BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An “ultimate service to one’s self” isn’t what defines “selfishness”.

"To say it another way, how could you possibly view these two people and their behavior the same way or consider them equally selfish?" It does not necessarily mean their behavior is viewed the same way, the point is that deep down inside after many twists and turns eventually you find motivation itself, which is what drives selfishness. One quick point, highly motivated individuals are more selfish, you know, those "overachievers". Selflessness comes out of selfishness, it is just highly, highly refined.
Try telling that to a parent, volunteer, or friend who sincerely sacrificed precious things for the sake of someone they loved and remember to block your face from the inevitable slap.

Sometimes we take philosophy or rationale too far and try to completely detach our hearts or souls from our minds. They function best when they function together not in isolation of each other. They both have great power. You can use rationale to make anything sound true, and once your heart is convinced of something not even the greatest counsellor or intellectual can convince you otherwise with reason and argument. So, if we’re simply honest with ourselves concerning the matter we all know deep down when we’re being selfish and when we’re truly being selfless. Period. Though I agree doing something selfless in order to avoid guilt and sadness is selfish (as well as doing it for good feelings), that isn't what a person feels when we are concerned about another. We just want to help the person or make him/her feel better, with little or no concern for what we will gain (both physical and spiritual). In fact, feeling guilt for hurting a person may be a sure sign of compassion and concern for the person, though it can be viewed under a selfish light in making a decision(though that light doesn't entail that same concern itself).
An “ultimate service to one’s self” isn’t what defines “selfishness”.

Selfishness and selflessness are in the initial DESIRE to be either. Selflessness particularly then is found in the desire to be selfless not in the choice to serve that desire. Yes, when making a decision, we all naturally choose to go with the strongest desire WE’RE presently feeling for something. That’s the point, though. Not everyone’s strongest desire IS to be selfless. Though every person is ‘ultimately’ serving themselves the difference is in the KIND of self being ‘served’. There’s FAR more to distinguish us from each other than the fact that we all ultimately serve ourselves in this sense. The simple fact that one person’s ultimate desire could be serving others and another person’s could be serving themselves shows they’re drastically different than each other especially considering the vast differences in behavior that would follow the two. To say it another way, how could you possibly view these two people and their behavior the same way or consider them equally selfish? Think about it. Imagine the kind of person and what they’d do when their greatest desire and value is to serve themselves (obviously at the cost of others). And imagine the other kind of person and what they’d do when their greatest desire is to serve others (at the cost of themselves). I couldn’t assess them according to this philosophic definition of selfishness. That’s too heartless and shallow. You tell me. Which one’s truly selfish: the person who SERVES others because it makes them “feel good” or the person who ABUSES others because it makes them “feel good”? Can you dare equate them by saying they’re BOTH selfish? If you do, then I dare to assume it’s because you just want to win the argument.
Objective reality is a selfless medium which everyone is responsible for.

Selflessness is not necessarily a relationship to other persons. It must include a relationship to objective reality which is depended upon by everyone. Objective reality is a medium which defines and sustains life. It is the common property of everyone. It universalizes existence. Constructiveness and rationality are defined in terms of objective reality. Therefore, people must learn to contribute to life through objective reality while limiting subjectivity to personal concerns.
Selflessness will always be driven by serving one's feelings, values, or desires which is ultimately serving yourself.

If you do not wish for private blessings but truly in your being for the greater good of the community, from your heart, your selflessness is motivated by pure intent. rather than an adopted ego identity. you are a vessel of goodwill. your feeling is for humanity. which others may perceive as self-serving if they lack comprehension of their own inconsequentiality.
One always acts in his self-interest unless some external uncontrollable forces take over. Even amid those circumstances, he'll choose the best possible solution. BECAUSE he's selfish! Even when a person sacrifices, he's being selfish

ex: if I sacrifice or give up my job to look after my crippled/disabled child, I still am being selfish. It's my child & it's imp for me! If I give up my job to serve some orphans I haven't ever met, I still am being selfish in the sense that I'm trying to be virtuous!
The argument detaches the issue from a person’s relationship to OTHERS.

You can’t be truly selfish OR selfless without the existence of other people. If only one person existed on earth we wouldn’t consider them selfish if they lived only for themselves and their desires. (I’m ignoring the fact that they also have a relationship with the earth and its needs for the sake of the point.) In that same situation we wouldn’t consider them SELFLESS if they strangely decided to deny themselves. This is because there are no people to benefit from the decision nor is that the REASON they made it. It’s the presence of others and the awareness of their needs that gives substance to selflessness or selfishness. This is why we consider it selfish for a Mother to only feed her baby soda pop and cheese puffs when she KNOWS it would harm the baby in the long run. The existence of the baby and the mother’s awareness of what the baby needs is what gives her the opportunity to either be selfless or selfish. Coincidently, no one would accuse the mother of being selfish if she truly didn’t know it would harm the baby. Selflessness is far more than only denying one’s desires. Who, if forced with the sudden decision to save a baby from harm at the expense of loosing a limb asks themselves, “For which reason am I going to do this: for the baby or for the good feeling I’ll get about myself from doing this?” Nobody. If anyone ever chooses the baby it’s safe to assume their primary driving force and ultimate reason for the decision was the baby’s well-being. Selfless desires only arise when others exist and when the person cares about them.
This is a contradictory argument

By stating that, by acting selflessly, people are commiting a selfish act, one removes them from the set of so-called selfless people. Selflessness, by definition, is not in anyway selfish. The argument shoud be whether people can achieve selflessness. This could be presented in many hypothetical scenarios, but take this one: A child is born with the part of his brain missing or inactive (no slating the science, this is not a medical point) that controls empathy, the ability to notice and react to other peoples emotions. By commiting selfless acts, the child could not gain any sense of reward at all from his actions, he doesn't have the capacity to care what other people think. If this child, therefore, acts selflessly, it cannot be selfish, there is no upside to him. A normal person may or may not be capable of this, but it remains fact that it is possible.
More soup for us means less oxygen for us.

There is also the environmental impact to consider as sharks balance the oceans eco-system and removing them could be disastrous to life above sea level. Between 70-80% of the planets oxygen is produced in the sea(2), therefore, if sharks are over-fished for soup then an over-population of fish will continually feed on the oceans oxygen producing plants without a predatory influence. By killing sharks for soup we are really killing ourselves. (2)WildAid (2007) End of the Line? (second edition)- http://www.wildaid.org/PDF/reports/EndOfTheLine2007US_Oceana.pdf
Sharks do not produce the quantity of young in order to replenish population deficiencies attributed to overfishing

Sharks are slow-growing and live long, which makes them vulnerable to over-fishing. Their offspring are few and are produced late in their lives. These factors make the shark unable to withstand exploitation of any kind and it will be extremely difficult for them to recover from a heavy decline(6) (6)WildAid (2007) End of the Line? (second edition)- http://www.wildaid.org/PDF/reports/EndOfTheLine2007US_Oceana.pdf
By reducing the number of sharks in the ocean for soup, the number of attacks on humans is reduced

In 2005 there were 58 unprovoked attacks and four fatalities due to attacks by sharks, by reducing their number the public are being protected. (8) (8) International Shark Attack File (2005) Worldwide Attack Summary- http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/2005attacksummary.htm
Banning Shark's fin soup will only put it on the black market

Once something is banned, it goes directly to the black market, something not uncommon in most countries, at ridiculous prices. By then, sharks fin soup will have become even more a luxury and certainly be high on demand. If killing sharks for their fins is banned, there will be more of a risk to sharks going extinct because of demands from the black market. The only way to ensure the shark population does not become extinct is to place laws, implement regulation and moderation to the amount of sharks killed. To sum up, placing an international ban will create a reverse effect where obtaining sharks fin for soup will be higher in demand and have more people willing to kill sharks for the higher prices they are selling fins for, thus regulation and moderation is the right answer.
If the demand for shark fins is reduced then the killing will be reduced.

Simply banning the soup will not necessarily decrease the demand for it; it will only make it an even more rare and special delicacy than it already is. Like cuban cigars in the U.S., it will become an edgy status symbol for the wealthy. This could potentially drive the prices of fins up and make illegal targeting of sharks even more profitable for fishermen. A better way to solve the problem is to reduce demand for the soup by continuing to educate the public about the cruelty behind it. This sort of approach is used for other luxury goods like fur; if shark fin soup is no longer sen as desirable, then the trade will fall away. Anyway, sharks are also fished for their meat, and some breeds of shark can be legally subjected to commercial fishes. Should the fins of these sharks go to waste due to a ban on this delicacy?
Eating shark fin soup actually damages human health.

Shark fin soup is not an everyday supper; it is an expensive, exclusive dish designed to impress guests at banquets and other special occasions. Most foreign visitors will probably only try it once on a visit to China, and at most people are likely to eat it only once or twice a year. Mercury consumption might be a threat if it was eaten on a regular basis, but the levels aren't high enough for occasional portions to damage health. Other fish are probably a greater risk, since they are eaten more frequently.
Banning shark fin soup would destroy a piece of Asian tradition.

Just because something is 'traditional' doesn't mean that cruelty is justifiable. Binding the feet of young girls to make them attractively small was another Chinese tradition, but few would argue that ought to be preserved. Bear baiting, cock fighting, public executions...these were all historically part of British 'tradition.' But now we recognise that these practices are cruel, and that things need to change. Asian culture is no more sacred than any other, and must adapt to modern awareness of the wider impact of some traditional practices.
Killing sharks in moderation through quotas would allow the shark fin soup trade to continue.

Experience has shown that the legislation on shark fishing is extremely difficult to enforce. What kind of technology can possibly create a net that distinguishes between commercial fish and sharks whilst being cost effective for fishermen? I don't see it arriving any time soon. We can't penalize fishermen for accidentally catching sharks, especially considering the difficulties faced by the business. It would be far better to cut off the shark fin trade at the other end, and make breaking the law less likely by removing the financial incentive.
If the demand for shark fins is reduced then the killing will be reduced.

While there is such a high demand for shark fin soup it is impossible to fish sharks in a sustainable manner. In the last 50 years there has been a 90% decline in shark populations. Where cash can be made and a product is in high demand, inevitably people will find a way of over-fishing for maximum profit. Shark fins can retail from between $400-$1000 per kg, and to put this into perspective a kg of shrimp only retails around $6(1)The current unregulated nature of the shark fin trade therefore attracts a criminal element. (1) SEAFDEC (2006) Shark Production, Utilisation and Management in the ASEAN Region (2003-2004), Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Bangkok, Thailand.
Eating shark fin soup actually damages human health.

Shark flesh contains high levels of mercury as it stores the mercury contained within the fish it consumes. In the ocean mercury is converted to methylmercury by micro-organisms and enters the food chain through microscopic plankton. Methylmercury is potent to humans and as a neurotoxin can affect the functioning of the brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver(3)It has also been linked to both infertility in men(4)and the hindrance of brain development in utero(5) (3)Ferreira, A.G, Faria, V.V, de Carvalho, C.E.V, Lessa, R.P.T and da Silva, F.M.S. (2004) Total Mercury in the Night Shark, Carcharhinus Signatus in the Western Equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Brazilian Archives of Biol. And Tech. 47(4): 629-634. (4)Dickman, M.D & Leung, K.M.C. (1998) Mercury and organochlorine exposure from fish consumption in Hong Kong. Chemosphere 37(5): 991-1015. (4)Grandjean, P et al (1997) Cognitive deficit in 7-yer-old children with prenatal exposure to methylmercury. Neurology and Teratology.19: 417-428.
Banning shark fin soup would destroy a piece of Asian tradition.

Shark fin soup is a Chinese delicacy since the banquets of the Ming dynasty (AD 1368-1644)(7). It originated in southern China but has spread through the whole country and to other Asian communities. It is now commonly found in weddings and at corporate functions. (7)Clarke, S et al (2004) Understanding pressures on fishery resources through trade statistics: a pilot study of four products in the Chinese seafood market. Fish and Fisheries 5: 53-74.
By reducing the number of sharks in the ocean for soup, the number of attacks on humans is reduced

Dangerous species still deserve protection. Tigers are also a dangerous predator, but due to their rarity it is now illegal to hunt them. In fact, tigers have been responsible for more human deaths than any other predator- they killed over 300,000 people in India during the 19th century. Four deaths worldwide is such a tiny number that we cannot consider sharks a genuine threat. Consider that last year around 360,000 people were bitten, and 32 people were killed by domestic dogs in the U.S. alone, and we see that sharks are the least of our worries.
The answer is more regulation and moderation

I can understand that it is a traditional soup for weddings and banquets in Asia, and I have nothing against that. What I am against is just catching the shark, cutting off the fin, then releasing it t die a painful death. I grew up in a family with several hunters, and I was always taught to use everything that you could from the animal. So it seems just wasteful and spiteful to go just for the fin. I have eaten shark and some point a few years ago, and I find it delicious, so it should make sense to use the whole shark. I can also understand the enviormentalist view on this as well. "Overfishing" or "OverHunting" almost always leads a spiecies to extinction. This has been proven numerous times in history. I seriously doubt a ban would help. It would just make it more rare and people wont care what needs to be done to get it. I believe regulating that the entire shark be captured and setting a certain quota while watching the population and making changes to quota as need be would be a more balanced choice. This way we can guarentee the shark can be around for future generations, as well as preserving a tradition.
An individual's rights end when they impinge on the safety and rights of others. By enacting laws ag...

An individual's rights end when they impinge on the safety and rights of others. By enacting laws against incitement to racial hatred and similar hate speech, we have accepted that freedom of expression should have limits. In addition, art, like any other form of free speech, should be subject to the same restrictions on an individual's freedom of expression. To create an exception for art would be hypocritical and create a legal loophole for content such as hate speech, which could then seek protection on the grounds that it was a form of art.
Censorship can also be a finely tuned system of protecting our children. Just as we recognise that c...

Censorship can also be a finely tuned system of protecting our children. Just as we recognise that certain content should not be accessed by society at all, we can also recognise that certain content (e.g. sexual content) is unsuitable for children, and we can pass censorship accordingly. For example, certain forms of erotic artwork might be unsuitable for children, despite their artistic merits.
An individual's rights end when they impinge on the safety and rights of others. By enacting laws ag...

Civil rights should not be curtailed in the absence of a clear and present danger to the safety of others. The Proposition has a duty to demonstrate this risk is genuine. Furthermore, we would argue that so long as no illegal acts were committed in the creative process, the public should have a choice in deciding whether to view the resulting content. Proposition arguments about child pornography and bestiality being filmed and then displayed as art are irrelevant arguments, as these acts are illegal in the first place.
Censorship can also be a finely tuned system of protecting our children. Just as we recognise that c...

Censorship, even when age rating systems are used, is a very blunt tool. It takes no account of the differing standards of education or maturity between children and youths, or the varying attitudes towards parenting in different households. By imposing an external standard of censorship, the government is depriving parents of the right to raise their children in a manner that they see fit. We lose the element of parental discretion, which is arguably part of the right to lead a private and family life as one sees fit – a right that is enshrined in many international human rights conventions. Looking at adults, we see that they have the right to vote, bear arms, and die for the country. Why should they be deprived of the ability to decide what they wish to see, or what their children should be allowed to watch?Lastly, we should note that people are not being forced to view artwork at gunpoint. Every member of the public has the right to avert their eyes and not look at art that offends them. Similarly, they can refrain from entering a gallery with an exhibition of offensive works.
Many forms of modern art seek to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, or aim for the lowest de...

The risks of stifling free expression far outweigh the potential for unacceptable material. Content which we consider perfectly acceptable today would have been regarded as taboo 50 years ago – if the Proposition had their way, we would all still be stuck in the Victorian Era. Besides, if a novel and controversial art form proved to be completely out of touch with society, then the individuals in society would reject it rather than be corrupted by it.
Excessive sex and violence in the media can lead to similar behaviour in viewers (studies in the USA...

The statistical correlation between watching sex & violence and committing such acts is dubious. Firstly, these studies are not exhaustive and are often funding by special interest groups. We must also realise that correlation is different from causation – an alternative interpretation is that people with violent tendencies are more likely to be connoisseurs of violent art, and the same applies for rapists and pornography.Even if we believe that some people with weaker morals are likely to be corrupted, why should the rest of society be penalised for the moral weakness of a few? Why should innocent people have their civil rights curtailed when the small minority we are concerned about has not even committed a crime yet! There are far better ways of reducing the crime rate, with far less cost in civil liberties, such as better policing, tougher penalties on actual crimes being committed, CCTV cameras, and improved street lighting.
Even if some individuals manage to circumvent the censorship measures, the Government has sent an im...

Censorship is ultimately infeasible. Try censoring art on the internet, for example! With the advent of modern technology, text, photography and film can now be distributed on the internet. The sooner we recognise the reality, the better. In addition, if we censor art which depicts an unacceptable act or viewpoint, it merely sends it underground. It might also glamorise the prohibited artwork and play to the forbidden fruit and counterculture tendencies inherent in human nature. Far better to keep such art accessible to the public, where people can see for themselves that it is “bad”. If the censorship board is truly acting in line with public morals, it has nothing to fear from transparency and letting the public decide for themselves that a piece of art is unacceptable.
Bad diet can lead to childhood obesity, and other problems caused by unhealthy eating such as poor c...

A balanced diet includes small amounts of sugar, fat and salt – how do you decide what is healthy and what is not? Portions are key to a healthy diet. If pupils are very active and involved in sport, they may need to eat a lot of calories. You have to teach children and their parents to make responsible choices for themselves. The upbringing of children is mostly down to parents – the state shouldn’t take the job on through its schools.
There is a good past example for schools getting involved in diet. Traditionally schools have given...

There is a difference between providing something healthy as a free extra and limiting children’s access to food at lunchtime. You won’t make a difference with school meals if a child can just have an extra Macdonald’s burger or three more chocolate bars on the way home if they are hungry. If a school wants to make a difference, they should have more compulsory PE lessons to improve children’s fitness levels.
If children try healthy food at school, they can take their knowledge home and introduce new food to...

If children don’t eat healthily at home they are more likely to avoid healthy school dinners. Instead they will bring an unhealthy packed lunch or go out of school for junk food in the lunchhour. Figures show that since the Jamie Oliver campaign in the UK, demand for school dinners has gone down by 20%. So there is no quick fix to encourage healthy eating and school meal campaigns may even be unhelpful. Tackling obesity properly will mean changing our food culture and that will involve the media, advertisers, food retailers and educators all playing a part.