BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government campaigns to encourage us to eat '5 a day'

It doesnt make sense that a government that encourages people to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day can still charge 17.5% tax on 100% pure fruit juices. The Treasury is essentially discouraging the consumption of smoothies and fruit juices. But to get people on the road to changing their diet habits then taxes on all things "healthy" should be reduced and if it means people are buying takeaway fruit and watered down fruit juice it is a start to encouraging people to try new things and buy the healier options on sale. With out people having an incentinve to start with you will not change peoples attitudes
Smoothies and fruit juices are bad for oral health

Although counting as one of the "5-a-day", fruit juices are very acidic and often sugary and have a bad effect on the nation's teeth. The chewing of fruit stimulates the production of saliva and helps to protect the teeth by counter-acting the acid, but with fruit juices and smoothies this chewing doesn't occur, thus leaving the teeth susceptible. If reducing tax did increase consumption there would be a negative effect on people teeth and our already overloaded NHS dental system would be further stretched.
It is nonsense to tax healthy drinks like fruit juices while not taxing turkey twizzlers

There is nothing inherently wrong with turkey twizzlers beyond the additives (which, following the negative publicity, have been cut down on - a move reflected across the industry), if eaten in moderation. They are a good source of protein that's essential to young people. Poorer families don't need expensive fruit drinks; fruit and veg (not taxed) will suffice.
The government campaigns to encourage us to eat '5 a day'

The majority of supermarkets sell 'value range' fruit juice from concentrate, which provides equal health benefits and counts towards your 5-a-day. It is also probably cheaper to buy fruit and veg than live off takeaways. Just because smoothies cost a bit of money doesn't mean that the government is depriving our nation of healthy food. It is also much healthier to eat fresh fruit and veg that hasn't been strained, preserved and pasteurised as many fruit juices don't contain the same level of vitamins and fiber that fresh fruit does. Smoothies and juices have their place in a healthy lifestyle, but only in moderation. Much better alternatives exist. Drinking a glass of sugary, watered down fruit is not actually very healthy. It is one of the quickest ways to consume calories (the average glass containg 150 - 200 calories, many of which natural sugary carbohydrates) as most people take only a few seconds to drink a glass.
Removing VAT would increase sales of healthy drinks

The treasury says it can not remove VAT without EU approval. EU rules do not allow the adding of more products to zero-rating unless it is done across the EU. And that would take a lot of political willpower. Furthermore, smoothies in particular would remain expensive; a small bottle of Innocent costs about £2 (£1.70 before VAT) and still counts as only one portion. It is much more economical to buy individual fruit than elaborate concoctions, and removing VAT doesn't make them any more affordable to the sectors of the population that need to eat more fruit.
Children's health will improve

Smoothies and fruit juices are mainly consumed in middle class homes. In working class homes, the sad fact is that the drink consumed most often is cheap supermarket coke. At less than 30p for a two-litre bottle, smoothies, at nearly £2 for a 1-litre carton, smoothies cannot compete. Coke will still be as popular, and as damaging to children's health as ever it was. Reducing tax on smoothies will have little, if any, effect on the health of the children who are most likely to be in poor health.
The money would be better spent on education

Firstly, just because the Treasury says something doesn't make it right - if the Treasury says a 100% tax would be good for the country, it wouldn't mean you have to agree with them! Secondly, there are lots of things taxes can be spent on, such as improving healthcare and the NHS. Reducing these taxes actually cuts out the beauraucracy involved and improves healthcare, thus being a good way to save money rather than spend it.
It is nonsense to tax healthy drinks like fruit juices while not taxing turkey twizzlers

You don't need to pay VAT on the vast majority of food and drink that you buy. 0% VAT rate is applied to all "essential" foods whether it's doughnuts, frozen chips, or turkey twizzlers. All 'beverages' are taxed at 17.5%. Classed as non-essential beverages are exceptions to the zero-rate that's applied to food.
the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved

INTERPHONE [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] completed a study based upon phone use and brain tumours. They specifically found no correlation between the two phenomenon. Given that hand held phones are held to the ear with the antennae near the brain, surely this is where most of the damage would be caused. Given this, it is high time that we stopped scaring ourselves out of using technology and move forward with it
They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.

Quite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. "Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma.
the increase personal safety

Whilst people may be focusing on the negative effects that radiation may or may not have, there is also the aspect of personal safety. People no longer have to find a phone booth to make an emergency call. People no longer have to have change on them to use that phone box. Mobile phones have saved thousands of lives. With most people having one, if you are out shopping and an accident occurs, you know that there will be many people around who within a matter of seconds would be able to call the police, an ambulance or a fireman depending on what the situation was. This is a speedier way to handle an emergency and the time saved will have already saved thousands of lives. This is compared to no recorded deaths for the radiation caused by mobile phones.
the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved

These studies were based on people who had been using phones for 2-5 years, but this does not show the long term effects. Like smoking, using a phone for 2-5 years probably does not significantly increase your risk of cancer. However, after 10 years, I fear the story is different. A minority of small case studies have been conducted in this area, and they to the contrary show that such prolonged use does in fact lead to higher percentage of rare brain tumours. This was also shown to occur on the side of the head on which the participants used to listen to the phone with.
They can cause cancer

We all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure.
Likely to be after resources

"“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise/colonize whatever planets they can reach".[[Jonathan Leake, Don’t talk to aliens, warns Stephen Hawking, The Sunday Times, 25/4/10, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece%5D%5D After all if they are advanced enough to reach us from wherever they are coming from then they are going to be considerably more advanced than we are. They are also likely to be running low on fuel and would be ignoring us if they were not after something. That something will almost certainly be resources of some kind. "Aliens won't travel millions of light years because their running out of resources"-unless their planet has been destroyed and they're looking for a new habitat/home.
First contact often does not go well

"If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans."[[Leo Hickman, Stephen Hawking takes a hard line on aliens, 26/4/10, guardian.co.uk, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/stephen-hawking-issues-warning-on-aliens%5D%5D This would be putting us in the position of the Native Americans rather than the Europeans. Not surprisingly first contact between civilizations even on earth has often not gone well due to differing traditions and ways of thinking. This is going to be much more the case in an encounter with aliens.
Aliens are almost certain to exist so we need a strategy for preventing contact on their terms

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,... The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.” Hawking believes that alien life is almost certain to exist in many other parts of the universe due to the vast scale of the universe the earth is unlikely to be the only place where life evolved. although we have no idea where that might be. There is no saying that they will have evolved on planets like us so our current way of looking for life by looking for water could just be the starting point. They may live not just on planets, but perhaps in the centre of stars or even floating in interplanetary space.[[Jonathan Leake Don’t talk to aliens, warns Stephen Hawking, The Sunday Times, 25/4/10, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece%5D%5D In practice when taken with the previous points this means that we need to be rethinking looking for alien life until we reach the point that we can be the ones that contact them rather than the other way around. At the moment making contact is 'a little too risky'.
Likely to be after resources

But why should we assume the worse? They could turn out to be philanthropic beings looking for friends in the universe. We're already fairly paranoid of alien invasions; (V the final battle) but what about the thirst for knowledge or curiosity or evolving above and beyond selfish intentions? We've kept a high profile; sending messages out into space hoping for someone to find us; but we haven't made contact; or if we give credence to the abduction stories; they haven't killed/robbed/raped/damaged us or anything. We wish to explore space but it's 'primarily' for knowledge;not space colonization. If we didn't have the problem of population explosion and limiting resources we would still be looking for life out there. In fact; Obama has cut down on space exploration spending significantly precisely "because" we're running low on resources. Aliens won't travel millions of light years because their running out of resources.
Aliens are almost certain to exist so we need a strategy for preventing contact on their terms

And yet they've been kind enough not to invade us at all (at least not overtly) while we're throwing out electronic and radio signals all over the universe. Let's not forget our extensive use of Tesla's (alternate/indirect Current) electricity to light up even at night maybe their 'evil' plan is to wait for us to finish ourselves off, but then when did we not fight? Is our primitive &suppressed survival instinct not carnal,destructive,aggressive and innate? Think of aliens as other species. Some animals are man-eaters(and even the fiercest of those can be and have been tamed/befriended by human beings on conditional terms) and some are completely pacifist. the yes says almost certan to exist not dose exsist i respect hawking but there is no acuall proof that other lif exsists
No way to prevent attempts at contact.

There is no way for us to attempt to prevent everyone in the planet from trying to contact aliens. Afterall there are more than 6 billion people on the planet, we cant keep an eye on them all and keeping an up with those who are dangerous, like suspected terrorists have to be more important than preventing contact with an alien race that may or may not be interested in us. If we had no official messages going out then Dan Drezner wouldn't Hawking's isolationist policy allow the quislings to monopolize the galactic message emanating from Earth? [[http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/25/how_do_you_say_realpolitik_in_klingon]] At the same time we cant just turn off all our communication signals. We have been broadcasting our radio and tv shows, mobile phone conversations etc for decades, how would we just shut it all off and make sure nothing leaks further out to space?
A good motivater to improve teaching and test standards.

Competition is a healthy part of the learning process. If children are coddled as equals and spoon-fed, then standards fall: Since children are not prepared for the unfairness in the real-world. Pedagogy is not the order of the day.Children need to learn how to learn/work independently/with-each-other(develop social/study skills). Teachers should not be pressured into becoming impertinent overbearing pushy people. Schools where performance is very mediocre have a much better chance of improving, than schools where most students are doing very well.
A good motivater to improve teaching and test standards.

If teachers feel that their student's performance will have an effect on their own salary. Then teachers will be monetarily motivated to push their students harder. Normally, schools have this incentive(better results, more funding) and teachers receive a fixed pay that gives them no reason to push their students to do their best, apart from the love of the teaching field. Teachers end up coddling pet-students and ignore/mock pupils that need their help the most. But if teachers will be rewarded for improving 'the overall' performance of a class,( And not just make sure Mr/Ms.First position maintains his/her high standards) then this kind of unfair elitism will eventually die out.
Schools that need the most funding have the worst performing students.

If a teacher's pay is based on performance, teachers who work with students from bad neighbourhoods and illiterate/non-academic families, will get the least pay; even though they will have to work harder than other teachers to get their students to perform well. This will act as a disincentive for teachers to be employed in such schools(and conditions for the school and its students will exponentially worsen). When something is harder and more dangerous it should have a 'higher'-pay incentive as compensation not the opposite.
Merit is more than statistics show

It is still possible to assess children in terms of social development. One can make deductions for convictions, underage pregnancies, extended use of jobseekers allowance etc and grant bonuses for things like voluntary work, being a full time carer and possibly political activism. The government already cares enough to put many lessons on social issues into the national curriculum. As for benefits that can't be measured, we should be skeptical of these. If we cannot measure them, they may not actually exist.
Merit is more than statistics show

The problem here is that undoubtedly the Government will use statistics to judge how well a teacher has done. The easiest statistics to gain will be exam results, and so these will be taken to be decisive. What will not be taken into account is the social development of a child. What will happen is that teachers will only be praised and paid for good exam results. But schooling is surely much more important than a percentage at the end of a year? A school aged child develops through these years and this development can be helped or hindered depending on a teacher’s performance. Surely this too should be taken into account?
yes it is right

You keep living under pressure circumstances, fact (knowing) that they can abuse you anytime anywhere is much worse than die instantly. Most of these "domestic abussers" do that because they can, discovering how far they can go. Alternate solutions many times are not available a)you are prisoner of yourself - you are not sure about the border or whether is that abuse or not(domestic - someone very close to you) => you are letting abuser to go to the next level => still you cannot decide from what point is behaviour of abuser considered objectively as abusement :) = infinite circle which end up as a murder from victims or attackers side. Showing them (attackers) that this could lead to mortal (life or death) choice (this does not mean necessarely kill but showing that you are capable of such an action) is sometimes only solution how to set the new borders when the acceptable behaviour stops and violence (domestic) starts. i hope it is understandable.
yes it is right

That "it is human nature to want to be free" may be true, and the attacker certainly is violating this right of the victim by abusing them. But what your point does not explain is why a desire to be free leads to a right to kill. Just because the abuser has in some way restricted the freedom of the victim does not necessarily mean that the victim is allowed to KILL the abuser. In order to claim to make this claim, that the victim is acting in self-defense, defending their rights, one must look at the qualifications for a self-defense argument. a. The threat must be imminent, and b. Alternate solutions must have been exhausted within reason. Because of the use of the word "deliberate" which is defined as premeditated, neither of these criterion are met. If the victim has time to think of killing the abuser, if it is a deliberate, carefully thought-out action, then the threat is not imminent and alternate solutions have not been exhausted. The victim could go to the police, leave the house, or even mildly debilitate the abuser, without having to resort to deadly force. Even just five minutes with a telephone or a computer, and the victim could have found some other solution. In this situation the victim is planning the crime, not because of necessity, not because they must protect themselves or their rights, because the threat is not imminent and there are other solutions, no, they are committing murder for revenge. And that is the sort of vigilante style justice that is truly unjust and leads to chaos.
yes, read this (i did not write this) the case i wrote is safe on my usb cuz im not dumb enough to put it online...

I would provide my case (which would destroy this affirmative...just saying) but like the affirmative, I'm not that dumb. So just a few ideas: 1) The affirmative states this is a matter of Morality, but how does achieving the Value of Justice affirm the resolution, which speaks of MORAL permissibility. 2) How does the abuser obtain his due punishment in these cases. Any just court of law would not impose the death penalty upon an abuser; However, the affirmative affords a private right to impose the death penalty, which would not typically provide due punishment in this situation. 3) NONE of the contentions truly uphold the criterion, which puzzles me. Contention 1 states there is no way out for victims. What does that have to do with due punishment? Contention 2 touches on it lightly, not strong enough to support the criterion. Contention 3 covers self-defense but how does that uphold the criterion? Overall, not a strong case... In my opinion.
Students perform poorly in formal language tests because they're out of practice when it comes to using

With each new generation born, they are growing up to understand the language using slang words. Although I agree that the elderly may not understand slang or even agree with its use, I believe that in a few more generations everyone will understand slang and use it frequently. Is that such a big problem? The english language changed from Old English to New Modern Day English, maybe Slang is the next step forward. Besides, slang is an art of communication. When we are talking about young people, which based on my humble thought is referring to the students or the teenagers, they speaks and express themselves by using slang words. Slang word is their daily words. Based on a study conducted by a professor, it is undeniable that slang affect the academic writing of the youngsters, but, it is not as bad as what people are paranoid of. Most of them can write formal language very well. But, they may slip one or two slang words accidentally. Most of all, they are aware of it and improving it. In these context, i believe that the young people nowadays are more aware of their own language usage and they know when to use the language and so. Thus, i strongly disagree with the argument that slang prevent young people from being able to communicate properly.
Students perform poorly in formal language tests because they're out of practice when it comes to using

English or whichever language is being tested; normally. Saying 'yeah' in lieu of 'yes' is a common problem and one which is never tolerated in the classroom or in tests/exams. Some slang words are new and older persons may not know them. Using these words can inhibit conversation greatly. Sometimes a language gap resulting from slang usage can manifest a language block between people of different generations. Not everyone is well-versed in thumb-text/AIM lingo and it is difficult to grasp for older people who act like an old dog who can't be taught new tricks. This of course is not true for 'all' older persons; a large number of 'old' people are hipper and with the times, than most 13 year-olds. When someone uses slang where s/he should be formal her/his audience does not usually take her/him seriously and most people assume that the person in question is not capable of formal speech or that s/he has no command of the language in question.
Grammar is often the handiwork of young tots; let them have it

Often is not always. The literati develop language by putting in signature words or phrases in cherished novels. Their record of new words puts the words in the dictionary. Authors,poets etc are not children. They are responsible for developing language and publishing its many forms. [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-peters/made-up-words-neologism_b_703977.html]] Grammar rules can be set by any one of any age. They catch on amongst children because they're are impressionable copy cats. One says or does something and the rest follow like sheep.
Grammar is often the handiwork of young tots; let them have it

"Grammar is seen when pidgins evolve into creoles. Usually the children who are raised speeking with the pidgins will get together and agree upon a structure of words for the pidgin, this applies grammar to their system of communication to create the Creole"-[[http://www.hevanet.com/alexwest/pidgin.html]] We adults cannot develop or learn language as well as children do. They dictate the most efficient forms of communication for the times. We cannot stick to one form of a language for a very long time and they're the only ones young and innovative enough to allow language to evolve naturally.