id
stringlengths 14
54
| question
stringlengths 50
5.54k
| answer
stringlengths 3
7.07k
|
|---|---|---|
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oeplhbuwhmi-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The EU is a force multiplier The UK gets more bang for the buck as a result of being a member of the EU. It has representation in more countries as a result of the European External Action Service (equivalent of the Foreign Office) thus extending UK influence to countries where it would not otherwise have representation. For example the EU have representation in Djibouti [1] whereas the UK individually is represented there from neighbouring Ethiopia. [2] The UK, along with France, and to a lesser extent Germany, leads the EU on foreign policy matters, as illustrated by the first The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy being a Briton, Catherine Ashton. [3] This means the UK essentially gains from the backing of the other 26 member states giving the UK a much more influential voice globally. For example the EU has a role in the Middle East ‘quartet’ of the EU, USA, Russia and United Nations [4] giving the UK a place at the table on the key issue of Israel Palestine where otherwise it would have none. [1] ‘Délégation en République de Djibouti’, Délégation de l’Union européenne, [2] ‘British Embassy Addis Ababa’, Gov.uk, [3] ‘The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’, Europea Union External Action, [4] ‘The Quartet’, Office of the Quartet, | onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence
It is undeniable that in some areas the EU is a force multiplier. But many of the issues it uses this leverage on are not areas of concern to a UK that has left the EU; migrants arriving in Greece are of little national interest to the UK. Britain would instead focus its weight on areas that are of direct concern such as terrorism. In other areas the multiplier simply saves the UK a little money; could the UK have an embassy in Djibouti? Certainly if it wished, but it is not an area of primary concern to the UK. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oeplhbuwhmi-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The UK needs to be part of a block to remain relevant History is moving towards bigger and bigger blocks being relevant. The US and USSR dwarfed the previous global power the UK [1] and China and India look set too be bigger again. In a world where the great powers are regions of the globe in themselves to be influential requires being part of a bigger group. The EU negotiates on equal terms with China, India and the USA. The UK on its own would be very much a second order power. [1] See Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Random House, 1987 | onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence
The UK has more influence as a power in the second tier being sought after rather than having its voice swamped in the EU where it is but one of 27 voices. The UK will retain its UN Security Council seat and nuclear weapons, it will remain a powerful country that is relevant across all sorts of areas, it will simply be less constrained. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oapghwliva-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The present system of earmarking in Congress is wide open to abuse. The party leaderships in each house can use the offer of pork, or the threat to withhold it to enforce party discipline. “Logrolling” occurs whereby an earmark is obtained in return for support on an unrelated piece of legislation. All this leads to legislators who put party above country and vote for bad legislation in pursuit of their own vested interest. They basically “are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers — often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition.”1Forcing pork out in the open by making Congress vote to defend it after a Presidential line-item veto is the best way to remedy matters. Overall the President is more accountable to the people as a whole than individual representatives, and with their national mandate, more able to stand up to powerful interest groups. 1 David Heath and Hal Bernton, $4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted, The Seattle Times, 15/10/07 , accessed 5/5/11 | onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment
There are other means by which cutting earmarks could be achieved, without the drastic step of mutilating the work of the Founding Fathers. For a start, Congress could just ban the use of earmarks, unfortunately an attempt in 2010 was defeated 39-56 in the Senate.1 Existing rescission powers could be toughened by requiring Congress to hold a prompt vote on Presidential requests for appropriations cuts, rather than ignoring them as invariably happens now. The Impoundment power removed in 1974 could be restored. The convention that spending items in committee reports should be binding on the executive could be challenged. And the practice of legislating massive omnibus spending bills could be ended; more, smaller and more focused bills would make pork more obvious and make it more viable for a President to veto a whole bill without causing the federal government to collapse for want of funding. 1 Rushing , J. Taylor, 'Senate votes down ban on earmarks 39-56', The Hill, 30/11/10,accessed 5/5/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oapghwliva-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The constitution should not be amended We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending. 1 One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11 2 Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11 improve this COUNTERPOINT "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2 1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11 2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11 improve this APPENDIX | onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment
We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending. 1 One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11 2 Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11 improve this COUNTERPOINT "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2 1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11 2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11 improve this APPENDIX |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oapghwliva-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Has made little difference in the past The precedent of the Line Item Veto Act under President Clinton should warn against a constitutional amendment. The sums saved were laughably small, $355 million, in the context of the entire federal budget, $1.7 trillion, (0.02% of spending)1 but nonetheless provoked considerable friction between elected representatives and the White House. There was unhappiness that the large majority of his cuts were of earmarks requested by Republican members, and an allegation that the Administration had threatened a Congressman with the veto of an item dear to them unless they supported an unrelated piece of legislation. 1Virginia A. McMurty, 'Enhancing the President's Authority to Eliminate Wasteful Spending and Reduce the Deficit', Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Committee Hearing 15/3/2011, p.9 | onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment
The use of the line-item veto power by President Clinton in 1997 demonstrates the advantages of such authority. Although the power was declared unconstitutional in 1998 by the Supreme Court, while he held it Clinton demonstrated what could be achieved. He acted cautiously, only cancelling 82 appropriations, but these totalled nearly $2 billion1– a useful contribution in itself to reducing the federal deficit, and one that suggested that much bigger savings could be achieved by a more determined President. The Congressional Budget Office agreed according to the Congressional Budget Office "The 1997 cancellations had a relatively small impact on the budget's bottom line, but that outcome may have resulted in part from temporary factors, such as last year's balanced budget agreement."2 This period also demonstrated that Congress would still retain the power of the purse, as it was able to overrule one of Clinton’s deletions, on the Military Construction bill worth $287billion, by majority vote in both houses.3 1 It is time for congress to kill the pig, Center for individual freedom, 11/11/04, accessed 6/5/11 2 The line item veto act after one year’, Congressional Budget Office, April 1998, accessed 6/5/11 3 Marc Lacey, ‘Senate Votes 1st Override of Clinton Line-Item Vetos, Los Angeles Times, 26/2/1998, accessed 6/5/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oapghwliva-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A President would be able to abuse the power given to them in a line-item veto authority, leveraging it into undue influence over other elements of the legislative process. By threatening to veto items dear to particular Congressmen, they could obtain assent to bills, treaties and appointments that otherwise would not be forthcoming. Such intimidation would be subtle and hard to prove, but it would erode checks on the executive and fundamentally alter the balance of power within the constitution. This means that budgets are politicised even more than is currently the case. When the line item veto was previously used by Clinton republicans such as Rick Santorum argued that every decision "has political overtones, but that's fine, it comes with the territory," Senator Ted Stevens went further "We're dealing with a raw abuse of political power by a president who doesn't have to run again".1 1 Hugliotta, Guy and Pianin, Eric, 'Line-Item Veto Tips Traditional Balance of Power', Washington Post, 24/10/97,accessed 5/5/11 | onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment
This amendment would only give the President a limited power for a limited but worthwhile purpose. The media and interest group scrutiny that accompanies the Presidency will ensure that the White House will have to justify every line-item decision made. It does not affect the Congress's power regarding policy-making, entitlement programmes or taxation. Indeed, it is little different to the existing convention of executive "Signing Statements" whereby the President can sign legislation while making it clear his intention not to fully implement aspects of it. It would create a budgetary separation of powers between the president and congress so introducing checks and balances against the abuse of power.1 1 Ferro, Lucas and De Magalhaes, Leandro M. 'Budgetary Separation of Powers in the American States and the Tax Level: A Regression Discontinuity Design', Bristol University, Oct 2009,accessed 5/5/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhbanhrnw-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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
Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their grievances more rapidly addressed in the United Nations or elsewhere, since they will be unable to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive context as that would seriously threaten their own survival. Possessing nuclear weapons may at best provide some security against neighbouring states, but it creates the greater threat of accidental or unintended use or of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhbanhrnw-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Public acknowledgement of the right to nuclear deterrence will benefit the public regulation of nuclear weapons generally When nuclear deterrence is an acknowledged right of states, they will necessarily be less concealing of their capability, as the deterrent effect works only because it is visible and widely known. Knowledge of states’ nuclear capability allows greater regulation and cooperation in development of nuclear programs from developed countries with more advanced nuclear programs. [1] Developed countries can help construct and maintain the nuclear weapons of other countries, helping to guarantee the safety protocols of countries’ programs are suitably robust. This will cause a diminution in clandestine nuclear weapons programs, and will reduce the chances of weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. Thus, greater openness and freedom in the development of nuclear weapons will increase the security of nuclear stockpiles. [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
It is very unlikely that many states will invite their neighbours to help them in the development of their weapons and in securing them, as doing so would open the risk to sabotage and would disclose potential weakness in their defences. Furthermore, terrorists will not be substantially deterred by greater openness in weapons development, as there will be more potential suppliers of weapons. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhbanhrnw-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations. States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of nuclear deterrence. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of poor and small states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. With a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another. [1] If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbour, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to grievously wound, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles. [2] For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 would likely never have occurred, as Russia would have thought twice when considering the potential loss of several of its cities it would need to exchange for a small piece of Georgian territory. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves. Furthermore, countries will only use nuclear weapons in the vent of existential threat. This is why, for example, North Korea has not used nuclear weapons; for it, like all other states, survival is the order of the day, and using nuclear weapons aggressively would spell its certain destruction. Countries will behave rationally with regard to the use of nuclear weapons, as they have done since their invention and initial proliferation. Weapons in the hands of more people will thus not result in the greater risk of their use. [1] Jervis, Robert. 2001. “Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era”. Foreign Affairs. [2] Mearsheimer, John. 1993. “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent”. Foreign Affairs. | 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. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhbanhrnw-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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
Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their grievances more rapidly addressed in the United Nations or elsewhere, since they will be unable to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive context as that would seriously threaten their own survival. Possessing nuclear weapons may at best provide some security against neighbouring states, but it creates the greater threat of accidental or unintended use or of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhbanhrnw-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Nuclear weapons serve to defuse international conflicts and force compromise Nuclear weapons create stability, described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war. [1] If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. For example, the conflict between India and Pakistan was defused by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides. Before they obtained nuclear weapons, they fought three wars that claimed millions of lives. Relations between the two states, while still far from cordial, have never descended into open war. The defusing of the immediate tension of war, has given the chance for potential dialogue. [2] A similar dynamic has been played out a number of times in the past, and as of yet there has never been a war between two nuclear powers. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. [1] Waltz, Kenneth. 1981. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better”. Adelphi Papers 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies. [2] Nizamani, Haider K. 2000. The Roots of Rhetoric: Politics of Nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. Westport: Praeger. | defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons
The nuclear peace theory only holds when all nuclear-armed states behave rationally. This cannot be guaranteed, as rogue states exist whose leaders may not be so rational, and whose governments may not be capable of checking the power of individual, erratic tyrants. Also, international conflicts might well be exacerbated in the event that terrorists or other dissidents acquire nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, leading to greater fear that nuclear weapons will be used. A better situation is one in which nuclear weapons are reduced and ultimately eliminated, rather than increased in number. Furthermore, MAD can break down in some cases, when weapon delivery systems are improved. For example, Pakistan’s military has developed miniaturized nuclear warheads for use against tanks and other hard targets on the Indian border, that will leave little nuclear fallout and thus be more likely to be employed in the event of a border skirmish. This development could well cause escalation in future conflict. [1] In addition to the risk of such smaller weapons is the risk of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, as some countries with nuclear weapons might lack second-strike capability. Clearly, possession of nuclear weapons will not guarantee peace, and if war does occur, it will be far more ghastly than any conventional war. [1] The Economist. 2011. “The World’s Most Dangerous Border”. The Economist. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhbanhrnw-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhbanhrnw-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikes from its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weapons The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.” [1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict. [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8 improve this COUNTERPOINT If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States. | defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons
The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.” [1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict. [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8 improve this If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhbanhrnw-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interests of states Most states will not benefit at all from possessing nuclear weapons. Developing a nuclear deterrent is seen in the international community as a sign of belligerence and a warlike character. Such an image does not suit the vast majority of states who would be better suited focusing on diplomacy, trade, and economic interdependence. [1] The loss of such diplomatic and economic relations in favour of force can seriously harm the citizens of would-be nuclear powers, as has occurred to the North Koreans, who have been isolated in international relations by their government’s decision to develop nuclear weapons. If the right to nuclear weapons were recognized for all states, only those states that currently want them for strategic reasons will develop them, and they will do so more brazenly and with greater speed. These countries might try to develop them even if proliferation is outlawed, but giving them license increases the likelihood that they will succeed. Furthermore, when countries develop nuclear weapons, their neighbours may feel more vulnerable and thus be compelled by necessity to develop their own weapons. This will lead to arms races in some cases, and generally harm diplomacy. [1] Sartori, Anne. 2005. Deterrence By Diplomacy. 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. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhbanhrnw-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhbanhrnw-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The right of self-defence must be exercised in accordance with international law. There can be no right to such terribly destructive weapons; their invention is one of the great tragedies of history, giving humanity the power to destroy itself. Even during the Cold War, most people viewed nuclear weapons at best as a necessary defence during that great ideological struggle, and at worst the scourge that would end all life on Earth. Nuclear war has never taken place, though it very nearly has on several occasions, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And in 1983 a NATO war game, the Able Archer exercise simulating the full release of NATO nuclear forces, was interpreted by the Soviet Union as a prelude to a massive nuclear first-strike. Oleg Gordievsky, the KGB colonel who defected to the West, has stated that during Able Archer, without realising it, the world came ‘frighteningly close’ to the edge of the nuclear abyss, ‘certainly closer than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962’. [1] Soviet forces were put on immediate alert and an escalation was only avoided when NATO staff realised what was happening and scaled down the exercise. [2] Cooler heads might not prevail in future conflicts between nuclear powers; when there are more nuclear-armed states, the risk of someone doing something foolish increases. After all, it would take only one such incident to result in the loss of millions of lives. [3] Furthermore, in recent years positive steps have finally begun between the two states with the largest nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia, in the strategic reduction of nuclear stockpiles. These countries, until recently the greatest perpetrators of nuclear proliferation, have now made commitments toward gradual reduction of weapon numbers until a tiny fraction of the warheads currently active will be usable. [4] All countries, both with and without nuclear weapons, should adopt this lesson. They should contribute toward non-proliferation, thus making the world safer from the threat of nuclear conflict and destruction. Clearly, the focus should be on the reduction of nuclear weapons, not their increase. [1] Andrew, Christopher and Gordievsky, Oleg. 1991. “KGB: The Inside story of its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev”. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. [2] Rogers, Paul. 2007. “From Evil Empire to Axis of Evil”. Oxford Research Group. [3] Jervis, Robert. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon, Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [4] Baker, Peter. 2010. “Twists and Turns on Way to Arms Pact With Russia”. The New York Times. | defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons
All parties recognize the risk of their total destruction as a result of starting a nuclear conflict. This is exactly why no full scale war has broken out between nuclear powers. Supposing that states will be unable to handle the responsibility of nuclear weapons does not change the fact that many states have them, and also that many other states are incapable of defending themselves from aggressive neighbours without a nuclear deterrent. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The people are interested in the health of their leader The health of the leader of the state is an issue that the people and the media inevitably want to know about. There will always be a lot of interest in it. Occasionally this can be played by the administration as with Kissinger saying he was ill and using time to fly to Beijing to arrange for Nixon’s visit without press attention. But most of the time keeping things from the press is purely negative; it drives rumors. This was the case of John Atta Mills, people were not allowed to know about his health. The presidential staff and communication members constantly lied about his health but there were two reports that he had died. Mills spent time in a US hospital, on returning to Ghana, he was made to jog around the airport to show the media that he was healthy. 1 1 Committee for Social Advocacy, 'Who and what killed President John Evans Atta Mills?', Modern Ghana, 13 August 2012, | ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
The media always want a good story; they are interested in the health of celebrities when there is no clear reason why they should have any right to this private information. The health of the leader is not something that the press or public needs to know about unless it is an illness that is likely to affect the president’s capacity to make decisions. A government’s decision should not be based upon the possibility that information on the leader’s health will leak and should take a consistent line that it is a private matter or provide a bare minimum of information. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The head of state/government must be accountable to the people Secrecy in relation to the leader’s health shows a distrust or distain of the electorate. Not being open about health issues almost invariably means that the administration is lying to those who elected them, those who they are accountable to. A couple of days before John Atta Mills died Nii Lantey Vanderpuye a candidate for Mills’ party stated “He [Mills] is stronger and healthier than any presidential candidate”, information that in retrospect was clearly untrue. 1 1 Takyi-Boadu, Charles, ‘Confusion Hits Mills’, Modern Ghana, 21 July 2012, | ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Transparency allows citizens to choose for a healthy leader as to ensure proper functioning The health and fitness of a leader is a vital issue when choosing a leader; the electorate deserves to know if they are likely to serve out their term. When health conditions are hidden from the people they may mistakenly elect a leader who is unable to serve a full term or is at times not in control of the country. There would be little point in voting for a leader who will often not truely be in charge of the country, if voters are told it becomes their choice whether this is a problem. Transparency in terms of clear, accurate and up-to-date information is necessary for the electorate to judge the fitness of a leader which is a necessary precondition for election. In a democracy a leader needs to be accountable, he can only be accountable if the elctorate knows such vital information. | ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
Administrative capabilities should not be compared to health. Unhealthy leaders may perform better than the healthy ones, people could be misled to choose inappropriate leaders while taking health as a black spot while the leader could actually have a better potential than the rest. If the electorate had just elected on the basis of health, or had been fully informed about presidents health then it is plausible that neither FD Roosevelt of JF Kennedy would have been elected. Neither completely hid their illnesses but they were not discussed and did not become election issues as they would have in a modern election. 1 1 Berish, Amy, ‘FDR and Polio’, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A lack of transparency can endanger the leader A person is most likely to survive when they have an accident, a heart attack, or some other condition if they get prompt treatment and doctors are aware of any underlying conditions. Mills may well have lived, or lived longer if there had been more transparency about his death. There had been no prior warning that the president might be rushed to hospital despite the doctors having been called in the previous day. For the same reason his outriders were not available leading to indecision over whether to send off the ambulance. And finally he was initially turned away from the emergency ward because they did not know it was the President they were being asked to treat. 1 Transparency would allow procedures to be in place and advance notice given possibly gaining a few minutes and enabling survival. 1 Daily Guide, ‘How Mills died: Sister tells it all’, My Joy Online, 31 August 2012, | ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
All of these procedures could be put in place even if there is secrecy. Doctors are already committed to patient-doctor confidentiality so are unlikely to tell the press if they are told beforehand to be ready to receive the President. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Rivals could misuse the opportunity While the leader suffers from an illness, rivals can use the opportunity to ease the leader out of office. A period of illness is a period of vulnerability in which the government is less able to respond to external and internal threats. Not telling the public about the leader's health during an illness helps prevent such attempts. The same is the case with a leader's death; a few days of secrecy allows for smooth succession as the appointed successor has the time to ensure the loyalty of the government, army and other vital institutions. In 2008 when General Lansana Conte of Guinea died power should have been transferred to the president of the National Assembly Aboubacar Sompare with an election within 90 days. Instead a group of junior military officers took advantage of the quick announcement to launch a coup. 1 1 Yusuf, Huma, ‘Military coup follows death of Guinea’s President’, The Christian Science Monitor, 23 December 2008, | ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy simply gives these individuals more opportunity to do as they wish. Secondly a lack of transparency creates uncertainty which can be filled by a rival wanting to seize power; if the leader is just ill and there is a void of information it is simply for rivals to seize the narrative and claim he is dead enabling their takeover. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Damages diplomacy to be too open Diplomacy can be very personal; diplomatic initiatives are often the result of a single person, and the individual leader is necessary to conclude negotiations. Transparency about a leader's health may therefore prevent deals being done; Nixon went to China despite Mao's ill heath meaning the supreme Chinese leader contributed little to the historic change in diplomatic alinements. 1 Would such a momentous change in alignment have been possible if both the Chinese and American public knew about Mao's ill health? The Americans would have considered any deal unreliable as they could not be sure it was Mao who made the decision, while opponents in China could have argued that it was advisers like Zhou Enlai who made the deal not Mao himself potentially enabling them to repudiate or undermine the deal. 1 Macmillan, Margaret, Seize the Hour When Nixon met Mao, John Murray, London, 2006, p.76 | ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
If the leader in-charge is in illness, to avoid any repudiation, the representative from the other side could meet the leader in order to confirm or even have a video conference with the leader in charge. The leader only needs to set the overall policy, not negotiate the fine details. When Nixon went to China the Americans knew Mao was ill but realised that he still set the overall direction of policy. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Markets like stability Business and the markets prize political stability. Clearly when the leader of a country is ill this stability is damaged but the damage can be mitigated by being transparent. The markets will want to know how ill the leader is, and that the succession is secure so that they know what the future holds. Secrecy and the consequent spread of rumour is the worst option as businesses can have no idea what the future holds so cant make investment decisions that will be influenced by the political environment. Leaders do matter to the economy; they set the parameters of the business environment, the taxes, subsidies, how much bureaucracy. They also influence other areas like the price of energy, the availability of transport links etc. It has been estimated that “a one standard deviation change in leader quality leads to a growth change of 1.5 percentage points”. 1 The leader who follows may be of the same quality in which case there will be little difference but equally it could mean a large change. 1 Jones, Benjjamin F., and Olken, Benjamin A., 'Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth Since World War II', Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2005, | ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
Deputy leaders are appointed and they are well versed with how the leader is managing issues and are capable of taking up the role immediately after the leader resigns or dies. Being open and transparent about a leader being ill simply creates the lack of stability. If he lives it is best if the illness is not revealed as everything will carry on as before. If the leader dies then it is best nothing is known until his successor is announced so reducing the period of uncertainty. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cdfsaphgiap-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Denial of privacy to the leaders The leaders of states deserve privacy in exactly the same way as anyone else. Just like their citizens leaders want and deserve privacy and it would be unfair for everyone to know about their health. Leaders may suffer from diseases such AIDS/HIV or embarrassing illnesses which could damage a leader. The people only a need for the people to know when the illness significantly damages the running of the government. The government can function on its own without its leader for several days; only if the illness incapacitates the leader for a long period is there any need to tell the people. Clearly if the President is working from his bed he is still doing the job and his government is functioning. William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain was toasted as 'the Saviour of Europe' while he was seriously ill but still running the country during the height of the Napoleonic Wars. 1 1 Bloy, Marjie, 'William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806)', Victorian Web, 4 January 2006, | ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics
When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Constitutional imperative The Constitution of the United States is designed to prevent power from being concentrated in one place, with each of the three branches (executive, legislative and judicial) placing checks and balances upon each other. As James Madison wrote “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.” [1] This principle ensures that power is divided, facilitating greater dialogue between the branches and between the two houses of Congress which seeks to compromise with each other to provide the best possible expression of Congress’ will. Such a need for compromise between the branches lends itself to having control of the two elected branches being spilt between two parties necessitating compromise as opposed to single party control of both houses, where compromise can be pre-arranged to fit the aims of the executive. Therefore, Divided Government is an extra requirement to government, ensuring that powers are not concentrated to the detriment of Americans. [1] Madison, James, ‘The Federalist No.51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments’, Independent Journal, 6 February 1788, | government house believes governance united states should be split between two
It is true that the Founding Fathers did design the complexion of the Federal Government in such a way that prevents power from being concentrated in one place. This made sense in the eighteenth century when the states had most of the power. However the power and responsibilities of the federal government has expanded dramatically. The United States is no longer best off with a slow government that creates compromise. In a period where the poles of the parties are increasingly powerful government is not just slow but glacial as is shown by the crisis in 2011 over negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. [1] Single party government would be able to get its legislation passed and could actually govern rather than merely engaging in political manoeuvring to fend off the other party. [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and Rushe, Dominic, ‘US debt crisis talks reach an impasse’, guardian.co.uk, 26 July 2011, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Checks and balances By having both parties in charge of different parts of the Government, there can be a greater degree of scrutiny over policy as the opposition party will force the president to justify his policies. Under single-party rule, there is a risk of a President being able to push through his/her agenda with little oversight from a legislative branch that is largely in agreement with the policy. One need only look to authoritarian governments the world over to see that governments with too much power are likely to abuse that power. Divided Government provides a check on the executive, preventing agendas to be pushed through, allowing for compromise to be made between the two major parties, ensuring that the best possible policy for Americans is enacted. As Benjamin Franklin wrote “It is not enough that your Legislature should be numerous; it should also be divided.” [1] [1] Franklin, Benjamin, Writings, ‘III. On the Legislative Branch.’ 10:55 – 60, 1789, | government house believes governance united states should be split between two
Proposition makes the assumption that Single-Party Government prevents Checks and Balances to be enacted within the United States Government. This is simply not true as there are still institutional breaks on the executive such as the Supreme Court. In particular the most powerful check of all is still in place, no matter how powerful a party is it will still have to face presidential elections in at most four years’ time and elections in the house within two years. A single partly government will therefore not have long to take advantage of their weak opposition. Even in congress supermajorities - the high threshold required for a filibuster proof majority – are rare; 60 out of 100 senators which before 2009 had not happened since 1979 and previously 1937 means that congress will still be a check. [1] This along with the ideologically fractured nature of the two major parties forces the executive to compromise with Congress and the opposition to provide a policy which is the best for the electorate. [1] Tumulty, Karen, ‘A Filibuster=Proof Majority’, Time, 28 April 2009, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: How Congress Works Congress is a bicameral body, with its constituent parts, the House of Representatives and Senate, working largely independent of each other to create bills. However necessary for both the house and Senate to pass laws in identical form in order for it to become law. [1] A period of ‘Reconciliation’ is usually required to find a compromise between two different versions of the same bill in order to maintain and improve what is best about proposed reforms and eliminate flaws before it becomes law. [2] This independence between the two chambers, with Reconciliation being one of the few areas where the two meet can allow for division in Congress between the two major parties. Indeed this can be seen as beneficial, as the broadest ideological range will be considered when making a policy work by reconciling two bills, making sure that centrist policy is enacted, preventing an ideological swing against the wishes of the people. [1] Goldman et al., The Challenge of Democracy, Brief ed., Fourth ed., New York 2001, p.196 [2] United States Senate, ‘reconciliation process’, | government house believes governance united states should be split between two
Congress maybe a bicameral body, but it still needs to be able to work effectively and having control split between the parties is not conducive to this. Reconciliation only truly works when there is a clear and coherent ideological programme to work around when making straightening differences between laws. In an ever more polarised politics, divided government would be more likely to result in gridlock as is the case in 2011 the reconciliation. Voters may also choose an ideological swing, rendering such a point moot. There was a clear mandate for Republican policies from 2003 to 2007 and Democratic policies from 2009. Every democracy has its losers. Voters recognise this and vote for a clear program at elections, not a watered down version of it. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Effect on the structure of the main political parties Divided Government creates an imperative for compromise, encouraging the parties to work together for the best outcomes. This can help to undermine the more visceral aspects of debate, with the contest for election being left behind in order to focus on governing for the good of all Americans. As a result the greatest American achievements have come when there has been broad bipartisan consensus. [1] There is also a Partisan consideration to seeking divided Government. The more successful two-term Presidents of recent times, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, governed with Congress partly or completely controlled by the opposition party. [2] They were able to work with the opposition to pursue the best policy, aiding their re-election hopes by pitching themselves as seeking to compromise, in line with the aspirations of voters, who on the whole prefer divided government in order to promote mature co-operation between the parties. [1] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc [2] ‘Divided Government’ Wikipedia, accessed 30/1/12 | government house believes governance united states should be split between two
Divided Government may in theory provide an impetus for co-operation but rather has been an opportunity for the divisiveness of the campaign to continue once the votes have been counted. Instead of co-operation, what is commonly seen is partisan tactics from both sides of the aisle to discredit the other side, preventing compromise and leading to gridlock. In some extreme cases a complete shutdown of the federal government has been forced due to the impasse, such as in 1995 when Clinton was unable to work with an obstinate Republican Congress. [1] While Reagan was able to use his co-operation with House Democrats to great effect in pushing through policy and gaining re-election. [2] Clinton was re-elected by showing himself as the only one prepared to compromise compared to the dogmatic Republicans, merely continuing the Partisan mode of campaigning the Proposition hopes would end through divided government. [3] [1] ‘1995-96 Government Shutdown’, Slaying the Dragon of Debt, [2] Faler, Brian, ‘Reagan’s Tax Increases Have Democrats Recalling Republican Hero’, Bloomberg, 22 July 2011, [3] Kessler, Glenn, ‘Lessons from the great government shutdown of 1995-96’, The Washington Post, 25 February 2011, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Existing checks and balances Proposition have made out so far that single-party Government has few checks upon it, allowing for overbearing ideological government. This however is not true as there a many external checks upon a single-party government that can prevent this. Firstly, the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution means that the executive is unable to do much without the consent of Congress, meaning that the President would need the support of his/her party in the legislature to do what (s)he wants in government. Within Congress, the governing party would still face oversight from Departmental Committees that scrutinises its work and unless the governing party can get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators in the Upper House, then a degree of negotiation would be required. Finally, the nominally non-partisan Supreme Court can strike down laws seen to violate the terms of the Constitution. Together these bodies are able to constrain single-party government to prevent it from abusing its power. | government house believes governance united states should be split between two
As noted earlier, compromises in Congress can be pre-arranged in order to satisfy the aims of the Executive if both are controlled by the same party, reducing the amount of check and balance from Congress. The party in control of Congress also form majorities on Departmental Committees making effective scrutiny conditional upon whether or not government is divided. The last time a supermajority in the Senate was achieved along party lines was during the 95th Congress of 1977-79 when the Democrats had 61 seats. Since then no party has achieved this yet the majority party has still have been able to use the influence they have to work in conjunction with their President’s agenda. Only by having split control can there be a real check and balance. The Supreme Court can be quite partisan with Justices reading the law in order to fit their own ideological biases. [1] A seen a number of times during the Presidency of George W. Bush, the largely Republican appointed Court made controversial decisions in favour of the President and Republicans on Abortion and Affirmative Action, undermining the idea of the Court as a check on government power. [1] Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Judicial Partisanship Awards’, The Washington independent, 31 July 2008, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Parties as coalitions The two political parties are ideologically broad churches, with many different factions that stand up for varying positions on the ideological spectrum. The republicans for example contain within them several different republican movements; from social conservatives or ‘the religious right’, through libertarian conservatism like much of the tea party, to fiscal conservatives who are mostly more moderate. Interweaving these three is national security conservatism and issues conservatism. [1] Policies formed by each party are specifically designed to take into account of the different strands within the party, creating a platform that all candidates can stand on. The policy is in effect a compromise between different wings of the party, with Primaries adding credence to a particular view. In effect, Policies enacted under Single-Party Government have had the oversight from party members in order to be representative of the different interests within the party, thus delivering clear, coherent policies to the people that are constantly self-corrected due to the different ideological streams. [1] Westen, Drew, ‘The Five Strands of Conservatism: Why the GOP is Unraveling’, HuffPost, 23 January 2012, | government house believes governance united states should be split between two
The parties may be broad churches with many mechanisms in place to form the ‘best policy’ but that can still lead to flaws under a single-party government. It is easy for one wing to dominate a party, as has been seen recently with the dominance of the Tea Party within the Republican Party. Primaries are a symptom of this, with the views of grass roots being expressed in results that do not conform to the views of a majority of voters. This can lead to parties standing and governing on a platform that is unrepresentative of the aims of many Americans. Under Single-Party Government, there is little scope for moderating highly ideological government, thus underlining the need for divided government. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Growing partisanship The current political climate makes divided government difficult anyway. The terms of debate in American politics is based on a perceived ‘culture war’ between liberals and conservatives over what it means to be American, something that has been exacerbated by 24-hour news and a proliferation of partisan blogging. This makes agreements on core issues difficult to achieve and this has become apparent in recent years, with opposition to Barack Obama’s $1 trillion stimulus package helping to spawn the Tea Party movement [1] that has helped move the Republican Party to the right, making the compromise required for effective divided government unachievable. [2] While it has been most noticeable recently the US political climate has been becoming more polarized for the last twenty-five years. This polarization helps to create gridlock and less public policy. [3] The stasis in Congress created by the dogmatic Republicans winning the House in the 2010 mid-terms shows how America’s political climate is now much more suited to Single-Party Government, allowing for much more effective decision making than divided government. [1] Ferrara, Peter, ‘The tea Party Revolution’, The American Spectator, 15 April 2009, [2] Rawls, Caroline, ‘Moderate Republicans Lament GOP Shift Further Right’, newsmax, 27 July 2011, [3] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc | government house believes governance united states should be split between two
The reason why a febrile atmosphere has emerged in recent years is because both red and blue single-party governments have made unpopular decisions without the necessary checks being place upon it. This has made people disenchanted with the political system and made them think that it is only looks out for ideological elites, causing a backlash in the form of the Tea Party and Occupy movements. [1] Divided Government combats this by helping to re-establish consensus between the parties over what is best for America, ensuring that policies have the consent of a majority of people, thus preventing the overtly ideological backlashes seen recently. [1] Miles, Chris, ‘What the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Have in Common’, policymic, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ghbgussbsbt-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Effect on democratic participation Divided Government undermines the democratic will of the people as it prevents a clear policy choice from being enacted by those elected to represent them. The compromise necessary will result in policy platforms enthusiastically chosen by voters being watered down in order for it to be even partly enacted. It is notable that the majority of legislation originates from Congress when government is divided rather than from the President. This is despite the president being the one with the nationwide mandate. [1] Single Party Government counters this by ensuring that policies clearly presented to and chosen by the electorate are enacted without having to countenance the opinions of an opposition whose policies have just been discredited by the electorate, Thus ensuring that government is responsive to the aims and wishes of the people. [1] Jones, Charles O., The Presidency in a Separated System, The Brookings Institution, 1994, p.222 | government house believes governance united states should be split between two
It is Single-Party Government that fails to represent the interest of Americans. By subscribing to just one view of what makes good policy, government risks simply taking into account little over half the electorate (and under half the population, giving how low voter turnout usually is in American Elections [1] ) when taking actions that effect all. By taking into account the wants and aims of both parties, the best policy that can carry the support of the broad cross-section of society will be implemented, preventing disillusionment with unrepresentative, overtly ideological government. [1] Infoplease, ‘National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2010’, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oapdhwinkp-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Providing attention simply encourages the regime North Korea has an attention seeking cycle on the go that was used by Kim Jong Il and now seems to be used by his son Kim Jong Un. Essentially North Korea takes a provocative action (as big or small as it thinks necessary – this may be a missile launch, right up to some kind of military attack) in order to grab the world’s attention. There is then a period where there are condemnations and threats to increase sanctions that usually don’t get anywhere as they are blocked by China. The North Korean regime will then proclaim a willingness to do business and negotiate giving minor concessions on the issue of the provocation in return for aid or whatever the regime happens to want at the time. Of course whatever concession it gives is easily reversible so setting up another round. [1] This is a good deal for North Korea as it essentially gets aid in return for bad behaviour, it is therefore not surprising that the North is willing to continue engaging in bad behaviour. [1] Hong, Adrian, ‘How to Free North Korea’, Foreign Policy, 19 December 2011, | onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations
Negotiations to defuse the cause of the immediate tension, and sanctions to encourage North Korea to the negotiating table are sensible, proportionate responses to North Korean actions. It is difficult to see how sanctions can be seen as encouraging even if those sanctions are then eased when North Korea climbs down. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oapdhwinkp-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: South Korea can handle the situation itself The two Koreas should be able to solve the situation themselves without recourse to all the neighbouring powers – whose interest does not seem to have spurred a solution to the frozen conflict anyway. With the Cold War over South Korea is more than capable of handling its own security. South Korea is economically far ahead of the North with its economy thirty seven times bigger. [1] Its military is also more capable than the North’s as the International Institute for Strategic Studies argues “As measured by static equipment indices, South Korea’s conventional forces would appear superior to North Korea’s. When morale, training, equipment maintenance, logistics, and reconnaissance and communications capabilities are factored in, this qualitative advantage increases.” [2] So should be able to deter aggression on its own and pull its own weight in negotiations without the need of a multilateral process. Moreover no one would argue that an invasion should be ignored however the South should be the one who responds to North Korean actions on its own. [1] Oh Young-Jin, ‘South Korean economy 37 times bigger than NK’s’, The Korea Times, 5 January 2011, [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012, | onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations
Pressure from other states acts as a force multiplier helping to show that the North has crossed a line with its actions. A lack of reaction from the Unites States, Japan, and other states around the world would show that these nations are no longer supporting the South as strongly as they were. The United States in particular has to be willing to engage with North Korea in order to present a united front with its South Korean ally. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oapdhwinkp-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Rounds of sanctions and engagement does not bring a solution any closer The responses to North Korean provocations do not bring a solution any closer. North Korea has yet to sign a peace treaty with the South and the United States. It is however particularly interested in signing a treaty with the United States rather than the South. In 2010 the North Korean foreign ministry proposed that "If confidence is to be built between [North Korea] and the US, it is essential to conclude a peace treaty for terminating the state of war, a root cause of the hostile relations, to begin with". [1] The North wants a peace treaty with the US so as to drive a wedge between the USA and South Korea to prevent US support for the South in the event of war. [2] Ignoring such efforts at negotiating with the USA without South Korea in the room, and indeed all advances and provocations would force the North to accept that it has to negotiate with the south or with no one. Ignoring North Korean actions and reducing the number of allies negotiating while maintaining security guarantees prevents any chance of the North dividing the USA and South Korea. [1] Walker, Peter, ‘North Korea calls for peace treaty with US’, guardian.co.uk, 11 January 2010, [2] Cheon, Seongwhun, ‘Negotiating with South Korea and the I.S.: North Korea’s Strategy and Objectives’, International Journal for Korean Studies, Vol XVI No 1, Spring 2012, p.153 | onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations
The United States has its own interests in the North Korean question, not only does it have troops in South Korea and security guarantees to maintain with its ally but it is also concerned by nuclear proliferation. If there is a chance to get rid of North Korean nuclear weapons through negotiations, or even a peace treaty should the USA not take that when it is in the US national interest? [1] [1] DiFilippo, Anthony, ‘Time for North Korea Peace Treaty’, The Diplomat, 11 April 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oapdhwinkp-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: North Korea is an unresolved conflict it can’t simply be ignored Even if the provocations are sometimes relatively small and ineffective, such as the failed missile launch in April 2012, as a conflict zone they cant simply be ignored by anyone even if they themselves are unlikely to be drawn into any potential conflict. After Rwanda the United Nations promised never again would it allow genocide; [1] how much worse would it be to ignore something that could be a spark to a conflict that could cost millions of lives when we already know there is the potential. The United Nations was created “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace… to bring about … settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” [2] therefore all nations should be attempting to resolve this frozen conflict that could so easily become a shooting war. Wars in Korea have in the past drawn in all the surrounding powers; the Imjin war involved China and Japan, China and Japan again fought over Korea in 1894-5, and the Korean War 1950-53 brought in both the USA and China while Russia and Japan were both involved as supply bases. Clearly the possibility of conflict is not something any power with a stake in Northeast Asia can simply ignore. It is essential that there is a reaction to every incident just in case that is the incident that spins out of control. [1] Power, Samantha, ‘Remember the Blood Frenzy of Rwanda’, Los Angeles Times, 4 April 2004, [2] ‘Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are:’, United Nations, 26 June 1945, | onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations
While the United Nations is about creating peace that does not mean that it needs to keep trying the same failed formula. It is clear that multilateral discussions and sanctions have not succeeded in creating positive change in relation to North Korea. Trying new tactics does not mean giving up on the goal of international peace and security. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oapdhwinkp-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Ignoring North Korea wont resolve the situation While the great powers can try to keep on with business as usual how will this be helpful? The situation is unstable and needs to be resolved which is something that ignoring the North will not do. Commentators thought that the North would collapse as a result of the withdrawal of support that was given by the USSR in the early 1990s but it did not happen. The regime will likely be able to hang on in the status quo situation pretty much indefinitely. There is also no reason to believe that the provocations may not become bigger should smaller provocations be ignored. While North Korea can attract the world’s attention with a missile test launch it is likely to keep doing such small and relatively harmless actions. Should such actions fail the regime may resort to bigger incidents such as the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010 which resulted in 46 deaths which may have been an attempt at coercive diplomacy against a regime that was unwilling to engage in negotiations. [1] [1] Cha, Victor, ‘The Sinking of the Cheonan’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, 22 April 2010, | onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations
So far engagement has done little to resolve the situation in North Korea either; the regime is practically immune to pressure from those states that are willing to pressurise it. There are occasional hopes that China will put more pressure on North Korea but so far these have proven to be false hopes, and indeed China is investing heavily in North Korea, for example creating a port at Rason to serve Manchuria. [1] When the Korean question is resolved it will be through the collapse of the regime, something that is as likely to come about through ignoring it as engaging with it. [1] Bloomberg News, ‘North Korea Investment Zone Promoted to Chinese as Next Shenzhen’, Bloomberg, 13 September 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oapdhwinkp-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct "any launch using ballistic missile technology" and urges it to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme"” [1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms. It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases. [2] [1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, [2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012, | onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations
North Korea is not an irrational regime, and is certainly not going to use its missiles to hit one of its neighbouring great powers. North Korea has shown time and time again that its number one objective is regime survival [1] and its provocations are one method it uses to try and ensure such survival through getting concessions and building deterrence against any possible pre-emptive attack either by the South or the United States. [2] North Korea will therefore never invite such retaliation from the surrounding great powers. All provocations it takes are just to the extent that it thinks it can get away with them. It is notable that since South Korea altered its stance from ‘controlled response’ to ‘manifold retaliation’ in the wake of the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island [3] the provocations from North Korea have been much less provocative i.e. missile testing rather than military actions. [1] Lankov, Andrei, ‘Weep Not for Kim Jong Il’, Foreign Policy, 23 December 2011, [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012, [3] Mc Devitt, Michael, ‘Deterring North Korean Provocations’, Brookings, February 2011, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: This is an unjust use of unelected power Politicians want endorsements because they know it will bring votes; it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement of Obama in the Democratic Primary of 2008 brought an additional 1 million votes to Obama. [1] It is unjust for celebs to use their influence in this way. Celebrities have an ability to influence the political sphere that bears no necessary relationship with their knowledge of the subjects concerned, or qualifications otherwise to do so. Consequently, they represent an unelected, unaccountable pressure on the democratic system: they have been given power and influence, with no mechanism of checking that power, or way to prevent them from misleading the public (unlike, for example, political journalists, news channels and other sources of political information). This is principally unjust: the optimum democratic system is the one that holds the closest to the principle of “one person, one vote”, and attempts to ensure that those votes are as informed as possible. Celebrity involvement in politics is a hindrance to that, effectively handing the famous more votes than is their due. [1] Garthwaite, Craig, and Moore, Timothy J., ‘Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2012, | edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular
This ‘injustice’ needs to be weighed against the effects of the policy. If you prohibit celebrities from participating in party-political campaigns, commit an injustice against the celebrities. You violate the right to self-expression of the celebrity. Everyone in a free society has the right to express their political views; indeed, this is something we hold to be a hallmark of such freedom. Celebrities should be no different, and should hold those same rights. Further, they cannot be said to have consented into such a loss of rights (given that not all chose the level of fame and power they find themselves with). Further, it is a bit melodramatic to suggest that people with influence ‘effectively have more votes’. By this metric, we would have to also prohibit the persuasive from participating in political campaigns. People have differences in their abilities to persuade others to follow their lead, and this is something that we simply have to take measures to ensure does not disproportionately impact upon any given party. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Personality politics is harmful to the democratic process Celebrity involvement in the political process may increase the extent to which politicians need to court media attention in order to promote their policies. Many people get their political information from ‘soft-news’ outlets [1] , i.e. entertainment channels and magazines that often focus on ‘celebrity gossip’. Shows such as Oprah Winfrey get millions of viewers many of whom don’t get news through other mediums and although soft news is the preferred format for a minority (10.2%) for a great many more it is in their top three. [2] The involvement of celebrities in the political sphere increases the power of “soft-news” over the political process: due to the wide reach of “soft-news” it is not possible to counter its effects using narrow-reach opinion pieces and policy analysis. Rather, politicians are forced either to package their ideas in a way acceptable to these magazines and talk shows (i.e. reduce the analysis; ‘dumb down’), for example Obama in 2009 became the first sitting president to appear on a late night comedy show; Tonight Show with Jay Leno, [3] or to counter attack by seeking celebrity endorsement of their own. This makes political debate increasingly shallow, and voters’ decisions correspondingly less well-informed. The harmful impacts upon our democratic process are two-fold: first, voters being less informed means they are less likely to truly be voting in a way that is aligned with their best interests or political beliefs; second, the debate is skewed towards ideas that can be conveyed in short ‘sound-bites’ and away from ideas that require more complicated discussion. [1] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘Foreign Policy Goes Glam’, The National Interest, Nov./Dec. 2007, [2] Prior, Markus, ‘Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preferences on Political Knowledge’, Political Communication, Vol. 20, 2003, pp.149-171, p.151 [3] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘Soft News and the four Oprah effects’, November 2011, | edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular
The accusation of ‘dumbing down’ is misguided: politicians will increasingly be able to reach a wider voter base if they are willing to repackage their ideas and policies, but this does not require ‘dumbing down’, simply a change in focus of the explanation. So not only is dumbing down not necessary, but politicians’ ideas are reaching more voters! For example, the ‘war on women,’ has gained considerable attention in the media, and this has given a platform for female celebrities like Eva Longoria, to participate in events like the Democratic National Convention [1] . Eva Longoria and politicians who feel that women are being unfair attacked in regards to their body are now having these issues highlighted. Having celebrities involved in political campaigns like Eva Longoria does not mean the campaign was ‘dumbed down’ it means that it was accessible to a larger audience because they understood what she was talking about. Surely, that cannot be a bad thing. It should be remembered that those who consume this soft news will be much better informed and be consistent in voting than those who consume no news at all. [2] As a result they will be more likely to vote and soft news will give them some awareness of why they are voting even if a celebrity endorsement has some baring on that vote. [1] ‘Eva Longoria Speech Draws Cheers At Democratic National Convention’, Huffington Post, 6 September 2012, [2] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘ The Oprah Effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens to vote consistently’, The Journal of Politics, Vol.68, No.4, November 2006, pp.946-959, p.955, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: People will have less information about politicians’ manifestos and ideas. Celebrity endorsement distracts those who normally provide information to voters. Newspapers, blogs and other online media all have limited space, and, because celebrities sell, will use that space showing who is supporting whom, rather than covering debate about a politician’s policies and ideas. Though the presence of celebrities may actually give the masses more avenue to relate to electoral processes, the fact still stands that in status quo people are more interested in the activities of their favorite celebrities which will thus blot out the candidates themselves. When voters see celebrity endorsements they are no longer thinking about how these future politicians can make an impact on their lives. In some cases the celebrity may help show the platform of policies the candidate is standing on but most of the time they are simply taking airtime from more in depth analysis. What is worse when wooing celebrities becomes important for politicians the politicians themselves have less time to formulate and articulate their policies. This is detrimental to the democratic process. People having less information than they would otherwise impairs their ability to make an informed choice about how they would like to vote. A prohibition on celebrity interference in political debate would remove this obscuring effect. All of the above adds to the depoliticisation of politics. If the celebrity endorsement continues to thrive, younger generations will disengage with the important political issues at hand. Instead of learning about the fundamental issues surrounding their country, they will be exposed to party tactics that are of no use to their political development. | edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular
This is not necessarily the case: there remains a diverse assortment of news sources, and with the explosion in size and quality of the blogosphere, people are increasingly accessing information from a wide range of sources. Thus it is decreasingly the case that space in the news can be conceived of as limited in this way. Further, providers of political analysis might find it easier to sell papers/shows to a wider audience when they can use a celebrity image or quote as well, resulting in a more, not less, informed population. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Celebrity involvement counters financial power to the benefit of the disenfranchised Parties advocating policies that benefit the most financially powerful (big business etc.) are able to make large revenues from donations from wealthy business personalities involved in those industries. Film and music stars tend towards the ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ wing of politics [1] . Consequently, in being prevented from exerting non-financial power (through endorsement) the different political parties are not equally affected: rather, you disproportionately punish the liberal parties. This is significant, given the necessity of a counter-balance to the power of big business (through donations – for example in the USA 90% of donations from mining and the automotive industry goes to the republicans [2] ) over our political system (which is not being similarly banned). [1] Meyer, D., Gamson, J. ‘The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements’, Sociological Inquiry. Vol.65 No.2, 1995, pp.181-206 [2] Duffy, Robert J., ‘Business, Elections, and the Environment’, in Michael E. Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki, Business and Environmental Policy, 2007, pp.61-90, p.74, | edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular
If the celebrity involvement can be proven to be otherwise harmful or unjust then it is immaterial that it impacts one side more than another: if it really does advance the cause of some more than others, if we can prove this is an unfair and therefore illegitimate advantage, it should be stopped. Similarly, we place limits on the relationship between big businesses and politicians, with laws that attempt to prevent corruption and undue influence. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem. Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact. Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Cameron’s position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed [1] , Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a “distraction” [2] , where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis. [1] ‘Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom’, Wikipedia, accessed 10 September 2012, [2] Telegraph editor, ‘Gay marriage: A pointless distraction’, The Telegraph, 26 July 2012, | edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular
This may well be a side-benefit of celebrity involvement in politics, however, the effect celebrities have on the promotion of minority interests is not decreased by their prohibition from party-politics. They can still engage in general advocacy and campaigning on specific issues important to them without endorsing parties or candidates. The policy-vote relationship that celebrities have with voters works in the opposite direction than for politicians: where politicians must choose the policies they believe will attract voters, celebrities first attract voters and then advocate for particular policies. This adds to the danger of celebrity participation; a celebrity may be endorsing a particular candidate because of that candidate’s support on that issue. Fans of the celebrity who may be influenced by the endorsement may have no interest or even be opposed to the issue for which the celebrity is endorsing the candidate. This would make celebrity endorsements as a result of minority issues positively counterproductive. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-epvhbfsmsaop-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Celebrity involvement can act as a ‘gateway’ to get more people engaged in politics Celebrity endorsement of a candidate does more than make people vote, drone-like, for the candidate endorsed by their favourite celebrity. Rather, it encourages people who might not otherwise have thought politics was interesting to pay attention to it. Especially in an age of easily accessible information, people can easily access sufficient information about political personalities and policies to cast a meaningful vote. As a consequence, you have more potential voters, from a wider cross-section of society, note the key role played by personalities like will.i.am in engaging young people during the Obama campaign. Rock the Vote with a large amount of celebrity support registered 2.6million voters in 2008 and it and other celebrity campaigns had been prominent in 2004 as well which was probably a key factor in 2million more 18-29 year olds voting in 2008 compared to 2004 or 6.5million over 2000. [1] Some of the people thus enthused may go on further with their interest in the political system, some may simply start listening to news shows or reading blogs that they would otherwise have shunned. Either way, celebrity involvement has a beneficial impact on our political system that it would be foolish to discard: the larger and more diverse the voter base, the more politicians are held to account and the more likely we are to reach the best political outcomes. [1] Brubaker, Jennifer, ‘It doesn’t affect my vote: Third-person effects of Celebrity Endorsements on College Voters in the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections’, American Communication Journal, Vol.13 Issue 2, Summer 2011, p.8. | edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular
There is no particular reason why someone who is interested in a particular politician-endorsing celebrity would choose to do political research. Given, in particular, the segregation of news, where magazines and blogs tend to specialise (on, say, politics or celebrity life) it is hard to see why crossover would occur. The internet, whilst it makes information more accessible, accentuates this problem: where you can skip from news item to news item so easily, you are less likely to read an in-depth piece of political analysis by your favourite celebrity if you are not, in the first place, interested in politics. Further, it is worth considering a balance of harms here: on the one hand you have a smaller, but better informed voter base (those interested in politics without celebrities), and on the other hand a larger but less well-informed voter base (assuming not all the people who see a celebrity endorsement and go on to vote do any research first). That former scenario, without the uninformed voters, is the most likely to lead to the best political outcome. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpegiepgh-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Britain may not like losing the Queen's head on banknotes but London will be at a huge economic disadvantage if Britain stays out. London will further lose its position as Europe’s financial centre, and the financial influence this brings with it. Britain’s staying out of the Euro has already depleted London’s status as the European financial centre. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “The European Central Bank – the second most powerful in the world – had a natural home in London, but ended up in Frankfurt because of our indecision over the Euro.”1 Germany used this to her advantage, for it “reinvigorated Germany’s bid to ensure that Frankfurt becomes Europe’s financial centre, with a massive office-building programme to rival London’s Docklands.”1Germany seizing London’s sphere of influence will only increase if Britain stays out of the Euro. Moreover, if Britain’s indecision over the Euro continues, “it would lead to a serious rethink by foreign owners of many of the City’s financial institutions about where their core activities should be located.”1 If Britain does not join the Euro, her economic activity both at home and between fellow Member States will be badly affected. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 92 | conomic policy economy general international europe politics government house
This has simply not been the case; since the launch of the Euro in 2002, London has consolidated her position as the financial centre of Europe. There is no need for Britain to join the Euro, she can profit from the financial influence London exercises while her mainland European counterparts use the single currency. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “at the launch of the Euro…that what were effectively regional financial centres –such as Paris- lost any reason for their existence and saw all European business drain away to Europe’s real financial centre, London.”1 Moreover, Britain is not wholly reliant on her European counterparts for business; “More people work in financial services in London than live in Frankfurt, its only likely rival. We have the English language and a time zone that means we can deal with New York and Tokyo in the working day.”1 If the British economy does not even need mainland Europe for business, even less it needs the single currency. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 93 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpegiepgh-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Britain will lose economically if she stays out of the Euro over the long term. Joining the European single currency (the Euro) may appear unfavourable to Britain, but the negative effect of not joining would be more unfavourable. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Euroland businesses are now…able to raise money for investment across the entire single currency zone, making it easier and cheaper. British companies, on the other hand, are still largely constrained to drumming up money from within Britain if they want to expand.”1Eurozone businesses find it easy to raise money, for they are spared currency conversion charges. The carmaker Nissan has previously told the British government that eliminating exchange rate risk by siting production in the same currency zone as its sales market will be its preferred option’2. 1Browne, A., "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", Page 89 2Morgan, O. "Nissan tells Blair 'join Euro'", 27 May 2011, The Guardian | conomic policy economy general international europe politics government house
Britain does not have to become a part of the Euro to benefit from the EU economically. Britain has already struck the right balance between EU involvement and managing her own economy. "We are already part of the single market, and getting rid of the barriers put up by having separate currencies will make little difference. It was the removal of all the other barriers– such as tariffs – that mattered far more. The economies of scale are already here – from the EU’s almost 300 million consumers – having an effect.”1.Accepting the Euro could very well upset this balance with very negative effects; “Staying out, we have the advantage of a more flexible economy, more adaptable labour market, and lower taxes.” Therefore, it is more advantageous for Britain to keep the pound whilst maintaining EU membership. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join", Page 91 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpegiepgh-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Amid all the Euroscepticism (sic) and xenophobic scaremongering so typical of the British tabloids, Britain forgets the advantage of cheaper goods would come with her entry into the European single currency. There will be initial conversion costs and inflation, but this will be short lived. If Britain accepts the Euro, “There will be far more powerful forces – price transparency and economies of scale in a massive single market – that will continuously push the price of British goods down to European levels [resulting in] massive savings.”1. The end of cheaper goods justifies the means of attaining them. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join", Page 91 | conomic policy economy general international europe politics government house
No; cheaper goods come at a high monetary price and a high price of a chaotic turnaround. Even before the Euro has taken effect, it is going to be costly; "Converting to the Euro will also cost businesses, and shops in particular, billions of pounds, and that is bound to be passed on to their customers."1 Once it fully takes effect, "The Euro will also lead to higher inflation and more red tape, encumbering businesses and their customers with even higher costs". 1 And so the initial monetary costs and inconvenience are not going to be short lived, but will in fact spread. Any silver lining of cheaper goods prices eventually is not going to be worth the upheaval of complications and inflation its creation entails. 1 The Euro: Should Britain join?, Anthony Browne, p. 102 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpegiepgh-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Joining the Euro would reduce the cost of travel in Europe. Before the arrival of the single currency, holiday makers would spend much money on preparing for the trip, before they had even bought a single souvenir or postcard; “travellers touring this fragmented continent could spend large amounts of their money simply changing it from one currency to another.”1 The loss incurred by currency conversion would be eliminated and accommodation abroad will also be cheaper and easier to book; “Joining the Euro will also make it cheaper to send money around Europe. Sending money to book a holiday cottage in another country with another currency can cost £40. Within Euroland, it would cost less than one Euro - much less than one pound.”2 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 102 2Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 103 | conomic policy economy general international europe politics government house
This theory does not transfer to practice successfully. Questions of lifestyle (such as holidays) under the Euro cannot be treated in isolation. Converting to the Euro will have a series of knock –on effects which are all interconnected, affecting and effected by one another. One of these is the inevitability of higher inflation. With increased inflation, there will be increased unemployment; There will be even more British jobless who cannot afford to go on holiday. Moreover, as explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “These savings are a mere fraction of the total cost of going on holiday.”1 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 103 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpegiepgh-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: In joining the single currency, Britain would have to surrender her sovereignty and allow Brussels (where the EU is based) to dictate her financial affairs. If she accepted the Euro as her currency, Britain would have to hand the control she has over her economy over to Brussels. EU Committees would dictate how she may spend and tax. It is too dangerous for any country to have her economic affairs dictated by another country. This is an issue even Europhiles (those who support the EU) are sceptical about. "Joining the euro would involve a major surrendering of our sovereignty, severely hindering our ability to run the economy as we see fit. We would lose control over interest rates, and the ability to manage the economy through taxing and spending. Instead, it would be run by European committees… Even British politician Kenneth Clarke, nicknamed “Europe’s biggest friend” and one of the leading campaigners for the euro, admits that Britain’s ability to tax is central to its democracy.”1 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 70 | conomic policy economy general international europe politics government house
These restraints exist to ensure that all countries contribute to the European Community. Surprisingly, Britain's sovereignty will actually increase by joining the Euro. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "When it comes to interest rates, we would in some ways get more sovereignty. Being represented in the ECB (European Central Bank) would give us more influence over the business cycle, because we would be there as part of the decision-making process, not just having to accept decisions made by others that would have a profound effect on us."1 Joining the single currency and by attachment the ECB would help Britain to better oversee and predetermine her economic activity, thereby improving the handle she has on her finances. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?" |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpegiepgh-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Losing the Queen's head on banknotes is NOT a minor issue, it symbolises Britain losing her identity and control over her own economy. This must not be dismissed as petty nostalgia, desire for outdated British tradition and fear of change. The fact that Britain does not want to lose the national symbol of her Queen on the banknotes is surely a sign that the British want to hold on to their own identity and keep control of their own economy. As explained by Alan Clark, "The European Commission Press Office chose that moment to release facsimiles of the new euro banknotes in their various denominations. The unfamiliar, but so obviously foreign, appearance made many people uneasy. Polls showed that the electorate, for most of the time indifferent to European squabbling, whose technicalities they could not be bothered to master, disliked the removal of their Sovereign's head from the currency of the realm. The sceptics took fresh heart and the likelihood of the dispute fading …became still more remote.”1 This highlights the depth and strength of anti-Euro sentiment in the British psyche. It is surely unfair for both Britain and those fellow EU Member states that ARE under the Euro to enter the single currency while not entirely convinced by it. 1Alan Clarke, The Tories: Conservatives and the Nation State 1922-1997, page 435-6. | conomic policy economy general international europe politics government house
The Queen's head on British money will not be entirely lost. This nostalgia is simply ridiculous; the head of Queen Elizabeth II has only appeared on English banknotes "since 1960, having been made impossible by the nationalisation of the Bank of England in 1946."1 (Moreover, Scotland and Northern Ireland have never had the reigning monarch's head on their banknotes; and so no change will incur. The Queen's head will be lost from banknotes but "By contrast, we have had the monarch's head on our coins since the Middle Ages, and that will continue. Countries in Euroland can put a symbol- such as their monarch- on one side of each coin."1 The attitude expressed alongside is irrational fear of change. 1 Anthony Browne, The Euro: Should Britain join? Page 83. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpegiepgh-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: For Britain to join the single currency is simply unthinkable; jobs will be lost The EU creates economic conditions that threaten jobs. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Joining the Euro would damage the British economy with 'one size fits all' interest rates, and so destroy jobs."1 This is not merely a product of anti-EU propaganda created by the British tabloid press; The evidence speaks for itself; "In 2000, (Euro was launched 1st January, 1999) unemployment in Euroland averaged about 10 per cent, compared to under 6 per cent in the UK" Britain must also learn from the mistakes of history; "Past experience has already shown us that locking ourselves into inappropriate interest rates destroys jobs. After we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism, 100,000 businesses went bankrupt and unemployment doubled before we were finally forced out in 1992." Repetition of this is to be avoided at all costs and by Britain staying out of the Euro. 1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?" | conomic policy economy general international europe politics government house
No; Unemployment will rise if Britain stays out of the single currency. Britain's indecision over joining the single currency has already discouraged foreign investors from doing business with her, and this will only worsen if she stays out, thus reducing the number of jobs there. Britain has to be in the single currency to retain a presence in the European business scene if she is to prosper and make any profit at all. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?; "Without access to the single currency zone, foreign investors who are here will move out, closing factories and businesses; new ones will set up in Euroland in preference to the UK." London's position as the European financial centre has already been depleted by Frankfurt and this situation will only deteriorate if Britain stays out of the Euro. The pound is no longer a source of hope for Britain. 1 Anthony Browne, The Euro: Should Britain join? Page 52 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpecfiepg-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Defaulting would be the quickest route to economic recovery Under the status quo, the Greek economy is only headed in one direction: deeper recession. There are no signs of the situation changing any time soon. Were the Greek Government to default on its debts, after a period of recession, conditions would quickly be favourable for economic growth once more. This is what was observed when Argentina and other nations [1] recently defaulted and can be explained by many factors. Firstly, defaulting and exiting the Eurozone would allow Greece to conduct monetary policy more freely: they would be able to quickly devalue their currency in order to make Greek goods and services more competitive on the international market. This would increase exports and attract investment, as well as tourists looking for cheaper holidays – all of which would contribute towards the rebuilding of the Greek economy. [2] Moreover, were Greece to default, it would put an end to the huge degree of unpredictability and uncertainty about the Greek economy. At the moment, nobody knows if the banks are safe, if the government will default etc. The constant chopping and changing of current austerity measures such as increases in varieties of corporate tax and changes in regulations also contribute to the huge degree of uncertainty in the Greek economy. Uncertainty breeds risk and risk breeds fear: a recipe that drives away foreign investors and makes it difficult for local businesses to start up. Were Greece to default, however, such elements of uncertainty would be seriously diminished, and conditions would be ripe for investment from abroad and locally. Greek would be able to start afresh. [1] Pettifor, Ann: “Greece: The upside of default”, 23 May 2012, BBC News, [2] Lapavitsas, Costas: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, | conomic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government
The proposition vastly understates the negative impact a default has on the local economy. It is unrealistic to compare Greece with Argentina. As a member of the Eurozone, the developments within the Greek debt crisis have a huge impact on nations suffering from similar problems, as well as the Eurozone as a whole. Moreover, devaluing the Drachma would be nowhere near as beneficial as the proposition suggests. Greece is not rich in natural resources or industry and so boosting exports will not make a huge difference. Yes, a default would resolve the uncertainty about whether Greece will default and exit the Euro. However this new predictability would not be good; it would simply show investors that they cannot invest in Greece because they will lose their money. Ratings agencies are unlikely to consider Greece a safe investment for a long time so there will not be international investment.[1] [1] Pappa, Eppi: “Q&A: What happens if Greece leaves the euro?”, 14 May 2012, Al Jazeera, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpecfiepg-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The current austerity measures are not working The Austerity measures put in place by the ECB, IMF and European Commission have led to nothing but misery for the Greek people. They have failed to cut down the total debt % GDP ratio and have also failed to increase the competitiveness of the Greek economy. This is because raising taxes and slashing the minimum wage has sent the economy deeper and deeper into recession. Unemployment is at a record high of 21% and there is a severe shortage of credit leading to severe difficulties in companies financing their day to day projects. What’s more, the country itself is plunged into depression. Escalated (inevitably) by the local and international media, the climate is one of despair and investment is at the bottom of anyone’s priorities. This further perpetuates the cycles of recession and prevents any of the austerity measures having their desired effect. Additionally, the drastic fall in GDP every quarter means that cuts in government spending are also not having their desired effect on reducing the budget deficit % GDP ratio. Worst of all, the economic hardships have drawn many people to despair and the suicide rates in Greece have dramatically risen over the last year and access to healthcare has drastically declined. [1] In this manner, the government is failing in fulfilling its most basic duties of safeguarding the lives and wellbeing of its citizens. If the current measures are not working then a new approach is needed. A default would alleviate much of the suffering caused by austerity. [1] Armitsead, Louise: “Why Greece should default and exit the euro” 23 February 2012, The Telegraph, | conomic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government
The proposition’s claims that the austerity measures have totally failed are unfounded. Although it is true that the total debt % GDP ratio has not gone down, this is not as serious as the prop make out. The budget deficit is the main problem that needs to come down because a consistently high budget deficit is what will make the situation spiral out of control and make Greece default on its debts. There is nothing per se problematic with having a large total debt (look at the USA’s total debt of $10 trillion, or Japan’s much higher debt to GDP ratio of 230% which unlike in Greece has not resulted in high interest rates,[1] for example). The fact that Greece’s budget deficit has gone down from 16% to 9% is an encouraging sign of improvement. In addition, the proposition are not contentious in their claims about the negative effects of austerity. What they have failed to demonstrate, however, is why defaulting is the only solution to the suffering Greek people and the inability of the austerity measures to have their desired effect. The austerity measures have failed thus far because they have been targeted at the wrong areas of the economy and because the Greek Government has not been implementing them properly. Hitting the private sector with high taxation has done nothing to fix the faulty public sector which is the real cause of the debt crisis. The Greek Government remains hugely reluctant to carry out redundancies and wage cuts within the public sectors, as well as privitisations. [2] Greece, therefore, must be made to see that they must fulfill their promises and actually tackle the public sector, while alleviating taxation from the private sector. [1] Free Exchange, ‘Defying gravity’, 14 August 2012, The Economist, [2] Babbington, Deepa: “Greek PM sings in tune, now must hit the hard notes”, Septembe 5 2012, e-kathimerini, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpecfiepg-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A Greek default would increase stability for the rest of the Eurozone A Greek exit from the ‘Eurozone does not mean the end of the euro. It will, instead, mark a new beginning. Germany has a long and proud tradition of currency strength, but it could not cope with going back to the deutschmark because it would rocket in value and destroy the country's competitiveness. Some 97% of the Eurozone's population will continue to use the single currency and their leaders will circle the policy wagons to protect what is left.’ [`] A Greek default and departure from the Eurozone would decrease uncertainty and fear within the rest of the Eurozone. This, in turn is likely to attract higher levels of investment and transactions across Eurozone members. [1] Parsons, Nick: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, | conomic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government
Greece’s default will not decrease uncertainty. If anything, the perceived risk of investing in other Eurozone members suffering from their own debt problems like Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland would rocket sky-high. The Eurozone project as a whole may struggle on with Germany trying to keep it together, but claiming that a Greek exit from the Eurozone would restore stability is short-sighted. Many of Greece’s creditors are European banks and financial organisations. Greece’s default would, therefore, be a heavy blow for many of their creditor companies who would be unlikely to be willing to invest in other nations suffering similar problems to Greece. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpecfiepg-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Defaulting would not solve Greece’s problems The proposition argue that the hardship endured by the default would only be temporary, but an analysis at the particular situation facing Greece indicates the opposite. Greece’s problems arose from a horrifically inefficient public sector embedded within a mentality of corruption and tax evasion. Even if we assume that defaulting would eventually boost Greek exports and help the economy recover, this would not solve the underlying problems that caused the crisis in the first place. By leaving the Eurozone and defaulting, Greece would lose easy access to borrowing, meaning that taxpayers would soon have to face the reality that they would have to pay for the inefficiencies within the public sector and support all the other structures that need reform. [1] Greece must, therefore, address these underlying issues or face the exact same problems in the future. Given that solving these problems necessarily involve austerity measures and job cuts, it makes most sense for Greece to undergo these changes now (as it is with the current austerity measures), under the framework of IMF, ECB and European Commission funding and supervision. [1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, | conomic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government
In receiving financial support from the ECB and European Commission to prevent the escalation of a major banking collapse in Greece, the Greek Government would be expected to continue with reforms of the public sector. What’s more, defaulting would grant the Greek Government more time to implement such reforms, making them more likely to succeed and less painful on the Greek populous. The oppositions fears are, therefore, unfounded. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpecfiepg-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Leaving the Eurozone would be detrimental for Greece in the long-run. Even if the proposition are correct in claiming defaulting and leaving the Eurozone would stimulate growth in the Greek economy, such benefits are transitory whereas the benefits of remaining in the Eurozone are permanent. [1] Having the Euro provides stability for the Greek economy – investors know that the currency will not collapse, making their invested capital worthless. The gravity of the outcomes of a Greek default cannot be known for sure, however some economists have even suggested that hyperinflation could occur – leading to disastrous consequences for Greece. [2] Moreover, in the long term, a single currency makes investment and transactions with other Eurozone members much more efficient and profitable. This is particularly important given that the vast majority of Greek trade is carried out with other European members. In light of these benefits, a short term cost that comes with the austerity measures enforced under the status quo, would be worthwhile in the long term. [1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 | conomic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government
Even in the long-term, continued Eurozone membership for Greece is not sustainable. The size of their total debt % GDP ratio is such that even if Greece were to recover (eventually) with the current austerity measures, Greece would always be susceptible to yet another debt crisis in the event of a future global or European recession. Eurozone membership denies Greece fiscal and monetary policy freedom required to face economic shocks to prevent this from happening. We thus see that in the long-term growth is more sustainable for Greece without the Euro. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpecfiepg-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A Greek default would have a negative domino-effect on other Eurozone countries. A Greek default will leave tremendous shockwaves across the Eurozone. Investors will instantly become wary of default in Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland, particularly given the sudden nature of the Greek default. Consequently, huge volumes of capital will flow out of these countries and into other more secure ones like Germany and the Netherlands. [1] This will, in turn, heighten speculation about the danger of default of other Eurozone nations. Speculation of default is particularly dangerous because it drives demand for government bonds down. This leads to the interest payments on government bonds rising which in turn raises the interest rates governments need to pay on their outstanding debt. The new, higher payments governments must make on their debt increases their budget deficit % GDP ratio, thus making it more likely that the country will actually default. We thus see how increased fears about the future of Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland that will arise from a Greek default, will cause big problems and will put even more strain on the ECB and primarily Germany in providing financial support. [1] Kapoor, Sony, “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012, | conomic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government
The situation in Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal is not as extreme as that faced by Greece. It is therefore highly unlikely that a Greek default would have as severe a domino effect as the opposition suggests. Greece is the main source of political and economic uncertainty in the Eurozone, and their departure would ease the situation, facilitate investors and allow for the Eurozone to rally strongly. [1] [1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-cpecfiepg-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Defaulting would cause chaos in Greece There is no good solution for the crisis Greece finds itself in, only less bad ones. Austerity measures imposed on Greece may currently be causing suffering, but austerity is the least bad option available for the Greek people: default would be considerably worse. Here is what would most likely happen: The Greek banking sector would collapse [1]. A large portion of the Greek debt is owed to Greek banks and companies, many of which would quickly go bankrupt when the Government defaults. This is also because Greek banks are almost totally reliant on the ECB for liquidity. [2] People would consequently lose their savings, and credit would be close to impossible to find. The Government would quickly devalue the Drachma by at least 50%. This will lead to imported goods being more expensive and consequently to a huge rise in inflation with the living costs increasing tremendously.[3] These two events would lead to a severe shortage of credit, making it almost impossible for struggling companies to survive. Unemployment would soar as a result. It will become increasingly difficult to secure supplies of oil, medicine, foodstuffs and other goods. Naturally, those hit worst would be the poor. The Government, in this respect, would be failing on an enormous scale in providing many citizens with the basic needs. [4] [1] Brzeski, Carsten: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012, [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 [3] ibid [4] Arghyrou, Michael: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012, | conomic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government
It is not necessarily true that the whole banking sector in Greece would collapse. Given that the default would be orderly and take place within the context of the European Union, the ECB and European Commission would still provide substantial liquidity aid for Greek banks. Moreover it is not true that a devaluation of domestic currency necessarily leads to high inflation – this was not the case, for example, when Britain exited the European Exchange-rate Mechanism in 1992 and pursued a devaluation policy of the British Pound. [1] Lastly, evidence of recent governments that have defaulted suggests that even though some of the harms the opposition refer to may actualise, recovery generally follows fairly quickly, as was the case with Argentina, South Korea and Indonesia. [2] [1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 [2] Becker, Garry: “Should Greece Exit the Euro Zone?”, The Becker-Posner Blog, 20.5.2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Compulsory voting broadens representation of disadvantaged groups Voter apathy is highest among the poorest and most excluded sectors of society. As the Institute for Public Policy Research highlight, “the higher the income a citizen enjoys, and the higher the educational qualifications attained, the more likely it is that he or she will turn out to vote”. Since they do not vote, the political parties do not create policies for their needs, which leads to a vicious circle of increasing isolation. By making the most disenfranchised vote the major political parties are forced to take notice of them and this would reduce political polarisation 1. An example of this is in the UK where the Labour party abandoned its core supporters to pursue ‘middle England’. Political parties are drawn towards those groups to whom favourable policies will be rewarded in the form of vote. Compulsory voting ensures that all stakeholders in society are proportionally considered in governmental policy. 1 William Galston, 'Mandatory Voting Would Loosen Partisan Gridlock' US News and World Report, July 8th 2010 | y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting
This idea is nonsense. Political parties do try and capture the ‘disadvantaged groups’ vote, specifically in order to convince them that voting is in their best interest. As opposed to compulsory voting, a voluntary system in fact encourages political parties to target policies at the disadvantaged in order to convince them to get out and vote , rather than accept that the disadvantaged will simply vote for the opposition. The Labour Party shifted to the right in the UK specifically because no-one was voting for it; the majority of the population, from across the social spectrum, no longer believed in its socialist agenda and it altered its policies to be more in line with the majority of the population. Low turnout is best cured by more education, for example, civics classes could be introduced at school. In addition, the inclusion of these ‘less-interested’ voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation becomes more important. It will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype. Another alternative could be reforming the voting system of the individual countries to better accommodate its population. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It will reduce the power of special interest groups A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2 The outcome of the election therefore reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?). 1 Ira M. Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, "Jewish Population of the United States, 2006," in the American Jewish Year Book 2006, Volume 106, David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, Editors. NY: American Jewish Committee, 2006. 2: Mark Weber, Feb. 2009, 'A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby', Institute for Historical Review (Accessed 10/06/2011) | y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting
The power of lobbying groups is a benefit to politics at large. Their ability to publicize issues that are important to specific interest groups are invaluable to the political process. Similarly, they are able to propel and sustain wider interest in the political agenda, ensuring oversight over public policy and recommending necessary changes. To reduce their power in favour of ‘less-interested’ voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation, not substance, becomes more important. It will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype. Furthermore, by removing incentives for political parties to mobilise their support, compulsory voting favours established parties over minor parties and independents, whose supporters tend to be more inherently motivated. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Voting is a civic duty Other civic duties also exist “which are recognised as necessary in order to live in a better, more cohesive, stable society” 1 like paying taxes, attending school, obeying road rules and, in some countries, military conscription and jury duty. All of these obligatory activities require far more time and effort than voting does, thus compulsory voting can be seen as constituting a much smaller intrusion of freedom than any of these other activities. The right to vote in a democracy has been fought for throughout modern history . In the last century alone the soldiers of numerous wars and the suffragettes of many countries fought and died for enfranchisement. It is our duty to respect their sacrifice by voting. 1. Liberal Democrat Voice , 2006 | y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting
A democracy is based on the principle of respecting basic human rights, such as free choice. This principle is directly violated by compulsory voting. With many civil rights there is a choice to choose to engage in the activity or not. Voting has carries that option, citizens of a democracy have the choice to either vote or not, despite being encouraged to vote. It does not matter why a person chooses to vote or not, it is the fact of principle that they have the right to choose. Compulsory voting goes against such ideas of the freedom of choice, and on that grounds should not be compulsory. The proposition speaks of those who died for the right to vote, and respecting their sacrifice by voting. Unfortunately the proposition misconstrued the point of their sacrifice- to give us the freedom of choice. That right of choice must be upheld, as it is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Compulsory voting would be infringing upon that. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It will cause more people to become interested in politics Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary. 1 Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Budapest, September 10, 2005. | y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting
Forcing the population to vote will not stop people expressing their wish not to vote. Tucker notes that in Australia 5% of eligible voters did not caste a valid vote. Most countries that use compulsory voting give voters a legal opportunity to abstain. For example, in Australia valid explanations might include being overseas, trying to vote but failing for some reason, or belonging to a religious order which prohibits voting ( Electoral Commission ). Moreover people who vehemently refuse to vote find a way to do so such as paying the fine straight away (for those who can afford to) or attending the polling station but submitting a blank ballot. McAllister et al (1992)1 conclude that compulsory voting has led to a higher level of non-votes because the only legal method of political protest is to spoil the ballot paper or leave it blank deliberately 2. However, in non-compulsory jurisdictions voters so motivated would boycott the ballot. Furthermore, forcing people to vote will lead to more meaningless votes. People who are forced to vote against their will won’t make a proper considered decision. At best they will vote randomly which disrupts the proper course of voting. Compared to countries that have no compulsory voting laws, in countries where such laws exist there is an increase in donkey votes (where voters simply chose the candidate at the top of the ballot), random votes, "just for the fun of it" votes, protest votes and abstentions. This does not contribute to improved legitimacy of the government. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their forced inputadd legitimacy to the mix? And this is before issues such as controversy about the aged in nursing homes being 'asissted' with their votes. 1. Mackerrassa and McAllister. "Compulsory voting, party stability and electoral advantage in Australia." 2. Laverdea 1991 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully. Australia is one of the most notable examples of compulsory voting and shows how it can be implemented. In Australia Compulsory voting was introduced at federal elections in 1924 1. Every Australian citizen who is over eighteen has to vote unless they have a ‘valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote’ which is decided by the electoral commission whether a reason is sufficient 2. If the elector who fails to vote does not provide such a reason they pay a penalty and if (s)he does not pay then the matter is dealt with in court 3. There is little reason to believe that this would be more difficult to implement in any other country. 1 Evans, Tim, 'Compulsory voting in Australia', Australian Electoral Commission, (January 2006), (accessed 4/8/11) 2 Harrison, Brianna, and Lynch, Philip. Votes for the Homeless, (March 2003), (accessed 4/8/11) 3 Voter Turnout for Referendums and Elections 1901 , Australian Electoral Commission, 2010 | y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting
That it has been implemented successfully in Australia does not mean that compulsory voting will work everywhere. Australia has a small population so the system does not have to be as bureaucratic as it would be in a much bigger nation. Moreover Australia has a law abiding culture and fast and efficient courts so most people will vote even if they object to it being compulsory. In a country with either a slower court system or a population that is less inclined to follow the law the number of cases of failing to vote facing the court could be overwhelming. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Policing and financing the system is unmanageable If a large proportion of the population decided not to vote it would be impossible to make every non-voter pay the fine. For example, if just 10% of the UK voters failed to do so the government would have to chase up about £4 million in fines. Even if they sent demand letters to all these people, they could not take all those who refused to pay to court. Ironically, this measure hurts most those who the proposition are trying to enfranchise because they are least able to pay. The cost of policing this system will impact upon tax payers. The Government will need to expand and more civil servants positions will be needed to create, administer and enforce the processes. It is especially prudent that we look closely at the impact it would have financially on individual countries. For example, the US has more than ten times the voting population of Australia “the financial cost for the two nations is vastly different. Since it costs the Australian government roughly five dollars for every ballot they evaluate, the greater number of voters in America would exponentially increase bureaucratic costs".1 1 Iowaprodigal | y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting
Because mandatory voting means that no large campaign funds are needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics will decrease. Compulsory voting will reduce spending such as campaign spending on voter turnout. It can also lead to a reduction in the incentive for negative advertising “as there is little to be gained from tactics aimed purely at persuading opposition voters to stay at home” 1. States that sanction fines usually sanction a very low fine, which even the poorest members can afford. Besides, government like the British seem to manage speeding fines just fine, there is no reason to think they wouldn’t be able to manage non-voting fines. However, other measures such as disenfranchisement (Belgium) and denial of public services (Peru, Greece) can be used, which don’t incur a cost for the individual. 1 Electoral Reform Society |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement. States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate. | y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting
The benefits obtained from compulsory voting cannot be gained from any of the strategies mentioned by the opposition. Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also forces the silent majority to think about elections which safeguards from extremism. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-ypppgvhwmv-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Persuasion is more effective than coercion Forcing people into voting when they are disengaged from the politic process will exacerbate this problem; no one likes doing something simply because they have to. The election results from compulsory voting may not be a representative view of society, than the current systems. Just because people are required to vote does not mean they become more politically engaged than they were before. Rather than forcing people to vote, more should be done to engage the public in political life. Government transparency should be further encouraged as well as evaluating to what extent the current voting system causes low voter turnout. Low turnout is best cured by more education. Instead of trying to engage people by force, how about introducing political education in schools and encouraging political conversation. How about educating the public on how politics affects them? Citizenship classes should be taught to students who are approaching voting age, as it would teach the importance of the electoral process, and the history of the suffragette movement, the reform bills of the 19th century and the responsibilities of living in a democracy. The government should be trying to engage people by other means, not compulsory voting. Compulsory voting may improve low turnout but will not affect the root problem- what people actually think about politics. In essence it is just relieving the side effects without curing the disease. | y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting
As noted elsewhere, forced attendance would lead to increased political awareness, and an abstention option would offer a 'none of the above'/'I don't mind or care' choice instead of people spoiling the ballot. Because the number of voters would increase, politicians would have to be active in engaging with the public and therefore become "more deserving of the public's trust". Citizenship classes don't negate the need for compulsory voting but should be used in conjunction to compulsory voting. If people are genuinely not interested in voting or politics, educating them in school would not change that fact. The education is likely to vary from school to school and is only likely to have an impact if the student likes the subject. Compulsory voting would force those parts of the population who are usually disinterested to voice some form of opinion- created a more balanced democracy. Besides, who pays for the education? Taxpayers. Who often don't want to vote. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-pgsimhwoia-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Aid can ensure better treatment of migrants Migrants in developed countries are often not very well treated, for example the Traiskirchen migrant camp in Austria, one of the richest countries in the EU was condemned for its inhumane conditions by Amnesty in August 2015. [1] The aid provided can be earmarked to ensure that migrants being well treated and provided for through safe transportation and access to essential government services such as healthcare and welfare. The advantage of this provision in developing rather than developed countries is cost. The same amount of money goes a lot further in a developing country. This provision therefore makes sense in a time were many developed countries are both struggling with greater numbers of migrants and with austerity. Greece, which has had 124,000 migrants arrive in the first seven months of 2015, a 750% rise over the same period in 2014, is a notable case. [2] [1] ‘'No respect' for human rights at Traiskirchen camp’, The Local at, 14 August 2015, [2] Spindler, William, ‘Number of refugees and migrants arriving in Greece soars 750 per cent over 2014’, UNHCR, 7 August 2015, | politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid
Providing money to developing countries to provide for the migrants they take in does not ensure that the money will be spent on those who it is meant to be spent on. In some developing countries aid is badly spent or is badly affected by corruption; in 2012 the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.” [1] Moreover even if the aid is spent on those it is earmarked for there are problems. Many developing countries are affected by poverty, poor housing, and few government services. Aid being provided to pay for such services for migrants is likely to cause resentment among a population that does not have the same access as the newcomers. [1] Ki-moon, Ban, ‘Secretary-General's closing remarks at High-Level Panel on Accountability, Transparency and Sustainable Development’, un.org, 9 July 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-pgsimhwoia-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It is just to redistribute migrants It is an accident of geography, or history, simple bad luck that has resulted in some countries getting large numbers of immigrants while many others get none. The first developed country on migrant routes get large numbers as those wishing to seek asylum have to apply in the first safe country. Similarly those countries next to conflict zones, or places affected by natural disasters, get very large influxes of migrants who hope to return home as soon as possible; there are more than 1.1 million refugees from Syria in Lebanon [1] a country of less than 6million. It is right that there should be a mechanism to help even out the burden of migrants and that rich developed countries should be those who pay that cost. [1] ‘Syria Regional Refugee Response’, data.unhcr.org, , accessed 19th August 2015 | politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid
While the burden of migrants should be shared the burden is not just monetary. Developed countries should not be able to dodge their responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants simply because they can pay poorer countries to take migrants in their place. Being burdened due to geography may be unfair but so is being burdened because you are poor and can be bribed. A truly just system would redistribute migrants within the developed world rather than shifting the burden to those who are still developing. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-pgsimhwoia-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Migrants can benefit developing countries Migrants can bring the benefit of their industriousness to developing countries. When there are crises it is the middle professional classes who are most likely to migrate as they have the resources and knowledge with which to do so. When it comes to economic migrants it is often the educated youth who are looking for better work opportunities; skilled workers make up 33% of migrants from developing countries despite being only 6% of the population. [1] Developed countries already have a highly educated and skilled population, and will take in those migrants with skills they need. Developing countries on the other hand have a much less well educated population so derive more benefit from the influx of skilled workers to help them develop thus counteracting the ‘brain drain’. [1] Docquier, Frédéric, Lohest, Olivier, and Marfouk, Abdeslam. ‘Brain Drain in Developing Countries’, The World Bank Economic Review. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 193–218, p.198 | politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid
Migrants also benefit developed countries albeit in a slightly different way. Migrants, often even those who are highly educated, provide a cheap workforce doing the jobs that native workers don't want to do. This is particularly the case in agriculture in developed countries where anything that is labour intensive relies upon cheap migrant, often illegal, labour. In the US somewhere between a quarter and a half of the farm workers are illegal immigrants. [1] This results in goods and services being cheaper in the developed country than they otherwise would be benefiting the whole country. [1] Baragona, Steve, ‘US Farmers Depend on Illegal Immigrants’, Voice of America, 11 August 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-pgsimhwoia-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Large influxes of migrants will create conflict in unprepared countries It is regrettable that difference is a major source of conflict among humans with differences in religion and ethnicity having regularly been the source of conflicts household human history. While many countries have traditions of accepting migrants others don't and even those that are tolerant may not be prepared for a large influx of migrants. This policy would bring about such an influx in those countries that take up the offer of aid for taking in migrants. A new community is likely to be labelled the ‘other’ by the natives of that country and be blamed for taking jobs and putting pressure on services. This happens because the newcomers are easy to blame and have few influential voices in the country to speak out in their defence. Places with existing large migrant communities are less likely to experience anti immigrant hostility. Thus in India Delhi with 38.4% of the population immigrants (not just international) has less conflict thant Mumbai with 26.5%, and in the US New Mexico with a 45% Hispanic population has less anti-Hispanic sentiment than Florida with 21%. [1] [1] ‘Causes of Conflict’, University of North Carolina, accessed 20 August 2015, | politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid
Whether a country is developed or not is not necessarily a good indicator of if a country is prepared for a large number of migrants. Nor is whether a country has large numbers of immigrants already; Israel is a country made by immigration yet has still seen anti immigrant riots. [1] In order to prevent social conflict it would be far better to have migrants in countries with a similar culture to their own thus migrants from an Arabic nation would be repatriated to an Arabic country that is participating in the aid scheme. Of course no two countries culture is the same but it should be possible to find cultures with more similarity than the developed country. [1] Greenwood, Phoebe, ‘Israeli anti-immigration riots hit African neighbourhood of Tel Aviv’, The Telegraph, 24 May 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-pgsimhwoia-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Migrants will simply return to the countries they have been sent from Moving migrants to developing countries in return for quantities of aid is simply not a sustainable policy. Migrants fleeing conflict looking for safety may accept any safe country but the migrant problems affecting rich countries are in large part economic migration. These people are looking to get to a developed country to earn more and have better prospects than they could at home so are unlikely to accept a country at a similar (or potentially lower) level of development as a good alternative. They are therefore likely to simply tray again to make their way to a developed country when they can. There have been examples of migrants such as Rachid from Algeria who has tried to get into Europe three times already and is waiting for a ship to try again, [1] it is unclear how this proposal would alter this problem. [1] Ash, Lucy, ‘Risking death at sea to escape boredom’, BBC News, 20 August 2015, | politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid
Part of the payment of aid would be to ensure that migrants can't simply set off in an attempt to get back into a developed country. The aid would fund sufficiently good living conditions to encourage the migrants that staying where they are is a better option than attempting another harsh and dangerous journey. Moreover a part of the aid would be to ensure monitoring of migrants who have just arrived in the developing country to ensure they remain. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-pgsimhwoia-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Developed countries have a greater responsibility to take in migrants Developed countries have a responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants. There are several reasons for this. First they have a historical responsibility resulting from a legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and industrialisation that benefited the developed world at the expense of the developing world. This helped create the inequalities in the world that drive migration so developed countries should accept that a greater responsibility for migrants is the price. Second developed countries have a much greater capacity to absorb migrants than developing countries. Developed countries have more jobs, and the ability to create more through using the state’s financial resources to increase investment. They already have the legal framework for large numbers of migrants; laws that ensure equality and fair treatment regardless of religion or ethnicity. And in many cases they already have sizeable migrant communities (with some exceptions such as Japan) that help create a culture of tolerance that embraces the diversity migrants bring. | politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid
An argument based upon ‘historical responsibility’ and capacity to absorb migrants runs into several problems. First not all developed nations bear historical responsibility for colonialism; should Switzerland and Denmark bear the same historical responsibility as the UK and France? What about countries that were themselves essentially colonies; Finland and Czech Republic? Identifying what counts towards this responsibility is tricky and very open to argument, and even more so working out how many migrants a certain responsibility should result in taking in. Capacity to absorb migrants is also difficult to judge. A country may have a lot of migrants already showing tolerance but it could also mean that country is already at the point where it can take no more with racism and discrimination rising as a result. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-mtpghwaacb-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector The public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1 The reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily. Further, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector. Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 | mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining
The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1 Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2 1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, 2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-mtpghwaacb-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collective bargaining is not a right Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process. Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system. Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2 Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 | mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining
Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them. Collective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.1 Further, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members. 1. Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-mtpghwaacb-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public. Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1 “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 | mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining
Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work. Given that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.1 Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-mtpghwaacb-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector. In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1 “Monopoly Power.” | mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining
The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way. Even if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.1 “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-mtpghwaacb-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right. This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.1 Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 | mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining
As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.1 Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-mtpghwaacb-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve. In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue. Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made. In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1 “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. | mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining
Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result. Further, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public. Further, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.1 Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program. New START will help bolster US-Russian cooperation, which is necessary for solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear proliferation. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence." [1] New START is crucial in getting Russian support against Iran and other rogue nuclear states. Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism. Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But the New START agreement is clearly in the US’ national interest, and the ramifications of not ratifying it could be significantly negative. [2] As US Vice President Joe Biden argued in 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress." [3] Therefore, because New START will have significant positive consequences in terms of aiding relations with Russia, and thus in dealing with rogue nuclear states like Iran, it should be supported. [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010. [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010. | onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
Reducing nuclear arms through New START will not compel others to stop pursuing nukes. The logic behind New START asserts that for every negative development in the area of nuclear proliferation the US needs to take a substantive step in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Ultimately, this approach effectively assumes that the possession of nuclear arms by the US (and Russia) is the incentive driving other nations to pursue nuclear weapons programs so as to be able to deter the United States. Not only is the assumption misplaced, but the policy will undermine deterrence and increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. It is foolish for the U.S. to take substantive steps toward nuclear disarmament at the same time the nuclear proliferation problem is growing worse. [1] The US should also not seek to improve relations by bribing them with New START at the cost of damaging US defence capabilities. [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty will make for a safer world. Reducing US and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles makes for a safer world, as Dr. David Gushee states: "The issue on the table is a nuclear arms reduction and verification treaty between the United States and Russia. The treaty, called New START, would reduce Russian and American deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 and delivery vehicles to 700 each. This would be a 33 percent reduction in the existing arsenals, which is worth achieving and celebrating even as we know that countless cities and millions of precious human beings could be destroyed by the use of even part of the remaining arsenals. Still, these reductions would be a great step on the way to a safer world, as would the re-establishment of bilateral, intrusive verification measures for both sides, also part of the treaty." [1] The world is simply a much less secure place without New Start, and not just because New START means there are physically fewer nuclear weapons and thus a lesser chance of nuclear disasters (although this in itself is compelling). Rather, New START also has immense symbolic value, in demonstrating that the two greatest powers have enough in common and are interested enough in their mutual security that they can agree to deduce nuclear weapons together. It shows that these nations regard each other as partners for world peace, not as enemies. The alternative world, without New START, would be one in which the mutual suspicion and animosity of the Cold War might continue. It is notable that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in an interview released in early December 2010 that Russia might be forced to build up its nuclear forces against the West if the United States fails to ratify the New START treaty. [2] The threat of Russia, or even the US, resuming nuclear build-ups is a frightening thought for both nations, for the world and for peace. On top of its other benefits, New START is key to opening Russian nuclear weapons up for verification, which contributes to trust and peace. As former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Shultz, Eagleburger, Baker and Powell argue “the agreement emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal. Since the original START expired last December, Russia has not been required to provide notifications about changes in its strategic nuclear arsenal, and the United States has been unable to conduct on-site inspections. Each day, America's understanding of Russia's arsenal has been degraded, and resources have been diverted from national security tasks to try to fill the gaps. Our military planners increasingly lack the best possible insight into Russia's activity with its strategic nuclear arsenal, making it more difficult to carry out their nuclear deterrent mission.” [3] Therefore New START should be supported as it represents a positive step for peace and cooperation in the world. [1] Gushee, Dr David P. "Security, Sin and Nuclear Weapons: A Christian Plea for the New START Treaty". Huffington Post. 4 December 2010. [2] Abdullaev, Nabi. “Putin Issues Warning on New START”. The Moscow Times. 2 December 2010. [3] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. | onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
New START is about national politics, not about the interests of the world or peace. As George Will argued in 2010: "The (Obama) administration's ardor for ratification is understandable, as is Russia's. The president needs a success somewhere; Russia needs psychotherapy. It longs to be treated as what it no longer is, a superpower, and it likes the treaty's asymmetries." [1] New START is about serving these domestic political interests, not securing peace, which it will not achieve as the inspections it puts in place are highly flawed, and there remains a high probability that Russia will cheat on the treaty and augment its nuclear capabilities regardless. All this treaty does is weaken the US, and a situation where one power weakens and the other grows stronger is not good for world peace. [1] Will, George. "Obama's time-warp focus on the New START treaty". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty maintains US nuclear and missile defence. The US’ Nuclear armament will be modernized along with New START. “The Obama administration has agreed to provide for modernization of the infrastructure essential to maintaining our nuclear arsenal. Funding these efforts has become part of the negotiations in the ratification process. The administration has put forth a 10-year plan to spend $84 billion on the Energy Department's nuclear weapons complex. Much of the credit for getting the administration to add $14 billion to the originally proposed $70 billion for modernization goes to Sen. Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who has been vigilant in this effort. Implementing this modernization program in a timely fashion would be important in ensuring that our nuclear arsenal is maintained appropriately over the next decade and beyond.” [1] Both US Military and civilian leaders insist that the new START treaty will still allow the US to deploy effective missile defenses, something which Russia was opposed to, and so will not affect US missile defense plans. The main limit on missile defense is that the treaty prevents the conversion of existing launchers for this purpose this would be more expensive than building new missiles specifically for defense purposes. [2] Furthermore, as Joe Biden argues, New START is important to Russian cooperation on missile defense: "This [missile defense] system demonstrates America's enduring commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—that an attack on one is an attack on all. NATO missile defense also provides the opportunity for further improvements in both NATO-Russian and U.S.-Russian relations. NATO and Russia agreed at Lisbon to carry out a joint ballistic missile threat assessment, to resume theater missile-defense exercises, and to explore further cooperation on territorial missile defense—things that were nearly unimaginable two years ago. These agreements underscore the strategic importance the alliance attaches to improving its relationship with Russia. But trust and confidence in our relationship with Russia would be undermined without Senate approval of the New Start Treaty, which reduces strategic nuclear forces to levels not seen since the 1950s, and restores important verification mechanisms that ceased when the first Start Treaty expired last December." [3] In many ways, in the 21st Century having an abundance of nuclear weapons, particularly having too many, is more of a liability than an advantage. The United States will be far safer with fewer nuclear weapons in the world and a stronger, more stable relationship with Russia under New START, and this is desirable. Therefore it is clear that New START maintains the important parts of US nuclear capabilities while removing the over-abundance which may become a liability due to security and medical concerns, and so New START should be supported. [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. [2] ibid [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010. | onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
New START will cause American missile and nuclear capabilities to atrophy, not to be maintained. This is because it locks the US in to agreements of defensive reductions which are tied into Russian offensive reductions. This could eventually leave the US badly under-defended by its missile systems when compared against the offensive capabilities of other nuclear states. Moreover, New START leaves in place the pre-existing Russian tactical nuclear advantage harming US capabilities by comparison. [1] Overall New START hams US missile and nuclear capabilities, and further advantages Russia and other nuclear powers, and so should not be supported. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does New START limit America’s options for missile defense? Yes. For the first time, we would agree to an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. Moreover, Russia already asserts that the document would constitute a binding limit on our missile defense program. But the WikiLeaks revelation last weekend that North Korea has supplied Iran with long-range Russian missiles confirms that robust missile defense is urgent and indispensable." [2] [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [2] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty helps Russia more than the US Not only does New START leave in place Russia’s extant tactical nuclear advantage but it has further loopholes for Russian weapons. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does the treaty provide gaping loopholes that Russia could use to escape nuclear weapon limits entirely? Yes. For example, multiple warhead missile bombers are counted under the treaty as only one warhead. While we currently have more bombers than the Russians, they have embarked on new programs for long-range bombers and for air-launched nuclear cruise missiles. Thus, it is no surprise that Russia is happy to undercount missiles on bombers." [1] New START also fails to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which Russia could potentially make use of. The definition of rail-mobile ICBM launchers was established in the expired START as “an erector-launcher mechanism for launching ICBMs and the railcar or flatcar on which it is mounted.” [2] This and associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in the New START. This makes it possible for Russia to claim that any new Rail Mobile ICBMs are not subject to New START limitations. [3] Mitt Romney worries that Russia is already working to take advantage of these omissions: “As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. …. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs." [4] This means that under the treaty limits, the United States is the only country that must reduce its launchers and strategic nuclear weapons. Russia has managed to negotiate the treaty limits so that they simply restrict it to reductions it was already planning to do. As a result the United States is making what are effectively unilateral reductions. [5] Therefore, New START is an unequal treaty as it offers more to Russia than to the US. This is bad for the balance of power and thus bad for world peace, and so New START should be opposed. [1] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010. [2] ‘Terms and Definitions’, The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms And Associated Documents, 1991, [3] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [4] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010. [5] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010. | 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, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Problems with Verification. Verification is vital in any agreement to limit arms. Both sides need to trust each other a bit but a lot of this trust needs to come from comprehensive mechanisms to monitor and ensure that both sides are carrying out their commitments. If the verification system is not good enough then neither side will have faith in the agreement and will be more likely to try and bypass it. Unfortunately the expired START’s verification regime was robust when compared to that for the New START. Baker Spring at the Heritage foundation lists some of the specific areas that are significantly less robust: A narrowing of the requirements for exchanging telemetry (electronic transmissions that give details of missile performance that helps give a good idea about whether Russia is complying with the treaty) , A reduction in the effectiveness of the inspections (the Russians feel that inspections are unfairly biased against them), Weaknesses in the ability to verify the number of deployed warheads on ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), Abolition of the START verification regime governing mobile ICBMs, and A weakening of the verification standards governing the elimination of delivery vehicles. [1] [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. | onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
The verification requirements of New START have satisfied not only the Obama Administration but also a large number of foreign policy experts. A panel including Henry Kissinger argues that New START “emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal." [1] Howard Baker argues that: "President Reagan was famous for his adage about dealing with the old Soviet Union: “Trust but verify.” Since the last START treaty expired in December 2009, we’ve had no right to conduct inspections of Russian nuclear bases, and thus no way to verify what the Russians are doing with their nuclear weapon systems. For us veterans of the Cold War, that’s an alarming fact and a compelling reason to ratify this New START treaty without further delay." [2] When the allegations are gone through individually they do not stand up to scrutiny. On the telemetry issue the treaty does not limit throw-weight so the data is not needed; the number of warheads per missile can be verified by other means. There are less facilities being inspected, but more inspections and the decline in Russia’s nuclear forces means that not so many facilities need to be inspected. [3] There is no reason to be worried about the numbers of missiles as there will be a database detailing all the weapons both sides have and inspections to confirm this, [4] this will also mean that there are unique identifier tags on each missile, launcher and bombers so helping inspectors in their counting. [5] Mobile launchers are much less of a problem than they were as we already know the base number the Russia has whereas when START was originally negotiated the US did not know. Technology to track such mobile launchers has also become much more powerful. Finally if worried about the verification of the elimination of delivery vehicles both sides will have the right to inspect the debris and to demand demonstration of the procedures. [6] Neither side will be able to get around the new START’s verification regime. [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. [2] Baker, Howard. "Dangerous if we reject New START." USA Today. [3] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010, [4] Woolf, Amy F., ‘The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions’, Congressional Research Service, 24 October 2011, p.3, [5] ‘Verification of New START’, Union of Concerned Scientists, 13 July 2010, [6] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty sets a bad approach for a changing world New START reduces US deterrence in world that is arming, not disarming. The United States has relied on deterrence for sixty years and as a result has prevented war between the great powers. A US drawdown, especially as other new powers are arming, will undermine deterrence. This will then encourage rivals to try to catch the United States while the reductions show that the United States is in decline. [1] While proponents of reducing nuclear weapons, or reaching global zero, argue that possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapons states is the incentive behind proliferation, this is not true. The US has consistently taken leadership in the reduction of nuclear arms through treaties but this has so far had no effect in encouraging other nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals and indeed new powers have joined the club. Reducing nuclear arms through New START will therefore not encourage others to stop pursuing nukes. The U.S. should not be taking steps towards disarmament without all nuclear weapons states, including those not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, also being involved. [2] New START also fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack. The treaty fails to recognize that deterrence is no longer simply between the U.S. and Russia and that the whole policy should no longer be based on just against strategic attacks on the United States or very close allies. Instead it is much more critical to deal with nuclear policy towards ‘rogue’ states and rising powers. [3] Finally, the US should not set a precedent that it will sacrifice its own interests to bribe Russia over issues like Iran. As the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) argues: “we are told that the real purpose of New START is to create a stronger U.S.-Russia bond in a broader international effort to restrain Iran's nuclear weapons program. Such a justification is wrong. Iran's nuclear ambitions are no secret; neither are Russia’s past efforts in aiding that program. We seriously question whether Russia is serious about stopping Iran, with or without New START. There is no reason why the United States should be required to sacrifice its own defense capabilities to inspire Russia to a greater degree of diplomatic fortitude. If Russia is indeed concerned with a nuclear-armed Iran to its immediate south, it should need no extra incentive to take the action necessary to stop it." [4] If the U.S. bribes Russia over Iran China might expect to get similar treatment over North Korea. New START puts the US in a disadvantaged position in a changing world, and consequently should not be supported. [1] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010. [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [3] Ibid. [4] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010. | onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.” [1] If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States. [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-oglilpdwhsn-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The New START treaty harms US nuclear capabilities As David Ganz, the president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), argues: "This treaty would restrain the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons, missile defense systems, and missile delivery systems." [1] The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous. The new START treaty allows nuclear modernization but while the US capacity to modernize nuclear weapons is limited and either congress or the president is likely to prevent modernization on cost grounds. The Russians have a large, if unknown, advantage over the United States in terms of nonstrategic, particularly tactical, and nuclear weapons. The New START treaty however ignores these weapons entirely as it is focused on strategic arms. This therefore leaves the Russians with an advantage and potentially reduces the potential for deterrence in areas beyond the US. [2] New START also restricts US missile defence options. The Obama Administration insists the treaty doesn’t affect it, but the Kremlin’s takes a different view: "[START] can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively." [3] New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defence options in at least four areas. First the preamble recognizes “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms” it seeks to make sure defensive arms “do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties” so defensive arms must be reduced to allow offensive arms to remain effective. [4] Russia also issued a unilateral statement on April 7, 2010, Russia reinforced this restriction by issuing a unilateral statement asserting that it considers the “extraordinary events” that give “the right to withdraw from this treaty” to include a buildup of missile defense. [5] Second, Article V states “Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors” and vice versa. [6] There are also restrictions on some types of missiles and launchers that are used in the testing of missile defense. And Finally, article X established the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), the treaty’s implementing body, with oversight over the implementation of the treaty which may impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. [7] [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010. [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [3] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010. [4] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State, [5] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘New START Treaty Fact Sheet: Unilateral Statements’, U.S. Department of State, 13 May 2010, [6] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State, [7] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. | onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new
Many of the worries about the impact of the treaty are much more of a political problem than problems with the treaty itself. U.S. missile modernization in particular is still up to the President and Congress to sort out the funding between them – the restrictions are minor. [1] Worries about the impact on missile defense are also a red herring. Missile defense is not aimed at Russia and the United States simply needs to make sure that its defenses are obviously aimed at who it says they are aimed at: rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Regarding other defence capabilities, the New START Treaty preserves America’s ability to deploy effective missile defenses, and simply prevents it from being effective enough to undermine deterrence, something which Russia would be right in worrying about if the United States had any intention of building such a comprehensive missile defence. The prohibition on converting existing launchers will have little impact on the United States as the military believes that such conversion would be more expensive and less effective than building new purpose built defensive missiles. [2] Finally if Russia did exercise its right to withdraw then both parties would be in no worse a position than they would have been without the new treaty and could simply restart negotiations. [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010. [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Religious symbols cause problems in schools. As well as division in society in general, religious symbols are also a source of division within school environments. The Hijab causes schools many problems. It is potentially divisive in the classroom, marking some children out as different from the others and above the rules that the school enforces for everyone else. This may lead to alienation and bullying. Full headscarves may also be impractical or dangerous in some lessons, for example PE, swimming, or in technology and science lessons where machinery is being operated. In the same way, there have been discussions as to whether to ban the display of Crucifixes in public classrooms. Authorities in Italy have followed through with the ban saying that such a Christian symbol segregates those who are not Christian.1 1 'Decision due in Crucifix ban case', Times of Malta, March 17th 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Intolerant schools cause more problems for not allowing freedom of religious expression. In a multicultural society, students should be aware of the different religious practices and cultural traditions of their classmates, and be taught to understand and respect these. Without such respect, religious groups with distinctive symbols, such as Orthodox Jews, Sikhs and Christians, will be driven out of mainstream education and forced to educate their children separately.1 As for the worry about safety issues, particularly concerning hair length, most classroom accidents occur when loose, long hair gets caught in machinery or in a flame which would not be a problem when hair is held in place under a headscarf. 1 'Religious Rights and Wrongs', The Economist, 4th September 2008, accessed 24th July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Western societies are secularly focused Many societies are founded on secular values that do not permit the sponsorship of any religion by the state. British society aspires to this and has consciously acted to separate religion from state authority with many organisations such as the National Secular Society encouraging the suppression of any religious expression in public places.1 In this climate it is important that all citizens of the state are seen as equal. If some dress differently to others, deliberately identifying themselves as members of one religion, this can harm the unity and ethos of the state. This holds particularly true for institutions of the state like schools and government offices. In this way, it is possible to deduce that religious symbols are detrimental to the secular and equality focused identity of Western society. 1 'UK: One Law for all and the National Secular Society Back Bill that Aims to Curb Sharia Courts', 11th June 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Even though the wearing of religious symbols could be a part of that specific religions' culture and practice, it must be remembered that Western society and culture brands itself as secular and, therefore, should take precedence over clashes with minority cultural practices. In Britain there has been controversy over movements to include Sharia Law in the British legal system, which ties in with this same argument of culture clashes concerning religious methods.1 Essentially, the question arises as to how far is tolerance for different cultural practices detrimental for the maintenance of a secular British culture and state. 1 Abul Taher, 'Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts', The Sunday Times, 14th September 2008 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Many symbols are seen as a symbol of oppression on women. Religious symbols are seen to, in some cases, increase the equality divide between genders. As an example, the Muslim Hijab is considered by some as a very powerful symbol for the oppression of women, particularly in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where it is compulsory. Therefore, when it is worn in Western countries that encourage democracy and equality, the wearing of the Hijab is seen as almost counter-productive to the goals of democratic society. For this reason Belgium has recently banned the wearing of the full Muslim veil, much like France in 2010.1 Often Muslim dress rules for women are seen as more severe than those for men. Inequality between men and women is a form of discrimination and liberal societies should fight all forms of discrimination. 1 ' Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Religious symbols are not seen as oppressive by those who choose to wear them. Many Muslim women view the veil as a means to protect their modesty and privacy. Just as we would not force any women to be seen in public in her underwear if she did not feel comfortable doing so, why should a woman be forced to show her hair if she does not want to? Modesty is a personal judgement call; some are comfortable in the smallest bikini while others prefer a lot more clothing. No one but the woman herself should make that decision. In fact, concerning the ban of the veil in Belgium, Muslim women have immediately challenged it and regard the ban as discriminatory.1 1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Religious symbols cause division within Western society. Religious symbols can be seen as possible tools for fuelling division within society. When some women wear the Hijab it creates pressure on other Muslim women to also cover their heads. Pressure comes both socially from wanting to look like other women in their community and religiously from imams and family leaders pressing for observance. As such, Muslims themselves are divided and religious oppression against women is internalized.1 Approving of Muslim head coverings in society cements the Hijab as an essential tenet of Islam, in the minds of non-Muslims as well as believers. However, many different schools of Islam exist and as on other issues, they often disagree how to interpret the Koran's dress prescriptions. Moderate interpretations accept modest forms of modern dress while severe interpretations require full covering with the Burka or similar veil. Banning the veil furthers the cause of moderate interpretations and prevents the entrenchment of severe interpretations. 1 Rumy Hassan, 'Banning the hijab', Workers Power 283 February 2004, accessed on 24th July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Muslim women are not the only ones to feel a cultural division over their mode of dress. Most people are affected by the societal norms surrounding them. Fashion trends could be seen in exactly the same light as religious traditions. Banning head coverings is only likely to provoke a more extreme reaction among highly religious communities1. Framing laws to ban only Islamic forms of dress could be considered an attack on one religion. Feeling under attack could cause the Islamic community to close off into itself. They could set up religious schools where their children can dress as they want them to and not mix with children from other faiths. These effects could never be good for the integration of society and would further the influence of extremists. Internationally, the perceived attack on Islamic values would inflame wider Muslim opinion, feed conspiracy theories and add to the dangerous feeling that there is a clash of civilisations. 1 'France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws In Europe', Huffpost World, 4th April 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-grcrgshwbr-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A ban would be simple to enforce. A ban would be simple to create and enforce. Religious symbols are for the most part meant to be shown therefore it is simple for police or authorities to check that someone is not wearing them. There are many societies that have had bans on a religious symbol in public buildings, for example in France where there is a ban on religious symbols in schools has been in force since 2004. In France the ban is made even easier to enforce by restricting it to 'conspicuous' religious apparel.1 Moreover when the ban is only when entering public buildings it can be enforced by the teacher, or the building's security guards rather than being an issue for the police to deal with. 1 BBC News, 'French scarf ban comes into force', 2 September 2004 , accessed 28/8/11 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Religious symbols are personal, therefore, they should not matter to others. At the end of the day, the wearing of religious symbols is the choice of the individual. Many have considered intervention in the practice of religion and symbolism as an intrusion into privacy and individuality. The recent bans on the full Muslim veil, particularly in Belgium, have been criticised for causing those who feel they have an obligation to wear it to be ostracised and forced to be confined within their own home.1 1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
Some argue that religious symbols, particularly those that are clearly seen, are not just for personal benefit. They affect the safety of the society around them. For example, there have been worries about how the Muslim full-veil may be used as a disguise for terrorists and how veils make it harder to ascertain someone's identity. Therefore, some symbols at least involve others, maybe even unintentionally, through the uneasiness and suspicion they cause. 1 'The Islamic Veil Across Europe', BBC News, 15th June 2010 , accessed on 25th July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It is their culture and religion. Religions themselves tend to encompass their own distinctive culture and, to many of their members, this culture and its methods comes before anything secular. For this reason, Muslims should be allowed to wear personal items as it states in the ruling of their religious book to do so. Had a particular garment been required in the Christian religious book - The Bible - then no doubt those stout Christians would follow this particular ruling. The question is, would it be wrong to take away something close and meaningful to these religions? Surely, a religious symbol or method is purely personal, and, therefore, banning such symbols would be an intrusion into their individuality.1 1 Jessica Shepherd, 'Uniform Dissent', The Guardian, 9th October 2007 , accessed on 24th July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
That the state is secular does not diminish the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the UN charter, that all states have signed up to, and considered by many to be a basic human right.1 Some religions require special diets, others prayer at specific times. Why shouldn't a religious mode of dress receive as much protection as these other aspects of religious freedom? Surely equality in society is most accurately presented through allowing each individual, including their religious beliefs and modes of expression, to practice their religious traditions without hindrance. 1 'Declaration On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Intolerance And Of Discrimination Based On Religion Or Belief', 1981 Resolution of the UN Charter , accessed on 23rd July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: If you ban one thing, you have to ban lots of things. Every religious symbol should be treated equally so as not to cause discrimination. It's just not viable to ban one symbol. If you ban something, for example, as sacred and religious as the Muslim veil, people will then start rallying cries for other things to be banned. At the end of the day, if the Government feels that it is in the best interests of society not to ban the veil, then we have to believe them. Really if one thing is banned then the uproar that would happen would have significantly worse consequences than before the ban. There have been worries about the banning of the Sikh Kirpan because outsiders regard it as a possible weapon and a danger to people in public places.1 However, in the Sikh perspective, the Kirpan is a sacred symbol very similar to other religions' symbols. 1 'Timeline: The Quebec kirpan case', CBC News Online, 2nd March 2006, accessed on 25th July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
It would not be necessary to ban all religious symbols if one was banned. Banning religious symbols that are regarded as dangerous, such as the Kirpan, would be very different from banning crucifixes as the justification would be different.1 And if people start asking for other things to be banned, their cases should be listened to. Some of them may have a point for banning them. However if a symbol poses a risk then it should be banned in order to prevent that risk. 1 'Kirpan incident raises questions about court ruling', The Montreal Gazette, 16th September 2008 , accessed on 25th July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-grcrgshwbr-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Banning religious symbols is just a way of unfairly targeting people. Banning religious symbols could be viewed as just a way of targeting a group of people. In a nutshell, religious symbols would be used as a scapegoat in order to both highlight and blame for problems that are much bigger. Removing the hijab, the Crucifix or the Jewish skullcap would take away someone's culture, religion and heritage, and, therefore, banning them would cause more problems.1 It could potentially increase hatred within religious groups, and lead to more racism and more criticism, ultimately making the country a worse place to live. 1 at 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011 | government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious
A ban on religious symbols would not be targeting the whole religious group. It would highlight the problems of symbols, such as the veil or Kirpan, within the boundaries of society. At the end of the day, full Muslim veils can be used as a disguise and, therefore, could pose a s a potential problem to the general population of people.1 If hundreds were people were killed by someone wearing a veil, would people be defending it then? In this way, it is the same for people wearing hoodies nowadays. A few tearaways and everyone socially brands them as criminals, or "chavs." This scares people, especially the elderly and as such poses a risk not just to their health, but also to their safety. As a result, the religious symbols such as full veils should be banned due to safety concerns. 1 'Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban', BBC News, 31st March 2010 , accessed 24th July 2011 |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhwem-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: PMCs give value for money Mercenaries are a cost efficient way of fighting. Although expensive to hire, the government does not have to cover the cost of training, housing, pensions or healthcare. Mercenaries, unlike regular troops, are only paid for the days on which they are used. Outsourcing when necessary will reduce the cost of the force. For example, the US army is around a third smaller than it was in the 1991 Gulf War (PBS News Hour, 2004). This saves taxpayers’ money and avoids the build up of conventional troops, which, in the past, has contributed to the development of arms races which can be cripplingly expensive as shown by the collapse of the Soviet Union. | defence house would employ mercenaries
There is no guarantee of the quality of contracted soldiers often resulting in less being done per soldier. The competitive-business nature of private contractors includes cost reduction as well as profit maximisation, which leads to the recruitment of cheaper, less experienced and ill-prepared staff as well as the use of cheaper and poorer equipment. As no standardised training is in place, the quality of the hired men is never known and may be incompatible with the training of traditional forces and therefore unsustainable. The result of this is in the long run to push up the cost as work that PMCs should have done has not been done to the right standard. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhwem-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: PMCs provide a service that may be otherwise unavailable. Many nation states have achieved sufficient unity to rely on their own armies but for those which cant, mercenary forces provide an invaluable and possibly only mode of protection and security. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw believes that in an era of “small wars and weak states” mercenaries have a “legitimate role” (The Economist, 2002). Mercenaries may be the only way of providing short term security guarantees to allow a government to establish itself without relying on warlords or one side of an ethnic conflict. This could be the only way out of a pattern of coup and counter-coup. Recruiting local mercenaries also has the benefits of reducing transportation costs, instant readiness as well as any knowledge of the local politics, geography and customs which may be highly valuable to a security force. These local recruits may be less inclined to share this information with a government force. | defence house would employ mercenaries
The use of mercenaries is counterproductive for unstable states. By relying on hired mercenaries weak states encourage private competition rather than reinforcing their own nascent armies. The emergence of powerful local, as well as international, mercenary organisations frustrates the ultimate goal of securing a state monopoly over the use of force. There are many cases where mercenaries have remained in a region long after their official contract ended in an attempt to exploit regional instability in order to further a particular ideological cause or reap financial reward. Colonel Bob Denard fought vaguely “against Communism” in Africa and attempted to overthrow the government of the Comoros Islands off Madagascar on four separate occasions. Similarly, Colonel “Mad” Mike Hoare tried to topple the government of the Seychelles in 1981, arriving with 43 mercenaries disguised as rugby playing members of a beer-tasting club named The Ancient Order of Froth Blowers. Furthermore, PMCs may be helpful in resolving conflicts in the short-term, they are not viable solutions because they do nothing to actually solve the problem in the long-term. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhwem-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: PMCs are a valuable resource PMCs are a flexible and efficient tool with which to fight 21st Century wars making them a necessity. Private contractors can be hired at short notice and used only when necessary. They can be used to carry out specific missions, to reinforce traditional troops where greater numbers are required or to protect other contractors whilst traditional troops carry out more lucrative missions. Additionally, most PMCs are non-combative but rather defensive, providing security for officials, supply trains etc. As a result they are viewed less as invaders or “the enemy” and more as peace-keepers. | defence house would employ mercenaries
PMCs are ineffective as they do not fit in with a disciplined army. PMCs are not bound by the same rules and standards of conduct and accountability as conventional troops. When problems arise it is often unclear whether army representatives or PMCs should be held responsible. Moreover, the lack of regulation means that there is no means to ensure mercenaries breaking laws are disciplined. Currently most mercenaries can operate outside martial law with relative freedom. Some of the worst offences at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were committed by “privatised interrogators” (Hersh, 2004) who are yet to be punished. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhwem-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: PMCs have an equally strong incentive to perform. PMCs must perform carefully and effectively to secure future contracts. It is therefore in their interests to ensure their employees are well- trained and well-equipped and perform to the highest standard. Most PMCs recruit ex-service personnel as a way to ensure the quality of their force. In 2004 more SAS soldiers worked privately in Iraq than served in the army. Additionally, governments increasingly recognise the quality of mercenaries. PMCs and regular militaries cross over on occasion: An American PMC -Military Professional Resources Inc - trains the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) on behalf of the US Government (Lock, 2011). The British Ministry of Defence now allows soldiers yearlong sabbaticals to work as mercenaries in the hope they will return having earned more in the private sector. This official recognition suggests that mercenaries have shed their “dogs of war” image. They are no longer disreputable maverick figures operating in failed states but highly trained professionals endorsed by national governments | defence house would employ mercenaries
This image of responsible professionals may not be entirely justified. Some employees of PMCs may have no military experience, those who do may have been dishonourably discharged from duty and some may be implicated in criminal activity or atrocities, such as Eeben Barlow (former officer in South African 32nd Battalion- Assassination squad during Apartheid, now a chief of PMC Executive Outcomes which predominantly employs ex-secret policemen). These people may know how to do the job but they may also not be the kind of people we want working with the military. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhwem-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: PMCs attract less attention and suspicion and can carry out their role more effectively. Mercenaries often arouse less hostility amongst civilians than soldiers fighting for national armies. In ethnic conflict they are perceived as less partisan. The fact that civilians to some extent do not connect mercenaries with a particular ideological cause, invasion or civil war makes them ideal for protecting safe areas and policing reconstruction projects. For example, PMC Global Risk Strategies successfully guarded the Green Zone in Baghdad, the sealed off section inhabited by coalition staff. As they are mercenaries they can be fighting for the national or local government of where their mission even if they have a different paymaster. | defence house would employ mercenaries
The amount of attention and suspicion depends on what the PMCs are doing not that they are PMCs. Whilst mercenaries appear to be less disliked than American troops in Iraq, in parts of Africa their activities have increased tension. The reputation of a national government is often stained by the activities of hired mercenary groups. The involvement in national military operations of white supremacist adventurers and discredited individuals like Simon Mann is used by men such as Mugabe to challenge the legitimacy of British policy in Africa. These kind of actions by some groups mean that all PMCs are considered with suspicion. |
arguana-qrel-test-politics-dhwem-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: PMCs are untrustworthy The possibility of mercenaries pulling out will always remain a risk. PMCs are not fighting for their own country so they can never be threatened with a charge of desertion. PMCs are motivated by money and do not have the interests of their employer at heart. Loyalty is given to the highest bidder and is therefore delicately balanced. “The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe.”(Machiavelli, 1515) Machiavelli considered that it was mercenaries that ruined Italy much as they are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. | defence house would employ mercenaries
It is in the interest of PMCs to fulfil their contractual obligations to ensure future contracts and avoid the reputation of being treacherous. While PMCs are often considered to be untrustworthy there are very few examples, if any, of them actually running away or switching sides since the end of the cold war. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.