mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Many Israelis now live in the occupied territories.  Israel has more than just national security at stake in the occupied territory of the West Bank -hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live there, many in areas which are not strategically essential (the areas described above). Between the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (all outside of Israel's 1967 borders), over 400,000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied territories. [1] These ever-expanding settlements represent a barrier to Israeli withdrawing to its 1967 borders. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were only 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land. [2] Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore it should be remembered that these settlers are Israeli citizens, with families, who moved to these areas because the Israeli government told them it was safe and that they would be allowed to stay, and thus Israel has a moral duty to live up to these promises by not withdrawing. Israel cannot afford this sort of internal turmoil, and should not neglect its duty to protect the rights of these citizens, and so it should not withdraw to its 1967 borders.  [1] Levinson, Chaim. “IDF: More than 300,000 settlers live in West Bank”. Haaretz.com. 27 July 2009.   [2] Tolan, Sandy. “George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution”. The Christian Science Monitor. 4 February 2009.
rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west If de facto boundaries exist for a long enough time they gain legal force. The border between North and South Korea is a legal armistice line, rather than an official international boundary, but anyone attempting to make that argument upon crossing it would be likely to receive a cool reception.  The boundaries of the West Bank were de facto recognized, first when Israel and Jordan agreed to abide by them for twenty years after 1948, second when Jordan ceded all claim to the territories, and third implicitly by Israel itself which has made no claim to annex the territory, even in areas where settlements are located. They have not bothered with this sort of diplomatic care when it comes to the Golan Heights which they annexed. [1]  As a consequence it can be implied that at least Israel believes that its claims to the West Bank are questionable, and would like to ensure them through negotiation and this makes the claim that they don’t know exactly what they are doing in the West Bank and that it’s a de facto violation of International Law something less than plausible..  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Golan Heights’, en.wikipedia.org,  , accessed 20 January 2012
global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Israel won the 1967 war, even though this tiny nation was up against numerous Arab nations that aggressively initiated the conflict. [1] It had and has a right, therefore, to govern territory it rightfully fought and died for. All land held by any nation was gained through conflict at one time or another; the Palestinian people came to be in possession of their land in the West Bank through the Arab Conquests of the 7th Century. [2] Why are Israel's conquests any less legitimate, especially seeing as Israel took this land in self-defence and has kept only the land it needs for its continuing security? Moreover, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live in settlements beyond the 1967 borders, and Israel has both the right and responsibility to protect their lives and homes by continuing to hold this territory.  [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007
americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international Risk of “lawfare” against Israel  The specific position that Israel is in, places it at a unique risk of “lawfare”, the use and abuse of the legal process by states for political ends.  A particular concern is Article 8(2)(b)(viii), which could be used as a particular tool to attack Israel over the settlements policy. Issues over settlements in the West Bank should be resolved by negotiation during the existing, albeit fractious, peace process, rather than being used as a tool for those who wish to derail good faith negotiations by dragging matters in to the hands of the international courts.  Israel has regularly been singled out for particular beration by UN bodies. For example, over half of the country-specific resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Council have been about Israel, while praising Muammar Gadaffi.
global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Simply withdrawing to its 1967 borders would not end the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Violence between Israelis and Palestinians long pre-dates the 1967 war. The 1967 war itself was caused by the fact that even an Israel within its 1967 borders was hated by neighbouring states for existing. [1] Palestinian support for two-state solution, even one where Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements. [2] Regarding Hamas, the reason it speaks only of “long term truces” with Israel and not peace is because it only wishes to make a deal allowing it to grow strong enough to eventually destroy the Israeli state, not to make permanent peace. [3] It is also naïve to think that an Israeli state existing within its 1967 borders would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and any form of Israeli state is a threat to this. Iran has a history of supporting violent Islamist terrorist groups dedicated to Israel's destruction, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. [4] The political futures of Syria and Egypt are also uncertain, due to the unrest of the 2011 'Arab Spring', and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that both could come under the sway of Islamist groups seek Israel's total destruction.  [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [2] The Reut Institute. “The Trend of Palestinian and Arab Inversion towards the Two State Solution”. The Reut Institute.1 May 2008.   [3] El-Khodary, Taghreed and Bronner, Ethan. “Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity”. New York Times. 5 September 2009.   [4] Los Angeles Times. "Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. 7 May 2009
global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Israel has forcibly removed settlements when transferring back occupied land in the past, most notably in 1982 in the Sinai and 2005 in Gaza. While difficult, it is possible, and any ensuing difficulties are the fault of the Israeli government for allowing these settlements in the first place, and as such the cost (of not having their own state) should not be borne by the Palestinian people.
global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or territorial integrity of the original state, which a Palestinian state created through Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders arguably, would do. Moreover, it is possible for Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank, as it has offered to do in the past, while keeping some strategically essential land. This would allow for Palestinian self-determination whilst falling short of falling back totally to the 1967 borders.
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Legalisation reduces crime  The illegality of drugs fuels a huge amount of crime that could be eliminated if drugs were legalised. Price controls would mean that addicts would no longer have to steal to fund their habits, and a state-provided drug services would put dealers out of business, starving criminal gangs of their main source of funding. For example, an Italian Mafia family were making around $44bn a year from cocaine smuggling. [1] This represents something like 3% of Italy’s entire GDP – and that from only one crime syndicate.  [1] Kington, Tom, ‘Italian police raids reveal how an 80-year-old gangster held sway over the feared Calabrian mafia’, The Observer, 18 July 2010,
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs The law is hypocritical  In most countries where drugs are illegal, tobacco and alcohol, which arguably have equally devastating consequences in society, are legal. In a UK study, alcohol was shown to have the worst effects of any drug, yet the current law recognises that people should be able to choose whether they drink or not. [1] The same should be true of drugs.  [1] Professor David Nutt, ‘Drug Harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis’, The Lancet, Vol 376, Issue 9752, pp. 1558-1565, 6th November 2010,
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Drugs will either be too cheap or too expensive  Low prices for drugs will hugely increase consumption of drugs, amongst all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those who were not previously users. If drug provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain.
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Prohibition does not work; instead, it glamorizes drugs  Those who want to use drugs will take them whether they are legal or not – and more are doing so than ever before. In 1970 there was something like 1,000 problematic drug users in the UK, now there are over 250,000. [1] Legalization will also remove the glamour which surrounds an underground activity and so make drug use less attractive to impressionable teenagers. For example, statistics suggest that cannabis use in the UK declined after its classification was lowered from ‘B’ to ‘C’. [2]  [1] Home Affairs Select Committee, ‘The Government’s Drug Policy: Is It Working?’, parliament.uk, 22 May 2002,   [2] Travis, Alan, ‘Cannabis use down since legal change’, The Guardian, 26th October 2007,
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Drugs affect how people think, and they take away their ability to control their actions rationally, and so people on drugs are more likely to commit crimes. The US Drug Enforcement Administration states, “Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.” [1]  [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Summary of the Top Ten Facts on Legalization’, 2010,
ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities  If a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state.
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Perhaps alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. However, one of the reasons why alcohol ranks so badly in such studies is because of its legality; if other drugs were legal, we would see their usage go up and therefore the negative social effects they produce rise as well.
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs In a capitalist system reliant on supply and demand, the cost of a particular drug will always correspond to what people are willing to pay for them. So, there is no reason why a black market should spring up under a legalised system of drug sale.
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Whether legal or illegal, drugs will still be a source of income for warlords and terrorist groups. Instead of starving them off, the dealers become more competitive and lower their prices. The only way to stop these people using drugs as a source of income is to remove poppies from Afghan fields, to destroy coca plantations.
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs More people will take drugs if they are legal  Considering that drug use has so many negative consequences, it would be disastrous to have it increase. However, the free availability of drugs once they are legal will make it far easier for individuals to buy and use them. In most cases, under 1% of the population of OECD countries regularly use illegal drugs; many more drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. [1] This must at least partly to do with the illegality. Indeed, in an Australian survey, 29% of those who had never used cannabis cited the illegality of the substance as their reason for never using the drug, while 19% of those who had ceased use of cannabis cited its illegality as their reason. [2]  [1] UN Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009,   [2] NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics, ‘Does Prohibition Deter Cannabis use?’, 23 August 2001,  $file/mr_cjb58.pdf
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Prohibition may not be working in the UK but that does not mean that prohibition is not working everywhere. In the US, the Drug Enforcement Agency states that “Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years.” [1]  [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts’,
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Drugs are dangerous, and the governement should discourage its use  The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens; if a substance will do people and society significant harm, then that substance should be banned. There is no such thing as a safe form of a drug. Legalization can only make drugs purer, and therefore perhaps more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished regardless of the known medical dangers.  However entrenched in modern culture drugs may be, legalising them will only make them appear more acceptable. The state has a duty to send out the right message, and its health campaigns will be fundamentally undermined by the suggestion that drugs are harmless, which is what will be understood from their legalisation – just like when cannabis was downgraded in the UK.
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Drugs currently fund terrorism and regional instability  The Taliban gets most of its revenue from poppies, which provide the opium for heroin. They do this by intimidating local farmers who would otherwise sell their harvest at market. They then demand “protection money” as well, or else either another local warlord or the ‘protectors’ themselves would rob the farmer. Something like 22,700 people have died in Mexico since January 2007 from gangsters who want to protect their revenue and almost the entire continent of South America, from Brazil to Colombia, has had their governments destabilised by drug lords. [1] The hugely-costly but unsuccessful war on drugs could be ended, starving terrorists of the profits of drug production. As a result peace and development could be brought to unstable drug-producing states such as Colombia and Afghanistan.  [1] Mexico under siege, The drug war on our doorstep, Los Angeles Times , 27 September 2011,
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs This point makes the assumption that drug use only affects the individual concerned; in reality, drug usage can have a significant effect on people close to the user, as well as wider society. People who can be affected include family who have to care for a user and victims of drug-related crimes. In addition, in countries with welfare states, there is an additional significant societal cost as many drug users cannot hold down jobs. [1] Studies in the USA have shown that parents often put their need for drugs above the wellbeing of their children. [2]  This being the case, it is clear that the harms of drugs far outweigh governmental duty to protect individual freedoms.  Furthermore, doing drugs may be a free choice at first, but after a certain period the drug user is no longer to choose for himself/herself because addiction overruns their judgement.  [1] BBC News, ‘Drugs cost society £18.8bn’, 12 February 2002,   [2] National Drug Intelligence Center, ‘The Impact of Drugs on Society’, National Drug Threat Assessment 2006, January 2006,
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs When drugs are illegal, this does not stop people from using them. A Canadian report on the matter concluded, "The licit or illicit status of substances has little impact on their use." [1] In addition, even though drugs are illegal, it is not hard to access them. In a Spanish survey, 92.9% of Spanish students said that it was very easy to access illegal drugs – even though only 11.6% used cannabis, which was the most used. [2] Even using the survey quoted by opposition, it is clear that the majority of people surveyed did not view the illegality of cannabis as a reason not to use it.  [1] Parliament of Canada House of Commons, Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, report issued November, 2002,   [2] Eurocare, ‘92.9 % of Spanish students say that access to drugs is very easy’, 26 March 2010,
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Drugs are safer when legal  Currently in the UK, purity of illegal Amphetamine is normally under 5%, and some tablets sold as ecstasy contain no MDMA at all. Instead, drugs are adulterated (“cut”) with substances from chalk and talcum powder to completely different drugs. [1]  At least when drugs are legalised the state can regulate their sale to make sure that they are clean and not cut with other dangerous substances. This will minimise the risk to users.  [1] Drugscope, ‘How Pure Are Street Drugs?’, updated January 2005,
th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Part of the reason that drugs are illegal is because of the health ramifications, which exist even if a drug is pure.  To give a brief summary of some health harms that come from unadulterated drugs:  “Cocaine can cause such long-term problems as tremors, seizures, psychosis, and heart or respiratory failure.  Marijuana and hashish can cause rapid heart rate and memory impairment soon after use. Long-term effects include cognitive problems, infertility, weakened immune system, and possible lung damage.  Narcotics such as heroin can bring on respiratory and circulatory depression, dizziness, impotence, constipation, and withdrawal sickness. Overdoses can lead to seizures and death.” [1]  [1] Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies, ‘Effects of Alcohol and Drugs on your Health’, University of North Carolina,
th health general global law crime policing law general punishment house would The burden of evidence lies on the side trying to prove its harm, not on the side asserting that it is not harmful, and so the lack of categorical proof of its harm is in itself an argument for legalizing its cultivation and chewing. If proof of health risks arise then they can be addressed, but until then the ban is inappropriate and should be lifted.
global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army There are better alternatives to solving the problems of contemporary warfare.  If it is granted that the UN currently reacts too slowly to crises, alternatives for an improved response could be implemented without resorting to a standing army. A Rapid Reaction Force made up of fast-response units from member states with elite military capability, pledged in advance for UN operations, would build upon the best features of the current system. Security Council reform to remove the veto powers from the Permanent 5 members would allow deadlocks in decision-making to be rapidly broken and avoid the compromises which produce weak mission mandates. An improved prediction capability through better intelligence and analysis, and central logistical planning at UN headquarters would allow forces to be assembled and mandates drafted before problems became full-blown crises. Security Council rules could be changed so that resolutions requiring force could not be passed until troops have been pledged in advance.