BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A safer country

It is obvious that warrantless tracking of citizens is not the only way to fight crime. There are other ways which do not negatively impact the citizens to such an extent. When talking exclusively about protection, the government could have better trained police officers, harsher laws in other to deter criminals from committing infractions, improved gun control regulations and a more efficient judicial system. There a lot of alternatives to this, as the elected officials must understand that they need to choose a path which does not hurt the population.  Moreover, if we look at statistics (1), in most of the western world, the crime rate has been decreasing. Slowly but surely, crimes are falling and our societies are becoming safer and safer. Thus, not only we have other ways of fighting crime, but crime is becoming less of a problem, so do we really need new intrusive measures to deal with it? (1) Eurostat Statistics, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-13-018/EN/KS-SF-13-018-EN.PDF
The public can’t decide what they want

It is clear that the population has high demands and high expectations from the government, but that is because it should do. It is clear that every time the state fails to protect us, every time it breaks the law and every time it violates our constitutional rights, the state needs to be held to account. But that doesn’t mean the state’s job is impossible and unfeasible simply that it needs to learn and improve from its mistakes, and the only way this will happen is if it is open and transparent about its systems.   In addition, crime has fallen in the western world, governments can and do both protect the civilians and respect their rights at the same time. Such a system requires warrants and check and balances on government. The population may sway in terms of its demands but this is mostly driven by events; when there is a large terrorist attack there is a response, when government goes too far again the people will respond. This ensures that the government strikes the right balance.
Warrants are ineffective

It is absolutely clear that there exists a need for a system to keep the government in check. We can’t just stand and do nothing, while hoping for the best. There are two reasons why it is justified to keep the warrants. It is cases like this that shift opinion and force Government to reverse course. As a result everyone, including FISA and other courts will be much more careful, even with no new laws when scrutinising warrants as nobody is willing to risk another scandal happening. Secondly, this is an argument for tightening up the warrant system not against warrants themselves. It there is such a problem, let’s make warrants harder to obtain with more scrutiny before they are granted, along with more punitive punishments for abuse, more controls and a higher number of inspections.  If so few warrants are being rejected there clearly needs to be more done to prevent the government from abusing its powers.
Freedom from government intrusion

One of the most important pillars on which every single western liberal democracy has been founded is freedom. Allowing the government to be able to track and monitor individuals through mobile or internet connections is against everything we, as a western society, stand for.  First of all, it is undisputable that liberty and freedom are indispensable to our society. Every single individual should and must be the master of his own life, he should have the capacity of controlling how much the government or other individuals know about him, the right to private life being the main argument in this dispute. Secondly, it is clear that phone and internet tracking potentially allow the government to know almost everything about you. Most phones have a GPS incorporated and a lot can be deduced about ones habits by the photos or updates on his social network profile.  One who knows all of another’s travels,  can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups, basically about every activity you have in your life. Remember this data is extremely precise, as your cell phone sends your location back to cell phone towers every seven seconds—whether you are using your phone or not—potentially giving the authorities a virtual map of where you are 24/7. Finally, we, as individuals, created this artificial structure, i.e the state, to protect our human rights, but also to protect us from each other. We admitted that some rights can be taken away if there is serious concern about the security of other people. Therefore, it is absolutely normal to allow the government to track and follow certain individuals who are believed to have taken part in criminal activities, but there is no ground on which you can violate the right to privacy of a law-abiding citizen, especially if we are talking about such an intrusive policy.  If we did so, it would come as a direct contradiction with the very purpose the state was created.
Warrants are needed to prevent abuse

In the light of the recent NSA events(1) , we must try and see past this curtain of fog the government has put in front of us, trying to make us believe that everything it does, it does for our own good and that in this process the law is being respected to the letter. Unfortunately, if the necessary system of checks-and-balances between the government and the masses or judicial courts is lacking, it will always find ways to abuse its powers and violate our rights. Even with the warrant currently being mandatory when trying to tap one’s phone, we see that Justice Department’s warrantless spying increased 600 percent in decade(2). If the government is currently invading our lives when we have specific laws banning it from doing so, why should we believe that this phenomenon won’t escalate if we scrap those laws? The government's biggest limitation when actively trying to spy or follow a large group of people was technological; it was difficult - if not impossible - to follow a lot of people for days at a time. But with surveillance tools it’s becoming cheaper and easier, as is proven by the astounding 1.3 million demands for user cell phone data in the last year “seeking text messages, caller locations and other information”(3.) Without the resource limitations that used to discourage the government from tracking you without good reason, the limits on when and how geolocation data can be accessed are unclear. A police department, for example, might not have the resources to follow everyone who lives within a city block for a month, but without clear rules for electronic tracking there is nothing to stop it from requesting every resident's cell phone location history. Considering these facts, it is clear that, as we live in a time when it would be extremely easy for the government to engage in mass surveillance of the population, we must enforce and harden the current laws for our own protection, rather than abandoning then for good. No matter what, George Orwell’s books should not be perceived as a model for shaping our society. At the end of the day, without any oversight, it would be extremely easy for the government to abuse this power given to it by electronic surveillance tools, without us ever knowing it. This system is the only thing left that prevents government agencies to violate our rights. (1) Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works (2) David Kravets” Justice Department’s Warrantless Spying Increased 600 Percent in Decade”, “Wired” 09.27.12 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/warrantless-surveillance-stats/ (3) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation”  July 9, 2012 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/law-enforcement-agencies-demanded-cell-phone-user-info-much-more-13-million-times
Reducing trust in the state

In a world where state agencies would have the possibility of tracking everyone’s moves without any person knowing it, we would reach a point in which the population lose their trust in their elected officials. The consequences could then be very damaging to democracy. This phenomenon took place right after the NSA leaks, as the confidence in the US government  was near record’s low.(1) First of all, the population would know that the government is spying and tracking their moves, but they wouldn’t know how much.  This general lack of information on this matter will create a lot of scepticism relating this process, and inevitably the population will reach the conclusion that the government is conducting massive phone tapping and spying campaigns as no one is checking on them. Despite potential official document trying to give certain facts regarding this, due to the previous incidents when the state has been releasing little or misleading information, these will have little influence over the population. As a result, trust in the state will suffer a massive blow.  This is extremely problematic, as you want and need the general population to trust and listen to what the government, and more particularly law enforcement agencies, say in a lot of instances. When promoting non-discrimination, gender equality or increased social welfare contributions for the poor, you need the population to see the state as someone who is on the same side with them and someone who they can trust. Unfortunately, the scepticism with which those beneficial government proposals will be received will drastically reduce their impact and the chances of them being implemented. If I do not trust that the government is looking after my own good, but rather in a lot of instances its interests are mutually exclusive with mine, then I would most probably lose my respect towards authority. When talking about law enforcement agencies, i.e the police, the NSA, etc., it is clear that we have trusted them to protect us and our rights. When it is those very agencies that are conducting these warrantless spying campaigns, it comes as a direct contradiction with their very purpose and thus the impact and the loss of trust is higher on this level. Moreover, in the long term, the whole electoral process could suffer a lot from this lack of confidence, as individuals aren’t particularly inclined to go to elections any more if they see that no matter what they do, their rights will still be breached. As you need the population to trust the government, so that its reforms are being met with positivism and not reluctance, you must not portray the government as an intrusive, harmful and ill-willing element of the society. (1) Harry J Enten ” Polls show Obama's real worry: NSA leaks erode trust in government”, The Guardian, 13 June 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/poll-obama-nsa-leaks-trust
Changes in behaviour

Surveillance changes the way we make daily decisions—the same way that a rapidly approaching police car in your rear-view mirror may make you feel nervous even when you are driving completely lawfully. The very existence of a mass surveillance system will negatively influence the behaviour and emotions of a significant majority of the population. First, surveillance affects emotions and mental performance, as it leads to heightened levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety due to the constant feeling that you are being watched.(1) Secondly, it creates conformity to social norms. “In a series of classic experiments during the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch showed that conformity is so powerful that individuals will follow the crowd even when the crowd is obviously wrong. A government that engages in mass surveillance cannot claim to value innovation, critical thinking, or originality.”(2) This is of extreme importance as first of all, it is the state’s duty to create the most peaceful and harmonious environment in which the individual can reach its full potential (this one clearly not being it) and second if we don’t feel free to do things that are perfectly legal because we think someone might think it suspicious or out of character then it is difficult to say we are really free. (1) M.J. Smith, P. Carayon, K.J. Sanders, S-Y. Lim, D. LeGrande “Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring”, 1992 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000368709290006H (2) Chris Chambers ” NSA and GCHQ: the flawed psychology of government mass surveillance”, The Guardian, 26 August 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2013/aug/26/nsa-gchq-psychology-government-mass-surveillance
Abolishment would be counter-productive and only lead to greater barbarity in warfare

Nuclear weapons have a restraining effect on warfare, preventing escalation through fear of their destruction. To abolish them is therefore to act counter-productively: ‘it will not advance substantive progress on non-proliferation; and it risks compromising the value that nuclear weapons continue to contribute, through deterrence, to U.S. security and international stability’ (Robinson, 2001) Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil; the doctrine of mutually assured destruction prevented the outbreak of nuclear war during the Cold War because in the neither side was willing to risk the response and neither side could risk even a small scale war due to the threat of escalation. Nuclear weapons therefore act as a check upon the very institution of war between those states that have nuclear weapons, restraining aggressors through fear of escalation and certain destruction.
States should not possess such destructive, cataclysmic weapons

States have the right to possess any weapon that will materially support their ambitions of survival, regardless of their destructive power. There is no greater principle than that of self-defence, and a state is entitled to develop any means by which it improves its position vis-à-vis an enemy and subsequently promotes peace in the region and internationally. Furthermore, the damage done by a nuclear weapon is no more indiscriminate or disproportional than the damage potentially caused by a prolonged aerial bombardment. In World War II for instance, far more damage was wrought by fire-bombing Tokyo than either of the nuclear attacks. The issue is therefore not whether nuclear weapons should be held, but under which circumstances they are used, or threatened. Either way, they should not be abolished.
The purported efficacy of nuclear deterrence drives nuclear proliferation and therefore increases the risk of nuclear weapons being utilized

States seek nuclear weapons not primarily in order to use them, but in order to take advantage of the security they offer. If states existed in a world post-disarmament, the incentives to develop nuclear weapons for reasons of security would not have disappeared, in fact they would have increased as no other state would be able to use their more powerful conventional forces against that state. As Paul Robinson notes, ‘conventional armaments…will remain the backbone of U.S. defence forces, but the inherent threat to escalate to nuclear use can help to prevent conflicts from starting, prevent their escalation, as well as bring (them) to a swift and certain end (Robinson, 2001)’. Such potential advantages will not be lost on states in a nuclear-free world.
Risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands

The abolishment of nuclear weapons does not reduce the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. While nuclear weapons can be dismantled, the weapons-grade plutonium which forms their warheads cannot simply be destroyed. Instead, they must be stored in special facilities; in Russia, there are some three hundred sites were military nuclear material is stored (National Intelligence Council, 2002). It is producing this plutonium which is in fact the most difficult stage in building a weapon - by dismantling missiles, you are therefore not destroying their most dangerous part, and hence the risk of theft does not decrease. In fact, it may increase: missile silos in Russia are still the most heavily funded part of the military, whereas in recent years it has become clear that security at storage facilities is often inadequate. Moreover, it is far easier to steal a relatively small quantity of plutonium than an entire Intercontinental Ballistic Missile; there were three such incidents in Russia in the 1990s of weapons-grade uranium theft (National Intelligence Council, 2002). Ironically, the safest place for plutonium in present-day Russia may be on top of such a missile.
Both the use and threat of nuclear weapons are illegal

The Count was only asked to provide an advisory opinion; their adjudication had no subsequent basis in law. Anyhow, the very same jury voted unanimously that ‘there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such’ (International Court of Justice, 1996). Unlike biological and chemical weapons, for which specific treaties have been developed to regulate and prevent their use, the absence of regulation for nuclear weapons implicitly recognizes wide-held appreciation for their deterrent effects
Nuclear weapons can be abolished through the co-operation of nuclear powers and the establishment of an independent verification system

The process is implausible, primarily because whilst the actual weapons can be dismantled, the technology remains and the only effective means to deter the development of a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. Even if this were not the case, such a gradual and incremental process of disarmament does not account for the weapons held by states who have not officially declared their presence, like Israel. Furthermore, though a verification agency may have universal access to nuclear stockpiles, it has little power to enforce states to adhere to treaties, precipitating the scenario whereby one state refuses to give up its final weapon and stalling the process indefinitely. Finally, this process assumes that states wish to see nuclear weapons abolished, rather than the more common assumption that states view nuclear weapons as necessary, not merely to deter other nuclear powers but for traditional deterrence and nuclear blackmail. Would all states willingly give that up?
Nuclear weapons are required for deterrence

The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies – the United States would not be deterred from attacking a newly nuclear Iran because the U.S. would have a first strike capability so would be able to wipe our Iranian nuclear weapons before they could be used. While it is true that political leaders on both sides during the Cold War were terrified of a nuclear conflict it was as much the balance of power that maintained the peace. Neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be confident of victory. However, there is no longer nuclear deterrence. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of their own. Unless the country under attack is allied to another nuclear power It is not clear that any of the major nuclear powers would then strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups. Would it ever be acceptable to kill thousands of civilians for the actions of extremists?
Abolishment is an unrealistic goal

In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The treaty, which calls for an end to all nuclear testing, includes provisions for extensive and independent mechanisms for the monitoring of nuclear activities. Such mechanisms could easily be co-opted for use in implementing, monitoring and verifying any future nuclear disarmament process. "The de facto global nuclear test moratorium and CTBT’s entry into force are crucial barriers to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states and are essential to the future viability of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). They are the first two of the 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive nuclear disarmament that were unanimously adopted in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference (Kimball, 2005).” Even if countries could rapidly produce a bomb without any testing they would not be able to see if it works and any state engaged in breakout would take time to make their bomb deployable on delivery vehicles.
Abolishment would be counter-productive and only lead to greater barbarity in warfare

Nuclear weapons provide the source of the greatest possible barbarity in warfare; therefore it is disingenuous to suggest that their abolishment would only exacerbate conflicts. States do not start wars with major powers contemporaneously merely because those major powers happen to have nuclear weapons; traditional deterrence will still be as effective as it is currently. Furthermore, the abolishment of nuclear weapons would allow thereafter mutual co-operation on the issue of non-proliferation without the current fear that others are only concerned with preventing proliferation in countries likely to be opposed to their interests.
States should not possess such destructive, cataclysmic weapons

Nuclear weapons are, by their very nature, indiscriminate and disproportional; any weapon which could not possibly be used in a responsible manner should not be permitted. Over the past fifty years, we have seen a general tendency towards limited warfare and precision weapons, allowing military objectives to be achieved with minimal loss of civilian life. The entire point of nuclear weapons, however, is their massive, indiscriminate destructive power. Their use could kill tens of thousands of civilians directly, and their catastrophic environmental after-effects would harm many more all around the world. These effects could never be morally acceptable, particularly as the basis of one’s national security strategy. They place ‘humanity and most forms of life in jeopardy of annihilation’ (Krieger, 2003). No state or leader can be entrusted, morally, with a power and responsibility that could come close to annihilating humanity.
The purported efficacy of nuclear deterrence drives nuclear proliferation and therefore increases the risk of nuclear weapons being utilized

By claiming the efficacy of nuclear weapons as a strategic deterrent, the current nuclear powers encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Krieger, 2003). To be a part of the so-called 'nuclear club' is seen as a matter of great prestige; when India and Pakistan recently declared their nuclear capability and held mutual tests in the 1990s, it was seen in both countries as increasing their international status. Nevertheless, tensions in the region have only increased since the mutual announcements, not least the Kargil War of 1999 that almost precipitated a nuclear war. Nations opposed to a nuclear power therefore feel that they need to develop their own capability in order to protect themselves. The declared nuclear powers must therefore take the lead in disarmament, as an example for the rest of the world.