mteb/BIRCO-Arguana-Test huggingface dataset:
warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Definition of a large scale cyber attack is extremely vague  Armed acts of aggression are a good method of judging if an action is an act of war because they result in actual destruction, violence and loss of human life. Cyber attacks, on the other hand, do not and thus there is no objective way to tell what scale of a cyber attack is enough to constitute an act of war. While Pentagon claims a cyber attack that is equivalent of damage caused by traditional warfare as a standard, how is it supposed to be applied if pretty much all of the cyber attacks have been bloodless [24]? For instance, stealing large amounts of confidential data from a country is a large scale cyber attack, and could have an immense economic impact, but it is bloodless and so how much damage does there need to be before it can be a casus belli? It is very difficult to measure the impact of even a very evident and intense cyber attack, as NATO found out when assessing a cyber attack on Georgia in 2008 [25]. While the Pentagon might have a nice theoretical framework, in reality there are too many unanswered (and possible impossible to answer) questions. This can lead to abuse of justifications for war and unnecessary violence.
onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The New START treaty does not help Russia more than it does the United States. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued at the time the Russians are currently “above the treaty limits. So they will have to take down warheads.” [1] If there really is undercounting of missiles on bombers then it affects both sides equally – as Romney says “While we currently have more bombers than the Russians”, so this too should not be a worry. Russia does not currently deploy rail-mobile ICBMs and neither does the United States, explain why the definitions are not there. However the State Department argues that “If a Party develops and deploys rail-mobile ICBMs, such missiles, their warheads, and their launchers would be subject to the Treaty.” As the definitions of ICBM launchers would include them. [2] Finally we should recognize that we do not know that Russia would have reduced its bomber and missile forces without a new treaty, while Russia has more difficulty maintaining its nuclear forces than the United States so has more incentive to reduce them, but without a treaty it might even increase its forces due to a desire to keep parity with the United States while the US has a big lead in conventional weapons. [3]  Furthermore, any agreement made between Russia and the US needs to be one that benefits both parties, it does not matter if someone is getting more than the other. Getting an agreement that meets the needs of both countries is far more important, because it will be upheld more so than one that simple gives both countries the same. Fair and efficent does not mean spilting a pie in half, if one only wanted the crust, and the other only wanted the filling.  [1] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,   [2] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘Rail-Mobile Launchers of ICBMs and their Missiles’, U.S. Department of State, 2 August 2010,   [3] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,
global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy  Foreign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability.  Undermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict, [1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”. [2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013,   [2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17.
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation Free trade does not benefit everyone equally. Rich corporations from developed countries are not interested in growth in developing nations; they are interested in making profits. They just view developing nations as sources for cheap labour and materials, that can be harnessed more easily, due to low levels of environmental and labour regulation. For example, the so-called Maquiladoras in Mexico, which were put in place by NAFTA were rife with labour and environmental violations [1] . Therefore, free trade agreements between rich and poor countries can trap developing nations in the economic cycle as raw material providers, thus preventing them from developing their own national industries.  [1] Human Rights Watch. ”Mexico’s Maquiladoras. Abuses Against Women Workers.” 16 August 1996.
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation FTAA is bad for the environment.  Free trade creates a "race to the bottom", whereby developing countries lower their labor and environmental standards in an effort to attract foreign investment. Developed countries, which may have higher standards, are then forced to lower them as well in order to make sure companies don’t relocate or outsource their jobs abroad [1] .  [1] Hassoun, Nicole. “Free Trade and the Environment”. Environmental Ethics, Vol. 31.
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation FTAA is bad for labour in developed countries.  Liberalizing the labour market across the entirety of the Americas would be a severe blow to workers in the US and Canada. It would put them in direct competition with workers from countries where the average salary is much lower than in the US, who would be willing to work for a fraction of what a US or Canadian worker currently makes. In order to stay competitive in such a market, they would have to accept lower salaries and a cut in benefits. This would reverse decades of progress in the direction of better protections for workers and workers’ rights, as well as lead to higher unemployment levels in developed countries [1] . This has occurred as a result of previous free trade agreements in the Americas for example the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) after it was implemented resulted in the displacement of 682,000 US jobs [2] this then gives employers a chance to reduce working conditions as there is surplus labor.  [1] Suroweicki, James. “The Free-Trade Paradox.” The New Yorker. 26 May 2008.   [2] Scott, Robert E., “Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA”, Economic Policy Institute, 3 May 2011,
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation Protectionism cannot create a healthy national industry. Only by competing openly against each other on the global market, companies become truly efficient and effective. And small, local companies and industries can often have the advantage in such a confrontation. They can be more flexible and innovative than large multinational corporations, and they are better adapted to the local climate and culture.
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation The FTAA is bad for industries in developing nations.  This agreement would put farmers and workers in some of the world’s most impoverished nations in direct competition with some of the richest companies in the developed world. FTAA would have small, domestic industries in countries like Bolivia or Haiti compete with massive American corporations, and prevent their governments from aiding them in any way. The disparity of power and resources would be so great in the case of such a collision, that it would mean these small industries could easily be wiped out and never develop to a level where they can sustain a healthy national economy and become competitive against giant multinational corporations. This would be disastrous for development and poverty reduction in South America [1] .  [1] Robinson, Mary. “Free Trade Area of the Americas: Latin America Deserves Better.” New York Times. 18 November 2003. www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/opinion/18iht-edrob_ed3_.html?scp=1&amp;sq=
ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would Free movement will provide benefits for productivity.  A free labour market provides a space for sharing (knowledge, ideas, and socio-cultural traditions), competing, and sustaining efficiency in development. As neoliberal theory advocates a laissez-faire approach is fundamental for growth. A free labour market will enhance economic productivity. Free labour movement enables access to new employment opportunities and markets.  Within the East African Community the Common Market Protocol (CMP) (2010) has removed barriers towards the movement of people, services, capital, and goods. Free regional movement is granted to citizens of any member state in order to aid economic growth. Free movement is providing solutions to regional poverty by expanding the employment opportunities available, enabling faster and efficient movement for labour, and reducing the risk of migration for labour. Similar to initial justifications of Europe’s labour market, a central idea is to promote labour productivity within the region [1] .  [1] Much criticism has been raised with regards to the flexible labour market in Europe - with high unemployment across national member states such as Spain, Ireland, and Greece; the prevalent Euro-crisis, and backlash over social welfare with rising migration. Disparities remain in jobs, growth, and productivity across the EU.
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation Subsidies for farming and agriculture mean cheaper food. If Americans were forced to pay the price of production for the food they consume, poverty rates in the US would be much higher. Conversely, in developing South American countries, which have high levels of poverty and wealth disparity, driving down the price of food would actually be of great benefit to those who live below the poverty line.
economic policy employment house would make raising business and labour standards Universal standards of labour and business are not suited to the race for development  Developing countries are in a race to develop their economies. The prioritisation of countries that are not currently developed is different to the priorities of developed countries as a result of their circumstances and they must be allowed to temporarily push back standards of labour and business until they achieve a level playing field with the rest of the world. This is because economic development is a necessary precondition for many of the kinds of labour standards enjoyed in the west. For there to be high labour standards there clearly needs to be employment to have those standards. Undeveloped countries are reliant upon cheap, flexible, labour to work in factories to create economic growth as happened in China. In such cases the comparative advantage is through their cheap labour. If there had been high levels of government imposed labour standards and working conditions then multinational firms would never have located their factories in the country as the cost of running them would have been too high. [1] Malaysia for example has struggled to contain activity from the Malaysian Trades Union Congress to prevent their jobs moving to China [2] as the competition does not have labour standards so helping keep employment cheap. [3]  [1] Fang, Cai, and Wang, Dewen, ‘Employment growth, labour scarcity and the nature of China’s trade expansion’,  , p.145, 154  [2] Rasiah, Rajah, ‘The Competitive Impact of China on Southeast Asia’s Labor Markets’, Development Research Series, Research Center on Development and International Relations, Working Paper No.114, 2002,  P.32  [3] Bildner, Eli, ‘China’s Uneven Labor Revolution’, The Atlantic, 11 January 2013,
economic policy employment house would make raising business and labour standards Developing nations are plagued with corruption as well as desperate economic situations and are often in competition with each other in exporting whether that is manufacturing for slightly richer countries of South East Asia or natural resources in Africa.  In the context of such an economic rat race, it would be unfair to impose a western standard on these countries. An increase in standard is not a cheap process as it increases the costs of labour and will stretch resources resulting in cutting back the number of jobs and hence will increase unemployment and poverty just as happened in many Latin American countries [1] . It is better to employ many and provide some means of sustenance to all, as will happen with very low wages and standards, rather than employ less and give (relative) luxury to a few. Developing nations that have lower labour standards can gain a comparative advantage in trade: the lower the cost of the industry, greater the turnover of the industry. [2]  [1] Stern, R. and Katherine Terrell, ‘Labor Standards and the World Trade Organization’, Discussion Paper N 499,2003   [2] ‘The benefits of International Labour Standards’, International Labour Organisation,
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation A multinational trade agreement could equally raise environmental standards across the region. Under the status quo, nothing stops companies from moving to countries that have low environmental standards and few regulations. But if governments agreed, the US could push for higher standards across the entire continent. That way, it would ensure its business environment remained competitive in the American region.
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation The FTAA is bad for South American Agriculture.  During the FTAA negotiations, the US has consistently refused to eliminate subsidies for American farmers [1] . Because of subsidies, great agricultural surpluses are produced that are then sold on developing markets at prices lower than the cost of production. Farmers in places like Brazil or Argentina, who are much more efficient in their process of production but do not benefit from subsidies, could not compete with these low priced imports, either locally or on the American market. Farmers would soon go out of business.  [1] Marquis, Christopher. “Panama Challenges Miami as Free Trade Headquarters.” New York Times. 11 November 2003. www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/world/panama-challenges-miami-as-free-trade-h...
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation Employers will always pay a premium for workers who have the necessary education, technical and language skills that are needed to do the jobs that insure the companies’ financial success. Such workers would be primarily sourced from developed countries, which have the education systems required to educate them. Meanwhile, there are numerous low skill, menial jobs that find no takers, even during high unemployment. Bringing in workers from abroad that would be willing to do those jobs and pay taxes would be mutually beneficial for everyone involved in the exchange.
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation Multilateralism is preferable to bilateralism.  It is preferable for Latin American countries to band together when negotiating trade deals with the US and Canada, to better protect their interests. After FTAA negotiations failed, the US focused on bilateral strategies and trade deals where the imbalance of power was much greater in favour of the US, and it therefore could more easily dictate terms of the agreement that were detrimental to the interests of the developing country. For example, El Salvador, who is a member of CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement), together with only five other Central American countries, has found itself under legal attacks by foreign investors when it refused to lower its environmental standards in the gold mining industry [1] . Having an emerging global power, like Brazil, be part of the agreement, would counterbalance US influence over the terms.  [1] Gallager, Kevin. “Stop private firms exploiting poor states.” The Guardian. 5 February 2010.
economic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The idea that free markets are innately linked to democracy in some way is simply untrue. Equally there is a difference between markets that are free and those that are unfettered.  Free markets are good to the extent that they create jobs and generate wealth. They cease to be good when they become an end in themselves, indeed when that happens, it very rarely encourages democracy.  In a situation where corporations are, by law, required to maximise profits no matter what there is clearly a role for government in setting some parameters in terms of what terms of what can be considered acceptable behaviour for corporate citizens within a civilized society.
economic policy employment house would make raising business and labour standards There is uneven implementation of labour standards even in western countries  Western countries often do embrace high levels of labour standards or do not follow their labour regulations. Germany for example has no minimum wage [1] while the USA has no legal or contractual requirement to provide minimum amounts of leave. [2] Moreover it is the demand for the cheapest possible products that drives down labour standards worldwide. If western nations truly want to change labour standards then the way to do it is with the consumer’s wallet not the aid chequebook. British clothing retailers such as Primark are often shown to be buying their products from sweatshops that use illegal workers, and exploit their labour [3] . If there is to be real lasting change in labour standards western firms need to be the ones pushing high labour standards and consumers would need to not automatically go for the cheapest product available.  [1] Schuseil, Philine, ‘A review on Germany’s minimum wage debate’, bruegel, 7 March 2013,   [2] Stephenson, Wesley, ‘Who works the longest hours?’, BBC News, 23 May 2012,   [3] Dhariwal, Navdip. "Primark Linked to UK Sweatshops." BBC News. BBC, 01 Dec. 2009. Web.
economic policy employment house would make raising business and labour standards When developing countries employ poor labour standards, other countries follow the example in order to be competitive  As long as developing nations constantly keep employing poor labour standards, it will keep putting a strain on the global economy. This is because other countries will be pressured to do the same just to remain competitive. This creates a race to the bottom effect and would create “poor conditions and loss of freedom in the global South, and causes workers in the global North to lose their jobs to cheap outsourced labour”. [1] Higher labour standards in developing countries therefore also benefits developed countries. However the converse is also true; labels like ‘fair trade’ provide a guarantee of ethical quality and show that consumers are willing to pay more to ensure good labour standards.  [1] ‘Changing Global Trade Rules’, International Labor Rights Forum,
economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation Trade is good for democracy.  Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has been making sustained efforts to boost his influence in Latin America, with regional tours and substantial investments in neighbouring economies, fuelled by Venezuela’s oil money [1] . He is staunchly anti-American and a supporter of Iran. Meanwhile, he has been restricting freedom of speech in his own country, has done away with presidential term limits, and has essentially proven himself as yet another Latin American dictator in the making. If the US hopes to counterbalance his influence, it needs to become more economically connected to Latin America. Showing that the United States is willing to trade fairly with Latin America would undermine his message. This would not only be the case for the United States as it would also allow Brazil and other successful democratic Latin American states to boost their influence.  [1] Carroll, Rory. “Chavez Opens His Wallet Wider to Boost Latin American Influence.” The Guardian. 9 August 2007.
economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.  Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.
europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty The Lisbon Treaty is limited in significance and has less problematic superstate aspects that the Constitutional treaty of 2004 such as an official flag, anthem and bill of citizen's rights [1]. The Constitution wanted to found the European Union on an entirely new basis, whereas the Lisbon Treaty is a conventional amending Treaty. It is this fundamental difference that justifies the lack of referendum for the Lisbon Treaty when it was essential for the ratification of the Constitution. However the association with the previous Treaty would have seen the public wary and progress stifled as a result. The Lisbon Treaty was more concerned with technical reforms than constitutional significance and therefore did not need the ratification of the national electorates. The result of a referendum is more likely to reflect public opinion on the current government than on the proposed reforms. Furthermore on important foreign policy issues the elected government is better informed to make decisions than the electorate [2].  [1] BBC News, ‘EU leaders sign landmark treaty’, viewed on 13 June 2011   [2] Parliament, Referendums – for and against, viewed on 13 June 2011
europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty Reform treaties are too important to be left to politicians of the day  Decisions that affect the national sovereignty of a country should not just be left to elected politicians who have power for a limited time but should be given to the citizens through direct vote. The nature of the Lisbon Treaty changed the relationship between member states and Brussels; it is clearly a constitutional issue and therefore needs to be ratified by all citizens. The Blair Labour Government held referenda on a whole range of constitutional changes, including not only devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but even on whether individual cities should have directly elected mayors