BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Preconditions" for talking are often what need to be talked about

Barack Obama said in May, 2008, "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are, essentially, what Iran views and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations. For example, their nuclear program. The point is, is that I would not refuse to meet until they agreed to every position that we want."[8]
Obama is only willing to meet rogue leaders when it's in US interests.

Meeting without "preconditions" does not mean meeting with rogue leaders without any specific purpose in mind that relates to US and global interests. Furthermore, a willingness to meet with rogue leaders is not a promise to meet. Obama has not committed to meeting with all rogue leaders. He has only said that he is willing to meet without setting pre-conditions regarding the behavior of those states. An important condition on all meetings remains: that it be within US strategic interests to meet, and work toward something.
Iran sponsors terrorists; wrong to talk with them

"Obama's nonsensical foreign policy". Republic National Committee. 11 May 2008 - State Department’s Recently Released Annual Terrorism Report Says That Iran Is The World’s “Most Active” State Sponsor Of Terrorism. “Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Elements of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts throughout the region and continued to support a variety of groups in their use of terrorism to advance their common regional goals. Iran provides aid to Palestinian terrorist groups, Lebanese Hizballah, Iraq-based militants, and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.” (“Country Reports On Terrorism,” U.S. Department Of State, Office Of The Coordinator For Counterterrorism, 4/30/08)
Majority of scholars support unconditionally meeting hostile leaders

Mark Oppenheimer. "Let's talk". Boston Globe. 22 June 2008 - "among international relations scholars, there is far less controversy. Virtually all specialists agree that meetings between leaders of regimes at odds can be a good thing, and that while the circumstances of such meetings have to be right for both sides, it's better to express an openness to them, Obama-style, than to rule them out ahead of time. Most thinkers, in the mostly liberal academy and even in conservative think tanks, are deeply skeptical that we can "isolate" our enemies by refusing to talk with them; the very idea of isolation is, to use the words of Harvard's Graham Allison, "a radical exception and departure from the mainstream of policy under Republicans and Democrats forever, and for most of the practice of the last 2,000 years of recorded history."
Iranian leaders are evil; wrong to meet with them

John McCain said May 28, 2008, "Senator Obama has said, as you know, that he wants to sit down without any preconditions with the president of Iran, Ahmadinejad. He has said that he wants to sit down with the leader of a country that a few days ago called Israel, quote, a stinking corpse. He wants to sit with the leader of a country that is, as recent news reports indicate clearly, moving towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons, which could destabilize the entire region, obviously, not to mention a direct threat to the existence of the state of Israel. More important perhaps, to many families, and to you and to me, this is the leader of a country that is sending the most explosive devices, the most lethal explosive devices, into Iraq and killing young Americans."[5]
Obama has flip-flopped on meeting with hostile foreign leaders

"Republican National Committee: Obama's Rogue Anniversary - Obama Spends a Year Shifting His Position On Meeting With Rogue Leaders His First Year in Office". July 23rd, 2008. - SHIFT #1: Obama Tells The New York Times "I Didn't Say That I Would Meet Unconditionally," Even Though His Own Campaign Website States That Obama Is The Only Candidate Willing To Meet Without Preconditions:
US has a history of meeting rogue leaders without preconditions

President Dwight D. Eisenhower's invited Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to the White House in 1959. President Kennedy met with Nikita Khrushchev at a time when the two nations were on the brink of nuclear war. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. President Nixon met with China's Mao Zedong, even "with the knowledge that Mao had exterminated millions of people." It is also notable that Teddy Roosevelt engaged with the world so openly, particularly because John McCain claims to model his career after him. Barack Obama has noted, on many occasions, the diplomatic history of the United States in engaging with hostile foreign leaders. "what I have said is that at some point I would be willing to meet...what's puzzling is that we view this as in any way controversial when this has been the history of U.S. diplomacy until very recently...the tough but engaged diplomacy that I am suggesting is the kind that was carried out by John Kennedy, it was carried out by Richard Nixon, and it was carried out by Ronald Reagan. There is a strong bipartisan tradition of engaging in that kind of diplomacy. You mirror military strength with aggressive, effective, tough diplomacy."[2]
Meeting hostile leaders is means to aggressive diplomacy

An interview on Fox News in May, 2008 - "MS. KELLY: Senator, do you assume too much about men like Ahmadinejad? In other words, that you could reason with someone as irrational as he is? SEN. OBAMA: First of all, he's not the most powerful leader in Iran, so he might not be the person that we would need to meet with. But more importantly, the reason that you have discussions and diplomacy is not because you assume reason or good motives on the other side. That would be naive. What you assume is that if you are very clear about the need to stand down on nuclear weapons, that you are very clear about the need to stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas and to stop threatening Israel"[11]
Hostile diplomacy creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of hostility.

Antagonizing diplomacy has, under the Bush administration, arguably worsened the United States' position by creating a self-perpetuating prophecy, in which hostile diplomacy causes foreign nations to feel obliged to protect themselves via seemingly more hostile actions. Indeed, transcripts from both Iran and North Korea demonstrate that the United State's diplomatic hostility (and preparations for war scenarios), caused both Iran and North Korea to feel obliged to build-up their defenses. This, in turn, was interpreted in Washington as a furtherance of hostile actions. Speaking with these hostile nations without preconditions can help break the cycle of hostile relations leading to more hostile behavior.
Obama has not changed positions on meeting hostile leaders

Obama has not changed positions on meeting hostile leaders without preconditions, as has been claimed by his opponents. He has always held that he is willing to meet without specific behavioral preconditions, at the same time as saying that he would not meet without specific US interests being involved and without diplomatic preparations being made first (specifically, lower level diplomatic relations). While he has clarified that this is his position, and given nuance to it in specific situations (such as in rejecting meeting with leaders of Hamas (an Palestinian organization currently considered to be a terrorist organization in the United States), this should not be confused with "changing positions" or "flip-flopping". See the argument that Obama's conditionless meetings would involve diplomatic preparations to view the long and constant history of this position.
Doctors are often put into an impossible position of denying requests to assist in suicide.

A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can. However, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit.
Difficult to ensure assisted suicide is voluntary

Euthanasia.com. "Arguments Against Euthanasia". Retrieved April 29th, 2008 - "3. Euthanasia will only be voluntary, they say Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, many people will feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, added to the concern about "being a burden," could serve as powerful forces that would lead a person to "choose" euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Opponents of euthanasia erroneously argue that human death is always wrong; exceptions exist.

It is acceptable to take a life in self-defense. It is acceptable to send soldiers into war to die and kill to achieve certain ends. It is acceptable to risk human life in missions into space. And, it is considered acceptable by some (actually many conservatives that oppose euthanasia) to execute criminals. Clearly, life is not inviolable in modern society. It can be violated or risked for certain, highly valuable ends (security, justice, discovery). The question with euthanasia, therefore, is not whether life can be violated for certain ends (it can). The question is whether it can be a justified trade-off, and if so, how to ensure that euthanasia is only performed when it is fully justified under the criteria we set forth.
The first promise of the Hippocratic oath is to never euthanize patients

The relevant portion of the Hippocratic oath reads, "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." This oath is the center piece of medical practice and ethics. How can euthanasia be practiced in the medical profession when it so clearly violates its principal ethical code.
Euthanasia is falsely based on the idea that the ill can lose their identity

Supporters of euthanasia sometimes argue that the ill are no longer the person they were, and therefore that their lives have no more meaning, and that euthanasia can relieve any suffering that this causes. But, human identity must be defined as connected with the continued existence of the body, even if mental capacities are entirely diminished. Even if a personality is gone, the continued dignity of the bodily identity must be respected.
Pain can't justify euthanasia, it can be made tolerable with modern medicines

Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in excruciating pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. There are some difficulties with using pain medicines that are regulated substances. Many doctors recommend that, at a minimum, the first step before considering euthanasia is to loosen the regulations on these substances so that terminally ill, pained patients can be more fully relieved of their pains.
Sanctity-of-life ideologies trample the lives of the dying that call for euthanasia.

If we were to assume that euthanasia is wrong, than we would also have to assume that the pleas of the dying for euthanasia are wrong too. Can we disregard these pleas as merely the dying wishes of individuals that have become desperate and irrational? If we disregard these pleas, aren't we essentially telling the dying that their wishes are wrong and, in fact, immoral? That is, in effect, what opponents of euthanasia are saying to the dying that make these pleas. At a minimum, the state is simply denying individuals their dying wish, angering, and even alienating them. Is this a good way for the state to honor the dying and their lives? No. In this way, denying euthanasia violates the sanctity of the lives of the dying that call for it. Aren't these the only sanctified lives at hand that matter? Or, is the purpose to walk all over the dying in order to uphold a self-righteous belief among the living about the "sanctity of life".
Disabled would have to seek euthanasia in order to receive it

The argument that the legalization of euthanasia will increase deaths of disabled by euthanasia is premised on the faulty notion that the government and doctors are actually forcing euthanasia on people. Individuals must ask for euthanasia, it can never be forced upon them. Therefore, the only way that euthanasia's legalization could increase the death of the disabled is if disabled people more frequently asked for euthanasia. There is no evidence that disabled would request the practice any more than other dying and suffering people.
Physicians can never be obligated to facilitate euthanasia

Some suggest that physicians have an obligation to end the suffering of patients by subjecting them to euthanasia. Yet, physicians may have strong beliefs against the practice, particularly on the basis that human life should never be intentionally ended under any circumstance. Who is to say that they are wrong? Furthermore, physicians never signed any piece of paper that states an obligation to euthanize patients in circumstances of extreme suffering. Finally, the Hippocratic oath, the main oath taken by physicians, directly forbids physicians from performing euthanasia. Certainly, it is a stretch any physician would be obligated to perform the procedure.
People should not be euthanized because they are in a "drugged state"

Euthanasia advocates, having built a case largely on the pain of the terminally ill, respond to the notion of advanced pain treatment by arguing that it is undignified for individuals to be in a "drugged state". Yet, a "drugged state" can hardly be cited as a sufficient reason for euthanasia. As long as there is no unbearable pain, there is not much of a case for euthanasia.
Euthanasia doctors don't "kill", they help individuals die who want to

Some opponents argue that euthanasia is about permitting doctors and/or families to kill their ill loved ones. This is not the general euthanasia proposal, which is to allow patients with exceptional circumstances to seek euthanasia and receive it if they are eligible. The choice is in the hands of the patient, not the family or doctors, so it cannot be termed "killing". Rather, its about helping terminal patients die who want to die.
Removing life support causes an excruciating death; euthanasia is more humane

The Terri Shiavo case is illustrative of the situation created by the illegality of euthanasia. A choice was made that Terri Shiavo's death was imminent and that should should be allowed to die. Without the option of euthanasia, her feeding tubes were removed, and she was starved to death. How is that more moral than euthanasia? Forcing patients to starve to death or go into cardiac arrest, simply because the option of euthanasia does not exist, is a cruel alternative.
There is no compelling state interest in preventing euthanasia

When the freedom of the individual to do what they want is prevented by the state, it must be because a clear, compelling state interest exists. It is not clear that any such interests exists in the case of euthanasia. Certainly, there is no benefit to the state when a dying patient is loudly crying for euthanasia and the state blocks the procedure. The only state interest that could be involved is the notion of the "dignity of life", but this is highly, highly contested, with great public opposition to the notion that life is inviolable in cases of an excruciating, terminal illness. Does the state have an interest in opposing this public opinion? Where is the interest?
Poor people that can't afford health care won't then seek euthanasia

Opponents of Euthanasia sometimes argue that the poor are vulnerable in the event of the legalization of Euthanasia because they can't afford health care, and so will seek euthanasia instead. This is premised on the false notion that death can somehow be a good alternative to the inability to do something else. Unless a poor person doesn't want to live anymore, they will not seek euthanasia as an alternative to unaffordable health care.
Legalizing euthanasia places an unreasonable burden on doctors

The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. Many doctors that have performed euthanasia are traumatized or deeply, negatively affected by the experience.
Euthanasia is contrary to the dignity and preciousness of life

Patrick Lee. "Personhood, Dignity, Suicide, and Euthanasia". The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly." Autumn 2001, Vol.1 No.3 - "[...]A thing (as opposed to a state or property) can be valuable in one of two ways (keeping in mind the above distinctions): First, it might be valuable as a vehicle or carrier of what is per se valuable. If human beings were valuable in that way, then they would not be per se valuable, but only the states or properties that they bore or carried would be of per se value. Or, secondly, a thing might be valuable because it is per se valuable, that is, it is valuable for its own sake, and not as a means toward what it enables to be instantiated. But, human beings must be valuable in the second way rather than in the first way. For if they were valuable only as mere vehicles for what is per se valuable, then it would always be morally right to kill one child, provided one agreed to replace him with two others. No human beings would have more than replaceable value. None would have the kind of value that almost all of us recognize that at least some human beings do have. So, human beings are intrinsically valuable, that is, valuable per se. This means that they themselves are valuable, not just as vehicles for what is valuable.
Euthanasia helps families that don't want to see their loved one suffer.

As was mentioned above, euthanasia is an immediate and painless way to end a life that is too painful. Many families don't want to see their loved ones suffer and the patient doesn't want them to suffer either. Euthanasia provides an option to end a life before it even enters the terminal "death-bed" stage of suffering, or it allows families to choose to end a "death bed" existence with dignity and peace instead of simply pulling the plugs to, in some case, starve their loved one to death.
Life can be prolonged unnaturally; euthanasia is a necessary cut-off option

Life can be kept "alive" for longer and longer periods with modern technologies and techniques. Is this natural? No. Is it excessive? It certainly can be. When keeping life "alive" becomes an excessive exercise in medicine and technology, a cut-off point become necessary. That cut-off point is euthanasia. This argument will become increasingly relevant into the future, as human-beings are kept alive with dozens of test tubes and transplants.
Assisted suicide increases interest in improving end-of-life care

Barbara Coombs Lee, J.D. President, Compassion & Choices. "A Right to Die?". PBS Newshour. November 26, 1997 - "Palliative care has been the main beneficiary of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act [which legalized physician-assisted suicide] so far. Since its passage, we've seen a great resurgence of interest in the medical community in palliative care. Hospice referrals have increased by 20 percent, and now Oregon leads the nation in prescription of morphine. This has a salutary effect on end of life care."[12]
When life can only continue "unnaturally", "unnatural" euthanasia is OK

Opponents of euthanasia talk about the importance of allowing nature to run its course with human life, and for humans to die a natural death (or as God intended), as opposed to induced by euthanasia. Yet, if "natural-death" is the criteria for right kind of death, then hospitalization, IVs, medication, and all other sorts life-support would be wrong. And, yet, this is precisely what is used to the extreme to keep alive, artificially, many individuals that would otherwise die a "natural" death. In this way, an "unnatural" life is often the only alternative to an "unnatural" death through euthanasia. Since neither alternative is "natural" or as "God intended", we must decide if euthanasia is appropriate on other criteria. Since this "natural death" argument is central to the opposition to euthanasia, we will find that the remaining case against euthanasia is dramatically weakened.
The state does not force anyone to stay alive; it just doesn't euthanize

Euthanasia.com, an anti-euthanasia website. "Reasons for Euthanasia". Retrieved April 30th, 2008 - "3. Should people be forced to stay alive? No. And neither the law nor medical ethics requires that "everything be done" to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the patient's wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law and practice. It would also be cruel and inhumane. There comes a time when continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise, or medically sound. That's where hospice, including in-home hospice care, can be of such help. That is the time when all efforts should be placed on making the patient's remaining time comfortable. Then, all interventions should be directed to alleviating pain and other symptoms as well as to the provision of emotional and spiritual support for both the patient and the patient's loved ones."
Legalizing euthanasia would allow more open family dialogue on the choice.

Where euthanasia is currently illegal, it is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help. The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. By legalizing assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.
Families will abuse euthanasia merely to reduce family strains.

Families often have a direct interest in seeing an ill family member die. First, they may not have the money to support the costs of keeping the patient alive. Second, they may not want to go through the burden of supporting and comforting a loved one in a long downward spiral toward their death. These are strong incentives for family members to pressure their ill family member into euthanasia, even if the individual does not want it. Legalizing euthanasia would open the door to this kind of pressure. Even the most well regulated system would have no real way to ensure that this does not happen.