BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hamas could have ended blockade by simply recognizing Israel

"Israel gambles in Gaza". USA Today. December 30, 2008 - "Hamas says its missile fire is justified. It contends that Israel is behaving like a capricious jailer to Gaza's Palestinians. Besides controlling air and sea access, Israel won't open border crossings into Israel with any consistency — as a result, Palestinians don't have access to the regular trade and jobs that can make their economy viable. Palestinians in Gaza live in dire and growing poverty. All of that is true, but Hamas could change the situation in an instant simply by credibly recognizing Israel's right to exist."
Precision Israel attacks were never possible in crowded Gaza

Akiva Eldar wrote in Haaretz: "The tremendous population density in the Gaza Strip does not allow a 'surgical operation' over an extended period that would minimize damage to civilian populations. The difficult images from the Strip will soon replace those of the damage inflicted by Qassam rockets in the western Negev. The scale of losses, which works in 'favor' of the Palestinians, will return Israel to the role of Goliath."[5]
Israel is not an "occupier" and responsible for Gazans

Shlomo Dror, spokesman for Israel's coordinator of government activities in the territories, said in 2007, "We regarded the area as the seed of a Palestinian state. But now Hamas rules there, we disengaged, and now we have nothing to do with it. [...] with the abolition of the military government in Gaza and in light of the current security situation, the State of Israel bears no responsibility to take care of the various interests of Gaza residents."[7]
Hamas is not a "victim" of "excessive" Israeli force

"Defending Israel's Operations in Gaza". Aisha - "[...]Given the Palestinian fire power and their willingness to use it, it is clear that the charge of "excessive force" is simply the latest incarnation of the Palestinian strategy of 'victimhood.' Terror groups fire indiscriminately at innocent Israelis and then complain of excessive or disproportionate force when Israel fires back. But according to internationally accepted laws of war, Israel is permitted to respond with the force necessary to end the conflict."
Israel has a right to determine how best to uphold its security.

While there can be debate as to whether Israel's Gaza assault achieved its objectives of securing the nation overall, there can be no debate that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to determine how best to do so. While it is easy for countries and foreigners to state their opinions about Israel's security interests and how its actions may or may not fullfill them, Israel's right to make that judgement for itself must be respected. In addition, it is probably true that only Israelis themselves can fully understand their own interests, take heart of direct threats to their lives, and develop appropriate security imperatives.
Israel caused civilian suffering to create opposition to Hamas

Nicholas Kristoff. "The Gaza Boomerang". New York Times. January 7, 2009 - "Israel’s strategy has been to make ordinary Palestinians suffer in hopes of creating ill will toward Hamas. That’s why, beginning in 2007, Israel cut back fuel shipments for Gaza utilities — and why today, in the aftermath of the bombings, 800,000 Gaza residents lack running water, Ms. Bashi said. [...] “The Israeli policy on Gaza has been marketed as a policy against Hamas, but in reality it’s a policy against a million-and-a-half people in Gaza,” she said."
Israel's response was disproportionate to the provocation by Hamas

Nicholas Kristoff. "The Gaza Boomerang". New York Times. January 7, 2009 - "Israel’s right to do something doesn’t mean it has the right to do anything. Since the shelling from Gaza started in 2001, 20 Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets or mortars, according to a tabulation by Israeli human rights groups. That doesn’t justify an all-out ground invasion that has killed more than 660 people (it’s difficult to know how many are militants and how many are civilians)."
Israeli assault on Hamas upholds liberty globally

Benjamin Netanyahu. "Militant Islam Threatens Us All". Wall Street Journal. January 7, 2009: "We fight to defend ourselves, but in so doing we are also fighting a fanatical ideology that seeks to reverse the course of history and throw the civilized world back into a new dark age. The struggle between militant Islam and modernity -- whether fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, India or Gaza -- will decide our common future. It is a battle we cannot afford to lose."
Israel caused conflict by terrorizing Gaza with blockade

Rashid Khalidi. "What You Don’t Know About Gaza". New York Times. January 7, 2009 - "As the [de facto] occupying power, Israel has the responsibility under the Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. [...] Israel’s blockade of the strip, with the support of the United States and the European Union, has grown increasingly stringent since Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006. Fuel, electricity, imports, exports and the movement of people in and out of the Strip have been slowly choked off, leading to life-threatening problems of sanitation, health, water supply and transportation. [...] The blockade has subjected many to unemployment, penury and malnutrition. This amounts to the collective punishment — with the tacit support of the United States — of a civilian population for exercising its democratic rights."
Israel strikes were intended to further dispirit Palestinians

Rashid Khalidi. "What You Don’t Know About Gaza". New York Times. January 7, 2009 - "This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about 'restoring Israel’s deterrence,' as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: 'The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.'"
Israel's attack of Gaza was about approaching elections

Katherine Butler. "Why Did Israel Attack Gaza?". The Independent. December 29th, 2008 - "Are Israeli domestic politics a factor? Very much so. Israel is preparing for general elections on 10 February. The prospect of a return to power by the hawk Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, promising tough action against Hamas, has hardened the positions of Israel's more moderate political leaders."[2]
Israel's Gaza assault was "aggression" not "self-defense" under i-law

"Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime". Times Online. January 11, 2009 - "ISRAEL has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that it amounts to an act of “self-defence” as recognised by Article 51, United Nations Charter. We categorically reject this contention. [...] The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence. Under international law self-defence is an act of last resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and necessity. [...] The killing of almost 800 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 3,000 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire. [...] Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the truce with Hamas."
Israel indiscriminately targeted Gazan civilians in blockade.

According to Hebrew University international law expert Yuval Shani, "It is my opinion that in this situation, and given the question marks regarding Israel's status in Gaza and Gaza's long-standing dependency on Israel, cutting off its water and electricity supplies would be equivalent to a direct attack on a civilian target, especially given that the motive for doing so is one of collective punishment, which is, in itself, a problematic motive."[8]
Undiscriminating rockets are only tools for Gazans to oppose Israel

"Proportional to what?". Economist. December 30th, 2008 - "Israel says that intent is what matters: it says it tries to avoid civilian deaths, whereas Hamas deliberately seeks to kill Israeli civilians with its rockets, relatively ineffective as they may be. Hamas responds [...] as the disproportionately weaker party, Palestinians must use the crude means at their disposal to free their lands from Israeli occupation"
Israel's attack of Gaza was not an act of last resort

Larry Derfner. "Rattling The Cage: Israel should get out of Gaza now". The Jerusalem Post. January 8, 2009 - "[Israel] should try to negotiate a truce with Hamas based on this principle: They stop firing rockets at Israel in return for our lifting of the siege on Gaza. This is the deal Hamas offered us before we started Operation Cast Lead, and we should have taken it then and seen how it had gone before resorting to military force."
Defeating Hamas is key to long-term Israeli/Palestinian solution

"Israel's Gaza Defense". Wall Street Journal. December 29th, 2008 - "as Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi explain, the Israeli public isn't about to make territorial concessions on the West Bank or the Golan Heights if Gaza is allowed to become a neighboring terrorist state that can launch attacks with impunity. Israel has already had a bad enough experience letting that happen with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Meanwhile, the stronger Hamas becomes, the more resistance Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will face to making any concessions to Israel."
Israel strikes military not civilians targets, unlike Hamas

Al Jazeera interview of Gary Grant on January 5th, 2009 - "[Al Jazeera]: Surely the killing of civilians is against international law and the targeting of populated areas where you know that civilians are going to die is against international law. [...] [Gary Grant]: Even if you target your action at military sites, civilians are inevitably going to get killed...these need to be contrasted with the actions of Hamas where every single rocket is designed to attack civilian populations, so every single act of Hamas in firing these rockets is clearly an illegal act without any legal justification."[3]
Israeli attacks embolden extremists on both sides in cycle of violence

Nicholas Kristoff. "The Gaza Boomerang". New York Times. January 7, 2009 - "What we’re seeing in the Middle East is the Boomerang Syndrome. Arab terrorism built support for right-wing Israeli politicians, who took harsh actions against Palestinians, who responded with more terrorism, and so on. Extremists on each side sustain the other, and the excessive Israeli ground assault in Gaza is likely to create more terrorists in the long run."
Israeli attacks may force Hamas to accept a more durable ceasefire

Tony Karon. "Israel Invades Gaza, Hoping to Pummel Hamas into a Truce". Time. January 3, 2008 - "Unlike the botched invasion of Lebanon in 2006, when Israel set itself the unattainable goal of eliminating the military capability of Hizballah, this time Barak and Olmert have made clear that their objective is not to wipe out Hamas, but instead to force the radical group to accept a durable cease-fire on Israel's terms."
Civilians were killed because Hamas locates rockets amid civilians

"Israel's Gaza Defense". Wall Street Journal. December 29th, 2008 - "Israel's air assault has resulted in more Palestinian casualties, but that is in part because Hamas deliberately locates its security forces in residential neighborhoods. This is intended both to deter Israel from attacking in the first place as well as to turn world opinion against the Jewish state when it does attack. By all accounts, however, the Israeli strikes have hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces -- both to its leadership and, on Sunday, to the tunnels from Gaza to Egypt that Hamas uses to smuggle in weapons and build its growing army."
Israel need not work with the illegitimate Hamas regime

"Defending Israel's Operations in Gaza". Aisha - "Isn't Hamas the democratically-elected government in Gaza? Why is Israel trying to overthrow it? Hamas promotes itself as the legitimate power in Gaza. In reality, Hamas is at its core a terrorist organization that refuses to renounce violence or recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. [...] Hamas came to power in Gaza through a violent coup against the Palestinian Authority government. [...] Since Hamas refuses to live in peace with Israel, the Israeli government has no choice but to seek Hamas' replacement."
Israel took action to minimize humanitarian crisis in Gaza

Steve Hunegs. "Editorial counterpoint: The justice of Israel's actions". Star Tribune. January 6, 2009 - "Before this campaign, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared on the Arab media outlet Al-Arabiya to address Gaza civilians about the dangers of Hamas rocket fire from the Gaza strip. Israel has telephoned Gazans to warn them of impending attacks in their neighborhoods. Humanitarian aid continues to reach Gazans. In fact, during the past six months, Israel has facilitated more than 14,500 truckloads of humanitarian assistance, including more than 185,000 tons of supplies and 39 million liters of fuel. Furthermore, there have been more than 4,130 medical evacuations."
Israeli assault may actually increase support for Hamas

Haaretz Newspaper: "In all likelihood, the current war will not lead to an Israeli victory. In such a case, Israel will have to forget about its objective of capturing the Gaza Strip. Such an outcome will help to consolidate the legitimacy of the Hamas movement, and all the efforts of Israel to eliminate that fundamental pillar of resistance will produce the reverse result. In such a scenario, Israel will be compelled to sign a ceasefire agreement."
Gaza assault bolsters Iran's radical message against Israel

"Divided on Gaza.". Washington Post. December 30, 2008: "Israel's offensive gives Iran and its allies a way to pressure Egypt, Jordan and other Arab "moderates." Like the Lebanon war of 2006, Israel's battle with Hamas in Gaza is producing a schism among Muslim states. Iran and its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon have joined Hamas's Damascus-based leadership in calling for a new intifada, or uprising, against Israel -- and also against the governments of Egypt and Jordan, which are accused of silently supporting Israel's air attacks."
Hamas will easily rebuild from damage inflicted by Israel

"Israel must withdraw from Gaza". Guardian. January 4, 2009: "While Hamas's offensive capacities will be blunted for a while, the likelihood, as with Hezbollah after Lebanon in 2006, is that it will quickly rebuild its military strength. Indeed, the assassinations of its leaders by Israel over the years - and the raids on its weapons workshops - did little to limit its rise to power."
Israeli strikes ignore history; no military solution with Palestinians

"Israel's Gaza assault wastes lives without changing anything". The Daily Star. December 29, 2008 - "For the Israelis, once they have exercised this latest spasm of gratuitous bloodletting, there will be yet another opportunity to accept the oft-proved impossibility of a military solution. The Palestinian people will not be battered into submission, no amount of air strikes will make the core issues in the moribund peace process go away, and all of the same difficult decisions will still be waiting when the dust settles."
Hamas was democratically elected; Israel must make peace with them

If Hamas was an authoritarian regime, Israel could possible attempt to get rid of it and make peace with the Palestinians in Gaza separately. But, because Hamas was democratically elected, any efforts by Israel to destroy them will be seen in Gaza as an effort to destroy the Palestinians and their democratic will. This would not enable any long-term peace with the Palestinians. Therefore, a long-term peace depends on working with Hamas, rather than attempting to destroy them.
Waterboarding justly brings a terrorist face-to-face with death

- Waterboarding creates the special effect and feeling of drowning, and the inescapable fear of death. For a terrorist that wishes death upon his victims, it is just to bring him face-to-face with death through waterboarding. Considering that his victims are not given the luxury to live on, waterboarding is a a proportional punishment. And, by bringing a terrorist face-to-face with that which he wishes upon his victims, there is the remote possibility that he will ask forgiveness and seek redemption.
It's not clear that waterboarding obtained good information from Khalid Sheik Mohammed

- It is claimed that waterboarding obtained a "gold mine" of information from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. But, without public knowledge of the exact information, it is not clear that this is the case. In addition, it is likely that Mohammed calculated to provide information that was not central to Al Qaeda's various missions, but that would be seen by his interrogators as a "gold mine".
Waterboarding is a mild interrogation technique

- Waterboarding lasts for only a matter of a minutes, and does not result in any long-term damage to the body or mind. When compared to other interrogation techniques, this can be seen as a fairly mild procedure. In other interrogation techniques, the subject is often put through days or weeks of discomfort by being forced to stand or through prolonged periods of cold. The agony is prolonged over a much longer period, which may be more likely to cause long-term psychological damage.
Waterboarding even fits the Bybee Memo definition of torture

- Waterboarding seems to match the definition of the 2002 Bybee Memo, in which assistant AJ Jay Bybee defined torture as "physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death". Waterboarding certainly fits the criteria of "impairment of bodily function", since breathing can obviously be considered a major "bodily function". Also, because lungs are organs, filling them with water does meet the criteria of inducing "organ failure".
Suspected information-holders cannot be punished for crimes they do not commit.

While it is often claimed that a suspected terrorist is set to kill others, and thus his torture is justified, this does not necessarily make sense. The suspected terrorist in custody is not going to directly kill anyone. They are merely suspected to have information that could possibly lead to the interception of those that are threatening to kill others. The disconnect is so wide between the suspected terrorists and the victims that the notion of "punishing" the suspected terrorist in custody does not make sense.
Waterboarding is not torture; countries train own soldiers with it

- In the United States, for example, waterboarding is performed on hundreds of US soldiers and spys in order to acclimatize them with the discomfort they may experience abroad under foreign custody and interrogation techniques. But, obviously, the US government would not "torture" its own soldiers. If waterboarding was legitimately a "torture" technique, it would be inconceivable that the US government would perform the technique on its own soldiers and spys. This would violate all military codes and would cause massive public protest. But, that the common practice of waterboarding US citizens by the US military does not result in such protest, seems to indicate very clearly that wateboarding is not "torture". It is merely a highly uncomfortable practice, but because it does not inflict severe pain or suffering or any lasting effects, it does not qualify as torture, and is acceptably performed on US citizens for training purposes.
Torture is justified in saving lives.

It is justified to use water-boarding because it saves lives. Saving lives is the first obligation of the government; "to provide for the common defense." The idea of saving lives MUST be held above ethical principles. Scenario: It would be justified for a kid in school to attack another kid if he tried to stab a lower classmate. This scenario can be applied to the US and its government. Not only is the government justified in using water-boarding, it is an obligation too as well if there is sufficient evidence that leads to the saving of lives.
Waterboarding is much more terrifying to suspected terrorists than volunteers

Many volunteers have subjected themselves to waterboarding. Some have described it as torture and some have described it as a milder "interrogation" technique. But, the experience of a volunteer is controlled, and is likely much more mild than the experience of a suspected terrorist who is subject to the technique for the purpose of extracting information. The main difference is that the volunteer knows they will not be killed or seriously harmed, while the suspected terrorist does not know this, and interrogaters are likely much more willing to push the limits with a suspected terrorist.
Governments should not set moral sexual standards regarding prostitutes

Prostitution is a highly subjective moral arena, with many believing that it should be legal while others believing the opposite. Should governments really be attempting to settle this debate? The problem is that it alienates those that tolerate or support legal prostitution, and creates double standards, in which the moral values of the majority are defended by the government at the expense of the moral values of the minority. What right does one set of moral standards have to gain the government's favor over another set of moral standards?
Legalization won't reduce rape, as prostitution is itself a form of rape

Prostitution is a form of rape. It is an environment in which women are effectively forced by a man to have sex with them merely through the fact that they are willing to pay. And, this relationship is frequently established between a "pimp" or the brother and customer instead of between the customer and the prostitute, undermining the notion of the contract being established between consenting adults. If the women is not truly consenting, prostitution takes on a form of a paying man forcing a woman to have sex with him, which can be viewed as a form of rape. This is not something the state should sanction.
It is impossible to ban prostitution

- Granted that prostitution has been present in societies across the world for thousands of years, governments should recognise that it cannot be eradicated. Consequently they should pass legislation that makes prostitution safer, rather than persist with futile and dangerous prohibition. Existing legal prohibition of soliciting, or of prostitution itself, does not work. Prostitutes are regularly convicted of summary offences and fined. It is then necessary for them to return to work as prostitutes in order to repay the fines. British police officers have described this method of legal prohibition of prostitution as a ‘revolving door’. The laws banning prostitution are in fact counter-productive.
Prostitution can relieve the tension that leads to sex crimes.

Sex crimes such as rape or molestation can be seen, in part, as a product of sexual frustrations. Men, in particular, have a high sexual drive and yet many are often unable to satisfy that drive due to physical appearance, social difficulties, or other problems. After being denied sexual relations dozens of times for years on end, some of these men become so desperate that they justify to themselves the commission of a sex crime. Prostitution can help prevent the sexual frustration that leads to sex crimes, by acting as something of an exhaust valve for pent up sexual energies.