BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Additional taxes on fatty food would create a disincentive to buy it. Consumers would be stimulated ...

Fatty food will remain cheaper than healthy juices, vegetable, fruit and bio-food, therefore consumers won't change their eating habits. People who cannot afford lots of fresh vegetables and lean meats will still buy fatty food, even if it is more expensive than before, so the poor will be penalised financially without any dietary gain. Fast food will also remain more adequate for the fast lifestyle than slow food. Many people don’t want to eat supposedly “healthy food”. At Berkeley, food sales to students dropped 30%-50% after cafeterias were forced to limit the menu to organic 'healthy' food.
Playing like God

Since ancient times there was the unwritten rule not to attack an unarmed person, but the nations have evolved towards killing a suspect and unarmed person without even putting oneself in danger. This kind of action has the effect of distorting the idea of fighting and taking the life like a joke. First of all, the most common used remotely controlled weapons are those used by the Israeli army in Gaza. And what is even more important is that women are those pushing the button, because there are not enough men to deal with the dangers. Besides that, the religion is not against putting women to this, because it is not like putting their lives in danger. And this can lead to augmenting the Israeli army by the use of those human beings that should be mothers and wives. These women will become more insensitive and abnormal. People should try to prevent this transformation in animals, in primitive men and women. Killing from the distance means killing with cold blood. In fact, this means playing the role of God and no one should be left to decide who is suspect and has to be killed and who has the right to live.
The human transformation into evil

There was a reason for which every nation has its army, formed by trained people that know the rules of the war. We shouldn’t transform the entire nation in combatants and persons that burry their souls just to brave it out. This direction of evolution will lead to an involution that is not desirable and should not be accepted! This remote killing technology was first used for spying but then it started to be used for killing. And this happened because of the declining recruitment levels and a population less ready to risk death in combat. But this desire to stop risking their lives in combats should force sides to find more democratic ways to solve the conflicts, not to find more convenient ways to depersonalise killing and kill with impunity!
The human transformation into evil 2

The opposition states that less soldiers will die in the field. This depends on which side we look from: less from our soldiers and more from their soldiers and even civil people. The proposition is of opinion that things shouldn’t be let to arrive to such cruelty, but people should try to solve these conflicts more democratically. It is true that with terorists one cannot negociate, but not the terorists are the biggest issue when it comes to using the remotelly controlled weapons. Higher political issues are at stake, such as aquiring new teritories, oil or even pride. This has nothing to do with defending from external threat when the attack comes from a remotelly controlled system. The opposition states that „it is not about creating automatic robots to replace our soldiers” but the proposition would like to ask how is this afirmation going to stand when both sides will use remotelly controlled weapons at the same time? When things arrive to that, there will be a robots fight and no human being will be injured or killed. Are we willing to arrive to that? If this can be envisaged, then we could also imagine that due to the boost of technological development, that „robot” could take over the control and could start not to listen anymore to the orders of the human combatant. This is why the proposition is of opinion that peoples should draw a line when it comes to fighting and remotelly controlled weapon shouldn’t be among what is acceptable. People should learn to say no to cruelty and to turn their attention towards other means of gaining what they need, means that don’t involve violence of such intensity.
We put in danger less people in the combat

First of all, we do not know what „indiscriminated” refers to. If our deduction is correct and the idea is that women can participate in combats as well as men, then there is no contradiction between us at all. We agree that women can participate in combats as well as men. The idea is that women should as well have a special training, which is not the case in our exemple with „Spot and Shoot”, in Gaza. [[http://www.jkcook.net/Articles3/0503.htm]] Secondly, the accuracy of the target location has nothing to do with remotely controlled weapons, because these targets can be distroyed even with the traditional kind of weapons. In this point, the opposition refers to an exact localisation of the target and not to the advantages of remotelly controlled weapons when such an exact target is found. This is why this argument cannot be taken into consideration.
Better trained military forces

Contrary of what proposition said, the use of this kind of weapons is going to create a better trained military forces, because their use and more their develop requires special forces. As in an enterprise when it comes a new technological solution, it comes with training sessions to workers. In developed countries, the more trained forces are in special agencies, as the CIA in the United States, and that kind of agencies are the main users of that kind of weapons because they have to work secretly. So, what Proposition States about less trained forces in Gaza is just a phenomenon particular but it's not the rule. Also, who develop this kind of weapons? Scientist in the military labs. In this order fo ideas, if a country want to use remotely controlled weapons they need to invest at least in trainers, in the other way, they are going to be as a amateur football player with a professional football sneakers. Dangerous, but no so difficult to defeat.
Arbitrary executions

Arbitrary executions are not related with the kind of weapon autorized to use. In the Middle Earth there were several ones with fire and swords, in the war against the witchcraft and heresy, where several suspects were not prosecuted in a fair trail, if they get any. Another example is Chile during the Pinochet's dictatorship where there were thousands of arbitrary executions, without the need of Remotely Controlled Weapons. So, this phenomenon is more related to the mind whom have the weapons, and not what kind of weapons is allowed to use. Also, who said that the remotely controlled weapons were going to be managed by not qualify personal or that the others ones are only used by qualified persons?
Too low accuracy

That also happens with no remotely controlled weapons, one example is the stray bullets cases. In Colombia, last year was a two to three victims of stray bullets per week according to ElTiempo newspaper [[http://bit.ly/cshZH6]]. Also, bombs have a low accuracy if you want to kill just one person. In the other hand, with high developed remotely controlled weapons, for example micro-bots. Militaries could kill just a person with a DNA match, that would give the hightest accuracy possible in the world.
We put in danger less people in the combat

The use of this kind of weapons is not indiscriminated, according to the article 9 of the Universality Promotion of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons - ONU 2009 (1). The States have the obligation to keep notes about location, maps, diagrams and technical information to protect the civil population. Otherwise, whit this kind of weapons, less inocent people can be hurt, because the specific targets, like terrorists, are precisely located by high technology and civil population will not be involved in a firefight. The attack is more direct and avoyd mistakes of this character (1)http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/ODAPublications/OccasionalPapers/PDF/OP17-S.pdf
More tactical combats

If we make a rewind, in the era of the sword the soldiers where more risky, the danger was near to them, they could see their enemy in front of them. With the develop of new weapons, the guns came and they became more cautious, due to the possibility of being killed by a bullet shooted anywhere, and not necessarily by an enemy in front of them. We had archs in the sword era, but their low accuracy and range of attact can't be compared with the guns of nowadays. For that reason, they became more strategical and tactical in war for winning it. Indeed, we don't need to look at the past. In the present we have the example of the hebrew-arab conflicts. They don't have all the technological war advances that the developed countries have. But they don't fear to death, and for that reason they act in combat in a rush way, without thinking neither in the own civil people nor in themselves. In fact, they don't care if they have to be the bomb. That why they are very dangerous with any kind of weapons. An in this part, we have to emphasize thar Proposition have state several times that with remotely controlled weapons soldiers will became cowards in some way, but, as we can see in the hebrew-arab conflict, even if they have acces to some kind of these weapons, they still don't fear to death, moreover, for them it's an honor to die in the name of that war. Besides, this kind of weapons brings to military forces new possibilities for creating strategies which were not seeing before, in the same way that new dangers appear, also new ways of defense are born. It's like the war between the mal-ware and the Security Software Suites, at the begining they were only the virus and the anti-virus, now there are a lot of new threats but also new means of protecction, so, the real danger is technical the same.
Arbitrary executions

This idea leads the proposition to its second argument, which is that remotely controlled weapons lead to extrajudicial, arbitrary executions. This kind of killing implies that the person in front of the monitor has to kill whoever seems suspect. But even a not guilty person or a person that is not the enemy may look suspect. And this can lead to killing just so, without even giving the chance to explain oneself. This argument is intensified by the idea that the notion of suspect is relative and it depends from who is judging. A combatant with more experience on field can see other things like suspect than a woman who has no background in humanitarian law or the laws of war and that is being given a remote control, and told to blow up things that might be linked to terrorist networks.
Too low accuracy

The drone strikes are killing as many as 50 unintended targets for each intended one, meaning that 49 innocent or unaffiliated targets get blown up for every successful drone launch. {sursa} This means an accuracy of .02 percent. And when the target is a human being, this indiference towards unwanted casualities is what transforms the „button pusher” into an animal that kills with cold blood. How much time is there needed to actually understand that not making to dissapear the obstacle, but the force of convincing and the acceptable compromises are what should be used in democratic „combats”. People get born and die. But how many victims are needed to understand that this is not the way to solve any conflict?! Our opinion is that life should be considered more valuable and should be more protected. Otherwise there will be no line of distinction between the human being and those animals that kill in order to protect their teritory.
Arbitrary executions 2

I would like to think that we have evolved since the heresy executions and the dictatorships. First of all, the heresy has dissapeared more or less, since it has appeared the idea of non discrimination on grounds of religion and since this concept has been stipulated in several charters of human rights. Secondly, the opposition to dictatorships brought the implosion of the Soviet Union and this shows the disagreement of millions of people with this illegitimate regime. It is true that these two were the main causes of arbitrary executions, but they have been abolished. It would be unacceptable to bring another cause that could generate again arbitrary executions when such a progress has been made.
That give a boost to scientific development in wireless technology

This argument is countered by the fact that „attacking another one without selfputting in danger”, as the opposition states, is not likely to trigger that neurobiology process that preserves any living entity. As far as the second idea is concerned, that in military things go quicker, the general opinion is that remotelly controlled weapons are not used in response to an external threat, but to attack by taking advantage of the surprise and lack of protection. This is what leads to the conclusion that by the use of this kind of weapons life is taken like a joke. Besides that, when wireless technology is used, there appears a certain vulnerability which comes from what hackers can do in this century. They can take advantage of these systems and hijack the missiles or bullets. This makes place to more chaos and lower accuracy. This kind of vulnerability cannot be met when the combatant is on spot and at the trigger. Moreover, the proposition is of opinion that when life is compared to the boost of scientific development, the first should win. This means that a sluggish evolution is preferable to a depersonalised killing operated by not so trained people. We are continuing with this idea that remotelly controlled weapons are going to be used by not so trained people due to the fact that female soldiers are preferred to operate remote killing devices because of a shortage of male recruits to combat units. Our quoted source continues by saying that the Spot and Shoot system has mostly attracted attention in Israel because it is operated by 19- and 20-year-old female soldiers, making it the Israeli army’s only weapons system operated exclusively by women [[http://www.jkcook.net/Articles3/0503.htm]]. I don’t know what the opposition’s impression is, but a 19 years old teenager cannot be considered as a trained soldier!
Playing like God

It's true that there are war rules, but it's also a fact that they have been breaked a lot of times. Since ancient times people has used mercenaries and assasin for attacking another one without selfputting in danger [[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_Herodotus]]. The most famous example are the Hashshashins, an order of assasins well-known in the midle east, they exist since the midle age, very cautious and well trained to eleminated their designated targets without been spotted. Also, there is no relation between ban or not ban this kind of weapons, an the women participation in war. Militaries forces are formed by men and women. Besides, that not the matter in this debate. Anyway, war is a war, and it's dangerous, cruel and bloody, and it doesn't make difference of genre or anything. In the other hand, the use of Remotely Controlled Weapons Systems could give a new dimensions in tactics, although the intentions and the harm caused by the war are going to persist in the same measure, as we are going to prove in our arguments. However, there is a plenty of improvements for our life, including the civil one, if we don't ban this kind of weapons.
Colombia Summary

Time comes with changes, human mind creates everyday new dangers but also new solutions. In the war is the same, new ways to attack and to defend are born every year. The search for the utopia of a humanized war has banned some kind of weapons and strategies, as the bioweapons [[http://www.unog.ch/bwc/]] due to the big threat that they represent. Despite that rules of war are not always obeyed, humans wonder today if Remotely Controlled Weapons Systems should not be used in Combat, and as we have proved through this debate, there is no reason for this prohibition, as it can be appreciate in the three points of clash in the present. First, the proppositon states that with this kind of weapons the war will become more bloody and cruel, specially for the civil population that can be attacked from very far and with a no trained staff. We have show that a War is a War, and the use of Remotelly Controlled Weapons only change the means, and not the results. In fact, they'll be able to bring into war the best accuracy possible with DNA match, and there is the possiblity that one day the first steps of war will be between machines and not humans. Also, at least in Developed Countries, military force have notes about location, maps, diagrams and technical information to protect the civil population (because all states have to keep that information, as we have showed before) , that could guarantee a not indiscriminate use of this kind of arms. Second, the propposition states that promoting this kind of weapons, nations are going to have worse trained military forces and cowardly ones, as they have show with the Gaza example. But Opposition has proved that there is no relation between those facts. Indeed, we have the example of the CIA in the United States, with its well trained agents, and also the need of great scientist and trainers for developing and efectively use of the Remotelly Controlled Weapons. Besides, we have to keep in mind that in the middle east people doesn't fear to death, it's and honor to die in battle, aspect essential that influence their way to fight. Third, opposition have demonstrated that there are some benefits around the use of the weapons which are the matter of this debate. As it have been around the history, military always boost the science and the technology, Internet and Airplanes are just two examples of that phenomenon. With remotely controlled weapons, the wireless communication and the mechatronics engineering are going to evolve in order to create more secure protocols and more efficient machines. Also, we open a door of new way to make the war, with better strategies that could involve less civil population than the ones used today. Then, as it can be appreciated, there is no reason for banned the Remotelly Controled Weapons Systems, they are not going to create a worse war and besides, they comes with benefits for civil and military population.
The human transformation into evil

A.C Clark said one wise phrase once: “Since the stone ax until the remote-controlled rocket, is awesome how much the technique has been progressed... and how lillte the intentions have varied” The tecnchology in every process of the human life looks up into one goal: to help the human been for he to enjoy his life. This caractheristic is not different in the war subject, because whit the Remotely Controlled Weapons System, less soldiers will be needed by the goverments, less soldiers will die in the war field, and the troops will avoy injuries with bullets or other kind of weapons involved whit the combat . “this is the beggining of a deep transformation in our Army -Said Antony Sebasto, associate director of the Armament Engineering and Technology Army to the paper La Nación- Is not about create automaton robots for replace our soldiers, but to increase the efficacy and the level of survival of our troops in the field” By other hand, these weapons are going to be used by the same trained humans. There is no relation between kind of weapon and trained or not forces,because one soldier could use several weapons at the same time.
The human transformation into evil 2

As we have said, they are going to be less victims, not only because they are going to be less humans in the fire of war, but also due to remotely controlled weapons could develop the best accuracy posibble in the world such as we have showed in our arguments. Besides, there is no relation between the use of that kind of weapons and consider or no the existence of a external threat. That only changes the mean and not the situation. For anyone is a threat to be in danger of being killed, it doesn't matter how. About the possiblity to use robots instead of soldiers. First, we talk about robots as "A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control" [[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/robot]]. Second, if we could get to use robots instead of soldier in the battle field completely, we would humanize the war, leaving the human out of danger in the first steps of an eventual warfare. Third, there is no prove for stating that robots could gain conscience, anyway, it's just a matter of turning off the machine for eliminate it. Finally, as we have said before, a war is war, with any kind of weapons there is going to be blood and pain. However, if we put our sigth to the Cold War era, we could say that Remotely Controlled Weapons can prevents real combats. It was thanks to the continual threat of the remotely launch of nuclear missiles that neither the US nor the USSR start a truth warfare.
Romania proposition summary

The opposition is of opinion that remotely controlled weapons should be used in combats, based on arguments like high accuracy, technological development, the possibilities to develop new strategies or the prevention of real combats. All these ideas are arguments in favor of wars, those combats in which millions of people die for nothing, where life doesn’t count anymore. One cannot say that for the sake of avertting the short circuits or the quantity of wires in the house it is ok that millions of people die. Moreover, the argument with the highest accuracy cannot be associated with the idea that less people will die. Perhaps less casualties will be, but more people will die at a higher accuracy. More enemies, but still people. The opposition states that when a country wants to use a RCS, it will invest in trainings. This could be true if there are advantages that come from these trainings. But when the goal is reached even without training (meaning that the target dies, even if inocent people die as well), I wonder whether those trainings would take place. Gaza is an exemple of that, even if it is not the rule. The proposition doesn’t say that RCS would turn soldiers into cowards, but that less people are willing to risk their lives in combats and these two ideas aren’t synonyms. Not to wish to die for things that can be achevied by other means, even slower, doesn’t make you a coward, but a person that understands the value of life. We could understand to use any means to protect life, like when a threat appears. But it is clear as daylight that RCS aren’t going to be used in a defense purpose, but to sustain strategies that have to do with teritorries, oil or just dominance. It is hard to believe that states will invest enormous sums to train soldiers in using RCS just to be prepared if somtehing happens. Besides that, there is no wonder that the first states that have RCS are the developped ones and not the little and unprotected ones. So the question that arises is whom are the great states standing in fear of? And the answer is no one . And this is the clue that indicates the real targets of RCS when they are in the hands of the developped countries. And this argumentation strengthens even more the idea that it is too dangerous to allow RCS use in combats. This is why the proposition is of opinion that remotely controlled weapons should not be used in combats!