mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
global house believes united nations has failed Stories of bureaucracy and delay in the General Assembly obscure the vital work that goes on, often unnoticed, through United Nations agencies every day. It is true that the UN’s decision-making processes are not terribly efficient but in a body comprising nearly 200 members this is probably inevitable. If there are problems with the structure of the UN, such as the Security Council veto, the answer is to reform those institutions to fit the challenges of the 21st Century. As an analogy, national governments have often been accused of being slow to change and reform, but we do not conclude from this that “government has failed” and seek to abolish them!
human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise The budget of the ICC is not particularly excessive and can be maintained without US finance. The withholding of US funds from the UN budget is a familiar tactic for expressing disapproval. In 1998, the total US arrears on assessed contributions that had been approved by the Security Council amounted to over $1.3 billion1. Whilst the operation of UN institutions and operations, in particular peacekeeping, might have suffered, the UN was still able to function. Likewise, there is no reason to suggest that the refusal of the US, or even Japan, to ratify the Rome Statute, would preclude the operation of the ICC. The Statute allows the donation of additional funds and resources from other State Parties. With regard to the ICTY, the EU has consistently contributed personnel, in addition to the payment of the assessed contribution of each of the 15 States. $100 million might seem a significant expense. However, it is both trite and true that no price should be put on justice. Not least justice for thousands of victims of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable.  1 Lautze, S. (2000, October). US Arrears to the UN. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Humanitarian Exchange Magazine:
human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise It is ludicrous to claim that the ICC will fail to deter atrocities when such an international institution has never before existed. Moreover, the ICC is not designed to be a prophylactic ; for the victims of these terrible crimes it is crucial that these offenders are apprehended, tried and punished. Retribution and protection of society are objectives not only for the domestic criminal justice system but also for the new international version. Therefore, even if the ICC failed to prevent the atrocities in the first place, a mechanism is now in place to punish those responsible. Justice is not sufficient where war crimes are concerned, but it is a start.
global house believes united nations has failed No-one is suggesting that the test of a successful United Nations should be an end to all armed conflict. But even judged on its own criteria, it has been remarkably ineffectual. The examples of Kuwait and Korea are both situations where defensive wars were fought by the US and allies for their own reasons – the containment of Saddam Hussein and Communism, respectively – not UN ideals. Where the UN did not authorise military action, such as in Vietnam or Iraq in 2003, this made no difference. It is hard to think of an example where imminent conflict was definitely averted due to UN influence.  As for UN peacekeepers, they usually come into conflicts only after they have ended and thousands of civilians been killed. They often do a good job, but they are seldom indispensable. Other regional organisations, such as NATO or the African Union, can equally well perform this function.
rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west There is nothing legal or sacred about the West Bank’s borders – it was an ad-hoc armistice line never recognized internationally  The West Bank is not some sort of recognized entity with legally or internationally recognized boundaries. Its borders were the 1948 cease-fire line between Israeli and Jordanian forces, and Jordan’s annexation of the region, and hence the borders were only recognized by two countries – the United Kingdom and Pakistan. [1]  This is important, because the entire challenge to the legality of the settlements, i.e. Why they are unacceptable in Hebron but not in the Negev, is due to the belief that Israel is somehow annexing Palestinian territory. While some of the West Bank was intended to be part of a Palestinian state in 1948, and some will be incorporated into a new one in the future, Israel is under no responsibility to the international community or any comprehension of International law to recognize boundaries that have no legal force and do not legally exist.  [1] ‘Jordan Renounced Claims to West Bank, 1988’, Palestine Facts,
ights punishment philosophy ethics life house believes capital punishment Diplomatic relations  European states in particular put a particular emphasis on capital punishment when determining human rights issues for foreign policy. The UK for example has a policy of promoting and lobbying for the abolition of capital punishment with foreign governments. [1]  This will help generate goodwill for the nation. This could have a whole myriad of benefits - from aid and trade, to being seen as the “good guy” in any international disputes. When using capital punishment the opposite is the case; controversy has been created by the use of UN resources in drugs cases in Vietnam that could lead to executions for drug offences [2] .  [1] Foreign &amp; Commonwealth Office, ‘HMG Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty 2010-2015’, gov.uk, October 2011,   [2] “UN urged to freeze anti-drug aid to Vietnam over death penalty”, Reuters, 12 Feb 2014,
global house believes united nations has failed UN decision-making procedures are very inefficient.  The UN displays all the worst traits of bureaucracies the world over. The General Assembly is little more than a forum for world leaders and ambassadors to lambast each other. The Security Council is systemically unable to take decisive action in many of the world’s trouble-spots due to its outdated permanent membership structure, which gives five nations a totally disproportionate power to prevent the world body from acting against their interests. In the UN’s 65 years, the veto has been used nearly 300 times. [1]  [1] “General Analysis on the Security Council Veto”, Global Policy Forum website.
healthcare deny organs non donors Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.
healthcare deny organs non donors Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive.  For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.
healthcare deny organs non donors Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor  The greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives. A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}. Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible. The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.)
healthcare deny organs non donors Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).
healthcare deny organs non donors The controversial part of this plan is how the status of “donor” is determined. Each standard that could be used has massive, and sometimes monstrous, negative ramifications. If the requirement is that recipients be donors for a certain number of years beforehand, then people who have been donors for a substantial but still inadequate time are being perversely punished simply for not having been doing their civic duty long enough (see also “past decision they cannot now undo” point below). If the standard is simply that they must have been a donor for any amount of time, however small, prior to needing the organ, this perversely encourages patients to hide their need for an organ long enough for them to register as donors and then collect their organ; any attempt to solve this would require doctors to report on their patients’ need for organs, eroding patient privacy and turning the doctor-patient relationship adversarial. The last of the proposed standards, that the recipient only need to sign up to be a donor in the future, causes all the alleged benefits of this to policy evaporate; the average person will not sign up to become a donor, as they know that they can always sign up later in the event that they need an organ. This plan only gets any benefit whatsoever if healthy people are signing up to be donors as a cautionary measure, rather than a small group of sick and likely elderly people who only sign up when they need organs. In addition to reducing the pool of donors, such a standard which calls for people to be donors from the time of their need onwards would require a massive breach of body rights to enforce. In order to make it binding (and prevent people from de-registering as donors once they no longer need organs), the state would have to say that they can no longer withdraw their consent to be donors, which amounts to the state laying claim to their organs.
healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied.  Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1]  [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.
healthcare deny organs non donors In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.
healthcare deny organs non donors There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.
healthcare deny organs non donors This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo  Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ. Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act. To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress. Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just.
healthcare deny organs non donors People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs  Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.
healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others  By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens.  Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living
healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs.  [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,
healthcare deny organs non donors The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them. The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs. The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily. Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right. Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship.
healthcare deny organs non donors This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment.
healthcare deny organs non donors Organ donors are more deserving of organs  Reciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive. In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place. However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality. This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them. And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity. Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people. The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society. For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest.
healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense We should preserve the person with greater quality of life  We have to be able to measure quality of life relatively. There might be many cases where a relative is terminally ill, yet not dead yet. This person, with a survival prospect of maybe half a year of suffering and medication, might have a perfectly functional organ. [1] It is very rational, both for this person and for society as a whole to allow him or her to undergo euthanasia at an early stage to save the other person. [2]  Furthermore, a person might sacrifice his or her life to provide an organ for a specific individual, yet their other organs can still be used to save others, of whom the donor might not have been aware. It is sad that a person has to die, but as this is the only option [3] , it is a good thing that several people might live when one sacrifices their life.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.  [2] Wilkinson, Dominc and Julian Savalescu. “SHOULD WE ALLOW ORGAN DONATION EUTHANASIA? ALTERNATIVES FOR MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION.” Bioethics 26.1 (2012): 32-48.  [3] ibid
healthcare deny organs non donors The right to access healthcare is absolute  Healthcare is a primary means by which individuals actualize their right to be protected against an untimely death. The ability to access healthcare, to not have the government actively intervene against one receiving it, is of fundamental importance for living a long and worthwhile life, and is hence entrenched in the constitutions of many liberal democracies and much of international human rights literature {WHO - Health and Human Rights}. While some rights, such as the right to mobility, can be taken away as a matter of desert in almost all societies, absolutely fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, are actually inalienable and ought to never be violated. What this means in practice is that one’s access to healthcare should not be continent. The government should set no standards on who deserves life-saving treatment and who doesn’t. To do so would be to assign a dangerous power of life and death over the government.
healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense It is a natural thing to do  We are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer. [1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less. They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.