mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage  The issues discussed in international forums are largely set by nuclear powers. The permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, for example, is composed only of nuclear powers, the same states that had nuclear weapons at the end of World War II. If all countries possess nuclear weapons, they redress the imbalance with regard to international clout, at least to the extent to which military capacity shapes states’ interactions with each other. [1] Furthermore, the current world order is grossly unfair, based on the historical anachronism of the post-World War II era. The nuclear powers, wanting to retain their position of dominance in the wake of the post-war chaos, sought to entrench their position, convincing smaller nations to sign up to non-proliferation agreements and trying to keep the nuclear club exclusive. It is only right, in terms of fairness that states not allow themselves the ability to possess certain arms while denying that right to others. Likewise, it is unfair in that it denies states, particularly those incapable of building large conventional militaries, the ability to defend themselves, relegating them to an inferior status on the world stage. [2] To finally level the international playing field and allow equal treatment to all members of the congress of nations, states must have the right to develop nuclear weapons.  [1] Fearon, James D. 1994. “Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and Interests: An Empirical Test of a Crisis Bargaining Model”. Journal of Conflict Resolution 38(2).  [2] Betts, Richard K. 1987. Nuclear blackmail and nuclear balance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons While states do of course have the right to defend themselves, this does not extend to the possession and use of nuclear weapons. The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian objects and military targets. [1] Indeed, the use of nuclear weapons could well constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity. [2] Just as biological and chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, so too the international community generally acknowledges the dangers of nuclear proliferation, which is why so many treaties are dedicated to non-proliferation. [3] It is unfortunate that nuclear weapons exist, even more so that a few countries are still seeking to develop them. It is better to fight this movement and to prevent their use or acquisition by terrorists and the like. It is also essential for States to fulfil their obligation under Article VI of the NPT ‘to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control’. [4] Nuclear weapons cannot lawfully be employed or deployed and there is a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith for, and ensure, their elimination. [5]  [1] International Court of Justice. 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226.  [2] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.  [3] Shah, Anup. 2009. “Nuclear Weapons”. Global Issues.  [4] International Court of Justice. 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226.  [5] Grief, Nicholas. 2011. “Nuclear Weapons: the Legal Status of Use, Threat and Possession”. Nuclear Abolition Forum, Issue No 1.
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in states that possess nuclear weapons  It has often proven to be necessary for the UN, the United States, and various international coalitions to stage humanitarian interventions into states fighting civil wars, committing genocide, or otherwise abusing the human rights of their citizens. [1] An example of such an intervention is the recent contributions by many states to the rebels in Libya. Were all countries permitted to possess nuclear weapons, such interventions would become next to impossible. Were, for example, countries to try and contribute to the Libyan rebels, they would find themselves the targets of Libyan nuclear warheads. The cost of intervention thus becomes too high for virtually any country to tolerate, in terms of both human and political costs. The world would be a worse place if tyrants were allowed to perpetrate whatever crimes they saw fit upon their people, while the international community could do nothing for fear of nuclear retaliation.  [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4).
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists increases as more countries possess them  There are many dangerous dictators and tyrants, many of who covet the possession of nuclear weapons not just for the purpose of defence, but also for that of intimidating their neighbours. [1] Such leaders should not possess nuclear weapons, nor should they ever be facilitated in their acquisition. For example, Iran has endeavoured for years on a clandestine nuclear weapons program that, were it recognized as a legitimate pursuit, could be increased in scale and completed with greater speed. The result of such an achievement could well destabilize the Middle East and would represent a major threat to the existence of a number of states within the region, particularly Israel. Furthermore, the risk of nuclear weapons, or at least weapons-grade material, falling into the hands of dissidents and terrorists increases substantially when there are more of them and larger numbers of countries possess them. Additionally, many countries in the developing world lack the capacity to safely secure weapons if they owned them, due to lack of technology, national instability, and government corruption. [2] Recognizing the rights of these countries to hold nuclear weapons vastly increases the risk of their loss or misuse.  [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4).  [2] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons It is true that most states will not develop nuclear weapons, whether they are recognized as a rightful possession of states or not. The important thing is that those states that do want nuclear weapons can have them, which will likely be only a handful. As to arms races, it is unlikely that they will occur, as the defence pacts between many states, such as NATO defend non-nuclear states without requiring them to possess such weapons themselves. [1] Furthermore, if a state feels vulnerable due to the nuclear armament of its neighbours, it should absolutely have the right to defend itself.  [1] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Government legitimacy is defined in its most limited form as the ability to provide security and stability within its jurisdiction. It seems fair to say that international institutions and states with a stake in international order, as most do, will have an interest in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of failing and failed states, which do not retain the same legitimacy of states that can provide the baseline of security to their people. Furthermore, the openness created by the public recognition of the right to nuclear weapons will allow advanced countries to offer assistance in security and protection of nuclear stockpiles, making it less likely that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists.
defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Powerful states often couch their imperial ambitions and desires to further their own aims on the world stage in the language of humanitarian intervention. [1] Such interventions are rarely due solely to the abuses, real and imagined, committed by leaders upon their people, but are driven by geopolitical considerations. This is why interventions have been staged in the Middle East, as in Iraq where there were substantial oil reserves, while not in Sudan where civil war has been rife, but which possesses little in the way of strategic or economic significance. Recognizing the right of all states to possess nuclear weapons serves to diminish the number of political power plays of strong states against weaker ones, and entrenches the concept of national self-determination as an ideal that should not be infringed by strong nations against the weak.  [1] Walsh, John. 2011. “Libya and the Hypocrisy of Humanitarian Intervention”. Daily Paul.
animals science science general ban animal testing junior It isn’t necessary  We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful.  The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7]
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal We do not need to justify the moral value of severely cognitively disabled persons, although if we wanted to, we could invoke notions of kinship, and family as providing a justification for acting in an apparently specieist manner. [1] Rather, it is sufficient to highlight the point, that experimenting on humans of any cognitive function, carries with it certain negative externalities. Such persons are likely to have relatives who would be harmed by the knowledge that their loved ones are being used in medical experiments for example. Even in the case of such a person who lacks any relatives, broader society and disabled rights groups could be harmed by a policy that allows treating some disabled persons differently to the rest of our moral community.  Such externalities would make experimenting on animals, rather than such persons, both preferable and morally consistent.  [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)
animals science science general ban animal testing junior Research animals are well treated  Animals used in research generally don’t suffer. While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild.  As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat.
animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.  Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy  23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone . [1] . While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered.  New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case.  [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'.
ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this.  Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.
animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animals' rights are of less moral worth than human rights  Humans are complex beings with large well developed brains, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too express some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans. [1] Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good.  [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Speciesism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)
animals science science general ban animal testing junior The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this.  Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.
animals science science general ban animal testing junior Animal research is only used when it’s needed  EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.
animals science science general ban animal testing junior Animals don’t have human rights  Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]
ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.
animals science science general ban animal testing junior Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.
arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all The default of total copyright is harmful to the spreading of information and experience  Current copyright law assigns too many rights, automatically, to the creator. Law gives the generator of a work full copyright protection that is extremely restrictive of that works reuse, except when strictly agreed in contracts and agreements. Making Creative Commons licenses the standard for publicly-funded works generates a powerful normalizing force toward a general alteration of people’s defaults on what copyright and creator protections should actually be like. The creative commons guarantees attribution to the creator and they retain the power to set up other for-profit deals with distributors. [1] At base the default setting of somehow having absolute control means creators of work often do not even consider the reuse by others in the commons. The result is creation and then stagnation, as others do not expend the time and energy to seek special permissions from the creator. Mandating that art in all its forms be released under a creative commons licensing scheme means greater access to more works, for the enrichment of all. This is particular true in the case of “orphan works”, works of unknown ownership. Fears over copyright infringement has led these works, which by some estimates account for 40% of all books, have led to huge amounts of knowledge and creative output languishing beyond anyone’s reach. A mix of confusion over copyright ownership and unwillingness of owners to release their works, often because it would not be commercially viable to do so, means that only 2% of all works currently protected by copyright are commercially available. [2] Releasing these works under creative commons licenses will spawn a deluge of enriching knowledge and creative output spilling onto the market of ideas. It would mark a critical advancement in the democratization and globalization of knowledge akin to the invention of the printing press.  [1] Creative Commons. “About the Licenses”. 2010.   [2] Keegan, V. “Shorter Copyright Would Free Creativity”. The Guardian. 7 October 2009.
arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Artists should retain the right to control their work’s interaction with the public space even if their work is publicly funded  Art is the expression of its creator’s sense of understanding of the world, and thus that expression will always have special meaning to him or her that no amount of reinterpretation or external appreciation can override. How a work is used once released into the public sphere, whether expanded, revised, responded to, or simply shown without their direct consent, thus remains an active issue for the artist, because those alternative experiences are all using a piece of the artist in its efforts. Artists deserve to have that piece of them treated in a way they see as reasonable. It is a simple matter of justice that artists be permitted to maintain the level of control they desire, and it is a justice that is best furnished through the conventional copyright mechanism that provides for the maximum protection of works for their creators, and allows them to contract away uses and rights to those works on their own terms. Many artists care about their legacies and the future of their artistic works, and should thus have this protection furnished by the state through the protection of copyright, not cast aside by the unwashed users of the creative commons. Samuel Beckett is a great example of this need. Beckett had exacting standards about the fashion in which in his plays could be performed. [1] For him the meaning of the art demanded an appreciation for the strict performance without the adulteration of reinterpretation. He would lack that power under this policy, meaning either the world would have been impoverished for want of his plays, or he would have been impoverished for want of his rights to his work. These rights are best balanced through the aegis of copyright as it is, not under the free-for-all of the creative commons license.  [1] Catron, L. “Copyright Laws for Theatre People”. 2003.
arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all People deserve recompense for their work, but the stifling force of current copyright prevents the proper sharing and expansion of the artistic canon, to the intellectual and spiritual impoverishment of all. Creative commons licenses strike an important balance, by leaving artists with the power over commercial uses of their work, including selling it themselves, while permitting it to permeate the public sphere through non-commercial channels. This is the best way to weigh these competing needs in a complex society. It is not preventing the creator from profiting from his work. It is not a total abrogation of people’s rights, but a giving over of some rights for the benefit of all.
arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Artists rarely make all that much money in the first place, and a great many only work as an artist part time. More importantly, they can still profit from their art, since they retain exclusive commercial rights to their work. Oftentimes they will actually benefit from operation under a creative commons license because it provides wider dispersal of their work, which builds a broader name and market for their work.
arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Choosing to release one’s work into the viral market may be a shrewd business and artistic move, or it might not. All of this depends on the individual artist and the individual work. Nine Inch Nails both has the money that they can afford to take the risk and the name recognition that means they can be sure some fans will purchase the music, this is not the case with most artists. Thus the decision can really only be made effectively and fairly by the artists themselves. Trying to usurp that choice through a state mandate only serves to undermine the artist’s creative vision of how he or she wishes to portray and distribute their work to the world.