BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is some national resentment surrounding seating Florida and Michigan delegates.

There is some national resentment that Michigan and Florida violated the rules of the DNC, while other states obeyed them, which would have given favor to Michigan and Florida at a cost to other states. It is also true that a significant punishment for disobeying the DNC rules may be important in upholding the integrity of the system in the future, which is in the interest of all state parties and citizens. It also seems odd to many in the nation that these states and their populations are now protesting so vehemently the punishment that was so clearly outlined from the beginning.
Giving Michigan and Florida voters a voice in 2008 benefits the Democratic party.

While the DNC certainly does have the right, to some extent, to limit the democratic nature of the primaries, upholding this very democratic nature is in their interests. In general, it upholds the legitimacy of the Democratic party to be as democratic as possible in the primary elections. If they fail to uphold these principles, their general legitimacy is undermined, undermining their agenda and chances in general elections.
The Jan. 29th Michigan and Florida primaries represent the public will

Roughly 1.7 million Democrats in Florida's primary. That's roughly fifty percent of the registered Democrats there. This indicates that these voters were paying close attention to the candidates and that they took the election seriously, despite knowledge that their votes would probably not count. This was certainly a legitimate election that sufficiently represented the will of the people. As such, it is valid to use the results to allot Florida and Michigan delegates.
The primary system and late Michigan and Florida primaries disenfranchises these states.

It is commonly recognized that Iowa and New Hampshire, by going first in the primary process, have a disproportionate sway in selecting the presidential nominee. This is because the results in these states can sway the results in other states. This means that voters in these two states have more power than voters in other states. Since Florida and Michigan have their turn toward the very end of the primaries, their voters have much smaller impact on selecting their parties' respective nominee. This means that Florida and Michigan's voters have less power or, other words, that they are disenfranchised on some level. This is undemocratic and unjust. Michigan and Florida's attempts to move their primaries forward were both a just protest of this system and a just attempt to give their voters a fair say in the nominations. They should not be severely punished for these actions by having their delegates stripped, which will only further disenfranchise these voters.
Florida voters were sufficiently informed despite not being campaigned to.

The current media environment - with constant and comprehensive coverage of the candidates on the TV, Internet, and Radio - makes it impossible to argue that Florida voters, in order to become informed about the candidates, required that the candidates waged campaigns there. Given the massive turnout, it would appear that voters did not depend on the campaigns of the candidates to acquire information that would cause them to act so passionately in support of their respective candidates.
Michigan and Florida knowingly violated the rules and so should be punished

The Democratic National Committee rules were very clear in Florida and Michigan. The punishment for violating the rules was also very clear; the state party would be stripped of its delegates, meaning that the state's vote would not count in the primary election. With perfect knowledge of the rules and the punishment for breaking the rules, the Florida and Michigan Democratic parties, nevertheless, broke the rules. They should not now claim that the punishment is unfair.
A mail-in ballot funded by private interests risks conflicts of interest.

Given the costs of a proposed mail-in ballot system, some propose that it be paid for, in part, by private interests. This may, indeed, be necessary for such a system to achieve funding viability. The problem with this kind of arrangement, however, is that private interests could be seen as having a conflict of interest in funding such a system. The most obvious conflict is that many private interests will support funding this re-vote merely because it appears to favor a candidate they support. In Florida, this is Hilary Clinton, who is likely to win any re-vote there. And, as expected, Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey say they are willing to raise as much as $15 million to support mail-in re-votes. Both governors support Hillary Clinton in the nomination race.
Seating delegates based on first 2008 Florida and Michigan primaries would punish candidates that did not campaign there.

Knowing that the Michigan and Florida elections would not count as far as leading to the seating of delegates, Democratic presidential candidates did not campaign there. In Florida, Senator Clinton did campaign to some extent, while Senator Obama did not at all. Indeed Obama, by not campaigning in Florida due to the knowledge that delegates would not be seated from the state, did poorer in Florida than he probably otherwise would have. He was acting on the assumption that the Democratic National Convention would enforce its punishment of Florida by not seating delegates according to the vote. If the DNC later decides to allot delegates based on this vote, it would effectively unfairly punish Obama for trusting the DNC's rules, its punishments, and the DNC's willingness to enforce both. This would unfairly punish Obama.
Obama and Clinton should stick to their agreement to not campaign in and count Florida and Michigan.

Obama and Clinton agreed with each other that they would not campaign in either Florida or Michigan. They agreed with each other on this point because they both recognized that it would not count, and, subsequently, that any effort by one or the other candidate to campaign in these states and stake claim to the results could be unfair, would be wasteful, and would likely undermine the decision of the DNC. They should stick to this agreement to not count the results of the two states.
Punishing the Flor. and Mich. Democratic state parties should not also punish voters.

Certainly, the Florida and Michigan Democratic parties are responsible for breaking the rules of the Democratic National Committee by attempting to move their state primary forward in the calendar. Punishing them is an appropriate measure. But, it is unfair and undemocratic to unseat the delegates of these states, as the chief recipients of this punishment are actually the Michigan and Florida Democratic voters, who are subsequently disenfranchised. Voters should not be punished for the mistakes of their leaders. Rather, punishments should focus on penalizing the State Democratic parties and their leaders. This would be a more just punishment and more democratic. In the 2008 elections, the best response would be to allow the voters to have their voices herd by seating the delegates, while devising better ways to punish state parties that break the rules.
Oil sands have a contained environmental impact

Tom Huffaker. "The case for optimism: Some perspective on oil sands." San Francisco Chronicle. October 09, 2009: "The region that has been mined [in Canada] is about 330 square miles; you could fit it inside the San Francisco metro area 10 times over. By contrast the Canadian boreal forest covers an area 12 times the size of the state of California. Even at full development potential, only 0.1 per cent of the Canadian boreal forest will be impacted by mining activities."
Oil sand extraction contributes to cases of cancer

Ben Jervery. "The Moral Case Against Tar Sands." OnEarth. February 19, 2009: "The impact on local communities, mostly First Nation tribes like the Cree, is nothing short of appalling. Visiting a Cree village and speaking to one of its Elders, Nikiforuk writes, 'MacDonald doesn't have much faith that industry or government will reclaim the toxic ponds that surround his home. About 90 percent of the water withdrawn from the Athabasca River for mining ends up behind massive tailings dams or dykes...All these ponds contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), naphthenic acids, heavy metals, salts, and bitumen.' The tailings are leaking into the Athabasca too, poisoning the indiginous fish that locals have long relied on for food. [...] In some heartbreaking interviews with Canadian tar sands activist MacDonald Stainsby, local residents reveal that cancer rates in their communities are up, wildlife is disappearing, and river levels are dropping constantly."
Oil sands worsen local air quality

"Dirty Oil, Dirty Air: Ottawa,s broken pollution promise." Environmental Defense: "There has been a recent spike in air pollution 'exceedances' in the tar sands region from 47 in 2004 to 1,556 in 2009. "Exceedances" are counted when air monitoring stations in the tar sands region show actual air pollution to be higher than targets set by the Alberta government."
Tar sands perpetuate oil dependencies, delay clean energy

"Tar Sands Invasion." Dirty Oil Sands. May 2010: "In America, oil and pipeline companies plan to build an extensive tar sands pipeline and refinery infrastructure that will continue U.S. dependence on this high-carbon fossil fuel for many decades to come. Tar sands infrastructure investment conflicts with American goals of stopping climate change and shifting the U.S. transportation sector to cleaner alternatives."
Oil sands undermine long-term clean energy security

"Tar Sands Invasion." Dirty Oil Sands. May 2010: "Major oil company and other tar sands oil interests are attacking climate and clean energy policies in the United States and elsewhere. Concerned about their massive investments, tar sands oil interests are trying to undermine fuel standards, fuel purchasing provisions and other clean energy initiatives that would protect our climate, create green jobs and secure our future. Expansion of tar sands will undermine a U.S. transition to a clean energy economy."
Tar sands unnecessary if focus is placed on clean energy

"Tar Sands Invasion." Dirty Oil Sands. May 2010: "American Security Depends on Reducing Dependence on Oil. The best security policy for our nation and climate is to aggressively implement fuel efficiency and other measures that reduce oil dependency. These and other measures stand to reduce U.S. demand for oil by four million barrels per day by 2020 and ten million barrels per day by 2030, which would make expansion of tar sands unnecessary for U.S. fuel needs."
Oilsands account for less than 1 percent of global emissions

In an op-ed in the Argus Leader, John Duff Erickson, professor emeritus at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, wrote: "It would be folly to halt oil sands production and the construction of pipelines that would carry Canadian oil to U.S. markets. Oil sands development accounts for less than 1 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions."[1]
Oil sands threaten down-river communities

"Staying hooked on a dirty fuel." DirtyOilSands.org and the National Wildlife Federation. May 2010: "THREATENING DOWNRIVER COMMUNITIES Scientists already have catalogued human health problems among the First Nations people who live downriver.9 Studies have raised alarms about increased cancer rates and autoimmune diseases. In the Fort Chipewyan First Nation, where subsistence hunting and fishing is still prevalent, hunters say they have noticed big changes in the game they harvest–including the fact that moose livers are enlarged and white-spotted."
Nations can choose a clean energy future over tar sands

"Tar Sands Invasion." Dirty Oil Sands. May 2010: "As the world’s largest oil consumer, the United States has choices about its energy future. America currently consumes a quarter of the world’s oil supply. We must and can do better, and we have the technology to do it. A nation as innovative and motivated as the United States can find a way to maintain mobility, while at the same time acting to halt expansion of expensive and dirty fuels such as tar sands oil that cause global warming and a host of other environmental and health problems. Electric cars, renewable energy, environmentally sustainable biofuels, fuel efficiency, and smart growth are all positive solutions to meet our future energy needs."
"Washing" tar from sands forms highly polluted ponds

"Tar Sand Invasion." Dirty Oil Sands. May 2010: "In addition to its high carbon pollution costs, tar sands oil production requires two to five barrels of water for each barrel of tar sands extracted, has already created over 50 square miles of toxic waste ponds, threatens the health of downstream indigenous communities, and is likely to cause the loss of millions of migratory birds that nest in the forests and wetlands of the region."
Oil Sands emit only a fraction more than petroleum

In an op-ed in the Argus Leader, John Duff Erickson, professor emeritus at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, wrote: "Environmental groups claim that oil sands produce five to seven times the carbon emissions of conventional oil, but a study by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a highly regarded consulting group, determined that oil sands emissions are only 5 percent to 15 percent higher than the average barrel of crude oil processed in the United States."[2]
Courses of action to be taken if opposing oil sands

From "Tar Sands Invasion." Dirty Oil Sands. May 2010: "Stop expansion of tar sands oil production in Canada. Build no more tar sands pipelines and refineries in the United States. Continue to reduce demand for oil as a transportation fuel. Don’t spend taxpayer dollars on buying tar sands oil. Eliminate tar sands oil subsidies and financing. Adopt corporate policies that do not support tar sands oil."
Hydrocarbons required in forseeable future, including oil sands

Tom Huffaker. "The case for optimism: Some perspective on oil sands." San Francisco Chronicle. October 09, 2009: "It also can't be denied that for the foreseeable future, the world, California included, is going to require energy from hydrocarbons. Global oil demand continues to grow, because the rest of the world would like to live as well as we do in North America. We need to increase our use of renewable fuels, and we will, but the fact remains that we're going to require energy from all sources, and oil sands has an important role to play in the North American energy supply mix."
Oil sands help Canada far exceed Kyoto emissions limits

"Canada's energy industry. Tarred with the same brush." The Economist. Aug 5th 2010: "At the peak of the commodity boom in 2008, energy was Canada’s largest export. As a result, the sands have only been lightly regulated. Instead of being 6% below 1990 levels of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2012, its commitment under the Kyoto protocol, Canada will be 30% above."
Making oil sands "as clean as petroleum" is insufficient

John Podesta, head of Center for American Progress. June 2010 speech on oil sands: "Let me make a note on what the CO2 goal here seems to be, in light of this morning’s discussions. If developed countries need to reduce CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050, setting a goal of lowering oil sands emissions to come into line with conventional oil production is the wrong goal. The arrow is pointing in the wrong direction. Oil sands can’t simply be as good as conventional oil. We need to reduce fossil fuel use and accelerate the transition to cleaner technologies, in the transportation sector and elsewhere."
Better to import oil from Canadian sands than from corrupt regimes

"Canada's energy industry. Tarred with the same brush." The Economist. Aug 5th 2010: "'A GOOD neighbour lends you a cup of sugar,' read an ad in the Washington Post last month. 'A great neighbour supplies you with 1.4 million barrels of oil a day.' Ed Stelmach, the premier of the energy-rich province of Alberta, certainly knows how to make the case for Canadian petroleum. Buying from Canada neither props up an authoritarian regime nor exposes the United States to political manipulation of its energy supply. Little wonder, then, that Canada is the biggest exporter of oil to America, with 22% of the total. The runners-up, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, have just 11-12% each. And the country’s potential seems limitless: Canada’s 179 billion barrels of oil and gas reserves rank second in the world."
US prosecuted foreign governments for waterboarding

Scott Shane and Mark Mazetti. "In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Look at Past Use". New York Times. April 21, 2009 - "Even George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director who insisted that the agency had thoroughly researched its proposal and pressed it on other officials, did not examine the history of the most shocking method, the near-drowning technique known as waterboarding. [...] The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia."
Enhanced interrogations violet cruel and unusual punishment laws.

Cruel and unusual punishment is a statement implying that governments shall not inflict such treatment for crimes, regardless of their degree of severity. It was founded in the English Bill of Rights, which was signed in 1689 by King William III and Queen Mary II who were then the joint rulers of England, Scotland, and Ireland following the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688. In the case of suspected terrorists, the presumption inherent prior to the implementation of aggressive interrogation tactics is that the suspect is guilty of a kind of a "crime" (terrorism). This is, subsequently, used to justify the use of aggressive tactics. But, these tactics of waterboarding, submission to severe cold, smacking, sensory bombardment, and other techniques certainly constitute "cruel and unusual" techniques for the "crime" of terrorism (although due process in convicting a suspected for this "crime" is lacking).
Prolonged isolation does not cause severe pain and suffering.

Prolonged isolation might be uncomfortable and upsetting for and individual, but it does not go so far as to cause severe pain and suffering. The operative word here is severe. There is no physical contact between the interrogators and the prison, no physical pain, and only mental disarray and frustration. All suffering is moderate and temporary. It, therefore, can certainly not be considered "torture" and can be justified in certain exceptional instances when information is needed and can likely be obtained through this technique.
Enhanced interrogations violate due process laws.

The presumption in the case of interrogations is that a suspected terrorist is guilty of committing terrorism. If they were not guilty, the practice of interrogation of any kind would be particularly egregious. But, no trial and judicial process for this takes place, and the prisoner usually remains unaccussed of any particular crime. So there is no certainty that they are actually guilty, even while the practice of aggressive interrogations may move forward apace. For this reason, enhanced interrogations violate due process laws, and worse, implement punishment/actions against a suspected terrorist before any due process has been had. In other words, suspected terrorists are not merely imprisoned without due process, they are interrogated/tortured/punished without due process.
Enhanced interrogations inflict "severe pain/suffering" (torture).

Enhanced interrogations inflict sever pain and suffering, both physically and psychologically, and thus amount to torture under international law, as defined by the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This convention reads: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."[22]
US maintained values/laws amidst worse enemies than terrorists.

Letter from General John Vessey, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Senator McCain opposing a proposed redefinition of Common Article 3 (the humane treatment standard) of the Geneva Conventions, September 12, 2006: "I continue to read and hear that we are facing a ‘different enemy’ in the war on terror; no matter how true that may be, inhumanity and cruelty are not new to warfare nor to enemies we have faced in the past. In my short 46 years in the armed forces Americans confronted the horrors of prison camps of the Japanese in World War II, the North Koreans in 1950-53, and the North Vietnamese in the long years of the Vietnam War, as well as knowledge of the Nazi’s holocaust depredations during World War II. Through those years, we held our own values. We should continue to do so."[32]
Enhanced interrogations commonly caused permanent damage.

The Washington Post reported in January 2009 that Susan J. Crawford, convening authority of military commissions, stated in response to the interrogation of Mohammed al-Qahtani, the so-called "20th hijacker" of the September 11 attacks: "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.... You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge", i.e., to call it torture.[23]
Bush wrongly created own definition of torture

Asked about President George Bush's comments in October 10, 2007 that "This government does not torture people", former President Jimmy Carter said, "That's not an accurate statement if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored -- certainly in the last 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don't violate them, and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them."[24]
The same info can be obtained by traditional interrogations

Interrogator Ali Soufan said in an April 2009 op-ed article in the New York Times: "It is inaccurate [...] to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative [and that enhanced interrogation techniques supplies interrogators with previously unobtainable information]. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence."[13]