BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal experiments keep unsafe substances on the market due to inability to reproduce the effects

Smoking and lung cancer By the mid 1950s more than a dozen epidemiological studies had identified the link between smoking and lung cancer. Nevertheless, some still argued that the association was unwarranted because no one had produced the disease in laboratory animals. In a review of the evidence, Northrup states that the 'inability to induce experimental cancers, except in a handful of cases, during 50 years of trying, casts serious doubt on the validity of the cigarette-lung cancer theory'. Health warnings were delayed costing many lives. Yet despite years of further experimentation, it proved 'difficult or impossible' to induce lung cancer in animals using the method (inhalation) by which people are exposed to the smoke. X-rays and the foetus In 1956 British doctors drew attention to a link between X-rays during pregnancy and subsequent childhood cancers. Within a few years similar findings were reported in American children. But for a quarter of a century, scientists questioned whether X-rays were actually the cause and cited animal experiments to show that the foetus is not especially sensitive to radiation.[32] However, it seems that compared with other species, the human foetus is more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of X-rays, and during the 1980s further observational studies confirmed the hazards, particularly in early pregnancy. Reported in S. Peller, Quantitative Research in Human Biology (Wright and Sons, 1967). E. Northrup, Science Looks at Smoking (Conrad-McCann, 1957). Editorial, Lancet, 1977, June 25, 1348-1349; F.T. Gross et al, Health Physics, 1989, vol 56, 256. E.B. Harvey et al, New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, February 28, 541-545. Pneumoconiosis and the coal industry It has long been known that coal miners suffer the lung disease pneumoconiosis, but for many years researchers believed that breathing coal dust was 'completely innocuous' and that respiratory illness arose from the silica that sometimes contaminates the coal. The idea originated from the laboratory where pure coal dust had no harmful effects on animals' lungs. Reliance on these experiments proved devastating. Since there is little exposure to silica in bituminous coal pits, mining was not considered dangerous, and few observational studies were carried out in the US. As a result there was almost no information on American coal workers' pneumoconiosis until the Public Health Service performed studies as recently as 1962/63. The animal data were in fact contradicted by the discovery that men who worked with pure coal dust or carbon alone also developed pneumoconiosis, evidence that shows that coal dust can cause lung disease in the absence of silica. The animal tests were further undermined when coal dust, collected at a coal face where pneumoconiosis among miners was high, proved innocuous to laboratory rats. Editorial, British Medical Journal, 1953, January 17, 144-146. W.K.C. Morgan in Occupational Lung Diseases, Eds. W.K.C. Morgan and A. Seaton (Saunders, 1982); see also ref.24.
Animal research is extremely tightly regulated by independent authorities

Independent enquiries!? There's too much money at stake for an enquiry to be independent. About as independent as the enquiry into the Saudi/BAe corruption scandal. Those who regulate vivisection are few and overworked. That is if they have not already been corrupted - as is the case in the US with the FDA and other regulatory bodies. With the millions spent on lobbying governments this situation is unlikely to change soon. £11 million was enough to buy the British Government. Are we supposed to applaud that most research is done on rodents? They feel pain and fear just as much as humans. -------------- Animal-experiments have never been scientifically evaluated: The Toxicology Working Group of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in 2002 recommended that "the reliability and relevance of all existing animal tests should be reviewed as a matter of urgency." The recently published Nuffield Council report on animal experiments recommended: "At present, there is a relatively limited number of useful systematic reviews and meta-reviews that address the question of the scientific validity of animal experiments and tests. In principle, it would therefore be desirable to undertake further systematic reviews and meta-analyses to evaluate more fully the predictability and transferability of animal models" This Government came to power promising a Royal Commission on animal experimentation. Yet Home Office Minister Caroline Flint stated in 2004 that the Government "has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so."
Animal research is extremely tightly regulated by independent authorities

In the last five years in the UK, no fewer than three independent inquiries have been carried out into the effectiveness of animal research in developing medicines for human use. The House of Lords Select Committee, the Parliamentary Animal Procedures Committee and the independent Nuffield Council on Bioethics all concluded that testing on animals is a scientifically sound method, has yielded great results in the past, and is crucial for future advances. The animals used for research in the United Kingdom must be specially bred by registered license holders. Research is not performed on stray animals or unwanted pets. This is strictly illegal. The use of chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas has also been banned since 1986. The vast majority of research is conducted on rodents, with a smaller percentage using fish, reptiles, and birds. A very small percentage is conducted in larger mammals.
There is a clear and present problem with drug use among teenagers in many countries. Current measu...

There is a clear and present problem with drug use among teenagers in many countries. Current measures to tackle drugs at the source (i.e. by imprisoning dealers and breaking the supply chain) are not succeeding. It is especially important to protect teenagers, at an impressionable age and at the time when their attitude to education greatly affects their entire lives. Some sacrifice of human rights is necessary to tackle the drug problem.
'Presenteeism' is a poor way to measure employee's performance

Managers would lose their jobs if they had no staff in the office to 'manage'. In addition, most managers just don't trust their staff to work from home. Social interaction takes the form of group-energy in the workplace.Most people are extroverts and therefore need other people around to maintain motivation. Research has revealed time and time again that social students also do better academically than their isolated counterparts. Continuously working; wears people/brains out. Problems/issues are harder to solve/tackle without breaks and a lot of the time colleagues help; during these. Man is a social animal. Our majorities stampede in throngs as animal herds do. Social interaction is more than just words. It largely involves body language and the use of all five senses. reducing this to communication via computers makes connections/relations impersonal and tense.
It will cost far less

Employees will be less productive thus the cost will be greater in terms of revenue/productivity. 1) They will not feel as though they are being monitored; therefore will not work as hard to please the manager standing over their heads. The logic behind this is similar to: Everyone does their classwork; but homework can be forgotten/missed. 2) Sitting at home is depressing. The ritual of taking a shower; wearing your work-clothes/make-up; walking into a professional environment, sitting in your office/cubicle and doing your job is a strong motivating factor. The home environment is greatly conducive to lounging on a sofa watching T.V or cooking or calling friends over to play video games. You don't feel important and co-inhabitants do not take you seriously. How do you work and not go-to work? Hypothetical scenario "honey could you help me with this; the groceries are in the car; daddy dady daddy" "I'm working!" "It doesn't look like it" 3) Over-dependence on unreliable technology: We know all about bad internet connections and missing deadlines. Hackers are consistently coming up with new and innovative ways to wreck and acquire confidential information contained in company computers. If we resort to using laptops/terminals and laptops/terminals alone; we're literally daring them to screw us over. Offices have a culture; a cohesive bond that glues the workers together in a singular united cause. Seeing people everyday; working and interacting with them on a human level creates loyalty,trust and security. Also; when the electricity or computers give out, the manager knows without being informed; so can be more understanding and helpful then if he's imagined your deliberately not working from home. 4) Equal resources: In an office no worker has the advantage of a generator/U.P.S or a better internet connection or more professionally conducive home environment(such as a quiet office in the basement/attic). As everyone is working with the same tools; the merit of office workers is relatively transparent and thus easier to measure.
Workers will be more motivated and therefore more productive

This is what BT claims, but surely there are far many more motivational factors found in the office that you simply would not get at home. One of the main motivations people have to work hard is the competition with fellow office workers. People do not only want to be the best, they want to be seen to be the best. If they do not have their colleagues around them, they cannot have this competition, they cannot have this motivation. Surroundings will also add to motivation, in an office environment people know what level of work is expected from them. At home, the pressure is lessened and they are not in surroundings that would immediately make them think of work. Instead they are surrounded by home comforts.
It will help employers comply with the Disability Discrimination Act cheaply

Employers will still have to make adjustments to working patterns in order to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act. For example, under s6(3)(b) employers will be required to pass work on to other employees should the disabled person not be able to cope with the work load due to their disability. How can the employer see this if they are not in an office? In this regard, home working will actually make complying with the Disability Discrimination Act more difficult for employers.
we should still work in an office with our colleagues.

First of all, working together in the office enables us to work according to a strictly designed schedule. In the morning, we are supposed to reach the office on time and get ready for a new day’s work before a fixed time. The strict regulation of the company will urge us to wake up early in the morning. Second, with many colleagues working nearby, we can receive prompt advice from them when we come across an unexpected problem during our work. This advantage usually lead to a quicker response to what is happening and a better solution. What’s more, face-to-face talks and meetings prove to be much more efficient than talking on-line or on the telephone. High efficiency is crucial to any company in any industry. Solving problems together always calls for teamwork spirit, therefore working together in the office offers a better chance to unite all the team members. Being of assistance to others at working hours and having lunch together will make members on the team know each other better, which allows them to gain a better understanding of what others are good at and interested in. As it is less and less possible for anyone to finish a whole project alone, teamwork is of significance and Undoubtedly, working at home has its own advantages such as saving time on the way to the office. However, it is apparently that the disadvantages of working at home outweigh its advantages. For a company, efficiency and teamwork spirit should always come first. Without these two things, any company will end up nowhere but bankruptcy.
'Presenteeism' is a poor way to measure employee's performance

Just by observing workers in an office environment, it is very difficult for managers to tell if they are actually being productive, or merely appearing to be. Office workers often devise ways to trick their bosses into thinking they are hard at work, while in truth they are busy procrastinating on the internet, taking frequent toilet breaks or spending too much time at the water cooler. Working at home will mean that more systems will be developed to monitor progress and performance which will mean that workers will be judged on the actual level of work done, rather than the number of hours they spend in an office.
It will cost far less

There will be less expenses incurred in maintaining an office, cleaning, electricity and so on. Even company cars will be unnecessary. Counterargument: Companies can provide better resources(such as better internet connections, laptops etc) when they aren't paying office maintenance costs. (That way managers are fully aware of when the company server is down.) Sitting in an office can be just as depressing. Annoying co-workers have a negative effect on productivity. Families can be understanding. Both men and women work. Worker energy is not wasted in pretending to work. Sexual harassment is near impossible. All the issues in the movie 'office space' are addressed: Merit; that is 'actual' worker output is rewarded rather than hours spent in the office. The stress of being watched or sacked is curtailed. Workers feel employers trust them. Therefore workers meet deadlines; working at the pace and in a manner that best suits them without having to fit into a specific office culture. Albert Einstein I get my best ideas in the shower
Workers will be more motivated and therefore more productive

An office is not a particularly useful environment for most workers who are often working on their own projects. An office does not need to be abolished completely, it can simply be downsized and workers can meet occasionally for important meetings. BT claims to get an extra 20% of work out of it's 10,000 employees that work from home, and some American studies have shown a 30-40% increase[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/aug/03/rise-working-from-home]].
It will help employers comply with the Disability Discrimination Act cheaply

Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 amended by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 employers must make all reasonable adjustments in order to facilitate the employment of a disabled person. Under s6(1)(b) this includes making necessary physical adjustments to the work space. If companies operated a work from home policy, they would not need to adapt the working office in order to accommodate disabled employees; instead they will just allow them to work from home. This will save the employers money as for some disabled people; the adjustments that would need to be made would be vast.
The U.S. is hardly alone in its use of such interrogation practices, and has a good record compared ...

The U.S. should set the standard for international human rights, rather than meet the average. Furthermore, permitting low-level and under-trained U.S. troops to engage in unsupervised interrogation activities is a recipe for disaster. Incidents like the Abu Ghraib scandal demonstrate how quickly the U.S.’s reputation can suffer from such illicit treatment of prisoners.
Many with experience doing interrogations have found that aggressive tactics are the best, and somet...

Many with experience doing interrogations have found that aggressive tactics are the best, and sometimes the only, way to obtain information—information that might lead to the arrest or conviction of other terrorists, or might protect against a future attack against Americans. Often such information is needed quickly so that action can be taken. Moreover, the U.S. has a track record for using such methods of interrogation in a regulated, studied way that do not constitute “torture” in the conventional sense; for instance, methods that will cause permanent damage to vital organs or permanent emotional trauma have never been sanctioned by the U.S. government.
Such interrogation methods are applied to those the U.S. government has strong reason to believe hav...

Every human being, no matter how heinous a crime they are suspected of committing, has human rights. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” (Moreover, U.S. domestic law—and in particular the fifth and eighth amendments to the constitution—may preclude torture as well.)
Such interrogation methods are applied to those the U.S. government has strong reason to believe hav...

Such interrogation methods are applied to those the U.S. government has strong reason to believe have engaged in terrorist activities against Americans. Extralegal activity like theirs requires a strong response. These are bad people, trained terrorists who will stop at nothing to kill innocent U.S. civilians. Those who would heavily restrict interrogation methods would have the U.S. lose the war on terror.
Anonymous blogger, better yet 'stranger' , mostly not reported on

" Incompetent suitors tend to seek to develop relationships but they fail to abide by social rules governing courtship. They are usually intellectually limited and/or socially incompetent." The very fact that these people are dubbed 'Frandshippers' or equivalent means they aren't exactly receiving critical acclaim? [[http://www.erces.com/journal/articles/archives/volume2/v03/v02.htm]]
Anonymous blogger, better yet 'stranger' , mostly not reported on

"Of women Harassment and stalking of women online is common, and can include rape threats and other threats of violence, as well as the posting of women's personal information. It is blamed for limiting victims' activities online or driving them offline entirely, thereby impeding their participation in online life and undermining their autonomy, dignity, identity and opportunities"[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking#Types]] What woman has this 'not' happened to? And who reports on these things especially when it's a frandshipping facebook-er/Orkut-er? What follow are (under)reported statistics: [[http://www.erces.com/journal/articles/archives/volume2/v03/v02.htm]] "In the United States, one out of every 12 women (8.2 million) and one out of every 45 men (2 million) have been stalked at some time in their lives. · One percent of all women and 0.4 percent of all men were stalked during the preceding 12 months. · Women are far more likely to be the victims of stalking than men - nearly four out of five stalking victims are women. Men are far more likely to be stalkers - 87 percent of the stalkers identified by victims in the survey were men. · Women are twice as likely as men to be victims of stalking by strangers and eight times as likely to be victims of stalking by intimates."
Unlike the eighties the trend in Hollywood is to justify stalking or treat it as normal

Back in eighties we had the very mentally manic stalker who was bent on killing or winning back her love or winning over the love of a strange woman s/he saw walking down the street. [[http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/34467822.html]] Today we have movies like 'Wicker Park' (full of stalkers but no attempts at murder or anything of the sort, there is a kind of acceptance that the hero and heroine, pretty as they are, are bound to be stalked by strangers and by each other) , "He's just not that into you" where the protagonist is a woman who Cyber-stalks all her old boyfriends or even people she met only once and thought they'd hit it off and in the end her bravery in love and finally winning over the bar tender who tried to fix reigns supreme. There is a thin line, a question between where men/women pursuing each other becomes stalking. It is accepted as common practice on dating websites but now social networking sites are also being treated as the same. Just look at my Wayn profile [[http://www.wayn.com/waynprofile.html?wci=view]], it's mostly men I don't know personally, who like my profile pic and since people I do know aren't generally on Wayn I've gone ahead and accepted their friend requests. Am I treading on unsteady ground? Aren't we all, as Zuck said, Privacy is dead. A thing of the past, chuck it.(at your own risk) [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70PR5pinGs8]] [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVxZJR3Tqn8]] [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9l1hvbtl44&feature=related]]
Come internet cyber-stalking is embedded in our/global culture

But there are rules, laws and regulations, even when we find internet friends we don't trust people to be our friends unless and until there is some reason to do so. Either way most crimes are committed by family members and people you hang out with, not by people you've never met. [[http://www.nccafv.org/spouse.htm]] [[http://www.lovefraud.com/01_whatsaSociopath/key_symptoms_sociopath.html]]
Come internet cyber-stalking is embedded in our/global culture

[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeuIsXszrs0&feature=related]] Aubrey got me to sign for this couchsurfing website, it's been two years and I still have no idea how to navigate through this but there are thousands of people logged in and Aubrey used this site to stay with a family in Taipei. She's still alive. [[http://www.couchsurfing.org/]] And then there's facebook, twitter, vimeo, Wayn and a zillion other places in which friends of friends become we've-never-met-friends. Come to think of it, I've never met anyone on Debatewise unless you count A.I who was only Londo to annoy me... In sum, it's normal in this zeitgeist.
Equality and Univeral Suffrage

A standardization process: Not all voters are equal, because not everyone has an equal stake in an election. Not everyone is a follower, sometimes charismatic personalities surge a giant vote count in one direction and the vote of these people should not be made public for this reason (Obama girl springs to mind). Or if it is made public, the votes s/he influenced for a party/leader; should not be as relevant as those that are a product of informed opinion and true choice, thus. Since all voters are not equal in their natural state, they must be equalized by administering lower/higher value to different votes.
Equality and Univeral Suffrage

Democracies are often held up as champions in the political arena for equality. How can, the argument goes, you be a believer in choosing your government, your representatives, and the direction of your country, and yet believe in superiority of one group over another? Granting the vote to all citizens (universal suffrage) was considered to be a step forward in democracies, including the UK, New Zealand, America, Australia, Denmark and Finland. This was done based on the idea that as women were not so different to men as to be unable to choose their own leaders, they should also get the vote. Therefore, the idea is that every individual is capable of making such decisions, and must have the right to do so. To state that (for example) blacks should have less votes than whites would be to perpetuate inequality on morally shady grounds. Therefore, the proposition argues that everybody should have the right to vote in a democracy.
First Past The Post

Under a first past the post system, one vote for one voice is the most obvious fom of democratic voting as there are no weighting systems either in place or necessary as used in the United States' electoral college. If a certain number of people get a representative, then every one of those people should have an equal say in who that representative is. In a simple majority system of one vote = one person, the outcome is easy to conclude and scrutinise for fairness and election rigging. Therefore one voe = one voice is also a very practical way to run a democracy.