BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The use of drones means shoot to kill is the only option.

Getting special forces or allies on the ground is not always an option. In countries like Somalia and Yemen where there have been conflicts between factions the authorities will not always cooperate and even if they do they may not control the territory where the strike team would need to operate. There will also be many times where it is simply too dangerous to try and snatch someone. If that person is a danger they need to be stopped in the quickest way possible; and that will be by the use of the UAV that is already far above monitoring the target.
The use of drones makes the use of force easier to sanction.

It is absolutely not the case that UAVs will mean unnecessary attacks that would not otherwise be made; all the targets are checked by a large number of national security experts and the attacks are signed off by the President himself. The attacks are therefore taken very seriously by the administration. Moreover that the attacks are low cost is exactly what we want – the capability to strike our enemies without losses to ourselves or any collateral damage should be prized not shunned.
Using drones blurs the distinction between war and peace.

This is a conflict situation, a war, pure and simple. While this is a new kind of conflict; when the opponent is a non-state actor states have to be able to strike at these groups that intend to attack them even when they are sheltering in other states. Such attacks should also not include the state where those groups are sheltering unless that state is supporting that group as was the case in Afghanistan. Yes the distinction between civilian and combatant is blurred by this conflict but this is something that happens regardless of whether the United States uses UAVs. It is the terrorists themselves who through their horrific attacks by ‘civilians’ on civilian targets that strip away the distinction. The United States has to be able to respond with whatever method is most likely to prevent more of these terrorist attacks.
The use of drones creates a precedent that other states may use.

Any other nation seeking to take a precedent from the use of drones would have to be involved in a conflict against a terrorist organisation that poses a credible, clear, and present danger and not be able to fight those terrorists by other means. The situation in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia is in many ways unique in that these are states that have either failed or are near failure. As a result the sovereign government cannot be relied to combat terrorists on their own soil.
UAVs cause less collateral damage.

There are only two things that really matter when targeting terrorists; is the terrorist eliminated, and is collateral damage kept to a minimum? In Pakistan there have been a total of 334 strikes by UAVs between 2004 and June 2012 with the total reported killed at 2496-3202 of which only 482-832 were civilians according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.[1] Moreover the number of civilians killed in strikes is falling; 28 percent of casualties in 2008 were civilians but by 2011 this had fallen to 16 percent[2] and this is a figure that is likely to continue falling as drones improve technologically making identification easier and making strikes more precise. These figures show that the United States in its use of drones is not only hitting a lot of terrorist targets and eliminating them but is causing very little collateral damage in comparison to the number of strikes made. [1] Woods, Chris, and Serle, Jack, ‘June Update – US covert actions in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalis’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2 July 2012. [2] Shane, Scott, ‘The Moral Case for Drones’, The New York Times, 14 July 2012.
UAVs are the best possible weapon for the job.

We need to eliminate terrorists somehow and UAVs are the best possible equipment with which to carry out this mission. All the other options either would result in significantly more casualties or would have other problems that would likely allow terrorists to escape. First there is the collateral damage that would be caused by using other alternatives to striking terrorists. Professor Plaw of the University of Massachusetts says that when terrorists were being confronted by the Pakistani Army, who were attacking at the behest of the United States, 46% of casualties were collateral damage. A similar number of 41% was the figure when Israel was targeting Hamas.[1] When compared to the 16 or 28% collateral damage figures for UAVs the choice should be easy. Moreover other options have other disadvantages. Sending a hit squad in to eliminate terrorists may mean little collateral damage but would cause a diplomatic crisis as it would be tantamount to invading another country. Using a missile or local support on the other hand significantly increases the chances of the target escaping. Pakistan’s ISI, military intelligence, has for example been accused of helping the Taliban – they could hardly be trusted to kill them.[2] [1] Shane, Scott, ‘The Moral Case for Drones’, The New York Times, 14 July 2012. [2] Perlez, Jane, ‘Pakistan Scorns U.S. Scolding on Terrorism’, The New York Times, 23 September 2011.
UAVs allow more care and safeguards before shooting.

When engaging in covert operations it is essential that the right target is identified so that the correct target is eliminated. This is something that using UAVs allows as they are able to track their target, sometimes for days, before attacking. This means there is much more time for scrutiny of targets and possible collateral damage. This also means that there is plenty of room for the decisions to be made right at the top. Every person on the kill list gets discussed at a weekly meeting of more than 100 members of the US government’s security apparatus. President Obama himself signs off on strikes and can change the decision if the situation on the ground changes. Former National Security Advisor Jones says “Many times… at the 11th hour we waved off a mission simply because the target had people around them and we were able to loiter on station until they didn’t.”[1] While UAVs may be ‘unmanned’ they are certainly heavily monitored as each drone has 43 military personnel rotating in three shifts. They include seven joystick pilots, seven system operators, and five mission coordinators, there is also from the CIA 66 people, including 34 video crew members, and 18 intelligence analysts.[2] This means that there are a large number of eyeballs to make sure that the right person is being targeted, to check he is with as few others as possible before the strike. None of this would be possible with other forms of attack where the emphasis has to be on the speed of the operation. [1] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012. [2] Kaplan, Fred, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Kill List’, Slate, 15 June 2012.
Using UAVs prevents soldiers from being killed.

To put it bluntly any military or intelligence service wants to keep its own men safe while carrying out its missions; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are the ultimate capability with which to manage this. No military or civilian personnel are going to be killed if the delivery vehicle is controlled from the United States. This means that unlike in other methods of attack the UAV can take its time even if it is at risk. In the war in Kosovo NATO air forces had to launch their attacks from 15,000 feet due to worries they would be shot down.[1] Attacking from such a height from a fast moving aeroplane makes missing the target much more likely. [1] Thomas, Timothy, ‘Kosovo and the Current Myth of Information Superiority’, Parameters, Spring 2000, pp.13-29.
The appropriate setting for sexual relations is within marriage, contraception encourages pre-marital sex

The population of the Philippines are overwhelmingly Catholic, it seems reasonable to accept that many, if not most, accept the teaching of the Church that safe sex is married sex. Appropriate sexual relations between husband and wife can lead to a fulfilling family life including children. However, freely available contraception leads to a rise in premarital sex with the rises in unwanted pregnancies that go along with that. In the US, women having premarital sex increased from 2% in 1920 to 75% in 1999, a period that saw a massive increase in the availability of contraception[i].. This runs against the teaching of the Church, which, itself, is one of the cornerstones of Filipino culture. The first Mass was celebrated in 1521 and by the early 1600s, Catholicism was unquestionably the countries’ dominant creed[ii]. The teaching of the Church on this issue is absolutely clear – and for four centuries those have been the values of the Filipino people. This bill undermines that understanding, it will lead to an increase in pre-marital sex with devastating consequences for, particularly, the young people of the archipelago[iii]. There is a reason why the Church argues against contraception and those values – that sex should take place within marriage, are deeply ingrained in the Filipino way of life. [i] Greenwood, Jeremy and Nezih Guner “Social Change: The Sexual Revolution.” Population Studies Center PSC Working Paper Series University of Pennsylvania.2009 http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=psc_working_papers [ii] Wikipedia. Roman Catholicism in the Philippines. [iii] Bishop Filomeno Bactol, ‘Naval diocese continues fight against RH’,. CBCP News., 23 December 2012, http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=10460
Poor families would be helped far more by investment in education and healthcare

This has been an urban and political obsession from the outset. The idea that the hungry and homeless need condoms more than food and shelter is clearly absurd. The poor would be better helped through “accessible education, better hospitals and lesser government corruption.”[i] Rather than interfering in the moral life of the nation, parliamentarians would be better exercised in tackling these concerns. This issue has consumed political energy for over a decade and received massive national and international attention and yet there are far more pressing concerns for the nation – and its political leaders. Instead this bill, which carries the marks of both political and moral corruption has been the main focus of the president and congress. At the very least this suggests a questionable sense of priority, at worst a gross lack of interest in the welfare of the Filipino people. [i] Villegas, Socrates B., ‘Contraception is Corruption!’, CBCP News, 15 December 2012, http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=9989
The bill violates the Philippine values of harmony and respect

Perhaps the most important values in the Philippines are social harmony and respect for the family.[i] The Reproductive Health bill undermines both. Allowing contraception will take away a psychological barrier that prevents pre-marital or casual sex and once that barrier is crossed the individual will have higher sexual activity.[ii] In the Philippines this will mean greater numbers of teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of marriage because abortion will remain illegal. In terms of politics these values mean support for democracy but also being against corruption and graft.[iii] Obviously the bill has been very politically divisive so undermining social harmony but also to pass this bill many parliamentarians had to be bribed so undermining this social harmony. The Reproductive Health bill represents the worst excesses of the pork barrel buffet. With a single-mindedness of purpose, the presidential palace has put everything on the table to shore up the votes required in parliament. Legislators, who had previously voted against the legislation, often repeatedly, where threatened with the loss of programmes in their constituencies if they failed to back the project, which has been at the heart of the presidential agenda[iv]. [i] Dolan, Ronald E., ed., Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1991. http://countrystudies.us/philippines/41.htm [ii] Arcidiacono, Peter, et al., ‘Habit Persistence and Teen Sex: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies’, http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf  P.30 [iii] Talisayon, Serafin D., ‘Teaching values in the natural and physical sciences in the Philippines’, University of the Philippines, http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-7/chapter_xiii.htm [iv] Philippine Daily Inquirer. Philip Tubeza. ‘Philippine President accused of ‘bribing’ Congress’. Reported on Yahoo News 19 December 2012. http://ph.news.yahoo.com/philippine-president-accused-bribing-congress-0...
This is a victory for democracy – a precious Filipino value - clear majorities in both houses and in the wider public support it

Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support[i]. It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result[ii]. The values for the respect for the life of the mother, the value of life of the child, respect for the opinions of the majority, respect for democracy and placing the future of individuals and society above the outdated mythology of the Church would seem to be alive and well in the decision to pass this bill. [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘Culture Wars: After a decade of debate, the Philippines passes Reproductive Health Bill’, Time, 17 December 2012. http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/culture-wars-after-a-decade-of-debate-the-philippines-passes-reproductive-health-bill/ [ii] Ibid.
There are clear and proven benefits to the health of the Filipino families, especially women

Both sides of this debate have spoken about the need to respect the rights and lives of women. It is, however, difficult to see how exactly opponents of the legislation reconcile this with their actions. Decades’ worth of research demonstrates that educational, health and nutritional levels all fall once a family outgrows its means. In the slums of Manila that research is unnecessary as it is all too apparent at a glance. However the research is there[i] to provide grisly commentary to the narrative folding out on the streets. Investigations on a personal, national and global level demonstrate that effective family planning is at the heart of eradicating poverty[ii]. When families have less children they are more able to afford better education for those they do have and have a greater incentive to do so as they need their child to be able to support them when they are retired.[iii] Proposition is keen that this money should have been spent on eradicating poverty – they fail to realise, deliberately or otherwise, that that is exactly what it is being spent on. [i]  Rauhala, Emily, ‘The Philippines’ Birth Control Battle’, Time, 6 June 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1812250,00.html [ii] Brown, Lester, ‘Smart Family Planning Improves Women’s Health and Reduces Poverty’, guardian.co.uk 14 April 2011.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/apr/14/smart-family-planning-reduces-poverty [iii] Merrick, Thomas, W., ‘Population and P{overty: New Views on an Old Controversy’, International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol.28, No.1, March 2002, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2804102.html
Any body of values that claims to respect the rights of the individual must recognise the right of a woman to choose

Even the doctrines of the Church accepts that pregnancy is not, in and of itself, a virtue – there is no compulsion to maximise the number of pregnancies; there is simply a disagreement about how they should be avoided. The Church recommends that couples may minimise the chance without ever making it impossible through a chemical or physical barrier. In some parts of the world a pregnancy, even one that is not planned, is seen as a time for joy – a blessing for the family that will lead to a new and happy life bringing pleasure to both parents, their society and the child. That ideal is very far from the experience of much of the world where a child is another mouth to feed on impossibly little income. For all too much of the world, that life will be cruel, nasty and short. In slums, favellas and barren wastes that life is likely to be one marked more by dysentery or diarrhea, malnutrition and misery than by the sanitised, idealised image promoted in the West. That is, of course, not to say that children everywhere cannot be a cause for joy, of course they can. Indeed even within the poorest of situations, a new child can be the focus of great joy in an otherwise hard life. However, if that is to be the case, that child must be planned and prepared for. Overwhelmingly, the mother is likely to have paramount responsibility for the child; so that planning and preparation needs to be theirs. It is difficult to imagine the scenario that would reach the objective observer to reach the conclusion that the right group of individuals to reach that decision were a group of celibate men who had never met the parents and would take to role in the care or support of the child. Yet that, astonishingly, is what Proposition would like us to believe.
The appropriate setting for sexual relations is within marriage, contraception encourages pre-marital sex

It is simply untrue to suggest that Catholic hegemony is one and the same as Filipino values and that the two are – or have ever been – indistinguishably intertwined. Even where popular support for this very bill not sufficient proof, the very fact that the Filipino constitution states quite clearly that there is a division between the secular and ecclesiastical should be enough[i]. [i] Constitution of the Philippines. Article III (Bill of Rights). Section Five.
The bill violates the Philippine values of harmony and respect

It should be remembered that other values within the 1987 constitution include ecological balance and the recognition of the role of women,[i] both of which are advanced by giving women access to birth control. Pork barrel politics is an all too real tradition of Filipino politics, it is hardly unique to this bill. The fact that its use lead to the implementation of a policy that enjoys popular support is difficult to square with the somewhat wild claims of the Church about corruption. The CBCP has also been fairly free on allegations in this regard but very, very short on proof. The amount of political pressure required had more to do with calming fears of the Catholic establishment intervening directly in elections than with the views of the people. [i] Talisayon, Serafin D., ‘Teaching values in the natural and physical sciences in the Philippines’, University of the Philippines, http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-7/chapter_xiii.htm
There are clear and proven benefits to the health of the Filipino families, especially women

It is difficult to see how the life of anyone is improved by reducing sex to a cheap form of entertainment. Certainly not the unborn children and not the objectified women. Proposition is more than happy for women to take control of their own fertility – indeed we would go further and suggest that their boyfriends and husbands should do so as well. Recreational sex, within wedlock and during times of infertility removes all of these problems; a little planning and restraint achieves that aim. It also means that both parents need to show that they are responsible for the results; Op seems happy to say that people are uncontrollable beasts with no control over their desires – hardly an edifying concept.
Any body of values that claims to respect the rights of the individual must recognise the right of a woman to choose

It is difficult to see how the life of anyone is improved by reducing sex to a cheap form of entertainment. Certainly not the unborn children and not the objectified women. Proposition is more than happy for women to take control of their own fertility – indeed we would go further and suggest that their boyfriends and husbands should do so as well. Recreational sex, within wedlock and during times of infertility removes all of these problems; a little planning and restraint achieves that aim. It also means that both parents need to show that they are responsible for the results; Op seems happy to say that people are uncontrollable beasts with no control over their desires – hardly an edifying concept.
ACTA is needed to protect brands

There is a genuine value to a brand – in part because, for clothing companies for example, it is a mark of quality as much as it is of origin. However even if that were not the case, the brand identity of a company is part of its legal property and should be protected in the same way and stock or cash against theft. The very fact that people are so keen to buy branded clothing and other products – even when pirated – demonstrates that there is a value to those brands. ACTA doesn’t seek to control people’s  rights to wear any pair of jeans or trainers or other type of product. It simply says that if someone wants to own Levi jeans or Nike trainers they should pay the price set by Levis or Nike. If they don’t want to pay the premium then they are at liberty to buy different unbranded products.
ACTA is anti-democratic

This has been a secret stich-up between a handful of, mostly Western, governments and massive corporations or their representative trade organisations. It has notably failed to receive democratic support and poses a genuine threat to freedom and equality offered by the Internet. So far it has been signed by fewer than 40 nations and has failed to receive democratic approval[i] in any of them; it is the child of national and business elites but has failed at every hurdle where the public was watching hence it has not been ratified by any legislatures and in some cases such as in Mexico been thrown out almost unanimously.[ii][iii] Where it has been signed, it has mostly been met with protests from politicians and public alike. If the proponents of this measure are so sure of its virtues, the obvious solution would seem apparent; put it to a vote. It proposes the creation of an international body with no democratic accountability[iv] at all as it just has representatives from each party to the treaty but no accountability to any other body and seeks to undermine public involvement in both formal and informal ways with the management of information in the modern world. Opposition to this agreement has been at least as ferocious as previous attempts to remove the democratic input of the inhabitants of the planet into decisions that affect their lives – such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The Agreement has run into issues of constitutionality in the EU, US and elsewhere with legislatures questioning whether national executives have the right – let alone the capacity – to implement the measures of the Agreement. Any government that attempted to ratify the agreement would be likely to face stiff opposition from both parliamentarians and the public – to date that has been insurmountable[v]. [i] Various articles from around the world [ii] ‘Dictámenes a Discusión y Votación‘, Senado de la Republica LXI Legislatura, 22 June 2011. [iii] Hernandez, Daniel, ‘Mexico signs anti-piracy treaty, setting up battle with activists’, Latimes blog, 13 July 2012. [iv] Chapters four and five, Council of the European Union, ‘Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’, 23 August 2011. [v] Mason, Daniel, ‘European Opposition to ACTA grows’, Public Service Europe, 13 February 2012.