failure.

No state has ever been able to impose alien political institutions on the Afghani people, whether by force or by flattery. The Russians tried and so did the British, but neither was successful. In fact, the greatest massacre of British soldiers happened in Afghanistan in 1842. The British then awarded these tribesmen with fancy titles and the Khyber pass was thereafter protected by Pakistani and Afghan tribes (the ancestors of the Mujahadeen & then the Taliban). The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was thus never manned by British soldiers. More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon made it alive to Jalalabad.[1] The Russians threw bombs, tanks, landmines and napalm at the Afghan guerrilla army, the Mujahadeen. They killed around half a million people, injured many more but they still faced dismal defeat in the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Therefore before the situation spirals out of control, the British and the Americans should commence a power sharing deal with the Taliban.[2] The opposition may argue that the Taliban cannot be trusted. Nine insurgents are very capable of fibbing about the Pakistani intelligence. There is no way that funds siphoned off from any clandestine secret intelligence agency can realistically be traced to it. Word of mouth, especially when the mouth belongs to the enemy is rarely credible. Therefore negotiating with the Taliban directly feels ineffective. They might argue that talks solely with Pakistani-Afghan government representatives is a rather more feasible and less dangerous means of achieving the coalition's desired end. However, such talks frequented have borne little fruit. In fact Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban if any progression towards peace is to be made. The coalition's ancestors were wise. [1] Robert McNamara, «Britain's Disastrous Retreat from Kabul», http://history1800s.about.com/od/colonialwars/a/kabul1842.htm [2] «Obama Will Vow Troops Leaving by July 2011», CBSNEWS, December 1, 2009 9:35 PM, Updated 3:44 p.m. ET, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/01/politics/main5851527.shtml
Cloning violates human dignity

When people resort to talking in wholly empty abstract terms about ‘human dignity’ you can be sure that they have no evidence or arguments to back up their position. It is difficult to understand why the act of sexual intercourse that leads to sexual procreation is any more ‘dignified’ or respectable than a reasoned decision by an adult to have a child, that is assisted by modern science. The thousands of children given life through IVF therapy do not suffer a lack of dignity as a consequence of their method of procreation. The Catholic church regards every embryo from the moment of existence as a living person. This position is not shared by most Western governments, and it would deny not only cloning, but IVF and all the medical knowledge and benefits that have accrued from embryo research.
Cloning treats children as objects

The decision making and the effort that will be required to clone a human suggests that the child will be highly valued by its parent or parents. Furthermore, we should not pretend that every child conceived by sexual procreation is born to wholly well-intentioned parents. The desire to have ‘a son and heir’ is common around the world but does not concern the welfare of the future child. Similarly, children are often conceived out of marital custom, in order to consolidate a relationship, or even in order to gain free accommodation from local housing authorities. Finally, many children are not intended at all, but are born as a result of unplanned pregnancies. There would be no fear of ‘accidental cloning’ that could bring a child to a parent who was unprepared, or unwilling, to love it.
Will allow the elimination of diseases

Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes.[1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease. [1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122429/ethics/disadvantages.htm, accessed 08/20/2011
Clones will still be individuals

Cloning will lead to eugenics, or the artificial manipulation and control of the characteristics of people. An American geneticist, Dr. Dan Brock, has already identified a trend towards ‘new and benign eugenics’ that is perpetrated by developments in biotechnology. This can particularly be seen on a small scale with ‘designer babies’.[1] When people are able to clone themselves they will be able to choose which type of person shall be born. This seems uncomfortably close to the Nazi concept of breeding a race of Aryan superhumans, whilst eliminating those individuals whose characteristics they considered unhealthy. The ‘Boys from Brazil’ scenario of clones of Hitler, the baby farms of ‘Brave New World’, or even the cloning or armies of identical and disposable soldiers, might soon be a very real prospect. [1] BBC News, Designer baby row over US clinic, published 03/02/2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7918296.stm, accessed 08/22/2011
Cloning should be allowed for those who can’t otherwise have a child

Human reproductive cloning is unnecessary. The development of in vitro fertilisation and the practice of sperm donation allows heterosexual couples to reproduce where one partner is sterile. Moreover, merely 300 babies are adopted each year in the United Kingdom.[1] It might be better for potential parents to give their love to existing babies rather than attempt to bring their own offspring into an already crowded world. [1] Thompson, Joanna, ‘Is Adoption A Better Way’, CARE Centres Network, http://www.ukadoption.com/great-britain/is-adoption-a-better-way.html
Cloning is unsafe

The technology is unsafe. The nuclear transfer technique that produced Dolly required 277 embryos, from which only one healthy and viable sheep was produced.[1] The other foetuses were hideously deformed and either died or were aborted. Even today, cloning animals through somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply inefficient. The success rate ranges from 0.1 percent to 3 percent, which means that for every 1000 tries, only one to 30 clones are made. Or you can look at it as 970 to 999 failures in 1000 tries.[2] Moreover, Ian Wilmut and other commentators have noted that we cannot know whether clones will suffer from premature ageing as a result of their elderly genes. Dolly the sheep herself suffered from premature arthritis.[3] There are also fears that the reprogramming of the nucleus of a somatic cell in order to trigger the cell division that leads to the cloning of an individual may result in a significantly increased risk of cancer. [1] Barnes, Deborah, ‘Research in the News: Creating a Cloned Sheep Named Dolly’, National Institutes of Health Office Science Education, http://science-education.nih.gov/home2.nsf/Educational+ResourcesTopicsGe... [2]University of Utah, Learn Genetics: Cloning, http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/cloning/cloningrisks/, accessed 08/20/2011 [3] Kilner J., Human Cloning: What's at Stake, published 08/10/2004,http://cbhd.org/content/human-cloning-what%E2%80%99s-stake, accessed 08/20/2011
Playing God

Cloning is playing God. It is not merely intervention in the body’s natural processes, but the creation of a new and wholly unnatural process of asexual reproduction. Clerics within the Catholic, Muslim and Jewish faiths have all expressed their opposition to human cloning. However, this objection to cloning is not specifically theological. David Hume, the eighteenth-century Scottish moral philosopher, warned us to heed our feelings as much as our logical reasoning. Leon R. Kass of the University of Chicago has stated in relation to human cloning, that mere failure to produce scientific reasons against the technology does not mean we should deny our strong and instinctive reactions to it. As he states, there is a "wisdom in repugnance".[1] [1] Kass, Leon R., ‘The Wisdom of Repugnance’, New Republic, Vol. 216, Issue 22, 2 June 1997, http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0006.html
Cloning violates human dignity

Reproductive cloning is contrary to human dignity. ‘Donum Vitae’, the declaration of the Catholic church in relation to the new reproductive technologies, holds that procreation outside the conjugal union is morally wrong.[1] Many secular organisations, such as the WHO[2] and UNESCO[3] have issued statements that similarly find cloning violates human dignity. Assisted reproductive technologies might all be seen as challenges to human dignity, including IVF and sperm donation. However, human cloning is a completely artificial form of reproduction, which leaves no trace of the dignity of human procreation. [1] Cardinal Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day’, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_... [2] Brock, Dan W., ‘Cloning Human Beings’, e-3, http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc5.pdf [3] The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights’, UNESCO 29th General Conference, 11 November 1997, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/...
Cloning treats children as objects

Cloning treats children as objects. Children will be manufactured by an expensive technological process that is subject to quality control. The gulf between an artisan and an artefact is immense. Individuals will be able to have a child for the sake of having children, or as a symbol of status, rather than because they desire to conceive, love and raise another human being. Cloning will not only allow, but actually encourage, the commodification of people.
Will allow the elimination of diseases

Cloning is unlikely to be widespread so any dangers from any reduction in the diversity of the human gene pool will be so limited as to be virtually non-existent. The expense and time necessary for successful human cloning should mean that it will only be used to the benefit of the small minority of people who require the technology. The pleasure of procreation through sexual intercourse does not suggest that whole populations will prefer to reproduce asexually through cloning. The only significant lack of diversity which can be expected will be in women who suffer from a severe mitochondrial disease. They will be able to use cloning by nuclear transfer in order to avoid passing on the disease which is carried in their egg cells to any offspring. This elimination of harmful genetic traits from the gene pool is no different from the eradication of infectious disease, such as small pox, and should be welcomed. So against these very marginal worries there is potentially great good to be done through cloning. Currently already we have IVF and genetic screening which can prevent that babies with certain diseases are born. In 2000 the baby Adam Nash was born, genetically manipulated through IVF, as a genetic fit to cure his sister Molly from Fanconi anemia.[1] While this was not cloning it gives an idea what cloning could possibly cure. It could be a way of curing siblings from chronic diseases and also ensuring that the transplants (for example) will not be rejected due to genetic differences. [1] BBC News,  ‘Designer baby’ ethics fear, published 10/04/2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/955644.stm, accessed 08/20/2011
Clones will still be individuals

There is much more danger of eugenics associated with developments in gene therapy and genetic testing and screening, rather than human cloning. The notion of clones of Hitler is frankly preposterous. Psychologists have shown that nurture is at least as important as genes in determining personality. It would be impossible to produce another Hitler, or Elvis, or whomever, by cloning or any other ART. Clones (people with identical genes) would by no means be identical in every respect. You only need to look at identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other) to see how wrong that assumption is, and how different the personalities, preferences, and skills of people with identical genes can be.[1] The idea of breeding huge fighting forces is also confined to the realm of science fiction. The necessity of thousands of willing mothers, the nine month gestation process, and the many years rearing this child towards adulthood, means that cloning would hardly be an efficient technique for any mad dictator to raise an army. And there is no reason, in any case, to suppose that a clone would be any more willing or effective a soldier than any other human being - clones (like twins) are just as conscious and free as everyone else. [1] Harris, John, ‘”Goodbye Dolly” The ethics of human cloning’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 23, 1997, pp.353-360,  http://jme.bmj.com/content/23/6/353.full.pdf
Cloning should be allowed for those who can’t otherwise have a child

The desire to have one’s own child and to nurture it is wholly natural. The longing for a child genetically related to oneself existed long before biotechnology, but it is only recently that medicine has been able to satisfy it. In vitro fertilisation remains an imperfect technology. Couples typically submit to four cycles of costly treatment before producing a child as the chances of having a child can be as low as 10%.[1] Evidently, the technique does not assist homosexual couples, couples where both partners lack gametes, or where the female partner suffers from a mitochondrial disease. Cloning would allow a child to be born to all these couples. [1] Wildsen S., Human Cloning – role of the scientist, West Virginia University,  http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/EvolutionPage/Studentsites/cloningpage/PROS2.html, accessed 08/20/2011
Cloning is unsafe

Cloning is in this respect no different from any other new medical technology. Research is required on embryos in order to quantify and reduce the risk of the procedures. Embryo research is permitted in Britain until the fourteenth day of embryo development. Many other Western countries are also actively engaged in embryo research. The thousands of ‘spare’ embryos generated each year by IVF procedures and destroyed could be used to the good purpose of human cloning research. It should be noted that cloning has come a long way since dolly in 1997. In 2008 Japanese scientists managed to create clones from the bodies of mice which had been frozen for 16 years.[1] [1]BBC News, Scientists clone from frozen mice, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7707498.stm, accessed 08/20/2011
Playing God

This argument assumes that we know God’s intentions. Evidently, there is no biblical statement on the ethics of human cloning. Who is to say that it is not God’s will that we clone ourselves? Hindu thought potentially embraces IVF and other assisted reproduction technology (ART).[1] Moreover, every time that a doctor performs life-saving surgery or administers drugs he is changing the destiny of the patient and could be thus seen as usurping the role of God. Furthermore, we should be very wary of banning something without being able to say why it is wrong. That way lie all sorts irrational superstition, repression, fundamentalism and extremism. [1] Tierney, John, ‘Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion’, The New York Times, 20 November 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/science/20tier.html?pagewanted=all
Cloning harms families

This argument is wholly unsuited to the modern age. Society freely allows single people to reproduce sexually, whether by accident or design. Existing lawful practices such as sperm donation allow deliberate procreation without knowledge of the identity of the father. Surely it is preferable for a mother to know the genetic heritage of her offspring, rather than accept sperm from an unknown and random donor? Moreover, reproductive cloning will allow lesbian couples to have children genetically related to them both. It might be better for the welfare of the child for it to be born into a happy relationship, but the high rates of single parenthood and divorce suggest that this is not always possible.
Internet access as a new human right.

Creating a human right specifically for internet access is an example of ‘human rights inflation’ where by every group wants their issue to be a human right and as a result human rights that are not necessary or are too specific begin to devalue the whole concept of human rights.[1] While there may be a new ‘society’ operating online the internet is certainly not essential for the existence of society. An online society is an interesting distraction for people and indeed there are many who spend immense amounts of time cultivating virtual relationships but this virtual sphere does not need a human right to enable it to continue. The internet is in some ways a free for all and there have already been internet social networks that have collapsed or been taken offline. This may be disruptive for those who relied on this network as their online society but they can simply find another. If unable to access the internet they still have access to other forms of society in the real world. Thus while forming and taking part in society is fundamental for humanity that this should be possible online is not. [1] Bleisch, Barbara, ‘The human right to water – normative foundations and ethical implications’, Ethics and Economics, 4 (2), 2006, p.8
The right to internet access fills a gap in traditional human rights.

The freedom of speech does not mean that there is a right to reach as broad an audience as possible.  It does not mean there is a fundamental right to access the internet or any other individual medium of communication. If indeed there is some kind of ‘gap’ in human rights it does not mean that it has to be filled by creating some spurious new right for individuals to enjoy. If there was a lack of recognition of a freedom of readership then this is because there is no need for the human right to exist let alone in a form that privileges access to the internet over other forms of information access.
Internet access is a necessary part of the right to freedom of information and expression.

This is taking the freedom of expression too far. A freedom to impart information does not mean the freedom to impart it through whatever medium the individual wishes simply through a method of communication. It is also taking it too far to consider that the government has a duty to prevent others from interfering with individual’s access as this is impractical. Governments should not have the power to interfere with private businesses that may wish to deny internet users access for things like not paying their bills. The third interpretation is interpreting this freedom much too broadly, human rights are meant to prevent the government from oppressing their citizens rather than forcing government to provide something.
Human rights are dependent upon the state

Human rights are meant to protect the individual from the state rather than being dependent upon the state. The state cannot decide what these human rights are and can only constrain human rights if it is necessary to protect the human rights of another.[1] Human rights are necessary precisely because states ignore the freedoms of their citizens so often. The sources of international law are irrelevant when referring to human rights as these are a higher law natural law that overrides a system of international law that has been created only over the last couple of hundred years. [1] Brown, Chris, ‘Human rights’, in John Baylis and Steve smith The globalization of world politics 2nd ed Oxford University Press 2001, pp.599-614 p.604