mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Governments are often obliged to do things that the population doesn’t like – raising taxes is an obvious example. However, it is also recognised that sometimes the government has to do these things in order to represent the long-term, best interest of its people – whether or not it is a popular measure at the time.
e internet freedom digital freedoms access information house supports Censorship has routinely been presented in terms of ‘protecting public morals’ or ‘defending national security’ or some similar euphemism, with legislation aimed at pornography but catching everything else in its track as simply the most obvious example [i] . It doesn’t change what it is [ii] . In addition to which, there are very real reasons to believe that the incentives of ISPs here are more financial than moral – they would, after all, stand to make quite a lot of money.  [i] The New Statesman. Nelson Jones. “The Censored Isle”. 6 August 2012.  [ii] Boston College Law Review. Prof. Jonathan Zittrain. “Internet Points of Control”. Vol. 44, pg. 653, 2003.
e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom Internet governance is necessary to combat heinous crimes committed via the internet  The internet is a means of communication – therefore also a means of communication between criminals. And because it is global it creates global crime problems that need coordinated responses. One type of crime that has particularly become a problem on the internet is child sexual abuse material: the internet allows for an easy and anonymous distribution method which can even be secured by modern encryption methods. [1]  Governments can help fight this by requiring ISPs and mobile companies to track people’s internet histories, hand over data when requested, and allow police to get information from them without a search warrant, something which has been proposed by the Canadian government. [2] In Australia, the government even proposed mandatory filtering of all internet traffic by ISPs to automatically filter out all child sexual abuse material. [3]  Admittedly, these measures seem drastic – but in cases like these, or similar cases like terrorism, the harm prevented is more important.  [1] ‘Child Pornography on the Rise, Justice Department Reports’. 2010.  [2] ‘Current laws not focused enough to combat child porn online’. 2012.  [3] Mcmenamin, Bernadette, ‘Filters needed to battle child porn’. 2008.
global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Governments do not have a monopoly on the knowledge of what is best for their people and even the people may themselves make a mistake when deciding on whether to be an open society. Thus even if it appears that many people support censorship it may be legitimate to undermine it. In particular is people have never had a chance to experience life without that censorship how can they be considered to be making an informed choice when deciding to live with censorship?
e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom Battling hideous crimes shouldn’t lead us to draconian and ineffective policies  Everyone is against child sexual abuse material. But in their drive to battle it, governments might go too far. For example, granting the police the right to search without (full) warrant is a harm to citizens’ basic right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted government surveillance. [1]  The automatic internet filtering and data retention are possibly an even worse infringement on basic civil liberties: it designates all internet traffic and therefore all internet using citizens as suspect, even before a crime has been committed. This overturns the important principle that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Moreover, instead of the police and prosecution changing their behavior, internet filters hardwire these new assumptions into the architecture of the internet itself. [2] This means it is more all-pervasive and less noticeable, thus constituting an even worse violation.  These draconian measures might even seem worth it, until you realise they don’t work: blocking and filtering technology makes mistakes and can be circumvented easily. [3]  [1] ‘Online surveillance bill critics are siding with ‘child pornographers’: Vic Toews’. 2012.  [2] Lessig, ‘Code is Law’. 2000.  [3] ‘Why government internet filtering won’t work’. 2008.
computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join It is absolutely regrettable that men use Facebook in order take advantage of certain women, but we must not forget that because of these very situations Facebook and many NGO’s initiated campaigns to prevent these kind of tragedies happening again(1). Such campaigns have informed thousands of women about the dangers of meeting strangers, both the virtual world and in the real one, and how to avoid them. These campaigns both help women avoid the threat in the first place and encourage them to make sure they are protected, for example by carrying pepper spray, so at the end of the day, a significant number of women are now more protected against being rape because of these social networks. Facebook has clearly not increased the incidence of rape as statistics (2) show that the number of rape cases has dropped dramatically since the start of the world wide web.  Cyber bullying is potentially a problem. On this level too, Facebook recognized the possibility of certain teenagers posting harmful or offending information about another party so it took action in order to try and stop this from happening in the future. As Facebook officials are declaring, they will “update the training for the teams that review and evaluate reports of hateful speech or harmful content on Facebook. To ensure that our training is robust, we will work with legal experts. We will increase the accountability of the creators of content that does not qualify as actionable hate speech but is cruel or insensitive by insisting that the authors stand behind the content they create “(2). Facebook has an entire department to try to prevent such cyber bullying. Moreover Facebook is comparatively secure from cyber bullying compared to some sites; it is not anonymous and users can unfriend people and prevent people who they don’t know from accessing their profile.  (1) Facebook   (2) Federal Bureau of Investigation   (3) Facebook
computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join There are immense problems with using Facebook to facilitate protests in oppressive regimes. Firstly, due to the anonymity of users, it would be extremely easy for government forces to disguise themselves as being protesters and find out future protest locations, thus allowing them to be one step ahead every time to crush the protest before it starts. Second of all, if all of these fail, the government could always shut down ISPs (Internet Service Providers), exactly in the way the Egyptian forces did. Their mistake was that they didn’t shut them down soon enough, but it won’t be repeated by future oppressive governments as they have the Arab Spring’s example.(1) [1]  Surely, it is of great importance that people express their opinions through any means possible, even through mass protest. For this reason, over time western societies were shaped to encourage any discontented individual to express his or her view. We allowed the media to be free, it being the so called “fourth estate” due to its ability to pinpoint and underline any problem regarding government policies or actions. There is no need for Facebook or Twitter or any kind of social network to reveal any discontent in the population as we already have the media who is doing this. All the news agencies and TV stations are always looking for the sensational, looking for places where the government has failed in order to attract audience. One of the best ways of doing this is by polling and trying to reveal any group of individuals who were either discriminated or hurt by the government. As a result, if there are the necessary reasons for people to start protesting, we shouldn’t worry about people not finding out that other individuals share their views as we have the media, one of the most influential elements of the society who is actively trying to do that.  (1) Marko Papic and Sean Noonan “Social Media as a Tool for Protest” ,Stratfor, February 3, 2011   [1] For more on this see ‘ This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and journalists in non-democratic countries to evade censorship and conceal their online activities ’ and ‘ This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those involved in uprisings ’
access information house would block access social messaging networks The state can use blocking Twitter and its ilk as precedent to censor the internet in the “public interest”  The state always likes to expand its powers over speech, particularly when that speech is damaging to the government’s credibility. The freedom of speech is a critical right in all free societies precisely because it is the ultimate check ordinary citizens have to challenge the powers that be, to express dissent, and to organize with like-minded people dissatisfied with the way government is running. The internet has been the most powerful and valuable tool in the expansion of individuals’ power of their governments. [1] The state quakes at the raw people power services like Twitter provides. It is the last frontier largely free of the state’s power, and the state has sought to expand its influence. By blocking Twitter the government would be able to get its first foothold in blocking free speech online. [2] The power of that beachhead would serve to give it further credibility in censoring other services online in the public interest. It is much better that the government be kept entirely out of these services, than let them begin the slow creep of intervention that would be a serious threat to the freedom of individuals on the internet.  [1] Anti-Defamation League. “Combating Extremism in Cyberspace”. 2000.   [2] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.
e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom Internet regjulation is a euphemism for censorship  Governments are trying to control what citizens can and can’t say online and what they can and can’t access. This can vary from France and Germany requiring Google to suppress Nazism in search results [1] to the Great Firewall of China, where the Chinese government almost fully controls what’s said and seen on the internet and has an army of censors. [2]  This type of internet censorship is bad because citizens should have freedom of speech and uninhibited access to information, [3] a right so fundamental that we have enshrined it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [4] and reaffirmed by the participants of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. [5]  [1] Zittrain and Edelman, Localized Google search result exclusions, 2005  [2] Internet censorship in China, 2010  [3] Free Speech Debate, 2012  [4] article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights  [5] Declaration of Principles, article 4, 2003
global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Governments enable censorship to protect their citizens  What censorship is it legitimate to undermine? Censorship is often created in order to protect the people not to strip them of freedoms. This is most obvious when we consider that filters to prevent hate speech or child pornography are forms of censorship that may be enabled with the intention of protecting citizens not repressing them. Iceland for example has recently decided to ban pornography and it would be enabled in a similar way to censorship by regimes like China or Iran. [1] Even harsher censorship that naturally looks more repressive to us may be considered a legitimate means of protecting the people and their values. When a government is using censorship to ensure stability is that censorship not justified when compared to the alternative? While there may be divisions internally about the legitimacy of this censorship it is certainly not legitimate for outside actors to impose their own idea of how much censorship there should be.  [1] Kiss, Jemima, “Iceland’s porn ban ‘conflicts with the idea of a free society’, say critics”, guardian.co.uk, 28 February 2013,
global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression If a regime is so intolerant as to threaten its citizens for using lines of communication that have been opened by another country then that country is clearly in need of greater openness towards freedom of expression and information. This is something that undermining censorship achieves. Clearly in a few cases the attempt to circumvent censorship may be used by the government but the creation of the path to circumvent censorship alone shows that foreign governments are watching. Even the most repressive regimes are less likely to use force when they know the outside world is watching.
global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is legitimate to enable freedom  Circumventing censorship is a cost effective method of promoting freedom. When a country has refused to recognise the right to freedom of expression of its own people and indeed is actively stopping them from exercising this right then it is legitimate for other countries to step in to act as an enabler of those rights. By circumventing censorship so the freedom of expression is returned to those that have had their voice stripped from them. Doing this costs the state that is acting almost nothing; thus Britain’s Foreign Office is devoting a mere £1.5million to promoting expression online, [1] and yet the benefits for those who it helps can be considerable by helping them to publicise and organise themselves by providing a platform. The small cost should be compared to the benefit of keeping activists one step ahead of the authorities by, for example providing software that helps make sure online communication is anonymous, which can save lives.  [1] “William Hague promises £1.5m to promote freedom of expression online”, BBC News, 30 April 2012,
computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join On this point, it may be true that children who get distracted easily use Facebook as an excuse not to study, but that doesn’t mean that social networks are the cause of this phenomenon. These children tend to use them as social networks are very accessible. Almost every single moment you are surrounded by technology that can connect to social networking sites; a smartphone, a laptop or a computer, which you can use to log in on Facebook. Even if it weren’t for these social networks, those kids would likely still be getting 20% worse grades than other students, as they would just find other activities to replace it with. There will be no change in their mentality, perception of learning or process of decision making.  If the student is using Facebook at least there is a chance they are using it productively, for example, by participating in a Facebook group created by a professor for students of a particular class, then the social network may have a positive influence.  Moreover, Facebook makes students feel socially connected, with a greater sense of community. This can be beneficial in boosting students’ self-esteem. Past studies have shown that students who are active on Facebook are more likely to participate in extra-curricular activities.(1)  (1) Julie D. Andrews “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011
e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom As in the offline world, free speech isn’t unlimited  Even in free societies, free speech isn’t always free. Free speech can be demeaning and hurtful to certain people or can even incite hatred and violence. [1] The first reason is why, under internet libel law, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are asked to remove defamatory material and blogs take to moderating their comments more, [2] and the second is why Germany and France have outlawed Holocaust denial and Nazism.  As in the previous arguments, accountable governments are attempting to strike a balance between free speech and where this can harm others. [3] A carefully struck balance between rights in the offline world shouldn’t have to be abolished, just because we’re now in the online world. [4]  [1] Waldron, ‘The harm of hate Speech’, 2012  [2] Alibhai-Brown, ‘Freedom of speech can’t be unlimited’, 2009.  [3] Minister: The UK “emphatically” supports free speech online but there are limits, 2012  [4] Schellekens, “What holds off-line, also holds on-line?”, 2006
global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Arenas of potential conflict must be regulated  Conflict needs to be regulated, and something that can start conflicts even more so. Warfare and conflict is currently regulated by the Geneva Conventions that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict and regulate the conduct of the involved actors. [1] Just as importantly there are rules on what weapons can be used through various treaties that ban weapons such as the Land Mine Ban, [2] and on when a state can legally initiate conflict through the UN Charter.  In just the same way when a new area of potential conflict arises that too must be regulated by treaty. The internet and the threat of cyber-conflict is that new area at the moment. While cyber warfare is not currently a large scale threat it is still a form of conflict that could escalate just like any other - the Pentagon has explicitly stated it could respond militarily to a cyber-attack. [3] As a result it is most sensible to draw up the rules and regulations early, to ensure everyone knows the consequences and prevent damage by making sure that states agree not to engage in offence cyber-attacks against each other.  [1] ‘The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols’, ICRC, 29 October 2010,   [2] ‘Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction’, un.org, 18 September 1997,   [3] Brookes, Adam, ‘US Pentagon to treat cyber-attacks as ‘acts of war’’, BBC News, 1 June 2011,
imate water international africa global house believes seychelles should Small size makes for ease  The Seychelles, as with the other nations whose very existence is threatened by climate change, is small. It is twice the size of Washington D.C., so smaller than many cities. As such finding enough land to relocate the country should not be a problem. Several of the states closest to the Seychelles; Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, and Madagascar, have plenty of land that they could give up without any inconvenience to their own state. Kenya, the smallest, is more than 1200 times bigger than Seychelles
europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland Britain is morally obliged to permit the secession of northern Ireland  The age of colonialism is over. We recognize that the dominance of one country over another is morally wrong. Ireland was already in the hands of the Irish people before English earls and kings invaded. The Irish had a right to the ownership of their land because they cultivated it and so put their labor into it. The use of force to seize that land from the people’s control is unjust because it denies them the right they had to their land. They had no choice to voluntarily hand over their land either.  To right this historical wrong, the British government should relinquish Northern Ireland, just as they have decolonized the rest of the world ending the British empire except for a few scattered outposts. Since Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997 Northern Ireland is the only remaining colony with a significant population and independent identity.
africa asia house would sao tome drop relations taiwan favour mainland Cannot avoid dealing with a UNSC member  The PRC is a member of the United Nations Security Council and as such is one of the key members of the UN. It is therefore difficult for countries to avoid dealing with it. The Pacific island of Tonga’s switched recognition because it feared the PRC would veto its membership of the UN. [1] São Tomé is already a member but that does not mean the PRC can’t cause problems in the international body; it clearly has the ability to scupper any initiative São Tomé wishes to pursue. Similarly in other international institutions while the PRC does not wield as much power as it does in the UN it still has considerably more influence than Taiwan; this includes over some organisations that provide aid such as the World Bank and IMF. São Tomé therefore must deal with the PRC, this being the case it should not let recognition get in the way.  [1] Fossen, Anthony Van, ‘The Struggle for Recognition: Diplomatic Competition between China and Taiwan in Oceania’, The Journal of Chinese Political Science, Col.12, No.2, 2007,  , p.4
africa politics politics general house believes lesotho should be annexed A local, decentralized authority can provide better opportunities and solutions for Lesotho  With a population of only 2 million people the Basotho would not have the voice and the votes for legislative and executive authority in SA. South Africa’s population of 53million would swamp their voice. Moreover, keeping the local government in place provides a better option for the people in Lesotho as they are closer to their government than they would be in a bigger state. Lesotho needs a decentralized government that can respond to the wishes and needs of the people. This is something the SA government might not be able to provide it as they are trying to provide general solutions for all of its territory. [1] Lesotho is one of the leaders for democracy in Southern Africa [2] ; joining South Africa would not provide an improvement in accountability. In Europe and even in South Africa, secession movements exists because people feel they are better represented in a smaller state as their vote is more important. This is the case with the king of the abaThembu who is seeking an independent state from the SA government. [3]  [1] ‘9 major problems facing South Africa - and how to fix them’, Leader, 18 July 2011,   [2] Jordan, Michael J., ‘Lesotho leads southern Africa in democracy’, globalpost, 7 June 2012,   [3] ‘Angry king Dalindyebo seeks independent state’, City Press, 23 December 2009,
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Citizens have a right to know what is done in their name  The nation exits for its citizens; it depends on their consent to maintain order and to raise finances. The main purpose of the state is law and order, and national defence, both of which are covered by security. As an area that is so central to the role of the government it is vital that the stakeholders in that government, its citizens, know what it is the state is doing in their name for their security.  The Obama administration for example refuses to acknowledge that it is carrying out a campaign using drones while at the same time saying it is “the only game in town in terms of confronting and trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership.” [1] If the US government is bombing another country then the US people have a right to know with much less ambiguity what exactly is being done, who is being hit, when and where. They also need to be informed of any possible consequences.  [1] Kaufman, Brett, ‘In Court Today: Fighting the CIA’s Secrecy Claims on Drones’, ACLU, 20 September 2012