BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Plan creates more friction between richer and poorer countries

In the first place, many of the poorer countries will take great offense if the retribution is less than they expect. Specially if that retribution follows a criteria that does not necessarily reflects the quality of the doctor, but instead reflects ideological or political issues. For example, it could happen that a country would try to hire or compensate countries that follow the same ideology or that support them politically. This type of support can increment the important inequalities between countries. We know the proposition may try to argue that other issues such as arms selling and invasions are worst. However, given that we are talking about the exchange of people, tensions can surely flourish easier. Not promoting brain drain actively will avoid unnecessary tensions. Even after the transaction is done, rich countries can breach or change the contract. In that case under-compensation or not compensation at all with will surely increment friction. Third, most of the poorer countries have not demanded compensation. The proposition can claim that is not a reason to avoid doing their plan or that even if compensations are not popular, they are right. But many governments seem to think that it's not right to treat citizens as a simple merchandise. Mobilizing people is a sensitive matter. Following this line of thought, It is wrong to promote brain draining because of its pernicious effects. In fact, the main effect of brain draining is lack of growth because countries may lose the most skilled workers or entrepreneurs. In fact, according Nadeem U. Haque and Se-Jik Kim "human capital or brain drain can lead to a permanent reduction in income and growth of the country of emigration to the country of immigration". [[Haque, Nadeem U. and Se-Jik Kim (1995). Human-Capital Flight - Impact of Migration on Income and Growth. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers 42 (3): pp. 577-607.]] Obviously, fostering brain drain can severely damage the economy of the poorer. Therefore, it can create or increment tensions between the rich and the poor.
Domestic trainees.

The final stakeholders to address are domestic doctors of 'richer countries' who are now placed at an apparent disadvantage. This disadvantage would come partly as increased competition for job placements upon graduation from training. This is something which is hailed by all as a great benefit to standards in the long-run. The second question would be whether as a graduate medic in a richer country I would see reduced opportunities by way of funding of research. However the answer here would be no, because richer countries are the ones that tend to export medical research, such as keyhole surgery for example. We would also expect that this would be the only place where nationality would become explicitly important, as it is only scientific descovery that a richer country would want to be asscociated with domestic personnel, therefore cost would be less of a factor.
Plan unduly increases the control of the state over medical personnel

Let us be clear, we are actively seeking to 'harm' individuals' freedom, under very narrow specified circumstances. Namely in the special case where they have been trained as medical personnel at great expense by their home country and intend to promptly work abroad without giving anything back. This is the most damaging form of brain-drain. We are opposed to it and seek to rectify it. We believe this to be an anomalous feature of the status quo, a loophole which must be closed. Other than in this desirable sense, our plan has no bearing on the relationship between the state and its medical personnel. Again, opposition are exercised over practical difficulties that do not exist. The cost of training medical personnel is X dollars or shillings or rand. If a nurse or doctor wishes to work abroad on graduation, his new employers must reimburse the cost of this training in advance. There is no need to wait or negotiate, the figures are known and paid in advance, just as happens in countless numbers of such contracts around the world. Rich countries could renege on this commitment as they could with any contract. This arrangement is no more vulnerable to abuse than any other. 'What happens if a country doesn't want to be compensated but wants to keep the medical personnel?' Well, what happens now? The medic says "sayonara", "aufwiedersehn" or "au revoir", and the country that trained him gets a postcard. The next line of reasoning is even more self-defeating. Now the offer of compensation 'could drive a country to wake up to the reality of the brain drain and start taking measures to prevent it..." Precisely, this is exactly what we want to happen, isn't it? This is the essence of the opposition's dilemma, they seem to have argued themselves into a position that is simultaneously opposed to the brain drain and in favour of the status quo.
Recruting 'inactively' is hypocrisy.

We the opposition don't think there is in the SQ any responsibility that can be pinned on rich countries. Bizarrely the proposition admits this (albeit in a whole different argument so maybe we can't expect consistency) saying that: "The primary agents are the doctors themselves, so the rich state that benefits has done nothing wrong, and there are no grounds on which they could be made to pay compensation." On the other hand of course there is damage in brain drain (BD) but responsibility doesn't come from damage if the cause of the damage lies elsewhere. If someone beats or starves his child so much that he escapes his home to go to his neighbor's is the neighbor responsible for the escape because he offers to adopt him? We think not. The other side could say, using this same example that the child will leave his home for any offer of a better economic situation, to have the change to ride a better bike. But the truth is children have to cross a certain threshold to even think about leaving. So do adults. The mere offer of more money is mostly not enough. There have to be a certain lack of attachment. But if done actively, if the neighbor looks to brainwash the abused kid or he goes to take him from his house he is co-responsible. Poorer countries need to accept responsibility as a first step to correcting them, which is difficult to do if the plan is implemented since you are only compensated when you have done nothing wrong. A final point is that active, as they describe it in their plan (compensation) doesn't mean fairness. The attempt of the other team to pass the cost of the MP as fair compensation, ignoring their actual value is something that if done by a country would be worse than hypocritical, it would be insulting.
Plan unduly increases the control of the state over medical personnel

Under proposition's plan the individuals freedom to leave the country could be harmed if the compensation is to be given prior to departure, because s/he would have to wait at first for the two countries to agree on fair compensation and then during the implementation of the plan for the two countries to make the transaction. If the compensation is to be given after, the enforcement could be on jeopardy, because poorer countries have no way to enforce a payment. And what happens if a country doesn't want to be compensated but want's to keep the medical personnel? The mere offering of compensation could drive a country to wake up to the reality of the brain drain and start taking measures to prevent it which could reduce their freedom. Which in turn would do nothing to solve the real causes of the brain drain. In the SQ the issue is complex enough as it is, introducing a new variable for countries will worsen the complexity of the problem. Brain drain already goes unattended by many countries and yet it is but a symptom. Adding another layer will distract the poor countries away from the root cause, therefore it's wise to leave this situation as it is.
Rich countries should actively recruit medical personnel from poor ones, and with this freedom must come the responsibility to reimburse them fully for the cost of their training.

The contentious word in the proposition is ‘actively’, remove it and the proposition effectively describes the status quo. At present rich countries patently do recruit medical personnel from poorer ones. Between 23 and 28 percent of physicians in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are trained abroad, and lower-income countries supply between 40 and 75 percent of these international medical graduates. (N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353 (17):1810-8 16251537 (P,S,G,E,B,D) This brain drain is, without question, an unacceptable form of intellectual colonialism that leaves developing countries bereft of vital healthcare resources, while allowing their rich counterparts access to their brightest and most highly (and expensively) trained minds with no compensation. How is this global injustice to be rectified? There are two plausible solutions. The first, we might call the protectionist model, would seek to restrict the flow of medical personnel across international borders. The second model, the one which we advocate, would replace the existing informal ad-hoc arrangements between individuals and healthcare providers that effectively sees poor countries pay the costs of training their medical personnel and rich countries reaping the benefits, with a formal market for medical staff. In this model rich countries would actively recruit medical personnel from poorer ones. But with this freedom would come the responsibility to ensure poor countries were fully reimbursed for the costs of their education. This key change would align market forces with the interests of both sides of the contract.
It has been scientifically proven that second-hand smoking is bad for the development of children. ...

It has been scientifically proven that second-hand smoking is bad for the development of children. Young children and toddlers are more sensitive than grownups because their bodies are still growing. They also breathe faster than adults and so may take more smoke into their lungs. Second-hand smoking puts children at risk of respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma. They are more likely to get sick, to be sick for longer and to have more serious illnesses than other children. When they get sick they often need to be taken to a hospital and miss school because of it. So second-hand smoking harms both their physical and psychological (mental) development.
Given how harmful it is, smoking around children is a form of abuse and should be treated as such by...

Given how harmful it is, smoking around children is a form of abuse and should be treated as such by the state. The state should send a clear message to parents about just how bad smoking is for the health of their kids by attaching a punishment to it, in the same way it punishes physical violence towards a child. Beating a child, for example, is in most cases less physically harmful for them in the long term than passive smoking is.
Not only are parents harming the development of their children then and there. They are also settin...

Not only are parents harming the development of their children then and there. They are also setting a very bad example for them for the future. Children admire and copy their parents. They think that what their parents do is a good thing and want to follow their example. Children whose parents are smokers are more likely to become smokers themselves when they grow up. How can parents tell their children not to smoke because it is bad for them if they do it in front of them?
It has been scientifically proven that second-hand smoking is bad for the development of children. ...

Even if parents smoke when their children are in the house, they are usually careful to make sure their children do not breathe in their smoke. Parents can smoke in the garden, on the balcony or in a different room. They could also put in special ventilation systems, like some restaurants that have smoking areas, for example. \ And if parents did smoke when their children were in the room and that was harmful to them, such a law would be almost impossible to enforce (make people obey it). How can the state enter people’s homes to see whether they are smoking around their children? Smoking is not illegal, so you cannot punish parents simply for being smokers. The state would have to prove that these parents were smoking while their children were in the same room as them and could breathe in the smoke.
Given how harmful it is, smoking around children is a form of abuse and should be treated as such by...

While second-hand smoking is bad, it is in no way as bad as other forms of abuse that we punish. With physical abuse, such as beatings, the state is mostly worried about the often lasting psychological harm it causes. Violence can lead to mental problems, alcohol and drug abuse, and violent behaviour. Passive smoking has no comparable harmful effects. Every child is unique and the bond between him and his parents is special – as they know him or her better than anyone else. For this reason, the state should step in only in the clearest cases of harm. Passive smoking does not meet that test.
Children need the state to get involved because they are one of the most vulnerable groups of citize...

Even if second-hand smoking is bad for children and the state should step in, a punishment for the parent is also a punishment for the child. If we fine them, that parent will have less money to spend on their child’s food and clothes. Especially since smoking is usually a problem in poorer families. If we send them to jail, then the child is left without a parent for a period of time, which can be very psychologically harmful for them. If we take the child away from the parents, that can also be worse for the child psychologically than passive smoking is physically harmful.
The chance of being punished (putting a cost on their bad behaviour) will give parents a push to giv...

Smoking is an addiction so smokers do not respond to incentives that seem reasonable to other people. They know in their heads that smoking is bad for them, and for their children, but they find themselves unable to stop. We do not treat someone who is ill by sending him to jail. Smoking needs to be treated as a medical problem, not punished as a bad behaviour. Plus, the possibility of getting caught is quite small. It means that this policy will have very little effect on smoking parents.
The state has a right to get involved because the costs of illnesses caused by passive smoking are u...

There are many other choices that we allow parents to make which may affect their children’s health. Living in a big city can be just as dangerous for their respiratory systems because of the air pollution. Not vaccinating your child can lead to them contracting a life threatening illness, like polio or measles. Yet we don’t punish parents who choose to expose their children to car exhaust fumes daily or to the risk of a serious illness, although the cost of treating them would also have to be covered by the healthcare system. We have to trust parents to do the best they can, and not let the state to interfere with family life.
ICESCR violated

By the International Covenant on economic,social and cultural rights,(Article 15) clearly condemns [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights#The_right_to_participation_in_cultural_life]] the mishandling of the holy Quran by a Guantanamo guard. However, a number of Countries have reservations about this convention: 'Amnesty International writes that "The United States signed the Covenant in 1979 under the Carter administration but is not fully bound by it until it is ratified. For political reasons, the Carter administration did not push for the necessary review of the Covenant by the Senate, which must give its “advice and consent” before the US can ratify a treaty. The Reagan and Bush (Sr.) administrations took the view that economic, social, and cultural rights were not really rights but merely desirable social goals and therefore should not be the object of binding treaties. The Clinton Administration did not deny the nature of these rights but did not find it politically expedient to engage in a battle with Congress over the Covenant. The Bush (W.) administration follows in line with the view of the previous Bush (Sr.) administration."[55] The Heritage Foundation, a critical conservative think tank, argues that signing it would obligate the introduction of policies that it opposes such as universal health care.'-[56][56]'[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights#Reservations]] Reservations or not, when you SIGN a covenant, you should abide by it.
On sovereignty

It is naive to say that Mohammad Ali Hamadi being in Lebanese territory is the Lebanese government's problem, therefore the US should not go after him. Obviously a person that has conducted terrorist attacks against citizens of the US and is probably assisting in committing even more is a problem for the US not Lebanon. We say that this presents the US a major threat and gives them a right to self-defense. "To claim that your citizens cannot be attacked by terrorists and then go ahead and attack mostly innocent civilians to capture the same terrorists" We do not see where this comes from? How is covertly capturing a terror suspect in another country an attack against "mostly innocent civilians"? The proposition has nowhere showed us how the capture of a person leads to other people being harmed. "you are not attacking the non-state actors, you are attacking the STATE" Again we do not fully understand how this is true. In their example of the KKK and South Africa we say, yes, if there is a high profile KKK leader who commits and plans terrorist attacks in South Africa, the South African government will have an interest in getting this guy. In this case however we think the US government would not refuse to cooperate, therefore there would not be any need to infringe upon US sovereignty. If the legitimate governments of countries that harbor terrorists are themselves against terrorism, as the proposition says, then of course we should not be going to war against these countries. We have never said it is justified to attack other states for this reason. But if these terrorists are a serious threat to the safety of US citizens, the US government has a duty to get them, even kidnapping them if necessary.
The scale of harm and potential gains achieved through extraordinary rendition

To bring this debate some sense of scale, I quote: "Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association, estimates that a hundred and fifty people have been rendered since 2001."[[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6?currentPage=all]] SO, an estimated 150 people have been rendered in a time frame of 8 years. Yet, and I quote again: "Rohan Gunaratna, a Sri Lankan expert on terrorist interrogations who has consulted with several intelligence agencies, argued that rough tactics “can save hundreds of lives.”" [[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6?currentPage=all]] SO, every individual rendered has the potential to save the lives of hundreds or even thousands of civilians, since terrorist plots aim to invoke as much harm as they possibly can. 9/11 showed that they have the capacity to kill an overwhelming number of innocent people. In fact, "In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died in the attacks" of 9/11. [[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/terror/main2035427.shtml]] So from a purely mathematical standpoint, when even 1 individual of 150 can yield information that saves as many people that died in the 9/11 attacks, the practice becomes justified and explains why US government decided to use it in the first place.
maltreatment of refugees, displaced persons, bought and bagged prisoners, no longer in their homeland

[[http://www.un-documents.net/a21r2198.htm]] [[http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf]] To extend this point: "Who is not covered by the Convention? A person who has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity or a serious non-political crime outside the country of asylum." [[http://www.unhcr.org/3c0f495f4.html page 14) However, the convention also states that one is not a 'criminal unless and until s/he is PROVEN guilty in court. And we all know that people get nabbed before charges against are verified and are not brought to court A.S.A.P. As suspects are taken from a Country other than their own, it can be said that they are refugees in that Country and are as such, required to procure the rights of refugees in that Country.
Response to rebuttal to non-state actors point

The "proposition"(YES, THAT'S US) would like to bring attention back to the WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1996. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996]] Rendition IS a war crime , that issue is not debatable and certainly should not be debated in his forum. WE are here to contribute punishment for this WAR-CRIME to leaders of governments that associate or assist in rendition. Intelligence Agencies and soldiers have faced certain consequences for their unlawful actions. This is about getting to the cause of the problem, tearing it from its roots and so nipping it in the bud. Leaders are more responsible for the events that transpire than their Followers are. Leaders should be punished(Especially leaders of the more powerful Countries that have the means to sway/persuade other leaders to perform illegal actions). That is the only way to stop rendition(and all the unlawful consequences of it). Please refer to the 'Nazi'-point.
The opposition is ignoring our points? 'Foreign States CAN not be trusted.'

The opposition has not addressed points 6-11 Dismissing them as authorities?? In lieu of addressing or arguing with the points that WE have made;the opposition is mostly making up points FOR our side and then shooting them down. It is time that they realize that their inability to argue is not OUR weakness but there's and the analysis and judgment of the debate is the Adjudicator's job, while the conclusion is OUR(the proposition's) responsibility. 'Foreign States Cannot be trusted' The opposition has given the example of A 'self-defending' country claiming that a terror suspect has fled to Lebanon and Lebanon authorities refuse to admit he's even there, forget giving him up.If the man is in Lebanon he is their responsibility not that of the U.S or Israel. If a terrorist that attacked Lebanon runs off to America, the Lebanese wouldn't ask for him(unless he was Lebanese).They would inform The states of what he's done, so the U.S authorities handle him.The U.S should extend the same courtesy to Lebanon. Lebanon should have no reason to ANSWER to the U.S of A or anyone. If the guy's in Lebanon, it's not the U.S.A's problem, anymore. If he ever was their problem then the U.S should have caught him on her OWN turf. States/Countries/nations are responsible for and ONLY have the right to handle THEIR residents/tourists/citizens. When the same suspected-terrorists are on the soil of what the proposition claims to be the self-defending State.The State takes no major steps to catch them, there are no air-strikes or ground/drone attacks conducted to CAPTURE the suspects. But when they run to another Country, dear self-defending State makes a full-fledged attack on that Country. BECAUSE they can.