BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Polygamy is an empowering lifestyle for women

Elizabeth Joseph. "Polygamy, The Ultimate Feminist Lifestyle". May 03, 1997 - "Polygamy is an empowering lifestyle for women. It provides me the environment and opportunity to maximize my female potential without all the tradeoffs and compromises that attend monogamy. The women in my family are friends. You don't share two decades of experience, and a man, without those friendships becoming very special.
US veto of Palestinian UN vote would undermine relationship with Arabs.

Turki Al-Faisal. "Veto a state, lose an ally." The New York Times. September 11th, 2011: "The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region."
Denying Palestinian statehood could lead to renewed violence.

MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: "This is a moment of opportunity, perhaps the last. Friends of both Israelis and Palestinians should do everything they can to support action by the UN. to create a Palestinian state this fall. The alternative, the end to diplomacy and the rebirth of utter despair and hopelessness, will inevitably lead to disaster for Israel, for Palestine and for American interests too."
Palestinian push at UN exemplifies nonviolent diplomacy.

MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: "Taking their case to the United Nations is a powerful statement by the Palestinian leadership that they have rejected terrorism once and for all and are determined to live in peace alongside Israel. It is also a sign that the 'hard men' of violence who once dominated Palestinian politics are relics of the past. The future belongs to people like Salam Fayyad who, in the words of renowned New Republic writer and life-long Zionist, Leon Wieseltier, is the man who 'all Israelis and Palestinians, who are not maniacs, have dreamed' of."
Jews went to UN for Israel, Palestinians can for Palestine

MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: "The Jews of Palestine (who would later become Israelis) knew that the United Nations was the only forum to achieve recognition of a state when they turned to it in 1947. As any Israeli will tell you, it was the United Nations General Assembly that granted Israel its birth certificate. ... The Israelis went to the United Nations for precisely the same reason the Palestinians will."
Peace can only be achieved by Israel and Palestine, not UN

President Obama said to the United Nations on September 21st, 2011: "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN - if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem."[7]
US veto would undermine strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Turki Al-Faisal. "Veto a state, lose an ally." The New York Times. September 11th, 2011: "Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people. Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy. Like our recent military support for Bahrain’s monarchy, which America opposed, Saudi Arabia would pursue other policies at odds with those of the United States, including opposing the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq and refusing to open an embassy there despite American pressure to do so. The Saudi government might part ways with Washington in Afghanistan and Yemen as well."
Palestinian statehood via the UN would undermine Syria, Iran.

Turki Al-Faisal. "Veto a state, lose an ally." The New York Times. September 11th, 2011: "The only losers in this scenario would be Syria and Iran, pariah states that have worked tirelessly — through their support of Hamas and Hezbollah — to undermine the peace process. Saudi Arabia recently played a leading role in isolating Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal government by demanding an end to the killing of protesters and recalling the Saudi ambassador from Damascus. The impending fall of Mr. Assad’s barbarous regime provides a rare strategic opportunity to weaken Iran. Without this vital ally, Tehran will find it more difficult to foment discord in the Arab world. Today, there is a chance for the United States and Saudi Arabia to contain Iran and prevent it from destabilizing the region. But this opportunity will be squandered if the Obama administration’s actions at the United Nations force a deepening split between our two countries."
Statehood would break from status quo and impasse.

President Carter said, "the only alternative [to statehood] is a maintenance of the status quo." Securing statehood, on the other hand, could shake up the calculations by Israel in the negotiations, and help force a peaceful resolution to the crisis. “As an alternative to a deadlock and a stalemate now, we reluctantly support the Palestinian move for recognition,” Carter said at the Carter Center in Atlanta in early September 2011.[1]
History shows conflicts need resolving by parties involved.

President Obama said to the United Nations on September 21st, 2011: "Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That’s the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That’s the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state -- negotiations between the parties."[8]
US supports two-state solution, but not via UN

Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011: "One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. [...] the question isn’t the goal that we seek -- the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem."
Israel's security concerns are not recognized by many at UN

Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011: "Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied. The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine." [Extended quote in argument page].
Palestinians are rightly pursuing nonviolent option at UN.

Ahmad Tibi. "Rejection of Palestinian statehood denies freedom." Politico. September 15th, 2011: "After 20 years of failed negotiations caused largely by Israel’s insistence on retaining parts of the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as refusing to allow Palestinians the right of return, the Palestinians of the occupied territories are taking their case to the United Nations. They are refusing to allow Washington to kick the can endlessly down the road. More than 130 nations are expected to side with the Palestinians. Only a small number are expected to stand in the way. Yet Washington is determined to place the blame for the coming confrontation on the Palestinians. This is unfair. It is unreasonable to expect Palestinians to give up this nonviolent option."
Palestinian membership in UN offers voting/legislative powers

Victor Kattan. "The case for UN recognition of Palestine." The Electronic Intifada. June 13th, 2011: "If, in addition, Palestine became a member of the UN, it would be able to draft, propose, and table its own resolutions at the UN and vote on them and others. Palestine could also conceivably even be elected as a non-permanent member of the Security Council one day."
UN vote would not change reality on the ground.

US Ambassador to the UN said on NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "While we are very consistent in our principled stand that we want to see freedom, democracy, respect for human rights everywhere in the world, including throughout the Arab and Muslim world — that is the goal, of course, for the people of Palestine. But they want a state and they want a state that has defined borders, that has a capital, that has the viability to deliver goods and services and benefits to the people. That's what we want to see. But there's no way to accomplish that through a vote in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. A vote here is merely a statement on a piece of paper. It doesn't change anything on the ground for the Palestinian people the day after. If it accelerated the negotiations, we would say yes. The reality is quite the opposite. The process that must occur will be that much more complicated in the wake of this kind of one-sided action."[10]
Arab Spring doesn't change fact that bilateral solution required.

Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Palestinian UN Vote. February 18th, 2011: "The great impetus for democracy and reform in the region makes it even more urgent to settle this bitter and tragic conflict in the context of a region moving towards greater peace and respect for human rights. But there simply are no shortcuts. We hope that those who share our hopes for peace between a secure and sovereign Israel and Palestine will join us in redoubling our common efforts to encourage and support the resumption of direct negotiations.
Palestinian Authority move in UN undermines legitimate PLO.

Ali Abunimah. How Palestinian Authority’s UN "statehood" bid endangers Palestinian rights." The Electronic Intifada. August 8th, 2011: "Protecting self-determination for all Palestinians. The Western-backed Palestinian Authority’s (PA) effort to seek UN recognition of 'statehood' unilaterally, without consulting the Palestinian people from which the PA has absolutely no mandate, has raised fears among Palestinians that the move could actually harm Palestinian rights. If the UN votes to admit the 'State of Palestine,' it is likely that the unelected representatives of the Palestinian Authority would be seated in the General Assembly instead of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which currently holds the Palestine observer seat at the UN. This would be a severe blow to the potential for realizing Palestinian rights in the long run through international bodies: whereas the PLO ostensibly represents all Palestinians, the PA 'state' would only represent its 'citizens' – residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [...] A 'State of Palestine' must not be allowed to replace or usurp the right to representation and self-determination of the whole Palestinian people through a reconstituted PLO."
UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution

Jonathan Freedland. "Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood – and so should Israel." guardian.co.uk. September 13th, 2011: "UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 will breathe fresh life into the ailing idea which, despite everything, remains the last best hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace – a two-state solution. By recognising a state of Palestine alongside Israel, the UN will entrench the notion that the only way to resolve this most stubborn of conflicts is for these two nations to divide the land between them into two states. In so doing it will halt the steady drift, born of despair more than enthusiasm, towards the so-called one-state solution – so-called because while it would bring one state, it offers no solution, just a single entity that would frustrate the yearning for self-determination of both sides."
Settlements issue does not justify unilateral UN push.

Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Palestinian UN Vote. February 18th, 2011: "While we agree with our fellow Council members—and indeed, with the wider world—about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians. We therefore regrettably have opposed this draft resolution."
Supporting Palestine at UN would bolster Israeli security

Isaac Herzog. "Why Israel should vote for Palestinian independence." Foreign Affairs. September 16th, 2011: "rather than oppose the resolution, Israel should seize the initiative and use it to its advantage by agreeing to support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN. Voting for Palestinian statehood may finally open the door for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, strengthen the possibility of a two-state solution, and greatly improve Israel’s position in the region and in the international community."
UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution.

MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: "Recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations would be a first step on the road toward successful negotiations which must follow UN action. After all, no UN action can force Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. The army and the settlers will still be there, UN or no UN. That is why the Palestinian leadership says that one of the first things the new State of Palestine would do will be to ask Israel to commence negotiations over borders, security arrangements, refugees, Holy Places, etc. The only difference UN recognition would make is that it would be near impossible for Netanyahu to say 'no' after the United Nations had, in effect, declared that it was occupying not some vague entity but another people's state."
Palestinian UN statehood push undermines bilateral talks.

John Barrasso. "Block Palestinians' end run at U.N." Politico. September 15th, 2011: "President Mahmoud Abbas plans to formally request full-member-state status in the United Nations. This move intentionally puts prospects for peace in jeopardy. I oppose the decision of the PA to circumvent the peace process and seek a change in status from the United Nations. Along with the PA’s other recent actions that undermine peace, this decision demonstrates why Congress must terminate funding to the PA. Should a status change be passed, Congress must evaluate and significantly cut funding to the U.N.The best path to a true and lasting peace is through direct negotiations between the two parties — not through manipulations at the U.N. The consequences to the peace process are grave. The ability to move forward with an agreement is greatly diminished by these tactics. Instead of embarking on a time-consuming campaign to gain support in the U.N., the Palestinian leadership should be working directly with Israel on creating a real and sustainable peace agreement. The U.N. must refrain from intervening on issues that are part of the direct negotiations by the parties. The decision about borders and statehood should be achieved through a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians."
Push for UN recognition IS diplomacy, doesn't undermine it.

MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: "The biggest contradiction of all is the assertion that the Palestinian attempt to resolve their conflict with Israel at the United Nations represents a threat to diplomacy -- rather than diplomacy itself. After all, what is the United Nations other than an arena for conflict resolution by means of diplomacy? Having abandoned the effort to end the occupation through violence, the Palestinians are turning to the UN. What could be wrong with that?"
Opposing statehood push denies basic Palestinian freedoms.

Ahmad Tibi. "Rejection of Palestinian statehood denies freedom." Politico. September 15th, 2011: "President Barack Obama is delaying another people’s freedom. He’s joined by a Congress following the lead of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and also many members of both parties that implicitly — and sometimes explicitly — back Israeli colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem."
UN vote is just paper; it doesn't change anything on ground.

US Ambassador to the UN said on NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "they want a state and they want a state that has defined borders, that has a capital, that has the viability to deliver goods and services and benefits to the people. That's what we want to see. But there's no way to accomplish that through a vote in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. A vote here is merely a statement on a piece of paper. It doesn't change anything on the ground for the Palestinian people the day after.[6]
Exemptions for when citizens can't vote/pay.

Although voting in a country may be compulsory, penalties for failing to vote are not always strictly enforced. In Australia and Brazil, providing a legitimate reason for not voting (e.g. being sick or outside the country) is accepted. In Argentina, those who were ill on voting day, or over 500 kilometers away from their voting place are also excused, by requesting a doctor to prove their condition, in the first case; or asking for a certificate at a police station near where they are, in the second case. A homeless person could also presumably be exempted from paying a fee for not voting.
50% turnout not democracy; mandatory voting necessary.

Keith Olbermann. "Make voting mandatory voting necessary." Salon. November 5, 2002: "two modest proposals to get head and hair flying. First: Mandatory voting. You heard me. A democracy where half of the citizens sit back and say, 'no, thanks,' isn't a democracy at all -- just a really large oligarchy. If we have not already reached it, we are nearing, inevitably, the point at which everyone who votes has a personal stake in the outcome. As the percentage of lever-pullers continues to decline, it's going to eventually be just the candidates' friends, families and people from their secret second lives who even bother to show up. You know -- like park league softball."
Mandatory voting pushes ignorant to vote

Some individuals resent the idea of compulsory voting, particularly if they have no interest in politics or no knowledge of the candidates. Others may be well-informed, but have no preference for any particular candidate, and have no wish to give support to the incumbent political system. Such people may vote at random simply to fulfill legal requirements: the so called donkey-vote may account for 1-2% of votes in these systems, which may affect the electoral process. Similarly, citizens may vote with a complete absence of knowledge of any of the candidates, or deliberately skew their ballot to slow the polling process or disrupt the election.
Mandatory voting would be difficult to enforce.

Jerry Curtis. "The case against compulsory voting in democracies." Helium: "compulsory voting would probably cause additional problems in administering the vote, as well as problems in enforcement. (What about absentee voting?) Enforcing penalties (fines, public service, etc.) would further encumber our already clogged justice system. It would also adulterate our political process with worthless ballots from those voters who are uninterested and ill-informed. In short, voting is a right, but not an obligation."
Not voting is often a form of political expression.

Supporters of voluntary voting assert that low voter participation in a voluntary election is not necessarily an expression of voter dissatisfaction or general political apathy. It may be simply an expression of the citizenry's political will, indicating satisfaction with the political establishment in an electorate. Mark Latham urged Australians to hand in blank votes for the 2010 election. He stated the government should not force citizens to vote or threaten them with a fine.
Unacceptable to punish citizens when they aren't harming others.

"The Case against Compulsory Voting." Musings. January 16th, 2010: "Article 21 of our constitution provides for 'Personal liberty'. I think its a violation of fundamental rights provided by that article, to make citizens explain their choices in such a whimsical issue as voting in the elections. And punishing citizens for not harming anyone's right to anything is utterly unacceptable. Remember, this article grants citizens the right to Emigrate out of India without having to give any reason."
American people will come around to mandatory voting.

William Galston, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "Mandatory voting would loosen partisan gridlock." US News and World Report. July 8th, 2010: "There was a poll a while back that found that more than 70 percent of Americans opposed a compulsory voting system. What we do know is that Americans over time change their minds on very fundamental questions. If you had polled Americans 50 years ago on interracial marriage, you would have found a majority opposed, but the Supreme Court acted nonetheless and now you have overwhelming majorities in favor. Once a conversation is started, if there is some intrinsic merit to the argument, then public opinion shifts over time. In my own view—which reflects a constitutional necessity since the electoral laws are largely determined by the 50 states—it would probably be a good idea for a handful of states to try mandatory voting for a couple of election cycles and see what happens."
Compulsory voting may infringe on freedom to express one's relgion.

For example, most Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they should not participate in political events. Forcing them to vote explicitly denies them their freedom of religious practice. In some countries with universal voting, Jehovah's Witnesses and others may be excused on these grounds. If however they are obliged to show up to vote, they can still use a blank or invalid vote.