BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.N Backed Up the actions of the United States

The U.N charter authorized force to “Reverse or repel aggression by one state against another”. The aggression in the Korean War was the invasion of South Korea by their neighbors to the North. The United States sanctioned the United States or other powers using force against their invasion. Russia, in charge of North Korea, would have had the opportunity to block the action, but they were boycotting the U.N security council at the time. This was due to their proposal of unseating a Nationalist Chinese Delegation. This proposal was not fulfilled, and the Soviets were angry. The United States had claimed that North Korea had broken world peace. Nine out of 11 nations on the security council sanctioned the following order to North Korea to withdraw from South. When they didn’t, the United Nations formed a joint command from 16 different countries. It was mainly populated and led by the United States. Article 41: “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.” Article 42, if article 41 isn’t adequate: “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.” In the Korean War, North Korea had already attacked. To prevent further deaths of South Koreans, military interjection was necessary. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviets-boycott-united-nations-security-council http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_korean_war.htm
Both sides of the the conflict were supported by a superpower. (North: USSR, South:USA)

After WW2 the U.S gave the Empire of Japan no choice but to surrender after we dropped a nukes on both nagasaki and hiroshima in september of 1945. upon their surrender the United States divided the peninsula into two parts, South Korea and North Korea. The U.S military occupied the southern part of Korea while the Soviet Union occupied the Northern half. North Korea established a communist government while the south was under a Right Wing government. A Right Wing government is a government that supports social hierarchy and social inequality. While North Korea was planning to go to war the Soviets had a huge impact on the planes of attack. Not only were they planning the invasion they supplied the Koreans with soviot tank’s, guns, bombs, and soldiers.
Many American officials feared it was the first step in the communist takeover of the world.

Immediately after World War 2, Soviet expansion was allowed by the UN, as Stalin insisted that ally buffer countries were necessary to prevent another invasion like that of the Nazis. However, by the onset of the Korean War, Soviet forces had already taken over much of Europe, putting into place Communist regimes throughout the east that the Soviets could influence with ease. It was clear that the Soviet Union had plans for the expansion of its influence across Europe; it was also clear to many capitalist nations, that something had to be done to stop the spread of communism. Such actions would have to be taken carefully as the Soviet Union had quickly become a formidable force, with power to rival the combined forces of the west. By the time North Korea invaded the South on June 25, 1950, a popular idea about the spread of communism arose, “the domino theory”. The domino theory was essentially the idea that if one nation fell to communism in an area, those that surrounded it would surely follow, owing much to its namesake in this respect. As a result, the United States’ foreign policy became much more aggressive towards the spread of communism. Responding to even purely political actions taken by the Soviets with military response. So when the communist North Koreans pushed South Korean forces all the way back to the southernmost tip; when Southern defeat seemed imminent, US involvement was unavoidable. The loss of one of the few capitalist nations remaining in the East opened the eyes of many western leaders; to them it became evident that The Soviet Union's end goal was not only expansion across the East, but rather, expansion across the globe. The US forces began by first returning South Korea to capitalist leadership which by outnumbering North Korean forces was done rather quickly, averting South Korea from a fate of communist control.
America wanted to spread capitalism

The United States was never directly attacked in this war. North and South Korea were the countries at war. However, South Korea was under the command of the United States while North was in the hands of the Soviets. When North Korea was attacked, the United States called for the U.N to create an army mainly comprised of United States soldiers. So without any threat to the well being of our country,(aside from economic) our soldiers died to defend a foreign country. On top of that, our involvement caused even more countries to enter the war. A team of 14 countries came to aid the United States, as decided on by the U.N. Now we have a war between two countries had now caused another country to join, which in turn convinced 14 more countries to share in the fighting. That wasn’t the last of it. Once the U.N stepped in, the Chinese sent troops to Korea and fought against the U.N soldiers. With the whole U.N army comprised of 15 different countries, one may expect there to have been results. However, the war ended up in a tie. The 38th parallel again served as the dividing line between the two countries. For a war with little to no payoff for the U.S, and no direct attack of endangerment of their citizens, they sure involved a large amount of soldiers from countries that had nothing to do with the fighting beforehand. It would have been best for the United States to have minded its own business.
Professional cheerleaders cause lots of harm in terms of views of women, but add little to sport. I...

Professional cheerleaders cause lots of harm in terms of views of women, but add little to sport. It is clear that cheerleaders are not necessary to bring about audience participation. Fans at soccer matches in the UK are very animated without the presence of cheerleaders. The same is true at important tennis matches. Getting rid of professional cheerleaders would allow fans to focus properly on the game itself.
Professional cheerleaders cause men to think of women as objects. They exist on the sideline, weari...

Professional cheerleaders cause men to think of women as objects. They exist on the sideline, wearing short skirts and looking pretty, whilst the male sports players are the heroes. This affects the way that men view women more generally. It makes them think that women are less important than men. Even where professional cheerleading squads contain men, this view of women is reinforced: male cheerleaders lift women and throw them around as if they are objects and only there for decoration.
The fact that cheerleaders want to do the activity is less important than the impact that it has on ...

It is not clear that watching cheerleaders makes men and women think less of women. There are hundreds of factors which might contribute to women being viewed as less important, such as the fact that there are many fewer female politicians or managing directors than male politicians and managing directors. Banning professional cheerleaders won’t stop these attitudes from existing. In addition, images of women wearing few clothes and looking thin and pretty are present all over newspapers, magazines, TV and advertising. These images probably have a much greater impact on the way that people view women than cheerleading does.
The fact that cheerleaders want to do the activity is less important than the impact that it has on ...

The fact that cheerleaders want to do the activity is less important than the impact that it has on the way that people think about women in general. If I do something that seriously harms somebody else, that person should be able to stop me from doing it if the harm to me considerably outweighs the benefit to them. The fact that I want to be a cheerleader is outweighed by the harm caused to other women. Not only do men view women as inferior as a result of watching them on the sidelines, but women also begin to believe that they are inferior. They see cheerleaders supporting men and being paid a lot less than the male sports stars, and they begin to think that it is normal for women to be less important.
Professional cheerleaders are bad role models for women, and especially for teenagers who take part ...

It is not true that high school and college cheerleaders necessarily look up to professional cheerleaders. Often, cheerleading squads within schools focus on competitions and on representing their school, without wearing these sorts of outfits. These squads try really hard to improve the acrobatic elements of their routines in order to be better than other squads. They develop confidence and self-esteem through being part of a team. The influence of professional cheerleaders is minimal.
Professional cheerleaders are bad role models for women, and especially for teenagers who take part ...

Professional cheerleaders are bad role models for women, and especially for teenagers who take part in cheerleading. They tend to wear shorter skirts and show more of their skin than college and high school cheerleaders. In addition, their routines tend to be more obviously sexual, and less focused on gymnastic stunts. This encourages young girls who do cheerleading as an extra-curricular activity at school to act in this way too. Banning professional cheerleaders would remove this bad influence.
The presence of cheerleaders standing on the side lines in men’s sports detracts from the success th...

There is no reason why professional cheerleaders cannot be respected for the athletic talent that cheerleading requires. If we want women’s sport to be more respected, it might be necessary to spend more money promoting games or force the media to cover a larger number of female sporting events, rather than focusing on men. However, professional cheerleaders do not stop any of these sports from being treated seriously.
The presence of cheerleaders standing on the side lines in men’s sports detracts from the success th...

The presence of cheerleaders standing on the side lines in men’s sports detracts from the success that women achieve as sports players in their own right. Women are very talented at sport, as demonstrated by Venus and Serena Williams in tennis, Paula Radcliff in athletics or Nastia Liukin in gymnastics. However, when people see cheerleaders they are more likely to view women’s role in sport as one confined to looking pretty on the sidelines. Women’s sport already receives a lot less coverage than men’s sport, and it is important to promote the success that women achieve. Professional cheerleaders detract from this.
Professional cheerleaders discourage lots of women, religious people and families from attending pro...

Professional cheerleaders discourage lots of women, religious people and families from attending professional sports games. Many people do not want to watch women dancing on the pitch wearing skimpy clothes, so do not attend. Similarly, they do not bring their children because they think that it is inappropriate. Professional sports games are a great way to bring people together to form a community. It also encourages children to take part in sport themselves, improving their health. Professional cheerleaders are harmful because they discourage such attendance.
People are misguided as to cost allocation

People seem to be under the impression that the maintenance of roads is free and therefore think that public transport should also be free [[http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/transit_should.php]]. However, people pay road tax to cover the costs for roads. There is also the high level of tax paid on petrol, making the Government 23.6 billion GBP a year. [[http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/6/F/pbr_csr07_endofyear321.pdf]] This is how the money is obtained to pay for the roads, they are not free. If public transport were made free, we would be made to pay for the service via a tax. There is little point in doing this, all it is doing is transferring costs from direct payment to indirect taxation.
Will open opportunities for new businesses

If people were able to travel easily to areas slightly out of urban areas then businesses could take advantage of cheaper ground rents out of the city and yet easy access to employees. With more businesses able to start up, the Government would be able to take advantage of more tax. This would mean less benefits paid for unemployment benefit as jobs are created out of the city, and more tax via income tax, and then more tax revenue via corporation tax on the business. This additional revenue could offset the loss of income from public transport. In our dying economy, this is what is needed.
private companies

Private companies can not afford to provide free transportation on its own without the support of government and if government provide this facility then the huge part of budget will go in this sector and then the government how can manage the other basic needs of public like health, education and other necessary public services. There are two types of public transport: run by the government and by the private companies. While the later seems impossible to provide free-of-charge transport, the former has the possibility of providing what the private companies can't. In one hand this policy would make lessen people's expenses in transport but in the other hand it's killing the income of the private companies since people would choose the free-of-charge transport.
Bus driver's salary, and crowded transport.

Alot of people only make money from driving bus's around and if they do it for free how do the company's make money? This could lower the salary for the driver,s which means less money for the drivers. Also People who don't own cars will always use puplic transport making it much more crowded and less comforatble for the passengers. Do you want to walk into a bus filled with so many people you have to stand? Not to mention alot of people walk to places using less gas, and if everyone uses bus's that will make the weight of the bus heavier resulting in using more gas. Not to mention if its free the idea of puplic transport will be more popular so the companies will have to make much more (Bus's, Subways,e.t.c). Making much more Bus's will cost alot of many. These are reasons why public transport should not be free.
Will encourage people not to drive

The introduction of the Oyster card was supposed to have a similar effect. It reduced the costs of tickets and made the service more efficient, but it has done relatively little to the number of people who drive. If people have a car, they are inclined to use it rather than walking and getting transport. Public transport is always going to be cheaper than running a car, yet people still drive. It is not cost that is a motivating factor for drivers to take public transport. It is convenience.
Some people are very poor

Nothing is free,it just means taking more from the tax payer to fund it. Don't you think the taxpayer is paying enough ?. It would not and does not take the people from their cars onto the bus,it is inconvenient, and more enjoyable in the car.It will NEVER save the planet or anything else. Have you seen the free bus services and free park and ride ?. I have and the buses are EMPTY and they use 4 times more fuel than a car,and are left running at the bus stations for up to half hour at the rural bus stations. They are(as the trains are) already paid for by the tax payer anyway so it is not right to have to make up for the bit of revenue the transport takes from the passenger. A bus costs approximately £80 per hour to run, with purchase of the bus, tax and 2 insurances,fuel,wages,administration,maintenance and repairs,etc etc.No its more like £100 perhour EACH bus. The only thing the bus services are doing in rural towns and villages is keeping themselves in jobs,they are empty, and the taxpayer is paying for that.Bus fares are cheap enough in the cities. Free to some is expense to others.
How to get to work

no importance of making it free for people who don't have money and can't get to work because of it. why? 1. People who apply for job should know where their job place is, and how they can get there. if they know that they don't have money, they should've find another nearer place that they can get only by walking, etc. it is ridiculous that you apply for job without knowing where your job place is, and even if you know you're still being stubborn and take the position. 2. even if those people are being stubborn, and they still take the position, there's nothing government can do with that. look, when these people want this position, they should know the consequences of having a very far job place or things. and when the consequence is they have to pay some amountt of money because of applying for a far job place. since these people will get money by the job, so that's why this consequence belong to them.
We need to improve the transport system, this costs

In order for transport to remain environmentally friendly and efficient, it needs to be continually maintained. The Liberal democrats understood this as they argued for spending more on public transport not less[[http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/PDF/Election%20Policy/Liberal%20Democrat%20Environment%20Manifesto.pdf]]. Old buses and old trains pollute more than new systems. There are various technological developments that have helped this. However, in order for the research into technology to be conducted, in order for that research to be implemented, money is needed. Money in the public purse is in low supply. Therefore, it is not viable for the public transport system to be both environmentally friendly and free.
Will encourage people not to drive

By making public transport free, the Government would be encouraging people to use public transport instead of driving to and from work. Whilst there may be the initial lack of revenue from the ticket prices, the Government would benefit the environment. This would mean that they would have to pay less for pollution schemes and pay less for cleaning the streets. They would also have to pay less for the upkeep of roads, this upkeep of roads currently costs 15million GBP. [[http://www.freightonrail.org.uk/PDF/Research-Maintenance.pdf]] By encouraging less people to drive, the Government could cut these costs and this would help fund the free transport.
People can walk for free!

“More than half of the world’s population lives near an urban center.” With this being so, why should public transport be free? If we take the urban cities where the jobs are, where the activities are, everything is so close together that walking is a perfectly viable option. With this being so, why should the Government offer public transport for free? At the moment people have the option to either walk or get public transport. If people choose not to walk, then they should pay.
Some people are very poor

In my opinion I think that public transit should be free because there a lot of people in the world that don’t have the money to pay for there gas. Some people even have to bike to work. Some people don’t even have a car or a bike. It is even eco friendly because there would be less people on cars which means that there would be less car polling. The world will have more gas and will save money each time you take public transit because there are more people on the transit which will help the environment.
Not enough capacity

Being free will make something much more popular, in the case of public transport this is something that would be a good thing. However across the world transport networks are already at capacity. Could the London underground cope if it was free and suddenly numbers using it jumped dramatically? Probably not. Unfortunately transport infrastructure takes a long time to build so it would be a long time before there could be an increase to match ridership. This would also be costly - a cost that could obviously not be paid off by selling tickets.
We need to combat heart disease

At least they will walk to the bus stop instead of getting in their car yards from the front door! If people are inclined to walk they are unlikely to be stopped by free buses, quite the opposite, they are more likely to walk a distance for the shopping, rather than take the car, because they know that they can hop on the bus to carry it back if they acquire heavy items, or it comes on rain or the return walk is otherwise made uncongenial.
Will open opportunities for new businesses

Once something is completely free people tend not to value it all that much. However it should be priced much cheaper than it is, so that for most urban journeys it becomes the obvious choice. One problem at the moment is that regular users can usually buy a pass which is reasonable value, but the casual bus user tends to get ripped off. This means that once somebody has a car, they are likely to use it, even if a bus exists. Another problem is that many bus routes do not connect well, especially in off peak periods. One idea that would be worth trying would be to allow people to buy a year long, all routes bus pass in exchange for a single fee, payable at the same time that they pay their Local Government taxes. If urban public transport is going to succeed, it is also necessary to provide better public transport between urban centres, and from the countryside to urban centres. Many people who visit the urban centres do not live within that conurbation. Public transport to and from the countryside or even the near-town suburbs is verging on non-existant, at least in Britain. I fully identify with the point that journeys such as getting from home to a small industrial estate across town are often difficullt or even impossible. The fact that some people are very poor is largely an argument for greater fairness and equality in income distribution, rather than a public transport argument.
Bus driver's salary, and crowded transport.

The actual cost is not really an issue. Presumably the tab would simply be picked up by government. The transport being free would not make bus drivers into volunteers. However the technology is increasingly moving towards being able to have driver-less cars, so why not driver-less buses? Driver-less trains are already possible. The environmental argument you put forward is however wrong. yes a more crowded bus will use more fuel than one that is not crowded. However it uses much less per person. This actually means that overall there is a fuel saving to having buses (and other public transport as full as possible). This is exactly the same as the idea behind car sharing. Similarly the cost (environmental and monetary) of building new buses is much less than building the cars to transport an equivalent number of people - even if we make the assumption that some of them will be changing from walking. Being on a crowded bus is still far less stressful than driving. You can use your phone or fall asleep without being in danger of your life, you aren't susceptible to road rage, you don't have to worry about running out of petrol or damaging your car or getting lost. The overall cost is so much less than running a car, monetary stress will be less.