BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
placebo effect and phenylthiamine

But are chocolate eaters happy? [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8644016.stm]] research suggests that those who eat regular amounts of chocolate are generally depressive/glum/sad. i dont think that chocolate is for us!and i also dont think that that it makes us happy.because if we eat a chocolate it tastes very delicious but we are not satisfied we keep eating more and more and this causes certain diseases like diabeties occurs to small children ,they spoil there teeth ,worms in the intestines ,and i say that those who eat chocolates they are happy but only for time period because everyone will suffer after having the diseases and so much of fat is also not good health !!! as it increases our colestrol in body.
Gives large amount of instant energy

How is instant, short lasting energy good for us? This can cause a sugar crash. Repeated bouts of this sugar crash can cause diabetes. It is true that sugar is absorbed into the body very quickly and releases a large amount of energy. However, this energy is very short lived. When the sugar levels start to plummet so will the individual’s productivity. They will slow down. It is for this reason that students taking exams are told to avoid sugar; it will cause them to have a sugar crash during the exam and this will hinder their performance.
It causes weight gain

This cannot be cited as a reason why chocolate itself is not good for you. Excessive chocolate eating is not good for you, over that there is no doubt and no debate. However, the question is, can chocolate be good for you. Anything in excess is not good for you, even fruit and vegetables. It is for this reason that we must exclude excessive behaviours out of the debate. We can enjoy chocolate as part of a healthy lifestyle so long as moderation is achieved.
Financially, chocolate is expensive

Once again this argument is relying on people being intemperate and uncouth about their chocolate eating! The cost of chocolate would only be of concern to most people if they were gorging on the largest, most expensive bars of chocolate. However most people would budget chocolate into their expendable income and leave chocolate off of their shopping list should they become short of cash. A small chocolate treat could do wonders for you mood and it need not be expensive [[http://www.milkybar.co.uk/products/singlepacks.aspx]].
Chocolate, like most drugs, is addictive

When eating chocolate we do feel good about ourselves. This is because it causes endorphins, a happy hormone, to be released around our body. These hormones are then picked up by receptors in our brain and this results in us being happy. However, this is short lived. To get that happy mood we need to eat more chocolate. But eventually the receptors in our brain become desensitised to the effects of chocolate and so we would need to at more chocolate in order to feel the same happy effect. The results can be catastrophic consequences including morbid obesity.
placebo effect and phenylthiamine

[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3604275.stm]] chocolate makes people happy, via the mood-altering chemicals in chocolate and also through all the goodness associated with it. For generations people of all age groups all over the world; have had chocolate as a 'treat' or as something to 'enjoy' during festivities. Happy people are healthy people. counter:over-indulgence of anything is bad for you. Fat is a necessary food component for good mental and physical health. It is one of the essentials of a balanced diet but we all know the adverse effects of having too much fat and their correlation with a range of diseases. Sugar/carb(ohydrate)s are also essentials in a Balanced diet : Have too much and you're headed for a lot of trouble. People who eat chocolate as a luxury treat are happier(therefore healthier\0 than people who don't have chocolate at all.
Gives large amount of instant energy

If you are in need of some extra energy, a piece of chocolate would contain the sugar you need to give you the energy boost. People who work in highly pressured jobs often need this sort of energy boost from sugar in order to complete their day’s tasks as quickly as possible. It also is a quick snack that if people did not have they would not eat at all. This would make them slower and less productive at what they are doing. Therefore, on a productivity level, chocolate is good for you.
It causes weight gain

There is no doubt about it that we, on the whole, enjoy eating chocolate. But we can take this enjoyment too far. If we like it, we do it. Therefore we end up gorging ourselves on chocolate. The reality is that in today’s society we do not make time for exercise to work those extra calories off. The end result is then weight gain. Our stomachs enlarge and then we are able to fill it with more chocolate. This leads to more weight gain. With this cycle of events it is not hard to see why we are such an overweight nation. The health issues lie in the weight gain. Excess weight can cause weakening of the joints, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. This shows us that in our current society; chocolate is not good for you.
Financially, chocolate is expensive

Given that chocolate is a popular product; companies can get away with charging excessive prices for meagre amount of chocolate. This then is taxed heavily by the Government due to the cost of the NHS of treating people who are overweight and suffering from the related symptoms of being overweight. The end result is an expensive product. Given that the nutrients that chocolate contains can be found in cheaper foods such as milk and tea; chocolate is not good for our bank accounts.
It causes tooth decay.

We all love the taste of chocolate (mostly sugar). We all love the sensation of the chocolate in our mouth, the way it melts at body temperature. But these two factors about chocolate make our teeth quiver in their roots. Sugar is a well known cause of tooth decay. Bacteria thrive off of the sugar in the moistness of our mouths. They feed off of the sugar and, like humans after feeding, release a waste product. Bacteria release acidic chemicals as their waste product. This acid erodes the enamel on our teeth. The effects can be prevent or elevated by regular brushing of our teeth. However, the melting nature of chocolate makes this difficult. The chocolate melts in our mouths and the sugar within the chocolate are released into difficult areas of the mouth and in between teeth. This makes the sugar and bacteria harder to wash away and therefore increases the risk of tooth decay.
we can used diabled people as an example

The problem with this argument lies in the terminology. Citing disabled people as an example of those who lack ability; you only talk of the physically disabled; what about the mentally disabled? These people do not have the ability to change their personality, that is the very nature of their disability. It is a disability in the mind. So , how can we judge them on their lack of ability to change/develop their personality? Counter: Quite often; the main reason we friend or are kind to disabled people is because we feel bad for them or wish to see the person 'behind' the disability and not because they have winning personalities. The idea of good/bad personalities is subjective. People have personality preferences/compatibilities. Everyone may not hold the view that a commercially defined glowing/peppy personality is the best personality. And having an odd personality does not mean they/we can't find friends. We're all quirky/weird in our own way and true friends accept us with our faults/setbacks(irrespective of whether we are socially awkward, lack savoir faire, have disgusting eating habits etc ) and sometimes because of them. *When we require a disabled person to meet our standards. That is require them to at the least have a good personality/smile-a-lot for us to be charitable to them. Then we are not being nice but are discriminatory. We should help people in need irrespective of whether we like them or not. Human resources can only be utilized according to abilities. If you are mute; no amount of voice lessons will make you an incredible singer. Just as a lame-legged cripple cannot run a marathon.
we can used diabled people as an example

By the very definition of the word disabled, these are people who are not able bodied. If we were to value ability over personality; then we put perfectly valuable human resources which are potential assets( such as disabled people) to society in the back burner. They would be our last consideration as friends and we assign them with a lower human value than their able counterparts. It is for this reason that personality should be valued above natural ability. People cannot avoid being born disabled, but they can control their attitude. Therefore; it is personality we should praise people for, as this is something that we cultivate for ourselves. [[http://www.thedailymind.com/success/bad-company-are-your-friends-really-friends/]]
we should not seek to improve ourselves via other people's ability

But the same argument can be made about personality. If we value personality, what criteria do we base this valuation on? We base the criteria around what we want out of life. If we seek morbid truth and intellect, then we will value humans with these personality sets. If we require an out going friend who makes us laugh, then this is what we will value. What we value in personality is also about achieving our own ends. Counter to counter: But personality as defined on the left, is the 'ability' to win people over; and therefore deems the debate itself void and self-contradictory. You cannot logically compare category of something with itself. A belongs to B; Is A preferred to B? maybe actually If you choose B,then you automatically get A since it is contained in B but if you choose A exclusively you could be saying you prefer A over B/A (U A) in B. Therefore prefer A over all elements of A complement in B. Right, so the argument on the left is that the ability to win people over trumps all other abilities. Yes, but is personality not a superficial rendition of all your abilities? That is; your personality showcases how smart/athletic/able you are. How you present yourself is not more important than who you are or what you are able to do. False advertising is devious and advertising in general can be thought of as showing-off/exhibitionism. Therefore personality or your superficial interactions with your universe of discourse is not a true indicator of merit/ability and should be dismissed relative to people's real value/competence
we should not seek to improve ourselves via other people's ability

When it comes to valuing people, if we use ability to classify people by we are using an inherent thought process that renders that we should only value humans who can do something for us. We should only value those who will help us achieve our goals. But this surely is not the way to go through life. We should not see people as a means to our own ends as Kant-anian theorists would say. Instead we should value people for their personality. This valuation does not revolve around asking if a person is useful to our purposes and therefore is the least self interested valuation; and therefore the correct one. Counter: I think the person who authored the paragraphs above; is confusing charity/human-kindness/selflessness with being won over by an individual's personality.The latter being self interested because 'you' need to be won over; that is(i.e), 'like' the person you're being nice to if you're judging him/her on his/her personality. The general idea is that a good personality is one that makes other people happy; by making them laugh or feel important or feel like they are in the comfortable presence of greatness(as stated above and on the right:we like personalities that aid in achieving our own ends). So; we have a general perspective of largely like-able personalities where as a vague measure of abilities; making our judgment of people on the basis their abilities as determined by time-limited tests problematic. Think of this as E.Q(emotional quotient) versus I.Q (intelligence quotient) Clarifying with examples: e.g1: You can can hire/admit a person to a job/institution on the basis of his/her abilities as demonstrated/measured via/through testing and interviews but his/her personality will determine whether s/he can last in your work-place/space/environment, alternatively whether s/he fits in to/with your company culture. e.g 2. You may admire/like a person from afar because of his/her sports/academic abilities/strengths but may not like the person once you get to know him/her because of a personality clash. We of the proposition challenge the definition of personality as a means to showcase/advertise abilities and redefine personality as: who we are inside.
personality can sometimes achieve more than ability

Personality without ability is shallow and void. Skills must/should be honed before they are illuminated for all to see via a bright/attractive personality. Otherwise you come off as fake/artificial/a-fluke/a-joke/dishonest/unreliable/exaggerating/a-stereotypical-socialite. And your vibrant personality works against you. counter: Assuming 'Everyone's good at something'; your personality should match your abilities to be effective in your pursuit for success; giving a false impression does not benefit you(or anyone else) in the long run.
personality can sometimes achieve more than ability

A great personality practically proves to be a more effective conduit towards any achievement than mere ability. Ability without personality(meaning the right attitude here) is wasted because it lacks stand alone value. Someone who is pleasant to talk to, willing to cooperate with others, trustworthy etc. can achieve much more than job competency. Good personality traits such as being optimistic and positive, perseverance, willful/sincere dedication to whatever you do and keeping a growth mindset; can prove to be supremely effective/useful in achieving any thing. Everyone's good at something.
Ability can change, personality can't.

How can you believe that we have no control over our personality and therefore should not be judged for it? If we come across someone who is a nasty person, mean, scrupulous, we do not automatically think that they are born that way and forgive them. People do have control over their personality, people can choose who they want to be. To argue differently is to argue for the counter intuitive; opposite to how we all naturally think.
Ability can change, personality can't.

If I am incompetent at something, it is my fault because I have not trained myself up enough. Even people with no natural gift can get to a reasonably level of competence over time. Personality is part of identity, it is what makes a person who they are, it is unfair to ask them to change this. As it can't be changed, it is unfair to judge them on the criteria. Even if a person was to so radically change, it wouldn't be the same person, so it would be meaningless to compare them to the old person. When you complain about someone being mean, miserly, dishonest etc. you are asking them to act in a different way towards you eg. give you what you want - not to actually be a different person! It would be unfair to ask them to change that much. Acting in a way that you can co-operate with others in a society is different from changing your inner life. You would usually give someone an incentive, such as a favour back, or a threat of punishment, to someone with a difficult personality, so that it makes sense in-character for them to act in the normally uncharacteristic way.
Here's one thing people forget: biology.

A difference does not mean that equality is not possible. Handicapped people are capable of being treated equally. People of different races have different physiological characteristics: some races are prone to certain diseases, and have other differences in abilities: you don't see many Asian basketball players, do you? The fact that a difference exists does not mean that there needs to be inequality. The idea that it does supports racism and discrimination against handicapped people - in addition to other forms of bigotry I refer you to the motion: 'Women are superior to men' women can swim longer distances faster.
There's an ever fixed mental ladder of acceptance

What I present here may be harsh to admit, but in most cases, anyone would put it this way: Smart Pretty Woman > Smart Pretty Man > Pretty Woman > Smart Man > Smart Woman > Pretty Man > Ugly Man > Stupid Woman > Stupid Man > Ugly Woman > Ugly Stupid Man > Ugly Stupid Woman After all, the beauty of a woman is what most appreciated. When there's nothing good in a person, only the strength of a man can be exploited.
The media exploits women.

Women are still portrayed in the media and marketing as sex objects, and many of them are willing participants. The hundreds of women bust their tails to make it big and their are still billboards of women close to naked on the side of the freeways. Completely indiscreet women flashing their boobs for the tele whenever possible and then these tactless videos are bought and sold on the open market. The women who are successful, as you say, are clearly out numbered. The women get on the television, ads, billboards, etc. and say 'this is my worth', 'this is what you should think of women'. These images are flashed in front of the children several times a day. They may learn of these successfull women one day and think that it is a mere fluke, and normal women are to be seen and treated like they are displayed in the media. Instead of "what's on your mind?" it's"show me your boobs, Hottie mama!", and crotch shots all around. These are the choices that women make to show the world that women are for sex, and not to be taken seriously.
Women dress too provocatively.

Women wear clothing specifically designed to show off their differences. They use their bulges and curves to manipulate the people around them. I am not speaking of women who were dresses, and high heels. I am referring to the ones that show way too much. The ones that might bend over and show their cadoodle from behind, and a boob would pop out the front. To wear a short skirt to tantilize a man in order to get a job. These are the things that happen so often that men find it near impossible to take a women seriously. It is disrespectful to themselves and to other women.
I am woman, hear me roar.

Some women find it necessary to exaggerate when it comes to a conflict with a man. They automatically assume that the conflict exists strictly because the two genders are involved. They also tend to think that if they can not do something(i.e. lift something heavy), that the other gender will think that women are weak. Sometimes women insist that they should get things on the grounds that they are women, and if they don't get it, then they assume it has to be because they are not men. They get rude with a man, because he opens the door for you. Saying, "I am a women, that doesn't mean that I can't open a door for myself!"
Here's one thing people forget: biology.

I think people forget that despite what a lot of what the feminist movement wants, they cannot escape the fact that the biology of human males and females can cause substantial differences in abilities, as noted by a lot of physical and psychological testing. Just the simple test of how male and female humans find directions going to an unfamiliar place already demonstrate this. There are many places where males and females can do equally well, but our biology will dictate the strengths and weaknesses of each gender on certain tasks and abilities. Let us not forget the fact that there are different types of sexual orientations. While a bisexual person can look at men and women equally, even in the state of physical attraction, a homosexual or heterosexual cannot do this. This is a huge part of what makes the belief in gender equality as attainable nothing more but an imagination. Besides, the world is imperfect. Murder, rape, stealing, and corruption will never disappear from the face of this Earth. Therefore, we should stop having high hopes in gender equality.
The media exploits women.

Women are not only portrayed as sex objects! That is a gross exaggeration, and very misleading. There have been many empowering roles for women over the last 20 years in the media. In magazines and newspapers, everyone will think of the big bosomed page three girls, but what about the hundreds of women who work as journalists and columnists. “Women” is a 2008 film which contains only female leads. All of the actresses involved found it very rewarding and in no way seen themselves as exploited. Not every woman on TV is nude, and of those who are nude, we cannot say it is the result of exploitation. You may not like it, but some people are exhibitionists, and they enjoy being seen naked. But that is a woman’s choice and as long as it is balanced by the success of more reserved women then we cannot argue that the media exploits females.
Women dress too provocatively.

This is a poorly made argument. As you said, women choose to dress provocatively. And why should they not? Your argument seems to be based around the fact that women are showing off the fact that they are women. But surely this is what gender equality is. Women should not have to hide their differences from men. They should feel like they can dress however they want, be that provocatively or conservatively. Individual women dress provocatively - not all of female-kind. A woman who dresses provocatively simply conveys information about herself - not that all women are sluts and only useful in the bedroom.
I am woman, hear me roar.

Women only roar at ill-intentioned men, if a man is only being polite in an attempt to attract a woman; obviously the woman will object. lift-something-heavy! There are female weight lifters[http://www.female-bodybuilders.org/bodybuilding-gallery.php]] Many women say 'Chivalry is not dead' when a NICE man is being the good Samaritan. But those same women are not nice to sleazy men; and women can tell.
Strippers, porn magazines, prostitution continue to separate the genders.

self exploitation doesn't really make sense Exploiation - act of utilizing something in an unjust or cruel manner surely one is not able to use oneself in an unjust or cruel manner otherwise one would not do it. I would say on this point that it is not necessarily the people but the culture has deemed it to imply. When the word porn, stripper is used for an odd reason it is associated with female. This almost impies that there are no male strippers porn stars etc. However as I'm sure you're aware there is sufficent evidence to reason the contrary. Perhaps what needs to change is the culture and thereby the association of words. But I agree with the title this isnt going to happen anytime sooon unless people realise that not every women is a promiscuous whore and that men can be very much the same. There are also male strippers, porn subjects, and prostitutes. Does that mean all men should be or are labeled as a part of this "people of the night" subculture?
Normal Charities Are More Focused on Their Mission

The dividing line between organizational religion and mission oriented charity is not always clear. Some groups like the Red Cross/Crescent, Catholic Church, or the Salvation Army might qualify as both. Members of any religion are likely to disagree with argument 3 because of their own affection for their group. Each member can decide by scheduling a quick interview with their pastor if the organization is actually helping the community it is occupying. It is not like people are tied down to one group like the European Middle Ages. Asking questions like what, who, where, how, why, and when, can clarify disagreements that you have with the leader's vision. Many honest clergies acknowledge growth points and are working toward them. They cannot work toward them if no one is helping them.