BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tibet can follow the East Timor model to achieving independence

Ketsun Lobsang Dondup. "Independence as Tibet’s Only Option: Why the ‘Middle Path’ is a Dead End". January 25, 2007 - "China also has deep structural problems such as an inflexible political system, growing economic inequality, rampant corruption and pollution, spreading protests and disorder, and unstable nationalism directed against Taiwan, Japan, and the U.S. As Professor Samuel Huntington explained in his classic, Political Order in Changing Societies, economic growth and the mobilization of new social forces combined with inflexible politics often leads to disorder. Tibet’s best hope lies in being able to use the East Timor model to exploit disorder in China to regain independence."
Protecting Tibetan culture by opposing modernization is wrongheaded.

"The problem with Tibet". The Guardian. March 6th, 2008 - "there is the desire to save Tibet from anything that looks or smells modern: from Chinese jobs, industry, railways. Apparently such things are a threat to Tibetans' "way of life", which is honourably simple, rustic and rural. This paternalistic defence of "natural" and childlike Tibet from rampant, industrious China is perfectly captured in a Free Tibet poster."
Tibetans have the right to self-determination, and the right to choose independence.

The right to self-determination is universally held, and protected under international law. It is a function of democracy that people must consent to be governed by a country and its government. If they do not consent, then that government lacks political legitimacy over them and ceases to be capable of functioning properly in protecting the interests of those people. It is at this time that a right to self-determination can be excercised. It would appear that Tibet has been at that stage for some time.
The principles of Tibet independence should be considered outside of the context of other separatist movements.

One main argument against Tibetan independence is that it risks encouraging other separatist movements, be they in Taiwan, Chechnya, Kosovo, or elsewhere. Each separatist movement, however, needs to be considered on their own merits. It is unjust to hold a people hostage to the international political climate. Principles and the merits for Tibet independence must stand above this all.
India will not support Tibet Independence out of fear of encouraging separatists in India.

"5 reasons why Tibet unlike Kosovo will not become independent". World Front Page. March 10th, 2008 - "Fearing separatist movements on its own territory India will block Tibet independence as it already happened in the past. In November 1950 Tibet appealed to the United Nations for international assistance to oppose Chinese annexation. The Indian delegate to the United Nations opposed the inclusion of the question on the agenda. The issue was dropped on India's insistence."
China has adopted several policies aimed at honoring and protecting the traditional culture of Tibet

"Tibet: Its Ownership and Human Rights Situation," also known as the "China White Paper". Issued by Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China in September 1992. (The definitive Chinese Government line on Tibet) - "Tibet has a rich traditional culture which covers language, literature, art, philosophy, religion, medicine and the celestial almanac. The Chinese Government has always attached importance to protecting and developing the excellent traditional culture of the Tibetan ethnic group. It has adopted a series of policies and measures to honour, protect and ensure the flourishing of Tibet's traditional culture, enabling the legacy of Tibetan culture to be inherited and developed.
The Tibetan case for independence is analogous to US rationales for independence in 1776.

It is important to put Tibet's struggle for independence in historical perspective in this way. Few doubt the righteousness of the United States' declaration of independence in 1776 and its revolution against the British. But, it was not given permission to do this. Rather, it just did it. Similarly, Tibet's case is not one in which the right to self-determination is granted. It is, rather, a matter of Tibet seizing its right to determine its future (self-determination). This can only be driven by an internal will among Tibetans to obtain freedom where their own consciences tell them there is none; it cannot and will not be driven by an external offering of a right to self-determination. That right exists within. That's why it is called "self-determination".
China's development aid to Tibet only consolidates its control

Economic development projects, such as the China Western Development economic plan, or the Qinghai-Tibet Railway, are politically-motivated actions to consolidate central control over Tibet by facilitating militarization and Han Chinese migration while benefiting few Tibetans. Even the programs that are ostensibly beneficial to Tibetan development have the effect of increasing Tibetan dependence on China and China's grip on the future of Tibet.
The average Tibetan does not actually want independence from China

Certainly, many Tibetans want independence and are protesting in favor of it. The Tibetan exile population is particularly vocal in this regard. But this should not be confused to mean that a majority of Tibetans want independence. Most Tibetans are more conservative and practical, and simply want greater freedoms within China. This is reflected in the views of the Dalai Lama, who seeks only greater freedoms and autonomy, but not dependence.
Tibet independence would reduce the risks of Tibetan refugee crises.

In 2008, Tibetans, angry about their treatment under China's rule, spoke out in protest. China reacted by violently suppressing them. This in itself is a threat to international security, risking to spark a civil conflict that spills over into other countries, namely India. Refugees are a particularly relevant concern, and the Tibetan refugee-diaspora in India is notable in this regard.
The Chinese government has a right to protect the unity of China against Tibetan separatism.

US President Abraham Lincoln, in justifying efforts to maintain the union in the face of an imminent civil war, said in 1858, "A house divided cannot stand". Unity was argued to be essential to the integrity and future of the union. China can put forth the same rationale for forcing Tibet to remain part of China. If Tibet were to achieve independence, both China and Tibet would be weaker, with less geopolitical strength and with greater tensions and opportunities for conflict.
Modern veal producers follow strict regulations on humane treatment

Modern veal producers use advanced husbandry practices, as outlined in the Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Veal Calves, which regulates such things as stall sizes and structures. Farmers, researchers, and processors in conjunction with the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada wrote this code in 1984. Copies of it can be found at www.livestockwelfare.com.
Veal is low in fat

Juliette Jowit, environment editor. "Veal back on a guilt-free British menu". The Observer. January 20 2008 - "Veal is also seen as attractive to health-conscious shoppers, because it is low in fat - a benefit highlighted by the Channel 4 programme Cook Yourself Thin last week, when it substituted veal for half the beef in spaghetti bolognese."
Veal farming is an economically important industry that cannot be scrapped

If we were to ban veal farming, many people would lose their jobs and the whole veal industry would be destroyed. Many people do make a living out of killing veal and selling the meat. It would be bad for the industry, our economy and - nearly everyone. Chefs, farmers, butchers; even truck drivers would be affected if veal farming was banned. It would mean a loss of many, many jobs, people's careers and people's money; lots of people would lose wages and lose many. Just think of how big a blow this would be on society.
Veal is easy and fast to cook

Juliette Jowit, environment editor. "Veal back on a guilt-free British menu". The Observer. January 20 2008 - "Another selling point is that it's fast to cook, said Gill Smith of Waitrose, the only supermarket that continued to sell British veal for 20 years: 'A thin-cut fillet can go from pan to plate in minutes, so it appeals to a new generation of foodies who are time-poor.'"
Calves are kept in inhuman conditions in hutches

"Veal: A Cruel Meal" - "Solitary Confinement The veal crate is a wooden restraining device that is the veal calf's permanent home. It is so small (22" x 54") that the calves cannot turn around or even lie down and stretch and is the ultimate in high-profit, confinement animal agriculture.(1) Designed to prevent movement (exercise), the crate does its job of atrophying the calves' muscles, thus producing tender 'gourmet' veal."
Veal calves are kept in tortuous conditions

"Veal: A Cruel Meal" - "The real issue is the calves' experience. During their brief lives, they never see the sun or touch the Earth. They never see or taste the grass. Their anemic bodies crave proper sustenance. Their muscles ache for freedom and exercise. They long for maternal care. They are kept in darkness except to be fed two to three times a day for 20 minutes. The calves have committed no crime, yet have been sentenced to a fate comparable to any Nazi concentration camp."
Veal tastes very nice.

Veal is liked by many people and tastes very nice and tender. The meat of veal is expensive but delicious and some people eat it even though they are aware of and against the animal rights abuse that goes on in the process of getting the meat. The veals' inhumane conditions mean that we are given the best meat possible. While the inhumanness of it can certainly be seen as a cost, it is inappropriate to avoid considering what that cost leads toward; an often highly positive, culturally-rooted human experience. It is arguable that this human experience is worth the pain suffered by an animal, particularly if we subscribe to a "human-dominion-over-animals" world-view.
Veal farming is inherently abusive to calves to meet market demands

After baby cows are taken away from their mothers and sold at auctions, they are taken to a tiny wooden crates that they will live in for the rest of their short lives. They cannot exercise or even lie down and they are kept in darkness and deprived of certain nutrients, in order to ensure that their muscles remain weak and tender when consumed by humans. Treating baby cows in this way is not justified by any human desire for tender meat.[2]
Veal calves require antibiotics and medicine that are passed onto consumers

"Veal: A Cruel Meal" - "Because of such extremely unhealthy living conditions and restricted diets, calves are susceptible to a long list of diseases, including chronic pneumonia and 'scours,' or constant diarrhea. Consequently, they must be given massive doses of antibiotics and other drugs just to keep them alive. (The antibiotics are passed on to consumers in the meat.).
Veal farming is a good alternative to the slaughtering of unwanted calves

The dairy industry as well as the meat industry often slaughter baby calves for a variety of reasons, either because more calves are born than are needed to supply either dairy production or cow meet, or because the calves that are born will be of an undesirable quality when they grow up, either as a source of dairy products or of meat. It is better to rear these calves for veal than to slaughter them wastefully.
If cattle land-use is a problem, the markets are best for solving the problem.

The government should not intervene where the markets are more capable of doing so. If land-use is a problem, and if cattle take up more land per calorie produced than other forms of produce, than we would expect the price of meet to rise significantly relative to other agricultural goods. This would cause the demand for cattle and meat to fall, which would lower the production of cattle and veal and the land used in the production of these goods. Such a market-based response to heavy cattle land-use is better than any governmental response to the problem.
Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal

"What is wrong with veal?". Animal Defenders International. Retrieved 4.07.08 - "Milk-based diets are balanced rations that involve commercial milk replacers, which utilize surplus skim milk powder and whey – both byproducts of the dairy industry – in their production. These commercial milk replacers are of equal or greater nutritional value than milk straight from the dairy cow. A great deal of time and care are taken to train the young calves to drink their milk from pails, and during this training period their diet will be supplemented with water and electrolytes to ensure they receive adequate fluids and nutrition."
Modern cultures are shifting against veal.

Many people who are concerned about animal rights refuse to buy veal. The number of people who don't buy it are in the millions and this number is increasing as anti-veal campaigners spread the message about how cruel cows are treated in the process of making veal. Many people have stopped buying veal and restaurants have started to take this product off the menu and therefore veal is in less demand. Banning veal production would please more people than it would disappoint. A ban would make human rights and animal rights activists particularly happy. They are particularly disgusted by veal production, and it is important to consider that their disgust, and the disgust of others is part of the modern culture. By extension banning veal production would please and strengthen segment of modern culture.
Hutches are an important part of classic veal production.

Hutches keep veal weak and their muscles atrophied so that they are tender to eat. This tenderness is an important part of the history and culture of veal consumption. The tenderness of the meat has always been its signature feature, and continues to be in high demand. There is importance to this cultural delicacy that must be considered, even against the treatment of the veal that is required to procure this delicacy.
Many people are against whaling, veal is even worse.

Many people are opposed to practises such as whaling and killing pig, lamb or other animals for meat. Killing this meat for veal is just like these practises, except even worse. The living conditions the cows lived in for their short lives were appalling, the cows were constantly contracting diseases, were forced to be weak and sore all over, all the time. Animals like chickens and sheep have much better living conditions than cows used in veal - these cows get shoved into a tiny crate and then get killed in a bloody death. This is, really, like whaling except even worse: About 1000 whales every year are killed, but veal get killied every day in the thousands. And, at least whales get freedom during their lifetime.
Grain-only diets are adequate for calf veal farming

"You were asking about… Veal Calves". Farm Issues.com - "Grain-based diets are usually a balanced corn-based feed that contains supplemental protein, vitamins and minerals, and it becomes the calves’ exclusive diet after weaning. Feed is usually available on a free choice basis. A market weight, 272-kilogram grain-fed calf will consume 7 kilograms of feed per day."
Veal and cattle production is a generally inefficient use of land

"What is wrong with veal?". Animal Defenders International. Retrieved 4.07.08 - "In addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!"
Dollarization is difficult where anti-Americanism is pervasive

Dollarization is a maneuver that sees a significant degree of a country's own image, in its currency, replaced by the image of the United States dollar. In nations where anti-Americanism is high, such a situation is not welcome, could lead to protests and violence, and may have political costs for national leaders that adopt such policies. It may also accentuate anti-Americanism and, subsequently, even terrorism.
Dollarization shows commitment to renouncing currency devaluations

Dollarization has been proven to eliminate the posibility of currency crises. Thourgh the decision to give up one's ability to conduct monetary policy , the dollarized country has no ability to appreciate or devalue their currency as to have an advantage in international trade. This inability coupled with the stability of the adopted currency mean the dollarized country cannot actually pursue any policy towards currency devaluations.
Dollarization can increase competition, innovation, productivity

Dolarization removes arbitrage within trade.Arbitrage is is the practice of taking advantage of a price differential between two or more markets.When this happens entrepreneurs in the dollarized country are faced with a large array of opportunities on how to better perform within international trade.This will make them focus on improving producion skills, developing niche businesses, invent and increase their competitiveness. Empirical examples from El Salvadaor prove this has been the case post dollarization and it has lead to even more economic growth.
Dollarization makes sense for nations trading mainly with US

Dollarization significantly reduces transaction costs and eliminates currency conversion fees. It helps in this way enhance economic links between the dollarized country and the currency issuer country. From the perspective of the dollarized country , dollarization stabilizes their inflation and improves their credibility internationally.Hence they can extend their trade with the currency issuer country and gain more benefits as the transaction costs are lower. From the perspective of the currency issuer country,the elimination of a currency risk leads to more trust from the consumers in any of the dollarized countries' products. Also the elimination of the currency conversion costs can provide incentives for tourists and business to go and invest in the dollarized country.
High inflation and economic instability have historically led to authoritarian regimes

In order for money to perform its role it there is a “a priori” need or inflation not to occur. Inflation according to Austrian School Monetarist, Steven Horwitz, distorts monetary calculation and the ability of money to coordinate people . Out of the need for coordination and order people will look to other means or achieving order , more specifically through the political process. His argument is that inflation makes people more likely to desire totalitarian regimes and provides the example of now the inflationary periods of interwar Germany allowed for the rise of National Socialism.
Dollarization and integration encourage stability

Dollarization combined with a financial integration provide the dollarized country with access to the large realm of international funds and liquidity.This means that there can be exchanges of funds between the dollarized country and the currency issuer country without any risk.This reduces the instability of foreign capital flows and also helps stabilize exchange rates. Ultimately, a more stable financial system in the dollarized country benefits consumers that will have access to internationally competitive international financial institutions.
Hamas caused blockade/conflict by adopting terrorism

Ephraim Sneh. "Why Israel Is Bombing Gaza". Washington Post. January 1, 2009 - "In January 2006, rule over Gaza passed to the Hamas government under Ismail Haniyeh. Instead of bringing investors to Gaza, the Hamas government brought the guerrilla-warfare trainers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. [...] In June 2007, in a brutal and bloody military coup, Hamas took control of Gaza and soon killed or chased out the leaders of President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement. Gaza became nothing less than a military base for Iran. [...] The Hamas takeover is what in effect locked the gates of Gaza and forced its residents to suffer."
Israel's assault in Gaza was an act of last resort

"JCPA Supports Israel’s Efforts to Stop Gaza Rocket Attacks". Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Press Release. December 29, 2008 - "Israel has taken great lengths to avoid this sort of escalation, but was left with no other way to ensure that its civilians would not have to live in fear of rocket fire. Just a few days ago, outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an appeal on the Arab television station Al-Arabiya asking Gaza residents to stop the firing of rockets and mortar shells so that a military response could be avoided."
Palestinians, not Israeli blockade, are to blame for failed Gaza economy

"Was Hamas Provoked?". International Jewish News. January 8, 2009 - "Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August, 2005. Not only did Israel not attempt to defeat economic recovery in Gaza, Israel went out of her way to give it an initial boost. Israel left behind an extensive network of greenhouses. Palestinians in Gaza destroyed them. Mark that as the first step in Gaza’s descent into economic crisis. Palestinian malice was so pure, its rage so blind, its self-interest so irrelevant, that it destroyed a first basis of its economic flowering."
Israel killed many times more civilians than Hamas

Rashid Khalidi. "What You Don’t Know About Gaza". New York Times. January 7, 2009 - "The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious. But the numbers speak for themselves: Nearly 700 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed since the conflict broke out at the end of last year. In contrast, there have been around a dozen Israelis killed, many of them soldiers."
Israel need not be "proportional" against Hamas terrorist attacks

Alan Dershowitz. "Israel's Policy Is Perfectly 'Proportionate'". Wall Street Journal. January 2, 2009 - "The claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality -- by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets -- is absurd. First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian."
Blockade was justly designed to cut off arm imports to Gaza

"Was Hamas Provoked?". International Jewish News. January 8, 2009 - "Israeli control of Gaza’s borders was a response to Hamas’ exploitation of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza to turn it into an armed, Islamic state dedicated to the destruction of Israel above all else, even its own economy. Hamas was not provoked. Quite the contrary. Hamas’ arms smuggling was the provocation. Then, on top of this provocation, Hamas fired rockets indiscriminately into Israel. The idea that Hamas was provoked leapfrogs the facts."
Israel's right to self-defense does not justify mass murder

Ilan Pappe. "Israel's righteous fury and its victims in Gaza". The Electronic Intifada. January 2, 2009 - "Israel is engulfed once more with righteous fury that translates into destructive policies in the Gaza Strip. This appalling self-justification for the inhumanity and impunity is not just annoying, it is a subject worth dwelling on, if one wants to understand the international immunity for the massacre that rages on in Gaza."