BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
2008 Tibetan rioters attacked Han Chinese individuals and their property

Han Chinese are the predominant ethnic group in China, and Hui, who are a Muslim minority. According to the BBC and the Wall Street Journal, rioters focused on setting fire to and looting businesses owned by them. James Miles, in an interview with CNN, made the following assessment, "What I saw was calculated targeted violence against an ethnic group, or I should say two ethnic groups, primarily ethnic Han Chinese living in Lhasa, but also members of the Muslim Hui minority in Lhasa." According to The Economist, "The mobs, ranging from small groups of youths (some armed with traditional Tibetan swords) to crowds of many dozens, including women and children, rampaged through the narrow alleys of the Tibetan quarter. They battered the shutters of shops, broke in and seized whatever they could, from hunks of meat to gas canisters and clothing. Some goods they carried away, while other goods were thrown into large fires lit on the street." First, this demonstrates that the Tibetans are culpable for human rights abuses, which delegitimizes claims they make against China in this regard. While China may be violating certain human rights standards, it is not clear that Tibetans would do any better if they had their own independent nation.
The PRC bases its legal claim to Tibet solely on historical grounds

This argument is simply meant to frame the legal debate. The PRC makes no claim to sovereign rights over Tibet as a result of its military subjugation and occupation of Tibet following the country's invasion in 1949-1950. China does not argue that it has acquired sovereignty by means of annexation in this period. Rather, it bases its claim to Tibet solely on the theory that Tibet has been an integral part of China for centuries. Therefore, the below arguments against China's historical claims represent a complete legal case against China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet (starting in 1949).
The Chinese government has been abusive in policing Tibet

Amanda Bower. "Dalai Lama: Tibet Wants Autonomy, Not Independence". Time. April 16th, 2006 - "the present situation, in reality, I think that 99% of the Tibetan population is very, very unhappy. Every year, I think more than 10,000 Tibetans come to India. Some escape, some with permission. Every single Tibetan, when you meet them, is crying, complaining, including some Tibetans who have high level positions and are party members. I think many foreigners who visit Tibet and who have some close contact with local Tibetans also get the same impression. There are a large number of police forces there. Why? Too much suspicion, too much fear. If what the Chinese government claims is true, there's no need for security like that. This is very bad, not only bad for Tibetans, but also for the People's Republic of China as a whole."
China bases its historical claim to Tibet on illegitimated Chinese documents

China's historical claim relies entirely on its own historical documents. It does not base any of its claim on Tibetan historical documents. Since China is the annexor in this relationship, such a full reliance on its own documents is invalid. The problem for China is, of course, that Tibet's own historical documents paint a clear history of Tibetan independence. These documents and their history of Tibetan independence should be given greater weight that China's self-satisfying documents, and they should help establish Tibet's rightful claim to independence.
How could China have "liberated" Tibet in 1949 if it claims prior sovereignty.

It is odd that China, on the one hand, claims that Tibet has been part of China since the 13th century, and then, on the other, claims that it "liberated" Tibet in 1949 from an unfortunate past? But, liberated it from what? You can only liberate a country from a situation that your country does not control. Therefore, the Chinese government's use of the term "liberate" seems to be an admission that China has not governed Tibet contiguously since the Mongol invasions. Either this, or it would have to argue that it was liberating Tibet from circumstances that China created while Tibet was under its control.
China's historical claim to Tibet is delegitimized by its historically forceful means.

While it may be possible to say that Tibet was part of China in its history, we need to ask deeper questions about how this happened. It is not legitimate for countries to stake claims on regions or other countries simply because they have conquered those other countries in parts of their histories. Turkey, for instance, cannot lay claim over Hungary simply because the Ottoman empire once conquered the region. The means by which a country acquired control over other countries is important. "Conquering" other countries or regions can be cited as, at a minimum, a less legitimate form of achieving sovereign control over a region. A history of acceptance, integration, and ideally democratic approval of the sovereign control of a government is a much more legitimate basis for laying sovereign claims down the line. On this basis, it is possible to argue that China's historical claim to Tibet is highly illegitimate, as it is based on a history of conquering and suppressing the Tibetan people against their will.
China has not swamped Tibetans with Han Chinese immigrants

Pro-Tibetans often cite the rise in Tibet's population after 1950 as a result of a Chinese policy to swamp Tibetans with Han Chinese immigrants. But, there is a different explanation for these numbers. The population of Tibet in 1737 was about 8 million, and that due to the backward rule of the local theocracy, there was rapid decrease in the next two hundred years and the population in 1959 was only about 1.19 million. Today, the population of Greater Tibet is 7.3 million, of which 5 million is ethnic Tibetan, according to the 2000 census. The increase is viewed as the result of the abolishment of the theocracy and introduction of a modern, higher standard of living. In addition, the PRC says that the border for Greater Tibet drawn by the government of Tibet in Exile is so large that it incorporates regions such as Xining that are not traditionally Tibetan in the first place, hence exaggerating the number of non-Tibetans.
China liberated Tibet in 1949 from an oppressive history

"Tibet: China's policy paper on Tibet". Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. May 2004 - "The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 ended the dark history of the semi-colonial, semi-feudal China, realized unification of the country, unity of ethnic groups and people's democracy, and brought hope to the Tibetan people that they could control their own destiny in the large family of the motherland.
A history of close-ties and military assistance does not equate to Chinese sovereignty.

Many countries have close ties and even assist one another militarily. But, this does not equate to a history of sovereign control. "Tibet and China: Two Distinct Views". Rangzen.org. Retrieved 17.4.08 - "During the Manchu rule (1644-1911), the Qing army was asked by Tibetans to settle disputes. But, this does not support China's right to Tibet. If it did, then the U.S.A. should claim Kuwait and Haiti since it assisted these countries. In fact, on a number of occasions, Tibet exercised power over China, suggesting that perhaps Tibet should claim China!"
Tibet has violated human rights, so may abuses by China shouldn't be held to a double standard.

Tibetan authority under successive Dalai Lamas was itself a human rights violator while the old society was basically a serfdom and, according to foreigners who witnessed it, slaves even existed [28][20].PRC argues that the Tibetan authority under successive Dalai Lamas was itself a human rights violator while the old society was basically a serfdom and, according to foreigners who witnessed it, slaves even existed [28][20].
Military of Tibet oppresses Tibetans

"Proving Truth from Facts". Released by the Tibetan Government-in-Exile on 7 July 1993 partly in response to China's white paper. - "Chinese control in Tibet has been and continues to be maintained by a large military force. The number of PLA troopsand other security forces varies, but in the entire area of Tibet there are, at any rate, several hundred thousand well-armed and -equipped men. Lhasa is virtually surrounded by military camps and the inner city has a heavy presence of special armed police and undercover security personnel. In the north of Tibet, China has nuclear installations and testing grounds. China's Ninth Academy, located in Dhashu (Haiyan) in the northeastern Tibetan province of Amdo, remains today an important and high security military weapons plant. The militarisation of Tibet not only represents an oppressive burden on Tibetans and a source of fear and terror, it is also a source of instability and potential conflict in the region."
The People's Republic of China cannot inherit ownership over Tibet.

Even if Tibet was owned by past Chinese governments, why should this mean that the modern People's Republic of China should inherit such ownership? The People's Republic of China is not a descendant of past Chinese governments. Quite the contrary, it is a form of government that is entirely different than all past Chinese imperial (and other) forms of government. As such, any past claims to Tibet do not necessarily pass on to the modern Chinese government.
China's military is in Tibet due to the separatist threat there.

China's military presence in Tibet is a justified response to a serious separatist threat both inside of Tibet and from the Tibetan Government in Exile in India. This is a serious threat to the integrity and unity of China, and the government has the right to take heavy-handed action against it. If Tibetans renounced their rebellious separatism, the military presence would be unnecessary. Maybe this should be the focus for change in Tibet, instead of independence. If Tibetans became less inclined to seek independence, much of the conditions that cause them to seek independence - like a military presence - would be ended.
The Seventeen Point Agreement was signed under duress and is illegitimate

"Tibet and China: Two Distinct Views". Rangzen.org. Retrieved 17.4.08 - In 1951, "the 17-point agreement was imposed on the Tibetan Government by the threat of arms after 40,000 PLA troops had already seized Tibetºs eastern provincial capital, Chamdo. The Tibetan delegates were threatened. The seal of the Tibetan Government was forged by Peking. In Tibet, The 14th Dalai Lama could not freely express His disapproval. However, soon after arriving in India, He repudiated this Agreement stating it was "thrust upon the Tibetan Government and people by the threat of arms."
China is a communist nation, so inherently suppresses Tibetan rights.

It should not be ignored that China is a communist nation. It is mostly un-democratic, deprives individuals of individuals rights (inherently), suppressing dissent, and generally acts to maintain central control. There are few democratic or other means to express grievances. For the Tibetans, a minority at the fringe of China's attention, this is a dangerous situation. Independence would lead to a much more representative and secure Tibetan government who would secure the individual rights and interests of Tibetans.
Tibet's history as part of China for just the last 50 years is sufficient for China's continued sovereignty.

In modernity, contemporary historical claims are the most important historical claim to consider. China has governed Tibet since 1950. While it has had a self-admittedly mixed record in governing Tibet, it has, in recent decades, helped invest in and modernize Tibet, while respecting the core tenants of its culture. These efforts demonstrate that the Chinese government has done a respectable, albeit imperfect, job of governing Tibet. This is all the historical sovereignty one need look at. Sovereignty is an expression not simply of historical claims, but of the contemporary willingness and competency to govern a region effectively. China has done an adequate job of this since 1950, and so should retain Tibet within its sovereign control.
China continues to arrest and hold Tibetan political prisoners

International Campaign for Tibet. "Political Prisoners". Retrieved April 20th, 2008 - "The use of detention, arrest and imprisonment of large numbers of Tibetans continues to be an integral part of China's effort to suppress opposition to Chinese rule in Tibet. Tibetan political prisoners endure harsh prison conditions, including torture, deprivation of food and sleep, and long periods in isolation cells[...] Reasons for arrest can include printing political leaflets, shouting reactionary slogans, encouraging reactionary singing, hoisting or possessing the Tibetan flag, participating in demonstrations and/or showing allegiance to the Dalai Lama."
China is engaging in torture in Tibet

International Campaign for Tibet. "End Torture in Tibet". Retrieved April 20th, 2008 - "In November 2005 the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Dr Manfred Nowak, visited China and Tibet. This is the first time the SR on Torture has been able to visit China and Tibet, after successive efforts failed due to Chinese opposition[...]The People's Republic of China ratified the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CAT) in October 1988 and outlawed certain forms of torture in 1997. Nonetheless, today torture continues to be used extensively in Tibet's network of prisons and labor camps with the full knowledge of the PRC's leadership."
China, under the Republic of China government, continued to maintain sovereignty over Tibet between 1912 and 1950.

During this period, no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition. Tibet itself acknowledged Chinese sovereignty by sending delegates to the Drafting Committee for a new constitution of the Republic of China in 1925; to the National Assembly of the Republic of China in 1931; to the fourth National Congress of the Kuomintang in 1931; to a National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1946; and to another National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1948.
The Chinese government has restricted media access in Tibet.

During the 2008 unrest in Tibet, Chinese authorities restricted the ability of foreign and Hong Kong media to enter and freely report on the region, with the exception of James Miles, a correspondent from The Economist, who gained approval for a week-long trip which happened to coincide with the increase in tensions. On March 27, following a promise by premier Wen Jiabao to allow the media back in as soon as practicable, the Chinese authorities organised a controlled tour of Lhasa by foreign media. Chinese authorities have also reportedly attempted to block access to several major internet media outlets by Chinese citizens during the turmoil. All of this indicates a serious flaw in Chinese governance of Tibet, and delegitimizes its control of the region.
Tibetans opposed China's occupation since the invasion in 1949.

After the invasion in 1949, organized protests first began in 1952 and led to an revolt in 1959 that was brutally suppressed by the Chinese government. It demonstrates that the Tibetans strongly opposed the occupation from the beginning; enough to be willing to fight and die for their independence. This indicates that the Chinese occupation was never seen as legitimate by Tibetans, that it violated an inherent sense of identity and sovereignty, and, as such, that Tibetans retain a strong right to self-determination and independence.
Tibet will modernize only if it remains part of China

The Dalai Lama, in an interview with Time Magazine. April 16th, 2006 - "As far as the future is concerned, look at the European Union. In the past centuries, those nations talked most about their sovereignty. Now, today, the common interest is more important than each individual nation's sovereignty. Tibet is a landlocked country, a large area, small population, very, very backward. We Tibetans want modernization. Therefore, in order to develop Tibet materially as a modern nation, Tibet must remain within the People's Republic of China. Provided Chinese give us a full guarantee of preservation of Tibetan culture, Tibetan environment, Tibetan spirituality, then it is of mutual benefit. [Besides] foreign affairs [and] defense [are] all the things which Tibetans can manage by themselves. Tibetans should have the full autonomy."
China quelled the feudal intentions of the 1959 Tibetan uprising

"Tibet: China's policy paper on Tibet". Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. May 2004 - "[I]n face of the ever-growing demand of the people for democratic reform [in accordance with the Seven Point Agreement], some people in the upper ruling strata of Tibet, in order to preserve feudal serfdom, and supported by imperialist forces, staged an armed rebellion all along the line on March 10, 1959, in an attempt to separate Tibet from China. On March 28 of the same year, the State Council announced the dismissal of the original local government of Tibet, and empowered the Preparatory Committee for the Tibet Autonomous Region to exercise the functions and powers of the local government of Tibet, with the 10th Panchen Lama as its acting chairman. The Central People's Government and the Preparatory Committee for the Tibet Autonomous Region led the Tibetan people in quickly quelling the rebellion, implemented the Democratic Reform, overthrew the feudal serfdom under theocracy, and abolished the feudal hierarchic system, the relations of personal dependence, and all savage punishments. As a result, a million serfs and slaves were emancipated, and became masters of the country as well as of the region of Tibet, acquired the citizens' rights and freedom specified in the Constitution and law, and swept away the obstacles, in respect of social system, to the exercise of regional ethnic autonomy."
127 B.C marks the beginning of a long history of Tibetan statehood.

China does not claim any sovereignty over Tibet before around the 8th and 9th centuries. But, Tibet became a state in roughly 127 B.C. Therefore, for over eight hundred years, Tibet was indisputably independent, given the fact that the Chinese government does not make any claim to Tibet in these years. That Tibet was certainly independent from China for its first eight hundred years of existence certainly is a strong factor in Tibet's favor.
An independent Tibet would bring to power a repressive Buddhist theocracy

The Tibetologist Robert Barnett wrote about the violent tendencies of powerful monks against the introduction of anything un-Buddhist that might diminish their hold to power: "The clergy who destroyed the attempts of the Tibetan government and the previous Dalai Lama to enlarge and modernize the Tibetan army in the 1920s...were not motivated in the slightest by objections to violence, but by the fear that modernization might, by increasing links with the un-Buddhist British, lead to the diminution of the monasteries' power; indeed there were several insurgencies against the previous Dalai Lama or his regents this century led by monks in defense of that belief."
Tibet recognized at Geneva conventions after WWII

Michael C. van Walt, an international legal scholar and a board member of the International Campaign for Tibet. "Tibet File No.18: The Legal Status of Tibet". Cultural Survival Quarterly (Vol. 12, 1988) - "It should be noted that numerous countries made statements in the course of UN General Assembly debates following the invasion of Tibet that reflected their recognition of Tibet's independent status. Thus, for example, the delegate from the Philippines declared: 'It is not clear that on the eve of the invasion [in] 1950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country.' The delegate from Thailand reminded the assembly that the majority of states 'refute the contention that Tibet is a part of China.' The US joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese 'aggression' and 'invasion' of Tibet.'"
China has no right to keep Tibet while depriving it of its natural leader, the Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama is the spiritual figure-head and historical leader of the Tibetan people. And, yet, he is forbidden by the Chinese government from returning to Tibet. China has no right to deprive Tibet of its leader. This is, in fact, a supression of Tibetan spiritual freedom, as well as its freedom to democratically elect its leader in the currently "autonomous" Tibetan region. If China is unwilling to allow the Dali Lama to lead in the country, than it must allow Tibet to gain independence.
The Atlas of Chinese History Maps depicts Tibet as an independent country before 1280.

These maps were published by Chinese Social Science Institute in Beijing.[1] Indeed, it does not appear that China makes any significant historical claim to having sovereignty over Tibet until the 13th century and the Mongol invasions. But, it should be re-affirmed that Tibet's unquestionable independence between 127 B.C. and the 13th century concedes that Tibet was independent for, at a minimum, the majority of its existence. This, creates an uphill battle for China's historical claim to Tibet.
China's population strongly opposes Tibet independence.

Fareed Zakaria. "Our Tibet Protests Won't Work". Washington Post.com. April 15th, 2008 - "[...]on this issue, the communist regime is not in opposition to its people. The vast majority of Chinese have little sympathy for the Tibetan cause. To the extent that we can gauge public opinion in China and among its diaspora, ordinary Chinese are, if anything, critical of the Beijing government for being too easy on the Tibetans. The real struggle here is between a nationalist majority and an ethnic and religious minority looking to secure its rights"
During the Tang Dynasty, close social and economic relations were built between the Tibetans and the Hans

In the Tang Dynasty (618-907), the Tibetans and Hans [Chinese] began a path toward unification. This started with the marriage of a Chinese princess to Songtsen Gampo in 641. This led to many further political and kinship ties and close economic and cultural relations, the most notable of which was an agreement in 821 that laid a solid foundation for the ultimate founding of a unified nation.
Tibetans should not accentuate differences and create prejudices pursuing independence.

Even if Tibet has certain unique distinctions over most of these other minority groups, it is unclear why this should warrant their independence. If we offer independence to Tibet on the basis of these distinctions, aren't we inflating the importance of differences in the world. Isn't this contrary to the principles of tolerance, multiculturalism, and compassion espoused throughout the moder world and, particularly, by the Dalai Lama. If compassion is central to Buddhist philosophies, shouldn't these differences be minimized? Indeed, Tibet's pursuit of independence has inflamed pro-Tibet/anti-Chinese and pro-China/anti-Tibet feelings and voices across the world. The pursuit of independence creates destructive battle lines and lasting prejudices in this way.
Agreement of 821 is signal of Tibet unification with China

"China, Tibet and Chinese nation. Facts and Figures on Tibet in 1999". The Statistics Bureau of Tibet, 1999. - "The Tang-Tubo Alliance Monument erected in 823 still stands in the square in front of the Jokhang Monastery. The monument inscription reads in part, 'The two sovereigns, uncle and nephew, having come to agreement that their territories be united as one, have signed this alliance of great peace to last for eternity! May God and humanity bear witness thereto so that it may be praised from generation to generation.'"