BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the basic tenets haven't changed

there are many "basic tenets" besides "love thy neighbour." "love they neighbor" is the only one I agree with unconditionally. most of the others have both positive and negative effects. --------------- The Fall - the idea that humans are fundamentally flawed and need redemption positive: it encourages people to admit their shortcomings and try to improve negative: it can lead to a withdrawal from this life, the type of thinking that says "it's a terrible world and i'm a terrible person anyway. it'll be better in the afterlife." but what if there is no afterlife? The Judgment - the idea that everyone will be brought to justice by God by being sent to heaven or hell positive: it gives people strength in the face of injustice. negative: it makes people accept injustice instead of actively fighting to change it. Belief in God: positive: it gives people the sense of accountability to something higher, and the hope that in the end God will eventually make things better, since there is a purpose to our existence. negative: the type of thinking that says "god is on our side, we can win this war." "god is on my side, I can get this job." "god is on my side, my opponent can go to hell." ----------- based on the negative effects i would say we need to outgrow some, if not all, of these tenets.
Christianity is not a deception!

Christianity is not and has not set out to deceive, though it is difficult to talk about a whole religion which is very diverse. There is too much intentionality (the Dan Brown argument esssentially I think) in suggesting a deception, asking whether Christianity is wrong is a different question, this debate, as proposed, is not focused on whether Christianity is true. Everyone is invited, in the Christian scriptures, to explore whether Christianity is 'true' and to choose, or not, to respond to Jesus' statement 'the truth will set you free'. The essence of truth is reality, and this is where the debate starts - what is true, what is real? Hopefully this is not answered by debate but by exploration, does Christianity work, rather than 'It is the answer!', without knowing what the question was in the first place. The real difficulty is distinguishing between the religion and Jesus. I always encourage people to read John's Gospel and encounter Jesus, or you can encounter Jesus through those who follow him (which opens up interesting questions about those who are not Christians but say, with conviction, that they follow him too). I don't set out to prove anything because logically it is not possible and any 'proof' is so limited as to be worthless. Keep an open mind! Julian
No quick physics

The advancement of the human race is majoritavely down to science. If we look at anything in the world around us then science and resarch using the scientific method has been there. The most obvious example is that which I am writing now. Without the advancments that science has been able to make these word I am writing on mylaptop would be on paper and you would certainly not be able to read them so instantly. Did this happen instantly? Of course not it took many moons, of small steps at a time. Now we are at a time where critical scientific needs are waiting to be made. Global warming, energy supplies dwindling, more complex bugs, and ageing population and a growing third world with not enough food. This issues cannot be solved overnight and even the mostminute experiments in universities become necessary in building the blocks that willmark the next big expansion. With these problems on the horizon it is most blatnatly time to invest in these problems potential soloutionswhich can only be further scientific advancment, improving the yields of crops, alternative fuels, otherwise we could find ourselves in deep trouble and stagnating.
Western Wealth

In the complexity of modern economic society, the most valuable commodoities are not naturally sourced, they are instead man made creations. It is scientific advancments and ability to turn unvaluable raw materials into desirable commodities that creates so much of the wealth on which western society now depends. The countries that have a large amount of raw materials tendto be poor,while Britain is wealthy because of its technological advancments. If investment in science and funding of its advancement was cut it will put Britain in a precarious scenario. It would be robbing its future of one of the few avliablesources of future wealth. While this may not effect the short term interests it would surely effect the long terminterests and prosperity, and create oppotunities for modernisin geconomies to take other.
jobs

While we may appear to be inching ourselves out of recession at the moment, it does not mean we can expect jobs to be created, there is still work to do on this front and in this respect, Science can play a crucial part. In terms of making more long term money the case is obvious,but it also creates the jobs for people to go into. Unemplyment is a major concern and where science funding offers the dual advantages of more jobs and better paid jobs, resulting in more wealth, its funding becomes an important aspect effecting all sectors of society.
Science/technical job vacancies and immigration

Most science-technical job vacancies in the western worlds are taken by immigrants. In fact Canada and the U.S tailor their immigration policies to attract and give citizenship to mainly techies and doctors. Immigrants in Canada have double the education rate than that of locals. The entire continent of Europe has a need for immigrants mainly because of a science-education deficit-[[http://www.newsweek.com/id/233913]] Britain needs doctors and techies from all over the world too; mainly because there are not nearly enough high-quality home-produced techies/doctors in Britain. The G.B.P has recently matched the Euro and bad long-term planning has the leading role. The U.K cannot afford to make the same mistakes as the rest of Europe. If you have to out immigration and David Cameron intends to; then the only way to curb continual and massive economic-slumping/plummeting is to train/educate locals to fill in the gaps.
No quick physics

The Industrial revolution has arguably been the fastest period of economic growth in history, and the funding provided by the government to science was effectively zero. Instead people like Brunel would seek investment and the market system would very effectively differentiate between good investment in science and bad investment. Historically governments have tended to be very bad at this, wasting huge amounts of money. In a time with such an enormous budget deficit, throwing more money at high speed trains and concord type experiments that do not make financial sense would be an alarming move. Also Theoretical physics has very nearly never had any practical benefits(to an economy) apart being highly correlated with genius and being the glamour-science.
Western Wealth

Wealth has been created by scientific advancments, but now the majority of money is not in the manufacturing,or indeed sceintifc advancments,it is in the ability to manipulate goods for sale. For example the money that comes to Briatin from BMW and Vaxuhall is the same, they produce cars, but the ability to market them and sellthem is where the weatlh is now generated, rather than the product itself. Scientific advancement can certainlyinthelong term produce wealth. But in the short term the cost is too high when development can equally be gained by using another countries scientific advancement, also letting them foot the bill.
Science/technical job vacancies and immigration

Britain cannot afford to be strict on immigration(given all the racist under and over-tones that surround that side of the policy debate) and as stated on the column on my left, immigrants are needed to fill in tech-vacancies/studies. If immigrants can fill in vacancies then the locals need not be trained to be proficient in science. Immigration will not be halted/curbed/stagnated to a stop any time soon.
Cost

General opinion is that war-spending is a waste of British money. Sending just a few British troops to Afghanistan to fight alongside masses of Americans and locals is a fruitless investment(both short and long-term) The N.H.S has been a recent disappointment, primarily because science education in Britain is not up to the mark.Better medical staff is a very important factor in better medical service. Science funding can provide immediate return in terms of Doctors/Nurses/Engineers who/that will graduate this year. Also in terms of higher-quality refresher courses that any scientist/science-person/doctor/nurse/etc in this day and age has to take; to perform optimally(in an ever-changing competitive environment of day-to-day scientific breakthroughs) Some might say (the) war is a foolish investment.
The ownership of important businesses by sovereign wealth funds runs counter to the economic policy ...

Sovereign wealth funds should be credited with coming to the rescue of the global financial system during the turmoil of 2008. With their long-term horizons for a return on their investments, they have been willing to provide billions of dollars in new capital to distressed companies, at a time when other sources of funding have headed for the door. Their money has allowed firms to continue trading and so safeguarded jobs at a time of great uncertainty. It has also helped prevent complete collapse of global equities prices, on which many people, through their pension funds, depend for a secure future.
Sovereign wealth funds are guilty of bad behaviour in the developing world. Some government-backed ...

Developed countries are guilty of a great deal of hypocrisy in their attitude to the sovereign wealth funds of emerging economies. In the past their own companies were used as instruments of state power, for example BP’s origins lie in Britain’s attempt to dominate Iran’s oil wealth. Recently SWFs have proved willing to channel a great deal of investment into poorer states, particularly in Africa, boosting their economies and assisting their long-term development through the provision of infrastructure such as roads and ports. This is a much more equal relationship than that promoted by the west, with its manipulation of aid and loans to maintain political influence in former colonies.
A number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some have...

Regulations already exist to prevent foreign investments that might compromise national security. Other than this it would be unfair to discriminate against certain classes of investors. Wealth-creating capitalism relies upon investors seeking to maximise the value of their investments. Without voting rights or the possibility of exercising majority control of a company, SWFs would be unable to ensure that managers were working hard on their behalf, allocating resources efficiently and being held accountable for their decisions.
Fears about the unrestrained influence of sovereign wealth funds may stimulate wider protectionism i...

Restricting the activities of sovereign wealth funds is a form of protectionism, which is itself likely to stimulate further demands for barriers against globalisation. In fact SWF investments abroad contribute to greater economic openness around the world. By exposing emerging economies and authoritarian states to developed world standards of transparency, meritocracy and corporate social responsibility, they will help to spread liberal values and raise standards. They will also give many more nations a stake in international prosperity through trade, encouraging cooperation rather than confrontation in foreign policy, and giving a boost to liberalising trade deals at the WTO.
Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have become very important players in the global economy. They are no...

Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have become very important players in the global economy. They are now so big that their activities can shift markets, leading to panic and instability when they sell assets suddenly. Their purchases can mean that companies owned by other states can end up dominating the economies of smaller countries, undermining their own sovereignty and economic independence. It is also worrying that many SWFs are controlled by undemocratic states which have a questionable commitment to capitalism; should we allow such states to exercise so much power over our economies?
Sovereign wealth funds raise worrying issues about national security. Unlike mutual funds or privat...

Sovereign wealth funds raise worrying issues about national security. Unlike mutual funds or private equity groups, which seek only to maximise their investors’ returns, SWFs must be regarded as political entities. Rather than passively holding their assets, they may seek to use their purchases to gain access to natural resources or advanced technologies, including those crucial to our defence. They may engage in economic nationalism, shutting factories in western countries to give an unfair advantage to their own industries. They may even attempt economic blackmail, threatening to turn off the lights through their control of energy companies and utilities if governments do not fall in with their foreign policy aims. Allowing countries such as China, Russia and various Gulf states to buy up western companies at will is potentially very dangerous. Even if we regard these states as friendly at the moment, there is no guarantee that they will stay that way, especially as none of them share our political values.
Sovereign wealth funds suffer from an almost total lack of transparency. Most countries maintain se...

Sovereign wealth funds suffer from an almost total lack of transparency. Most countries maintain secrecy about the size of their funds and the extent of their holdings, their accountability to government, their investment strategies and their approach to risk management. Without knowing these things, it is impossible to gauge whether political or economic objectives will dominate the SWFs’ behaviour, or indeed whether they will make safe and responsible shareholders in any business – secrecy breeds corruption. For these reasons, Jeffrey Garten of Yale has argued that SWFs should be obliged to publish independently audited accounts twice a year. He has also pointed out that many countries operating SWFs protect their domestic economy from foreign competition and investment. We should demand reciprocity, so that countries seeking investments abroad must open up their own economies fully before they are allowed to hold significant assets elsewhere.
In many cases sovereign wealth funds are not even good for the states that own them. Almost all are...

In many cases sovereign wealth funds are not even good for the states that own them. Almost all are emerging economies with limited financial expertise available to them, and they are not equipped to invest the money wisely. This has led to SWFs paying inflated prices for dodgy western companies, whose share price has subsequently collapsed, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of national wealth (e.g. China and Blackstone, Qatar and Sainsburys). Surely it would be better to invest the money at home, or even return it to their people in the form of lower taxes.
The ownership of important businesses by sovereign wealth funds runs counter to the economic policy ...

The ownership of important businesses by sovereign wealth funds runs counter to the economic policy pursued by almost every government over the past 25 years. In the 1970s many states owned nationalised industries as part of an attempt at socialist economic planning that has now been discredited. State ownership distorted incentives, interfered with management and produced decades of underinvestment, poor service to consumers, and national economic failure. Since the 1980s countries everywhere have followed the example of Thatcher’s Britain and privatised their industries, freeing them to compete efficiently and to generate more wealth and jobs than they had ever done in state hands. Going back to state ownership of business is a dangerous backward step, especially as it is now foreign governments that are doing the nationalising.
Sovereign wealth funds are guilty of bad behaviour in the developing world. Some government-backed ...

Sovereign wealth funds are guilty of bad behaviour in the developing world. Some government-backed firms from China and the Arab world have provided capital to maintain some of Africa’s worst rulers in power, in exchange for the opportunity to gain access to the natural resources of their misruled states. This has allowed dictators to ignore the conditions (e.g. for political freedoms and economic reforms) attached to funding offered by western aid donors and international institutions such as the World Bank. It also contrasts sharply with the behaviour of western companies, who are led to act more responsibly by pressures from their own governments, investors and media.
A number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some have...

A number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some have argued that state-owned investment vehicles that buy shares abroad should not be allowed voting rights in that stock. Others would put a cap on SWF investments, so that they cannot take a stake of more than, say 20% in any business – meaning that they can only be passive investors. Both these proposals would ensure that they are unable to abuse a dominant position while still allowing countries to benefit from cross-border investment in a globalised economy.
Fears about the unrestrained influence of sovereign wealth funds may stimulate wider protectionism i...

Fears about the unrestrained influence of sovereign wealth funds may stimulate wider protectionism if effective regulation is not introduced. Protectionist politicians may exploit fears of foreigners to restrict any kind of foreign investment, and seek to build up national champions as a defensive measure. This risks losing all the economic benefits of globalisation, such as opportunities to unwind financial imbalances and to spread expertise, while directing capital to areas where it can have the greatest impact. Better to regulate SWFs now for fear of a greater backlash later.
Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have become very important players in the global economy. They are no...

Sovereign wealth funds are not new and they are still only a tiny part of the global financial system. They represent only about 2% of global traded securities, and are dwarfed by other financial actors such as mutual funds, or private equity groups and hedge funds. What is more, in comparison with these other players in the global financial system, SWFs are long-term investors looking many years, even decades into the future. This means that they are likely to bring calm, rather than irrational volatility to markets, as they will not be rushed into dumping assets based on a few months of bad data.
Sovereign wealth funds raise worrying issues about national security. Unlike mutual funds or privat...

Fears about national security are greatly overblown, and are often simply an attempt to justify protectionist measures. Very few companies pose a national security risk, and those that do are covered by existing regulations – so that, for example, the USA could veto Dubai Port World’s bid to take over American ports. Most SWFs do not seek full control of companies they invest in, so they are not in a position to manipulate their assets for political gain, even if they wished to. In reality, countries set up SWFs for economic reasons and they represent a major national investment, the value of which would be expensively destroyed if they once tried to abuse their position. Nor are there any actual examples of a country trying to exert political influence through its sovereign wealth fund.\ Overall, tying a wide variety of states into the international economic and financial system is beneficial, as it gives them a stake in the peace which the global economy needs for prosperity and so makes them less likely to pursue aggressive foreign policies. Conversely, alienating the governments of other states by designating them as dangerous predators who cannot be allowed to invest in our companies is a sure way to create enemies.\
Sovereign wealth funds suffer from an almost total lack of transparency. Most countries maintain se...

Transparency is a good thing, but it would be unfair to single out sovereign wealth funds for special punishment over this issue. Hedge funds and private equity groups are even less transparent than SWFs, and their influence in the global economy is much greater. Some countries (e.g. Norway) already operate very transparent investment strategies. It is likely that other countries will come over time to follow their lead voluntarily, as it is in the interest of their own citizens to see that the state is managing their money in an efficiently and honestly.
In many cases sovereign wealth funds are not even good for the states that own them. Almost all are...

Sovereign wealth funds are highly beneficial for states with large financial surpluses. Traditionally they have been run by resource-rich countries which wish to diversify their assets to smooth out the impact of fluctuations in commodity prices on their economies and revenues. By holding investments abroad, oil-rich countries such as Qatar and Norway have also built up valuable national reserves against the day when their fossil fuels eventually run out. In any case, allowing all the income from natural resources into your domestic economy is well known to lead to wasteful investments and higher inflation – better to manage the revenues responsibly by using them to create wealth for the future. More recently many Asian countries with big current account surpluses and massive government reserves have sought higher returns than they could get through more traditional investment in US Treasury bonds. Again, this is a responsible strategy pursued by states seeking to do their best for their citizens.
Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and the...

Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and their upbringing will not be affect their sexuality. Attempting to suppress this genetic predisposition has resulted in great misery for many people. Rather, we should accept this and look to embrace all gay people fully – which must include celebrating gay role models, especially as responsible parents.
Society is changing, and the traditional idea of the nuclear family with married mother and father i...

The traditional nuclear family is still an ideal that should be clung to. Where its breakdown is inevitable, a close substitute, with maternal and paternal influences, is the only alternative. Evolution and nature has shown that the natural development of the young is aided by both these influences. Research in the US (Univ. of Illinois Law Review, 1997) finds that children raised in homosexual househoulds are significantly more likely to be gay themselves.
Against morality and medical ethics

Another question to argue about is that, is it moral to use death-row prisoners as guinea pigs for medical experiment? The propostion never showed us why it's morally justified to do so. To force anyone to be experimented for medical research without their informed consent is both illegal and immoral. Medical ethics requires doctors or pharmacautical companies to conduct their experiments with the informed consent from patients or volunteers, which means that an individual should be fully informed about the potential harms or benefits an experiments would like to bring. We think there's no point that such a basic moral principle could be tramped, this should be applied equally to both general public and prisoners, for the latter group although being deprived of their freedom or life, there's no justification why they also deprived the right to manage their own body. It should be a basic working ethics abide by doctors and pharmacautical manufactures.