BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humankind has always pushed boundaries and tried to go further, higher and faster. While the privat...

Humankind has always pushed boundaries and tried to go further, higher and faster. While the private market may be able to cater for the rich few who want to see sub-orbital space (and some 11,000 have signed up to fly there with Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactica from 2007), ultimately the boundaries of science involve keeping humans in space for long periods (the current record is 439 days), travelling further, discovering what the rest of our solar system holds and, eventually, trying to live on the moon or Mars. While it might be possible to use robots to carry out experiments on other planets, humans will always want to explore them for themselves and it is only through state subsidies that such exploration is financially possible.
Some scientific experiments and exploration can be done exclusively or more effectively by a manned ...

Some scientific experiments and exploration can be done exclusively or more effectively by a manned mission. Firstly, there is a distinction between collection of data and interpretation of data. Robots are very good at collecting data but not good at responding to that data and acting flexibly on it – consider that probably the most flexible robots yet to leave Earth, the Mars Rovers, could only travel a few metres and test some nearby rocks. Humans on the Moon were able to travel significant distances, selectively choose rock types from a variety of locations and prioritise experiments based on the results they received as they were on the Moon’s surface. Ideally scientists would like to understand other planets and bodies as well as they do Earth. This would require huge numbers of experiments and surveys which would be much better done by long manned missions or permanent scientific missions (as have been posted to Antarctica for decades) rather than a series of unmanned missions over a decade. This also applies to experiments carried out in zero gravity onboard the ISS or Space Shuttle, such as attempts to grow protein crystals or look at the impact of zero-gravity on the behaviour of organisms. This latter issue is also important in relation to humans; it is only by having humans in space that we are able to find out what the impact of space does to their physiological and psychological well being. This makes future manned exploration more possible as well as teaching us about humans. Discoveries on bone and muscle depletion during space travel have helped in the care of bedridden patients and on how to speed up the rate of muscle growth.
A second reason why manned experiments and exploration would be more effective is that any manned mi...

A second reason why manned experiments and exploration would be more effective is that any manned mission will necessarily be heavier. This is because it has to carry the weight of humans and their life support equipment. For this reason the cost of returning samples or carrying extra scientific equipment will be more possible because of the negligible weight they add to the payload. This means that even if the mission is primarily about political grandstanding, science will still benefit. Compare the USSR’s ability to bring back 321g of lunar rock using robots with the 382kg brought back by the US Apollo missions. The latter proved the ‘giant impact’ theory, told us a lot about the evolution and geological change of the Moon and our own Earth, and are still being studied today.
Regulation can be expensive

Within policing the costs of regulation (red tape as it is named by the media) is substantial, both in price and in cutting patrol times and thereby making streets less safe.[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6516884/Police-red-tape-forcing-up-staffing-costs.html]] Schools are also facing needless costs of red tape[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7638854/Private-schools-suffocated-by-red-tape.html]] Deregulating could free up funds for more useful applications.
People need to take responsibility for themselves

The more we increase regulation in society, the more people feel that they don't have to worry about their actions and behaviour. This spills over into all areas of life, including the responsibilities we have to our families and at work. Regulation comes along with the message that one shouldn't have to worry about what they do, because someone else - i.e. the government will take care of it for them. If we have a whole nation that relies on every other person to look after them, then the country will fall apart. For example, the traffic lights system on food packaging is an oversimplified way to present what is actually quite complex information. It is the job of parents to prevent their children from eating fatty foods and if they choose, to stop them watching adverts selling unhealthy food, not the governments.
People need to take responsibility for themselves

Deregulation is like trying to play a game of football without a referee. Government can't demand that people take responsibility for things that they have no control over, especially when ordinary citizens are against big business that has huge amounts of money to spend lobbying in it's interest (making money and nothing else) while people are left without a defence against the negative effects of deregulation. Obesity isn't entirely the responsibility of a particular person, it should be treated as a disease like any other. “For an increasing number of people, weight gain is the inevitable – and largely involuntary – consequence of exposure to a modern lifestyle. This is not to dismiss personal responsibility altogether, but to highlight a reality: that the forces that drive obesity are, for many people, overwhelming.” [[Government Office for Science, 2007. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices. Project Report, 2nd Edition. http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Obesity/17.pdf%5D%5D Why do people need to take responsibility for themselves in the first place? Telling people that they should have to take into account every possible consequence of their actions is both unfair on them and unneccessary. Where an action has consequent effects on other people (such as carbon emissions causing global warming) that an individual can't neccessarily foresee or take into account, we need the Government to step in and regulate to avoid those external harms.
Regulation really works

Regulations mean that banks are forced to take fewer risks and so depend less on government bailouts. Over-dependency on Government bail-outs means banks go soft. They can then take advantage of the trust the public has in/for them and take even greater risks with people's money. Then the government will have to resort to deep cuts and the public (hypothetically and in the current scenario) suffers even more. Regulation is therefore preferable to the alternative (falling back on a bailout if the system fails completely), taking preventative measures before the problem gets too large.
It is time we saw our first woman president

The race is about more than which candidate would deliver more results. It is also about symbols. Both candidates represent constituencies that have historically been largely excluded from the political process. Blacks gained the vote in 1870 when Congress passed the 15th Amendment; women had to wait much longer till 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed. Hillary represents the first real chance that a woman can enter this office, carrying the dreams of millions of home-makers, working-mothers, young women, and feminists on her back.
Hillary can face up to the Republicans better

Although Obama has been winning among Democrats, there is no guarantee that right-of-centre voters will vote for a black candidate. The election has been pretty mild till now, but once the Republicans begin mud-slinging, Obama’s racial and ethnic background will become a big issue. John McCain will portray himself as the blue-blooded American patriot vs. a candidate who wants to call back American troops and comes from a multi-ethnic, multi-religious family.
Clinton often comes across as ambitious and arrogant

Obama is equally arrogant, claiming that small-town Americans cling to guns and religion out of "bitterness." He thinks very highly of himself, has a brusque manner with advisors which reminds one of the worst moments of George W. Bush’s presidency. Although Clinton waited 8 years to make her bid, Obama did not even wait out his first senate term. He saw his chance at the top-job and took it, in spite of the fact that Clinton had more experience and had initially coached him as a new senate member. Other senate members report that Barack began thinking about the presidency from day 1, devoting more time to raising money for other senate members’ re-election campaigns and making friends, than he spent on legislative matters.
Hillary has far more experience than Obama

Barack Obama offers a new voice in Washington, one not as beholden to the lobbyists and the special-interest groups which block change. Obama is the candidate for change. His popularity is due in no small part to people’s overwhelming desire for a new kind of politics. Therefore, Clinton’s experience does not do her favours; in fact it works against her since people want something different, not more of the same. In addition, just what kind of experience does Clinton actually have? We surely can’t count her time as First Lady, not least because she’s shown herself so willing to exaggerate her influence. Obama has just as many years in politics and has enacted many different bills. What’s more, he has been consistent throughout his time in politics whereas Clinton seems willing to be blown in whichever way she thinks the political wind is heading.
Clinton often comes across as ambitious and arrogant

Clinton's present crisis, where she trails Obama by over 100 delegates, is her own creation. Her campaign-team presented her as the inevitable choice, ignoring the smaller caucuses and hoping to win on the strength of the big states alone. They thought they could arm-twist donors and supporters who lacked a credible alternative. Her former campaign-manager, Patti Solis Doyle, spent over 30 million dollars of donors' contributions on her NY state re-election campaign, although Hillary did not have a serious contender. Such mistakes have cost Clinton dearly. She overlooked the fact that individual donors are, propelled through the internet, becoming a big new force in American politics, that the internet has made American democracy more open and diffuse, and that as a result big media companies no longer have the power to "make or break" a candidate.
Clinton presidency will mean 20 years of two families controlling the USA

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? Do you really want more of the same? This era has resulted in a much richer upper class and the poverty gap in relative earnings between rich and poor has increased more than at any other time in history. This is not a coincidence. Furthermore, Clinton and Bush both attend meetings such as the bilderberg group which run counter to ideas about democratic process. They are for the SPP and the NAU which run counter to American sovereignty. Clinton has no substance and is all gimmick, a classic example would be the gas rebate ploy she used a couple weeks ago (which would not help poorer families, and that no economist agreed with). Essentially, I don’t like any of the three ‘candidates’ that we have a ‘choice’ between (Obama, Clinton, McCain) as they ALL will increase taxes for the average American. In fact, the National Tax Payers Union reported that he ONLY candidate that would save ANY taxes for the average American would be Republican candidate Ron Paul. Ron Paul also calls for an end to the income tax, the Federal Reserve and the IRS. He will also get the troops out of Iraq immediately. Indeed, Paul has received more money from active military personnel than ANY other candidate. Ron Paul is still running and his campaign has received the MOST money for ANY candidate from grassroots supporters (average American Citizens) than anyone in history. Yet most people do not know who this guy is… thanks to the mainstream media (which is owned by the super class which has benefited most from the last 20 plus years of BUSH/CLINTON presidency. This is also not a coincidence. Essentially, the election so far has been politics as usual. Distracting the attention away from the real issues which are destroying America such as the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the Income Tax. Please watch ‘America: Freedom to Fascism’ by Aaron Russo for more. It's free on google video.
Hillary has far more experience than Obama

Hillary Clinton is now one of America’s most seasoned national politicians, having been at her husband’s side during his 8 year term in the White House, and having been a member of the US Senate for the last 8 years. She has developed a strong grasp of policy-issues, understands how the American political system works, and how to work at different levels of government, as well as how to reach out across party-lines. Being able to draw on Bill Clinton's perspective and experience if necessary, would help Hillary Clinton see the pitfalls of new legislation that cause many presidents to stumble out of the blocks. Barack Obama's credit card reform act of 2009 is arriving dead on arrival as credit card companies are simply canceling credit cards and forcing anyone who desires credit to accept new terms anyways. It is this kind of mistake that an inexperienced president who does not have a former president to consult with when necessary that has come home to roost.
It is time we saw our first woman president

No one can deny that the Afro-American minority in the States has suffered greatly. Even after slavery was abolished after the Civil War, blacks continued to be oppressed under Jim Crowe legislation. They had less access to education, to jobs, a poorer chance of getting a fair trial, of finding suitable housing, and continue to make up a disproportionately large percentage of the US prison population. Electing Obama would be one way of showing that the country wants to overcome this history of hatred and suspicion. It would also put someone at the top who knows what it is like to undergo such discrimination.
Clinton does not represent young Americans

While Clinton still represents the conventional voter, doing especially well among older men and women, Obama has been extremely successful in getting young Americans to vote for him. He has been responsible for galvanizing a new generation of Americans to think about political issues and to contribute their time and effort to his campaign. In the long run, this could help revitalize the American polity, bringing fresh ideas, talent, and new faces into it. A political system which is still tuned to the interests of the baby-boomer generation cannot understand the needs of the new generation, and the challenges they face.
Nationalism oppresses women. Inherent in nationalism is the notion of blood descent; a nation's hea...

Nationalism can take many benign forms, including that of civic nationalism, where a shared sense of national identity is created and reinforced by institutions, not ethnicity or history. Civic nationalism has taken firmest root in the United Kingdom and the United States. This is an inclusive kind of nationalism that accepts any individual into its institutions. Nationalism can provide cultural and political glue for strong democratic institutions that can win out over forms of ethnic exclusion or political repression.
Nationalism is a movement of the past, linked the evils of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. ...

Nationalism can be misused, but it is an important political fact. Nation states are workable political units. On one hand they are small enough that the people feel a connection to their government and can hold it accountable. On the other hand, they are large enough for those governments to be rich and powerful enough to make a difference (e.g. running a welfare state, transferring wealth from prosperous regions to economically depressed ones, having a meaningful foreign policy). In this way, nationalism, and the nation state to which it aspires, is a force for democracy and good government. International organisations, by contrast, are undemocratic in nature and impossible to hold accountable for incompetence and corruption.
Nationalism empowers political movements that lead to excess, corruption and violence. Leadership r...

Nationalism empowers political movements that lead to excess, corruption and violence. Leadership regimes that are politically and economically corrupt, such as the National Salvation Front of Romania, Communist China, Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and North Korea, exploit existing senses of nationalism to disguise the fact that they mismanage and oppress their countries. They use nationalism as an irrational base of support for irrational policies. The people would do more to change their regimes if their minds were not clouded by emotionally-charged feelings of nationalism.
Nationalism causes ethnic violence through its narrative of racial superiority. This aspect of nati...

Nationalism causes ethnic violence through its narrative of racial superiority. This aspect of nationalism has caused numerous genocides, including but not limited to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and the atrocities in Rwanda, Japanese violence against the Chinese and the abysmal treatment of the United States’ native American population. This is the inevitable result of nationalism's focus upon definition - 'we' are 'us' because we are not like 'them' - and so encouragement to exclusion and antagonism. This applies to groups both within the state, where 'the other' is seen as both inferior and as a threat, and to other states with different ethnic and cultural traditions.
Nationalism reinforces the existence of essentially arbitrary nation-states. Nations form by compar...

Nationalism reinforces the existence of essentially arbitrary nation-states. Nations form by comparing one group against an ‘other’, which can range from a small ethnic population to the rest of the world. These false divisions of humanity have been the basis for violence, war, instability and trade barriers that increase human misery. Nationalism has perpetuated those divisions and fuels the basis for conflict through continued dehumanising of “other” groups.
Nationalism oppresses women. Inherent in nationalism is the notion of blood descent; a nation's hea...

Nationalism oppresses women. Inherent in nationalism is the notion of blood descent; a nation's health and security is tied to its birth rate. This leads to pro-'natalist' policies that violate the reproductive and civil rights of women. Romania is a good example of when nationalist thinking tramples the rights of women, leading to forced birthing for most Romanians and horrifying illegal sterilisations for the minority Roma population.
Nationalism is a movement of the past, linked the evils of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. ...

Nationalism is a movement of the past, linked the evils of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The future lies in an internationalist approach that stresses our common humanity, rather than emphasising those small differences that have been used by nationalists to divide us. In particular, nationalism stands against the widespread establishment of human rights, as it places absolute national sovereignty above the individual rights of all citizens. This makes it impossible for the international community to protect properly the human rights of those living under oppression and dictatorship. Supranational organisations such as the United Nations and European Union provide a way forward for the different peoples of the world to cooperate towards common goals of peace and prosperity, while still respecting and celebrating diversity.
Nationalism empowers political movements that lead to excess, corruption and violence. Leadership r...

According to Isaiah Berlin, “The ‘physiognomies’ of cultures are unique: each presents a wonderful exfoliation of human potentialities in its own time and place and environment. We are forbidden to make judgments of comparative value, for that is measuring the incommensurable.”[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] A plurality of nations, especially in the modern era, can allow for cultural development and cultural exchange that benefits both parties. The human variety offered by national feeling makes the world a better place, through the diversity offered by the cultures that nationalism nurtures and protects.
Nationalism causes ethnic violence through its narrative of racial superiority. This aspect of nati...

Nationalism is a sense of fellow-feeling between group members. This promotes cooperation and social cohesion within the group. According to Robert Reich, former US Secretary of Labor, that sense of social cooperation makes welfare, social security and medical programs much more likely and stronger. It also may make for a smoother political process when there is a solid basis for consensus. Societies with a healthy sense of nationalism are more likely to provide for each other and avoid the plight of poverty or poor health.
Nationalism reinforces the existence of essentially arbitrary nation-states. Nations form by compar...

Nationalism has been a potent force for self-determination in colonial territories. The profoundly misunderstood Vietnamese independence movement, as well as most African liberation movements of the 1940s and 1950s drew heavily on the idea of nationhood to mobilise their people against a foreign exploitative power. Other examples include India, Indonesia, Guinea, and Guyana. Most often these states, once independence has been achieved, see a fracturing of nationalism that prevents those nationalist impulses from being used to condone violence against minority populations.
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.

It's easy to say 'look at what people give up for the people they love' and use that as proof of selflessness. However, the fact that they are going out of their way - doing something they ordinarily wouldn't want to do - for someone they care about only serves to proove that selflessness is selfish. True, they are putting themselves out, but they are doing it to bring relief or aid to a person they value. That person's happiness affects their own happiness, and leaving them to suffer would leave someone with unpleasant feelings of guilt and sadness. Therefore, performing the 'selfless' act is, essentially, self-serving, albeit on a subconscious level.
Not every act has a selfish motive.

There are other things that may also be selfless other than love, just as long as you are not concerned with yourself. There is, for example, loyalty, in which you would do anything that a person says without expectation of money or benefits, instead the reason being that you just want to do what the person says. Love's opposite, hate, may also be selfless, though not for another person. When you feel hate, you just want to hurt somebody, unlike love, which is the opposite. In this case, you are also not concerned with what you gain or benefit. Since these reasons are selfless, why isn't love?
The only possible selflessness would be choosing to deny your desires simply because they’re YOUR desires to deny regardless of whether those desires were “selfish” or “selfless”.

Even a person choosing to give an item to someone which they really don’t want to give them chooses to do it because of another “side” of THEMSELVES driving them to do it. In this case, the only selfless act they could commit is to choose NOT to give the gift so as to NOT serve their primary driving force for giving it (themselves).