BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Russia does not have true democracy

The status quo in Russia is highly controversial. On the one hand it is considered a democracy – it has all the structures and norms of a democracy. On the other hand there are many attacks and proof that the Russian governance is far from democratic: The joint observer team for the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticised the Russian elections as "not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections," with "abuse of administrative resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party". The polls "took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited political competition" meaning "there was not a level political playing field". The 2007 parliamentary election resulted in United Russia gaining 64.1% of the vote. (3) Furthermore not only there isn’t election freedom, there is not academic freedom either – “The European University at St Petersburg has been forced to suspend teaching after officials claimed its historic buildings were a fire risk. This forced all academic work to cease. The University had been running a program that advised Russian political parties, including how to ensure elections are not being rigged. The project they are involved in called Interregional Electoral Chains of Support was to develop and raise the effectiveness of electoral monitoring in Russia's regions. The university has also been attacked for having close ties to the west, particularly US and UK universities” (4) There are cases of murdered journalists, who were “inconvenient” to the authorities. This also raises the question whether a strong leadership is better for the people. Basic freedoms are denied to the Russian population. In the 21st century this is simply unjust. Therefore strong leadership creates more wrong than it does good.
The status quo reveals that several powerful and influential people are in charge of the whole state

What is occurring in Russia now is closer to dictatorship rather than to strong leadership. Many commentators of the Russian political stage share the opinion that Medvedev is just a pawn in the hands of the former president and current prime minister – Putin. “The leading role still clearly belongs to Putin. This reflects the unspoken agreement that was reached between Putin and Medvedev,” said Yevgeny Volk, an independent political analyst in Moscow. (6) Russia’s both external and internal policy have not changed after the elections in 2008 and are following the same path, which is another argument that Putin continues to pull the strings. In fact, the more important question is not whether or not Medvedev is a pawn, but who is actually in charge – “Kremlin-watchers say this system of interlocking and competing clans that is managed by Putin comprises the core of Russia's ruling elite. The key players, the people with decision making power, number about thirty. The inner circle, most agree, comprises about twelve people… There are something like a dozen of the most influential guys in the first circle and perhaps two dozen who are less influential in the second circle. These are not only managers but also shareholders who are not that visible or public...Not only do they manage Russia...but they also enrich themselves pretty actively.”  (7) This poses the debate is such a status quo in the best interest of Russia and its people or is the exact opposite.
Corruption, an essential issue in Russia, is due to the strong leadership

There is a link between the high levels of corruption and the strong leadership of Russian president and prime minister of Russia. – “Some of Russia's most prominent opposition figures have produced a report accusing Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of presiding over a boom in corruption and enriching his inner circle over the past decade… Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev themselves have 26 "palaces" and five yachts, which in turn require costly state upkeep, according to the report.” (8) Many argue that if it weren’t for the power of the prime minister and ex-president Putin, also his strong authority and management, corruption would have been minimized long ago.
Stability is more important than reform

All periods of transition have been chaotic by definition and reforms are by their nature disruptive. At the same time, it is only through these reforms that a future of freedom and prosperity is possible. While a long transition process can certainly cloud minds and turn people into distrustful and disillusioned individuals, one must keep in mind that it is precisely at these moments that the risk of authoritarian tendencies re-emerging is highest. The people of Russia agree in polls over and over again that democracy is and should be their future. We must not let the immediate chaos of reform scare us into a fake stability. Even if still Russians prefer stronger leadership the number of these people is decreasing and the tendency shows that more and more are starting to evaluate the true value of democracy -  “…But that number is actually down from the last time VTsIOM conducted a similar survey in 2000, when 75 per cent of Russians said they favored order, and 13 per cent – democracy. “ (1)
A strong leader has more benefits than harms

Putin’s initial support was based mainly on strong promises, a series of arrests of corrupt businessmen and tough action towards Chechnya that at first seemed to give positive results. His support base, however, has been significantly damaged following his increasing tendencies to control the media and to replace elected governors with presidential appointees, and by scandals surrounding the disappearance and murder of several important journalists. He has lost the support of the NGO community and most of the intelligentsia and also the originally strong backing of the USA and President Bush.
A strong leader is working in the state’s best interest

Putting your hopes and trust in a single person can be fairly dangerous, particularly in a transition period. Putin is not the state and his ability to control and represent the state and the population at large is questionable. Putin is also not a saint and an example to be followed. His authoritarian tendencies do not have insignificant effects: at this point most Russian media is controlled by the state, decisions continue to be made behind closed doors without consultation, Russia has once again become the pariah of the international community, the Chechen conflict has spilled into new attacks against civilians resulting in the death of thousands of people including children (one only has to mention the horrible attacks in Beslan and the Moscow theatre), etc, etc. Putin’s stubborn refusal to accept international help in the case of the stuck submarine Kursk also resulted in the unnecessary death of tens of people.
Russia as a state and Russians as a nation need strong leadership

History is not destiny and a highly-selective view of Russia's past should not lead us to prefer authoritarian rule today. The Tsars and their communist successors killed millions of people through brutal rule and failed policies - made possible by the same lack of consultation and accountability that we see in Russia today. Only a vigorous multi-party democracy, fully independent legal system and free media can ensure that the disasters of the past are not repeated. Nor is there any reason why such a system could not take root in Russia - it is no more diverse than many other countries and modern communications mean that mere distance is not a problem. And there is nothing in the culture or temperament that makes Russians uniquely unsuited to democracy.
Proper democratic checks and balance are the only way to real problem-solving

The best possible way to tackle the corruption issue, which lets face it is one of the major problems in Russia nowadays, is through a strong leader. Eastern European democratic countries are the pure example that corruption spreads when there is no strong leadership. The corruption in these countries is an obstacle to their economic development. As a matter of fact present president Dmitry Medvedev has launched policies and new projects in order to fight back corruption – “ Fighting corruption has been a top agenda of President Dmitry Medvedev. An Anti-Corruption Council was established by Medvedev in 2008 to oversee the Russia's anti-corruption campaign. The central document guiding the effort is the National Anti-Corruption Strategy, introduced by Medvedev in 2010.” (2) In fact, increasing corruption might prove to be more dangerous than terrorist attacks since it would create powerful drug, oil and weapons cartels as well as human trafficking problems. Therefore a strong leader is necessary to cope with this critical matter.
Russia does not have true democracy

Russia has the attributes of a democracy. It is a federal state with a constitution. It has a two chamber legislature; the lower house is the Duma with 450 members elected from nationwide party lists based upon proportional representation. The Upper house; the Federation Council has two representatives from each of Russia’s 89 regions and republics that are chosen by the regional governors and legislatures. Elections for the President are every four years who then appoints the prime minister who in turn appoints the government. Russia therefore appears to have the necessary structure to be a democracy as each of the branches or government are independent. What Russia is doing is combining the modern democratic governance with better control and management.  Shortly after one of the reporters’ death (which death is thought to be a political order) the head of the human rights organisation issued a strongly worded statement alleging the involvement of state authorities and the area's premier Ramzan Kadyrov in this particular death. This statement was not suppressed in Russia and means that there is freedom of speech. There maybe a strong amount of state control of the press similar to Italy which is a problem but the right still remains. (5)
The status quo reveals that several powerful and influential people are in charge of the whole state

All of these speculations are rather unreasonable and tend to create a public opinion which does not cooperate entirely with the truth. Such drastic conclusions can be made just about any other country. It is true that Vladimir Putin is a strong leader and a powerful figure in the Russian political life, but this does not mean that he is a puppet master, who decides the entire faith of Russia and the Russian population. The political life cannot go without political games, intrigues and deals, but this is just how the policy works and this is how it has been working for a long time. Political interests mix up with business interests and it is actually  important to have a strong leader in the face of Putin, who, unlike a lot of politicians will not be influenced by big corporate players or at least will not be influenced as much. Putin’s political career has been successful and his rating among the population are the simplest proof - According to public opinion surveys conducted by Levada Center, Putin's approval rating was 81% in June 2007, and the highest of any leader in the world. His popularity rose from 31% in August 1999 to 80% in November 1999 and since then it has never fallen below 65%. Observers see Putin's high approval ratings as a consequence of the significant improvements in living standards and Russia's reassertion of itself on the world scene that occurred during his tenure as President.
Corruption, an essential issue in Russia, is due to the strong leadership

The current president Dmitry Medvedev is working on and introducing policies toward corruption. Actually this is his main strategy. It is a well-known fact that Medvedev keeps close relations with the former president Putin and discusses Russian relations and policy with him. If the abolishment of the corruption was standing in the way of Putin, such a strategy would not have been undertaken by Medvedev. – “Speaking to a group of Russian experts and journalists, he said that corrupt officials ran Russia. "They have the power. Corruption has a systemic nature, deep historic roots. We should squeeze it out. The battle isn't easy but it has to be fought. I don't think we can achieve tangible results in one year or two. If I am a realist we could get good results in 15." “(9) Exactly strong leadership can deal with the difficult issue of corruption in the Russian state. And the new policies of the current president clearly present that.
Stability is more important than reform

Since the fall of communism, Russia has plunged into a deep economic recession. The introduction of market reforms and privatization has led to a swift increase in inequalities coupled with an increase in corruption. The chaos of economic and political reform, along with the chaos of the break-up of former USSR, has left the majority of the population both disillusioned and distrustful of their government. In a period of such chaos, stability seems to be much more important than reform. A strong leader is the only solution to providing such stability, setting a clear direction and pulling a country at risk of falling apart together again. This is also proven  from various polls among the Russian population – “…The most eye-catching statistic is the overwhelming majority of respondents who say that order is more important for Russia than democracy – 72 per cent, with 16 per cent responding conversely.” (1)
A strong leader has more benefits than harms

Putin is the strong leader that Russia has been waiting for. His electoral success and consistently high approval rates show that the people of Russia are ready for someone who can rid their society of increasing corruption and restore a sense of calm and equality. His ability to maintain a high level of support despite what some have called authoritarian tendencies shows that people are ready to sacrifice a certain degree of freedom for the promise of stability. Enthusiasm for Putin among the young also shows that he does not only appeal to those looking back to past certainties.
Removing under god would promote religious tolerance

Even if the proposition accepts, which it does not, that the words “under God” do not show preference towards Christianity, it is undeniable that it is widely understood that these words are a reference to Christianity. This associates national pride with Christianity and presents other religions as inherently un-American. The proposition believes that this is divisive and promotes religious intolerance and that, therefore, this legislation would help relieve the tolerance and divisions caused by the current Pledge of Allegiance.
Prevents the coercion of school children

It is key to this debate that school children are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each day. Although they have the opportunity to opt out, the proposition does not believe they have the knowledge necessary to fully understand the oath that they are taking. (The Humanist Society 2004) According to the decision in Newdow v. US "The [school's] policy and the [1954 Act adding 'under God' to the Pledge] fail the coercion test. Just as in Lee [Lee v. Weisman, 1992], the policy and the Act place students in the untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting."(United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2002) Children should not be put in this position so ‘under God’ must be taken out.
Associates change and, by extension, anti-nationalism with atheism

Any change to something as ingrained in American patriotism as the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with extreme resistance. As Supreme Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has argued “the Pledge has become, alongside the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner, our most routine ceremonial act of patriotism; countless schoolchildren recite it daily, and their religious heterogeneity reflects that of the Nation as a whole. As a result, the Pledge and the context in which it is employed are familiar and nearly inseparable in the public mind."(O’Connor, 2004) With it being so ingrained most members of the US public would not see any reason to get rid of the words. The change would be widely accredited to atheists and would create animosity towards them. This legislation, therefore, is inherently divisive.
The American people would be against the change

As discussed above, the removal of “under God” will not be a move towards neutrality but a move against religion. As a result it is not surprising that the American people would be against such a move. An immense majority, 87% in a newsweek poll said the pledge should contain “under God” against only 9% saying no.(CNN, 2002) No democratic government should go against the will of such a majority of the population they are supposed to represent.
“Under God” is part of American tradition and history

Tradition is not a reason for persisting wth anything! The proposition believes that the fact that references to God are made throughout official American state proceedings is not a reason to persist in including the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance but a reason for its removal to be all the more urgent. References to God do not have a place in official state proceedings as the church and the state should be completely separate from one another. "Under God" as us in the Gettysburg address, had different meanings then. It could mean "God wiling". For that reason alone the phrase should be removed from the Pledge because "one nation, God willing" goes against the whole point.
Likely to be seen as a state sanctioned condemnation of religion

If the opposition accepts that the inclusion of the words “under God” is a state sanction of religion, then they cannot deny that their inclusion sidelines atheists. The proposition believes that the status quo is inherently pro-religion and anti-atheists and thus needs to be changed. Religious people will not see a move to the state, which is supposed to be completely separated from religion, making no comment about religion as an anti-religious comment.
Upholding of the First Amendment

The First Amendment is that the state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.(Archives.gov) This prohibits favouring one religion over another.(Cornell University Law School, 2010) The use of the words “under God” in this way, particularly regarding America’s history as a Christian state, clearly shows favour towards Christianity, or at its most expansive monotheistic religions, over alternative religions or no religion, even without explicitly mentioning Christianity. (Newdow 2003)
“Under God” is part of American tradition and history

Reference to God is made throughout American patriotism. The Supreme Court opens by saying ‘God save America and this honourable court’. The ‘under God’ in the pledge itself came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address a significant speech in American history.(Library of congress) It is impossible to remove references to God from American patriotism and to do so would severely damage American heritage and tradition. (Robertson 2002), (Federer 2003)
Likely to be seen as a state sanctioned condemnation of religion

After nearly sixty years of having the words “under God” included in the Pledge of Allegiance this legislation will not be seen as a move to neutrality but a move against religion. 78.4% of Americans are Christian with a further 4.7% believing in other religions.(The Pew Forum, 2007) Most Americans, 60%, think it is good for the country when government leaders publicly express their faith in God.(CNN, 2002) As a result the signal that taking out under God will send to American people is that the state is against religion. Any modification to the Pledge of Allegiance will be seen as a wilful act by the current government; true neutrality can only be shown by maintaining the status quo.
Removing under god would promote religious tolerance

It is undeniable that any change to the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with resistance from strong patriots who believe it should never be changed. This change would be associated with and blamed on atheists and non-Christian religious people, thus causing animosity towards them on the part of people who would have otherwise been indifferent towards them. National pride will, therefore, be associated with Christianity, as opposed to atheism or other religions, to an even greater extent than it is under the status quo.
Separation of state and religion

The inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is representative of religion’s involvement with the state. The words under God in the pledge of allegiance were clearly government sanctioned as the words were added by congress with the sanction of President Eisenhower.(83rd United States Congress 2nd Session) When they did this congress, the state, was clearly promoting religion. The proposition believes that religion has no place in politics and so these two words should be removed.
Recognition when credit is due

The past few years have seen African governments, and heads of state, reluctant to leave office; driving political coups; and leading violent crimes against humanity. Mugabe, Kabila, and Kenyatta are but a few articulating the years of sustained bad governance. The prize is only awarded when credit is due - if leaders have made a significant positive impact this will be recognised and rewarded. The prize is therefore for absolute gains in governance, not relative to other countries. As the prize is not always awarded it avoids the pitfall that distributing a financial prize where no change has been made to political institutions would reinforce a system. The state would continue to function on undemocratic governance, and the reward would become a new example of dead money[1]. Instead it encourages improved control over aid and money transferred to African states, it shows that rewards are given based on merit. The Mo Ibrahim prize therefore encourages the good institutions that are necessary for prosperity (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2013). [1] See further readings: Moyo, 2009.
Focusing on the leaders of good governance

Previous winners - such as Nelson Mandela and Pedro Pires - made significant changes to their nation-states, ending apartheid and promoting social development. The former leaders provided equality and a functioning democracy to their people. Such needs to be the aim of leaders today. Providing a prize to the highest achievers provides an example. It highlights leaders from even small countries – such as Cape Verde’s Pires – that can serve as role models for Africa’s leaders. Without the prize the most likely role models would simply be those of the biggest states who are highest profile.  Mo Ibrahim (2013) has stated the prize is for “excellence, it’s not a pension”. This is why it is not always awarded. The prize is only be awarded when high-standards of good governance are replicated, and maintained, by leaders. Focusing on the top of government encourages a top down implementation of good government. When the leader acts others will follow; a comparatively small amount of money can therefore make a big difference.
Transparency

The prize is helping citizens to be aware of good governance, and bad, occurring within their state. By granting the prize citizens are shown what leaders have done right; and the publication of the index - the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) - shows where improvement may be required. The prize is forcing transparency between governments and society. Information on how states are doing means citizens can take action, and demand change where change is needed. The prize is calling for African citizens to get the leadership they deserved, desired, and have a right to. By maintaining strict standards on when, and to whom, the reward is provided gives a realistic picture of governance in Africa. It showcases the continued need for good governance; and also doesn’t give citizens and the international community a false illusion that governance is good in Africa when it is not.