BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The public can always just turn reality programmes off, or watch something else

Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality television. For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as "The Sopranos" or "Pride and Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and other international broadcasters also cover news and current affairs in great depth. Wildlife programmes on the National Geographic or Discovery bring the wonders of the natural world into our living rooms. More sports are covered in more detail than ever before. So, ultimately, reality shows have not ruined television as a whole, they have merely added another option for viewers. Indeed, because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend on other types of programmes, they are actually good for all viewers, regardless of personal taste for genres. improve this
Reality television forces us to analyse our own behaviour as a society

Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society; they are effectively anthropological experiments, allowing the public to study people and societies from the comfort of their living rooms1. Humans are endlessly different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these programmes we see people like us faced with unusual situations. Shows like Survivor, which place a group of strangers in remote environments, make us think about what we would do in their place, and about what principles govern human behaviour in general. It also shows us people who look and act very different from us, and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with them. MTV's reality show 'Making the Band 2', a 'hip-hop American Idol', gives centre stage to inner-city kids who would be portrayed as criminals or victims on a cop drama. There is nothing immoral about reality shows, merely the society which demands them; these shows are just a product of our values and desires. We should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker
The sheer number of reality programmes is now driving TV producers to create filthier, more corrupt reality shows

Reality shows are not becoming more corrupt or more filthy. What has changed is rather what the public defines as acceptable viewing. In other words, the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality is closing thanks to modern reality programs. And the gap is closing due to popular demand to see reality on their TV screens. For example, the sex shown on Scandinavian episodes of Big Brother is not shocking or unrealistic, it is only unusual in the context of what we expect to see on television. The fact it was shown only illustrates that the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality on television is closing. If the proposition has an issue therefore with what modern reality shows are presenting, they have an issue with society at large, not reality programs. Even if were the case that reality programmes are getting more corrupt and filthy, viewers should take the advice of former U.S. President Bush Jr. and 'put the off button on.'
Reality TV encourages people to pursue celebrity status, and discourages the value of hard work and an education

Reality TV does not discourage hard work or education, rather it creates a society whereby we have shared experiences and a strong sense of community. As such, reality TV provides an important social glue. Once upon a time there were only a few television channels, and everybody watched the same few programmes. The sense of a shared experience helped to bind people together, giving them common things to talk about at work and school the next day – “water cooler moments”. Reality programs like ‘Survivor’ play that role in contemporary society with viewership being ‘almost a cultural imperative’, the experience shared simultaneously with friends and family.1  Furthermore, even if it were the case that the moral lessons of reality programmes are not always advisable, just as viewers can empathize with characters in the Godfather without wanting to be them, the same applies to questionable characters and actions in reality shows.2  1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker 2 Poniewozik, J. (2003) All the News That Fits Your Reality Retrieved July 4, 2011, from TIME MAGAZINE
Reality shows make for bad, lazy and corrupting television, encouraging such behaviour in society

Reality TV programmes are not corrupting. They do reflect our society, which isn't always perfect, but we should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. When Adam Lambert, an openly gay contestant on American Idol, lost in the final of the show despite being widely regarded as the best singer, many rightfully pointed out what it demonstrated about the homophobia of American society. To deride reality shows as 'corrupting' therefore is misguided; it is society who is corrupt and reality shows that offer a potential solution. To solve a problem first requires accepting one exists, and reality shows provide a means to do that; they are a window into society, permitting everyone to reflect on the issues that are most harmful to society. As such, reality show producers should not be accused of a lack of creativity or laziness for their programmes, but congratulated for drawing attention to important issues. improve this
Reality shows are not 'real', therefore they have no education value

Reality shows are real; they are real people operating without scripts and often, live. The fact that characters are often cast to encourage disagreements or tension does not take away from the reality of the program, in fact it only adds to it. The unrealistic settings of shows like Big Brother and Survivor do not take away from the educational value of observing how they cope. In fact, without such shows, most people would have little concept of how a group of strangers would be able to survive, co-operate and develop in such environments. As Time describes, 'they provoke, they offend but at least it's trying to do something besides help you get to sleep'. The insight therefore into the human condition is invaluable, and it is little surprise that viewers are eager to watch such programs. What is real is not always the same as what is normal, the events on Survivor Island are no less real for being in an unrealistic setting.
Reality television is popular and TV producers should give audiences what they want

Reality television is not what audiences want, it is watched simply because it is ‘there’. It is what John Humphrys calls ‘carbohydrate television’, it ‘probably hasn’t done you much harm and if it leaves you feeling a bit bloated…well you can search out of a bit of quality stuff’.[1] With tens of television channels and twenty-four hours of programming to fill, reality is simply a cheap means to ensure there is always something on TV to watch. In Italy, the evidence supports such claims, with the state broadcaster Rai deciding to scrap reality programmes in 2008 due to low demand.[2] As Rai’s President stated, ‘I don’t believe they are the type of shows the majority of our viewers expect or want from a public service broadcaster’.[3] [1] Humphrys, John. “Take this oath: First, do no harm.” 28 August 2004. The Guardian. 4 July 2011. [2] Fraser, Christian. “Italian TV bins reality shows.” 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011. [3] Fraser, Christian. “Italian TV bins reality shows.” 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011.
Reality TV can be educational and have real effects in society in a way other television programmes do not

The few reality TV programmes that are educational and beneficial do not balance the bad majority. The majority are not educational, either to the public or the participants, and the insight they purport to offer into the human psyche are misguided. As Vanessa Feltz, a contestant on the British Big Brother series, describes, contestants and viewers alike 'subscribe to this utterly specious notion that fame is entirely desirable' (BBC News, 2001), whilst Narinda Kaur, another contestant on the show, admitted "I came away from this experience thinking 'oh my God, did I really say that?" (BBC News, 2001). As Claudio Petruccioli, head of the Italian state broadcaster Rai, notes, 'reality TV shows put people into environments that are both unrealistic and coercive'1 Any lessons learned are therefore inapplicable to real-world situations. 1 Fraser, C. (2007, April 3). Italian TV bins reality shows. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from BBC News:
The public can always just turn reality programmes off, or watch something else

Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and series can go on for months on end, providing hundreds of hours of viewing to fill schedules. TV bosses like this and are cutting back on comedy, music, drama and current affairs in favour of wall to wall reality rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows crowd the schedules of public service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC in the UK, France Télévisions, or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and educate the public. They should be made to meet that responsibility – as Rai has by saying it won’t have any more reality shows.
Reality television forces us to analyse our own behaviour as a society

Reality TV is less about exposing society and allowing us to evaluate our own behaviour than it is about 're-inforcing particular social norms'1. As such, it is deliberately misleading. If it is portrayed as being real, it implies authenticity and honesty, two things that most reality TV programmes are not. They serve not to challenge our views of society, but reinforce the often false notions we already collectively hold. For example, the US reality show "Are You Hot?" asks competitors to submit to appearance-rating by judges, only re-inforcing the false premise that one is defined solely by the way they look2. Furthermore, even if accepted that reality shows do present a 'real' image of society, programmes like Big Brother and Survivor erode the distinction between public and private, turning 'people with real lives and real problems and real children (into) entertainment'3. Society's entertainment cannot be allowed to come at the expense of the privacy that protects families and children. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker 2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today  3 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:
The sheer number of reality programmes is now driving TV producers to create filthier, more corrupt reality shows

Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes more and more used to the genre. In a search for ratings and media coverage, shows are becoming ever more vulgar and offensive, trying to find new ways to shock. When the British Big Brother was struggling for viewers in 2003, its producers responded by attempting to shock the audience that little bit more1. "Big Brother" programmes have also shown men and women having sex on live TV in a desperate grab higher ratings to justify their continued existence. Others have involved fights and racist bullying. Do we let things continue until someone has to die on TV to boost the ratings? When reality is "constructed" then it substitutes the "natural" reality. This in turn has adverse effect on the natural growth of the children who are either actively involved into it or as audience become a passive recepient. We therefore in a pursuit of commercialization are taking away an inalienable right of children i.e. full personality development in a natural environment which is not contaminated by "constructed" reality. 1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian: improve this
The dream of a white Christmas satisfies a need for hope deep within us.

If the idea of a white Christmas is pagan then we should drop it. We are not pagan anymore and we have a modern understanding of the seasons. If the festival was all about the shortest day, then much of the world's population would be left out. Everyone in the southern hemisphere would have to celebrate the festival in June. Those near the equator would never get to celebrate at all. Christmas should unite humanity, not split it apart. improve this
Christmas is inextricably linked with an image of a snowy wonderland.

A white Christmas is not traditional. Even in northern countries such as Great Britain snow has always been very rare in December – it is much more likely to fall later in the winter. It’s all Charles Dickens’ fault – he grew up in the unusually snowy 1810s, and later wrote snowy scenes into his popular Christmas stories, such as “A Christmas Carol”. Even in the 19th Century, snow at Christmas was uncommon, and in many places today it is quite rare (Western Europe, most of the USA) or impossible (southern hemisphere countries like Australia). It is better to enjoy Christmas for what it is rather than feeling sorry every year that it doesn’t live up to some storybook picture. improve this
Wishing for a white Christmas shows a desire to return to the true nature of the holiday

It might suit the non-religious people who run much of the media to say that, but it strips Christmas of all real meaning. The truth is that anyone can celebrate Christ's birth at Christmas, whether they are in snowy Lapland, summery Australia or tropical Africa. Christmas has nothing to do with snow; it is the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth in a Bethlehem stable. Snow is not mentioned in the Bible story and it is very, very rare in Bethlehem. Seeing the holiday as just a snowy winter festival is a way of taking Christ out of Christmas. improve this
There is nothing Christmassy about snow.

Snow is actually a lot of fun. It makes even the dullest countryside or ugliest town look beautiful, even magical. Snow changes everything, yet it is fragile and short-lived. Children love to stamp and slide in snow, to crunch it together to create snowmen and play snowballs. Young people enjoy healthy winter sports like skiing and skating. Older adults enjoy sharing the romance of a snowy landscape over a warming drink, and remembering happy childhood winters. There is no wonder people dream of a white Christmas; it's a magical image.
Global warming has made White Christmas an image of the past

White Christmases may not be common any more but we can still dream of them. The scientists say that climate change is warming the world and many places that used to get snow in winter (e.g. Moscow, New York) will see it much more rarely in future. But our desire for a white Christmas just like the ones we used to know symbolizes our awareness of climate change. This issue could help shift public opinion in favor of tackling global warming.
The dream of a white Christmas satisfies a need for hope deep within us.

The ideal of a white Christmas also speaks to the old pagan festivals. The winter solstice (Yule, Saturnalia) was a time of hope in the cold and darkness, as nights stopped getting longer and people looked for the promise of new birth in springtime. The Christian Church recognized the power of existing winter festivals and chose December 25th for their own nativity celebrations. People still feel a need to move in time with the seasons, and snow represents winter at its most extreme. For these reasons the dream of a white Christmas satisfies a need deep within us. improve this
Christmas is inextricably linked with an image of a snowy wonderland.

We all love the traditional white Christmas. When we think of Christmas we see snowy scenes, with people skating and sledging, and children making snowballs and snowmen. Later the families gather inside around a warm fire to celebrate. This is the sort of Christmas shown on greeting cards and celebrated in so many songs (for example, White Christmas, Jingle Bells, Frosty the Snowman, Walking in a Winter Wonderland, etc.). It isn't a proper Christmas without snow. "The interest in snowy Christmases has its origins in the colder climate of the period 1550–1850 when Britain was in the grip of a ‘Little Ice Age’[2] That way, the traditional image was created. improve this
Wishing for a white Christmas shows a desire to return to the true nature of the holiday

For most people Christmas today is not about a religious festival, but about consumption, greed and shopping. Wishing for a snowy white Christmas is about turning the clock back to a time when life was simpler. Instead of focusing on getting presents, getting fat and getting drunk, a white Christmas is something money can't buy. It symbolizes time with family, playing outdoors in the snow, making your own entertainment and enjoying the wonder of nature. Who wouldn't prefer a Christmas like that?
There is nothing Christmassy about snow.

Snow can look lovely but the novelty soon wears off. Snow is cold and wet and the ice that comes with it is dangerously slippery. Every year even light snow causes broken bones and other injuries. Heavy snow is worse – it can leave elderly people trapped in their houses, bring down power lines, shut down transport systems and cause deaths through both cold and car accidents. None of this is remotely Christmassy. Snow can even wreck Christmas for many families, as travel hold-ups prevent relatives from reaching them for the celebration. As the BBC wrote in December 2010, “The wintry weather has caused chaos for many thousands of travelers trying to get to their destination of choice for Christmas."
Global warming has made White Christmas an image of the past

Global Warming means that few people will ever get to see a white Christmas. Many of the most populated areas of Western Europe and the USA could once expect snow at Christmastime, so perhaps the idea of a white Christmas once had real meaning. Now we have to accept that those days have gone. Mankind's damage to the world's climate means we have to get use to a coldish, greyish Christmas each year. There is no point dreaming, and denial can even be harmful, as we will be disappointed every year. We need to learn to love Christmas for what it is in the modern world.
An amnesty policy will serve only to alienate regimes, shutting down the possibility of discourse or reform

All countries, even authoritarian ones, desire to be considered legitimate and valued in the international community. The weight of condemnation that a policy of amnesty creates is one that bears down heavily on repressive regimes and can galvanize them to reform. Furthermore, it is essential that Western governments nurture dissidents and give them shelter so they can continue their mission to attain justice rather than be thrown into jail.
The liberal democratic paradigm is not the only legitimate model of government, a fact that democracies should accept and embrace

Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.
The offer of amnesty allows home governments to discredit bloggers and paint them as foreign agents of disruption

People in oppressive regimes are smart enough to know when they are being duped. They will listen if the bloggers have a good point and are being unjustifiably persecuted. In the case of the Japan-China territorial dispute, there is the tangible fact that the islands are being fought over for nationalists to attach to irrespective of ideology. Offering amnesty is simply an offer to rescue people facing imminent unjust punishment. While governments will no doubt seek to paint them as foreign agents, their ideas will be able to continue to battle in the public sphere, rather than be shut off forever with the closing of a prison-cell door.
Democracies should be wary of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries

An amnesty would clearly only be offered under certain circumstances. In cases where there are judicial proceedings then the offer of an amnesty could only take effect when the individual being offered it is released and able to take advantage of the offer. It is also wrong to consider that an offer of an amnesty is unwarranted interference in internal affairs; the country in question clearly objects to what the blogger is doing so this is opening an avenue where both the state and blogger get what they want.
These people are under serious threat for their pursuit of justice

The internet has become the paramount means of voicing dissent within repressive regimes. As the technology regimes have to keep control of their people increases, with access to high-tech surveillance technology adding to their already formidable arsenals of physical oppression, the internet has become the only platform to express meaningful dissent. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been dubbed the Twitter Revolution.[1] Bloggers have become a major voice of dissent in other repressive regimes, including Cuba and China. Yet the blog platform is far from safe. Governments have sought to crack down on bloggers’ ability to dissent, using draconian methods like imprisonment to cow them into silence. In China the arrests of bloggers like Zhai Xiaobing, who was arrested and detained for simply posting a joke about Communist Party, have served to frighten many into silence.[2] So long as information is denied to the public, governments are able to maintain their repression. Only external help from democratic, or at least more liberal, states can provide the safe haven for people who have rubbed their governments the wrong way in their pursuit of reform and justice. [1] Zuckerman, E. “The First Twitter Revolution?”. Foreign Policy. 14 January 2011. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/14/the_first_twitter_revolution [2] Wong, G. “Zhai Xiaobing, Chinese Blogger, Arrested for Twitter Joke About China’s Government”. Huffington Post. 21 November 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/zhai-xiaobing-arrested-china-twitter-joke_n_2170462.html