BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Illegitimacy of the 2006 referendum

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the 2006 referendum as a “free expression of the will of South Ossetia’s people through democratic procedures. Many countries in Europe and America could only envy the level of organization and democratic transparency [in South Ossetia].”[1](10)Similarly, Luis Tascón, a member of the National Assembly of Venezuela, stated during visit to S. Ossetia that “Those people who wish to be free will be free. And the free peoples will help South Ossetia with it.”[2](13) Denying the legitimacy of this democratic referendum (whose flaws have not been proved to have been so severe as to discredit it entirely) is to deny the South Ossetian people the right to self-determination. [1] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=32238    [2] Enotes. “South Ossetian independence referendum, 2006”. Enotes. http://www.enotes.com/topic/South_Ossetian_independence_referendum,_2006
A South Ossetian state is unviable

S. Ossetia has an effective democratic government which carries out an effective control over the territory and the population. It has independent legal procedure, army and militia and security service. The state levies taxes, provides property rights and social service – public health services, provision of pensions, public safety, power and road and transport services, etc.[1](4) All this clearly points to the viability of an independent S. Ossetian state -a fact which already exists on the ground. Or, if it wants, after independence S. Ossetia is morally within its rights to  re-join with its kith-and-kin in North Ossetia, which is part of Russia. Of course, it would have to first separate from Georgia, whereupon it will have the capacity to then decide to join Russia. Moreover, few states n the world are truly self-sufficient, and there are plenty of poor landlocked countries, so in this sense S. Ossetia would not be unique. Furthermore, poverty from continual conflict is an argument to end the conflict, not against independence. [1] Bzarov, Ruslan. “Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia – a guarantee of safety and reliable future of the Ossetian people”. Speech of Doctor of historical sciences, Professor Ruslan Bzarov at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. September 2007. http://cominf.org/en/node/1166478243
Georgia has a right to territorial integrity

It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia.[1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia. [1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php/css/?m=home&newsid=2248
UK will be disentangled from EU affairs

Leaving the EU would mean that Britain is no longer entangled in foreign policy issues that are of little interest to it and instead could devote itself to other more productive issues. The two main foreign policy crises for the EU at the moment are Ukraine and migration, neither of which concern the UK when not a member of the EU. Migration would be stopped at the channel while Ukraine is at the opposite end of the EU. The EU would essentially become a buffer for the UK.
The UK needs to be part of a block to remain relevant

History is moving towards bigger and bigger blocks being relevant. The US and USSR dwarfed the previous global power the UK[1] and China and India look set too be bigger again. In a world where the great powers are regions of the globe in themselves to be influential requires being part of a bigger group. The EU negotiates on equal terms with China, India and the USA. The UK on its own would be very much a second order power. [1] See Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Random House, 1987
Power is shifting to the East

Geography has a great influence on the position of nations and their foreign policies. For example it is the UK’s Island nation status that is a major reason why it is not fully committed to the European project. Attention internationally is now shifting to East Asia where the main rising powers are; China and India. This means that the UK’s position is less geographically important so to compensate the UK needs Europe; China’s leader Xi Jinping on his state visit to Britain stated China wants “a united EU, and hopes Britain… can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties.”[1]  The United States, Britain’s main ally since World War II, is much less interested in Europe. [1] ‘China wants Britain in a united European Union, Xi Jinping tells David Cameron’, South China Morning Post, 23 October 2015, http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1871455/chinas-president-xi-jinping-tells-britains-pm-david
The EU is a force multiplier

The UK gets more bang for the buck as a result of being a member of the EU. It has representation in more countries as a result of the European External Action Service (equivalent of the Foreign Office) thus extending UK influence to countries where it would not otherwise have representation. For example the EU have representation in Djibouti[1] whereas the UK individually is represented there from neighbouring Ethiopia.[2] The UK, along with France, and to a lesser extent Germany, leads the EU on foreign policy matters, as illustrated by the first The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy being a Briton, Catherine Ashton.[3] This means the UK essentially gains from the backing of the other 26 member states giving the UK a much more influential voice globally. For example the EU has a role in the Middle East ‘quartet’ of the EU, USA, Russia and United Nations[4] giving the UK a place at the table on the key issue of Israel Palestine where otherwise it would have none. [1] ‘Délégation en République de Djibouti’, Délégation de l’Union européenne, http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/djibouti/index_fr.htm [2] ‘British Embassy Addis Ababa’, Gov.uk, https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-addis-ababa [3] ‘The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’, Europea Union External Action, http://www.eeas.europa.eu/archives/ashton/index_en.htm [4] ‘The Quartet’, Office of the Quartet, http://www.quartetrep.org/category.php?id=a374y41844Ya374&c_type=1
Leaving the EU will mean the UK will have less regional influence

Like it or not the UK is a part of Europe geographically and as such the countries that are most important to UK foreign policy are also in Europe. Leaving the EU will damage relations with those powers that are currently a part of the EU, and potentially also those who are used to dealing with the UK as part of the EU. The United States has noted it “benefits from a strong UK being part of the European Union”[1] in much the same way as the UK does. If this is the UK's strongest ally's view what would be the view of the powers from whom out would mean divorce? The UK will be outside the group trying to influence it rather than on the inside. The EU states will no longer need to listen to the UK on a wide range of issues where it has previously been a key voice. [1] Earnest, Josh, ‘Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Josh Earnest’, White House, 14 March 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/14/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-3142016
The UK would have a completely independent foreign policy

It is a misconception that any nation has complete sovereignty in the realm of international affairs, the restraints and restrictions as a result of being in or out are simply different. Every foreign policy has to operate within the context of the international system, and the capabilities with which the state has. Leaving the EU will give back certain areas with which the UK can negotiate but at the same time will ensure the UK is a lone voice rather than part of a combined negotiating position. The common foreign policy is just that; 28 countries making the same point, much more difficult for even the biggest nations to ignore. The decision making is done by all the heads of state/government so cannot be said to represent a loss of sovereignty.[1] [1] ‘Foreign & security policy at EU level’, EUR-lex, updated 8 December 2015, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Aai0025
Britain will have greater ability to respond quickly

In the areas of policy where rapid responses are necessary even within the EU the UK retains its freedom of action. The areas where there is joint policy are issues such as trade and environment negotiations which are always slow anyway. Defence and security are areas where power remains with the member states. The only areas of foreign policy where the slow speed of the EU comes up against slow decision making are areas where joint policy is a benefit as in response to the migration crisis; no one nation could have responded alone, even Germany, who take in most migrants needed there to be a path to the country.
EU economic preference will no longer bind Britain

As a smaller and less attractive market the UK will inevitably get a less good deal than it could have with the whole of the EU at its back. Moreover if the UK still wants free access to the EU market, which accounts for 45% of UK exports and 53%,[1] it will still not have a completely free hand economically. Norway for example may retain close economic links and freely trade with Europe but does not have any ability to make decisions on EU rules and must accept their regulations – clearly a worse position than the UK now.[2] [1] Webb, Dominic, and Keep, Matthew, ‘In brief: UK-EU economic relations’, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 06091, 19 January 2016, p.3, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf [2] Eide, Espen Barth, ‘We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU’, The Guardian, 27 October 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model
UK will be disentangled from EU affairs

Ukraine may not be a high priority itself for British foreign policy but Russia is still a major, possibly the most major, threat. The UK has had very poor relations with Russia for years with various spy incidents such as the murder of Alexander Litvinenko[1] and with Russian bombers regularly being intercepted near the UK, six times in 2015,[2] even before we get onto Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine and British and Russian interests in the Middle East often being at loggerheads. The migration crisis may not directly affect the UK but it's cause, Syria and Middle Eastern instability, is a major concern for the UK as a result of UK nationals joining Daesh. [1] Owen, Robert, ‘Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko’, The Litvinenko Inquiry, January 2016, https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/Litvinenko-Inquiry-Report-web-version.pdf [2] ‘RAF jets intercept Russian bombers heading to UK’, BBC news, 17 February 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598892
Power is shifting to the East

There are also advantages to this power shift; the UK is less threatened so better able to act. The UK is therefore free to align itself with whichever powers it wishes rather than having alignments dictated by geography and who is threatening the UK. In the past the threat from Germany, and then the USSR, forced the UK into an alliance with France and the USA. When it comes to deciding between the USA, China, and India the UK has a free hand. As a result the UK has a once in a lifetime opportunity to strike new “trade deals with the growth economies around the world”.[1] [1] Boris Johnson quoted in Erixon, Fredrik, ‘Boris and the Breziteers are talking nonsense about Britain’s trade policies’, The Spectator, 1 April 2016, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/boris-and-the-brexiteers-are-talking-nonsense-about-britains-trade-policies/
The EU is a force multiplier

It is undeniable that in some areas the EU is a force multiplier. But many of the issues it uses this leverage on are not areas of concern to a UK that has left the EU; migrants arriving in Greece are of little national interest to the UK. Britain would instead focus its weight on areas that are of direct concern such as terrorism. In other areas the multiplier simply saves the UK a little money; could the UK have an embassy in Djibouti? Certainly if it wished, but it is not an area of primary concern to the UK.
The UK would have a completely independent foreign policy

Britain’s is not completely sovereign within the European Union with the EU having a common foreign and security policy and all economic negotiations taking place under the auspices of the EU trade commissioner, it is what the EU refers to as an ‘exclusive power’, rather than the Foreign Office.[1] Exiting would give these powers back to the UK. Regardless of how these powers are used this will mean the UK has more influence and freedom to manoeuvre as it will have more options with which it can negotiate with other powers. [1] ‘Policy making: What is trade policy’, European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy-making/
EU economic preference will no longer bind Britain

As a customs union the EU has a common external tariff set at the EU level meaning that the UK cannot tailor its external trade policy to its own needs. Instead the UK will be free to negotiate its own free trade agreements with any power it wishes. This may be individually or joining larger trade groupings such as the currently being negotiated Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal between the USA, Canada, and the EU. it also means the UK is free to reject such joint agreements, as many campaigning groups would like with the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal.[1] Countries which are not in regional blocks have not suffered as a result, South Korea has 24 free trade agreements[2] and despite an economy that is just over half the size of the UK’s has trade in goods worth similar amounts;$1,098bln $1,190bln[3] but importantly gets to negotiate each one itself and to its own terms and conditions. [1] See #noTTIP, http://www.nottip.org.uk/aboutttip/ [2] ‘Free Trade Agreements’, Asia Regional Integration Centre, 2015, https://aric.adb.org/fta-country [3] Adding exports and imports of merchandise, ‘Korea, Republic of and United Kingdom’, World Trade Organisation, http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=KR%2cGB
There is a moral obligation to provide affirmative action programs

Society may owe an obligation to the victims of past discrimination, but offering advantages to descendants of people who suffered discrimination does not do this. If discrimination occurred several generations ago, the individuals who simply happen to be of the same gender/race as those who were previously discriminated against generations ago are not entitled to preferential treatment as they are not the victims of discrimination. By not targeting those who actually suffered from discrimination due to the generational gap, you are simply giving unfair preferential treatment to people of a particular gender/race and therefore committing an injustice by discriminating against everyone else who was not given the same treatment.
Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination

Affirmative action is not the best way to deal with these issues. If it is true that there are cycles of poverty caused by past discrimination, the most precise way of righting this wrong is to offer assistance to all people in poverty to get themselves out of its cyclical grasp as opposed to blanket policies based on race or gender that may or may not necessarily help those who have been adversely affected by past discrimination.
Meritocracy is the only fair system by which society should be ordered

This issue is not whether or not meritocracy is good, but rather if society is meritocratic without intervention by the public or private sector. The system is not meritocratic without affirmative action; with the endemic psychological and tangible disadvantages as discussed in proposition points two and three, people of previously discriminated groups do not get judged on their own merit. They do not receive the same basic opportunities and they are given no inspiration to strive to achieve the things that would indicate their merit because they believe it to be impossible for someone of their group. Meritocracy only works when everyone is entering a fight from the same playing field, which does not currently happen. Affirmative action adjusts this to a meritocratic system by adjusting for the fact that individuals of previously discriminated groups will not have the same indicators of merit such as academic achievements due to a lack of opportunity as opposed to lack of merit. Moreover, it will afford these individuals these missed opportunities to level the playing field in the long-run, allowing true meritocracy to exist[1]. [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.
Affirmative action creates bad workplaces for all minorities

The prejudice that individuals in the workplace hold for these minorities already exist through their current perception of these people as being less qualified as them due to their conspicuous absence from the workplace as it is. The best way to deal with such resentment and prejudice is to use affirmative action and bring more of these minorities into the workplace where they work side-by-side as co-workers and prove themselves as equally competent and qualified as every other person in the workplace. Although affirmative action may initially cause this assumption to occur, it is its own cure as affirmative action allows these minorities to prove themselves in the workplace and dispel such a baseless assumption.
Affirmative action perpetuates prejudice

This resentment already exists in society, and as explained in counterargument two, in many specific environments, affirmative action is its own cure. On a wider societal level, this prejudice will not be created by affirmative action, but already exists. Simply because people may not particularly like the idea of affirmative action and get a bit resentful about it is not a good enough reason to let these minorities be denied the opportunities and lives they deserve.
There is a moral obligation to provide affirmative action programs

Society has a moral obligation to right its wrongs and compensate those they have treated unjustly. Discrimination, whether overt or convert, is an unacceptable practice that arbitrarily disadvantages certain people on grounds that they have no control over. Discrimination not only is theoretically a bad thing to do to people, but also has tangible negative impacts. Discrimination against groups such as the African American community in the USA has left them without the education or employment opportunities to even have a chance at achieving the success and happiness they deserve[1]. Discrimination is unacceptable practice for any society to engage in and victims of discrimination deserve compensation for the physical and psychological harms they suffered from being rejected by their very own community[2]. Past discrimination has left communities without the physical goods and psychological feelings of acceptance and safety all individuals deserve from their country and thus there is a moral obligation of society to take steps to offer the physical and symbolic advantages they have been denied through affirmative action. [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print. [2] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.
Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination

Affirmative action evens the playing field for those who have suffered past discrimination. Discrimination in the past not only leaves a feeling of rejection by one’s community, but also a legacy of disadvantage and perpetual poverty. Discrimination is not only psychologically damaging, but tangibly. The denial of opportunities for education and employment in the past has left families in situations where they are stuck in a poverty trap and cannot afford to achieve the basic opportunities that others can as they are stuck in a cycle of poverty[1]. A good example of this can be seen in the example of Brazil, where poverty is much more wide-spread in African communities who were previously used as slaves[2]. There is no equality of opportunity in cases of past discrimination. Affirmative action helps level the playing field for selection by assisting those who are held back from a continual historical denial of opportunity and providing them the equality of opportunity everyone deserves. [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print. [2] Telles, Edward. "Discrimination and Affirmative Action in Brazil." PBS Wide Angle. N.p., 01 Jun 2009. Web. 23 Aug 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/lessons/brazil-in-black-and-white/disc....
Affirmative action reduces social prejudice

Past discrimination lingers on in society through subtle prejudice that must be righted. Past discrimination against particular groups lingers today through the perception of those groups and how they perceive themselves. By using affirmative action, a demonstration effect is created where individuals are previously discriminated groups prove to society and other members of their racial or gender group that they are capable of gaining power and functioning in the same positions of power, responsibility and success as those of other groups in society. This challenges society’s perception of these groups as the poor people in society and proves to them that the individuals of this race/gender are equally capable and deserving members of society and can and should function in the same positions of society as them.
Meritocracy is the only fair system by which society should be ordered

Any system that does not reward individuals on the basis of their merit is one that is unjust to those not in the group that is “preferred” and therefore benefitted by it. Meritocracy is the only fair system to run a society on. Any system that does not reward individuals on the basis of their skill and effort is one that is unjust. The use of any criteria other than merit to select or benefit an individual is the definition of discrimination itself. Simply putting the word “positive” in front of it does not make it a beneficial or just system. For every act of “positive” discrimination enacted, an act of “negative” discrimination occurs against the individual that was denied a position or achievement they earned on their own merit for the person that received the “positive” end of the discrimination. Affirmative action is simply reversing the discrimination in society so injustice is enacted in the opposite direction. This is not a just system of distribution; it’s simply unjust against a different group. The only truly fair system to use is one that has no criteria other than merit to determine who receives what.