BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a strong precedent for letting Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Latvia, Lithuania and Estoni...

There is a strong precedent for letting Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are also former Soviet states, and Russia objected to their entry into NATO quite as much as it objects today about its Black Sea neighbours. Yet Russia was not allowed a veto over their futures, and it soon got over its annoyance, continuing to participate in joint forums with NATO and to cooperate with the USA over Afghanistan, North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation. So NATO is already committed to the defence of states in Russia’s near-abroad, and should not fear further expansion.
NATO has already promised membership to both states, at its Bucharest meeting in March 2008. Regard...

NATO has already promised membership to both states, at its Bucharest meeting in March 2008. Regardless of whether this was a good decision, it must now be upheld or the credibility of the alliance will be severely undermined. If not, Russia will be rewarded for its aggressive behaviour and know that NATO can be bullied into backing down. And potential friends and supporters of NATO throughout the world will know that its promises cannot be trusted.
Russian strength is illusory – the country’s wealth is highly dependent on the energy exports and it...

Russian strength is illusory – the country’s wealth is highly dependent on the energy exports and its economy is very vulnerable to a fall in oil and gas prices. Despite recent hostility to foreign oil firms attempting to operate in Russia, in the long term the country also needs western investment and technology if it is to maintain its energy output by opening and exploiting new fields. Indeed, Europe cannot be held hostage to Russian energy policy – who else could Russia sell its oil and gas to?\ Russia’s apparent military strength is also deceptive – its army and air force actually performed badly in Georgia and are no match for the modern forces available to NATO.\
Dramatic and depressing as events in Georgia in 2008 were, the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia ac...

Dramatic and depressing as events in Georgia in 2008 were, the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia actually make Georgia better suited to NATO membership than before. There would have been a clear danger of allowing Georgia into NATO if the status of these breakaway regions was unsettled, with the obvious potential for conflict with their Russian patron. Once Georgia can be brought to accept the permanent loss of these territories to Russia, then it becomes a much more united country, without any other obvious grounds for Russia’s future interference.
The people of both Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, and that is the best reason for welcoming ...

It is far from the settled will of the Georgian and Ukrainian peoples that they wish to join NATO. Georgia’s President Saakashvili does wish to join, but after his disastrous attempt to regain control of South Ossetia it is very unclear if his countrymen agree with him, and indeed whether he will survive in power. Ukraine is certainly split over NATO membership, with most of the Russian-speaking East of the country firmly opposed to the idea. The collapse of Ukraine’s coalition over how to respond to the conflict in Georgia shows how unsettled Ukrainian politics is. In any case, NATO membership should not automatically be extended to every nation which wishes it, but only offered when the current members of the alliance judge it to be in their strategic interest to do so.
Expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine is in the interests of NATO. After more than a decade with...

Further expansion is not in NATO’s interests. The alliance is based on the principle that the security of one is the security of all, so that all members will go to war if any one member is attacked. This is a very serious commitment and should not lightly be extended to new nations. The irresponsible manner in which Georgia provoked a conflict with Russia, ignoring US warnings, shows the danger of being sucked into quarrels in which most NATO members have no strategic interest. Like the breakaway regions of Georgia, Ukraine also contains many Russian-speakers who look to Moscow for protection, especially in the Crimea which hosts Russia’s Black Sea fleet. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which Ukrainian membership could bring NATO into a dangerous confrontation with Russia.
We must not allow Russia a veto over western policy or over the ability of sovereign states to decid...

NATO and the West must be aware of the danger of alienating Russia, which sees former Soviet states like Georgia and Ukraine as part of its natural sphere of influence – what it calls the “near abroad”. Apart from their historic links to Russia, these neighbouring states typically still host Russian military bases crucial to the defence of Russia itself (e.g. Sebastapol in the Crimea). They also contain large numbers of Russian speakers who often seek work as economic migrants within Russia itself, and have defence industries closely linked into Russia’s military-industrial complex. These links give Russia a legitimate interest in the future strategic orientation of states such as Georgia and Ukraine. Not surprisingly, Russia fears encirclement by America and its NATO allies. It also feels bitter that the deal it thought had been made in the late 1980s to limit NATO expansion appears to have been ignored, and sees plans to place American missile defences in neighbouring states as an aggressive western move. Continuing to provoke Russia by insisting on further NATO expansion within its near abroad make East-West relations even worse and lead to a new Cold War.
We do not need to buy Russia cooperation by sacrificing Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty. The Wes...

Western countries should seek to compromise with Russia, as they need its cooperation in a whole range of areas. Global efforts against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, energy security and organised crime will all fail without Russian participation. Russia’s veto power on the United Nations Security Council also means that alienating Moscow could frustrate international efforts to bring security and freedom to states such as Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Iraq. And NATO depends on Russian goodwill to allow supplies into Afghanistan via the safer northern route, cooperation that is likely to be withdrawn if Georgia and Ukraine remain candidates for membership.
There is a strong precedent for letting Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Latvia, Lithuania and Estoni...

In retrospect, the decision to welcome the former Soviet states in the Baltic into NATO appears foolish. They continue to have a prickly relationship with Russia, which has some legitimate concerns about the treatment of large Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia, and about the siting of US nuclear defences. Their entry into NATO was forced upon Russia, which naturally saw it as an aggressive move designed to humiliate it, and marked the point when its pro-western policy shifted to a more nationalist and confrontational approach. It also weakened the unity of NATO as there are quite legitimate doubts as to whether all the alliance’s members would really go to war with Russia over the integrity of, say, Estonia. Given this history, it would be madness to compound the problem by extending NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine.
NATO has already promised membership to both states, at its Bucharest meeting in March 2008. Regard...

When in a hole, don’t keep digging. The Bucharest decision was pushed on NATO by President Bush of the USA, soon to leave office. In fact he wanted a much more concrete offer of Membership Action Plans for Georgia and Ukraine, rather than the vague aspirations that the alliance offered – a result of the concerns expressed by European allies such as Germany. It turns out that these concerns were well-founded, and with a new American President soon to take power, the decision should not be seen as binding.
Russian strength is illusory – the country’s wealth is highly dependent on the energy exports and it...

NATO’s European members have an additional reason not to offend Russia by continuing to expand the alliance in defiance of Moscow. Much of Europe depends on imports of Russian gas for their energy needs, and the Kremlin has made clear over the past three years that it is prepared to use its control of energy as a political weapon. It has already limited the flow of energy to states (e.g. Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia) who have annoyed it on several occasions, and may well be prepared to turn lights, heating and factories off across Europe in retaliation for interference in its near abroad.\ Russia’s energy riches in a time of high oil prices also mean that it is far richer and self-confident than at any time since the fall of communism. The profits of its energy wealth have also enabled its military to be strengthened. This means that even if Moscow backed down in response to western assertiveness in the past, it is now determined to overturn past humiliations.\
Dramatic and depressing as events in Georgia in 2008 were, the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia ac...

The conflict in Georgia showed how NATO is already badly divided over how to respond to Russia. Old European states such as Germany and Italy are much readier to accommodate Russian interests than America, which is supported by newer NATO members such as Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States faces a danger that if it continues to push for NATO expansion in the face of Russian objections, it will split the alliance completely.
Reality TV shows provide wonderful entertainment.

There,s nothing else on other channels on saturgay nights to counteract this bile which pours into our living rooms, and no that wasn't a spelling mistake. Think about the audience, who else is interested in all-singing, all-dancing shows? Certainly not the vast majority of heterosexual guys out there. So please give us something else on these nights, we can't afford to spend time in what's left of our pubs anymore.
Reality TV shows are just there to make money for their creators.

Endemol have made a fortune out of Big Brother - no doubt boosted by spikes in audience figures when a controversial incident takes place. Simon Cowell's fortune has been built on the back of Pop Idol, X Factor and American Idol. With all winners contracted to his record company at the end of the show. Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber is just using How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria to promote his latest show. It is all about making money out of the public, by getting the public themselves to provide the content.
Economic growth

This is not the case. The most developed and richest countries are all democracies. While they may well have been developing their democracies during their initial industrialisation democracy and the freedom it brings is increasingly necessary for economic growth once the country has moved to being mostly dependent upon services rather than manufacturing or natural resource exploitation for economic growth. Once this occurs then creativity becomes important and the freedoms associated with democracy are needed to foster this creativity that is needed for industries such as information technology, creative arts, research and development etc.
Increasingly about money

In some countries democracy seems to be increasingly about money. The U.S. is the obvious example where millions are spent on elections with big events and glitzy advertising campaigns. This is not what democracy should be about and it discourages other countries from moving along the path to democracy. Indeed it undermines the very idea of democracy. Democracy when money is involved to the extent that it is in the U.S.A. becomes elitist and corporatist because only the elite and rich businessmen can afford to fund the campaigns for congress let alone for the presidency. The 2008 campaign for the White House cost $1.6 billion and the whole 2008 election including senate and house of representatives races cost $5.3 billion. Autocracies obviously avoid this immense expense by avoiding elections.
Represents the people

Democracy does not do very well at representing the people. In first past the post systems a government may not even have the support of a majority of those who voted not even including that many will not have votes and many more will not have the vote. This means that it is often a small minority of the population who determines which party gets in to government. Once they are there they are rarely representative of the people as they have several years to do what they like. Yes they need to think about re-election but that simply means they need to do more that the people like than the people dislike (or else have a good advertising campaign).
Economic growth

Autocracies are better at big projects, they can get things done and as such they are likely to be better at creating economic growth if they have the will. In an autocracy there are not the avenues for dissent that can block building projects, the police or troops can be used to clear protests that in the west would slow down large infrastructure projects. As a consequence of this all the infrastructure that is needed to create a modern economy can be produced quicker and cheaper than would be the case in a democracy. Also the resource base of the country can be accessed faster (no pesky environmentalists preventing drilling and mining!) and used more efficiently.
Electorate is not motivated

You can drag the electorate to the ballot box if you like but you cannot make them interested in most of the topics. It's an idea that seems appealing if your are one of those people who is interested (I would love it), but if you try to discuss political issues with most people they either change the subject or nod politely without comment. A lot of people are also keen to express their views, but clearly haven't done any research into their validity. An elected representative can take more time to consider the idea, discuss it with peers, and explain themselves if it is contrary to popular opinion. Of course, most politicians are weasels and will support popular opinion over educated opinion, but the result of this is no worse than direct democracy.
Better governance due to transparency

Democracy is as much about having checks and balances to the executive and having transparency of decision-making as it is about elections and the populace throwing governments out of power. In a democracy the parliament, the media and sometimes the judiciary all keep an eye on the executive and what is being done with the people’s money. They are therefore able to see if the executive is doing things that are detrimental to the country, are immoral, or even illegal. This can then be brought to a halt. Even where such actions are not visible on the surface there are separate institutions that have the power to investigate the executive and watch any ‘secret’ deals or actions that are going on away from public view.
There is no life on other planets!

There is no life on other planets because, there is no air on other planets other than on Earth and anything consider to have life needs air. Also because NASA has sent out a robot to Mars and since it's been there it hasn't seen anything out of the ordinary, just small amounts of water. No other type of life could exist on other planets because where would they and how would they survive. They wouldn't have the technology, water, air, or resources we have to survive. There is no life on other planets because whatever has been shown about life on other planets is all made up. Such as, UFO's and aliens they are made up by people who seek for attention and can't get it anyway other than by making up such a things as UFO's and aliens. With the way technology has improved anyone can say they have a picture of a UFO's or have seen some lights flashing like on the shows. There is no life on other planets because no concrete evidence of life other than life on planet Earth has been found. -Chel
There are many false alarms

Yes, there are many crazy people out there, but there are also intelligent ones who know about all the explanations that exist and do still see things that cannot be explained. The head of the Mutual UFO Network receives 200 to 400 (1) reports of flying objects every month and acknowledges that many are hoaxes or mistaken beliefs. But, he does believe a small portion are credible sightings – roughly around 10% are visits from alien life and he believes the government knows about it. (1) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98385&page=1
Yes, because it is more likely.

Is there life on other planets, yes because there is a greater probability of life existing on another planet than earth being the exclusive vehicle for life. No one can deny that millions of galaxies, stars, planets and their moons exist in the universe. Earth acquired the right circumstances for life to thrive by mere chance. An old cliché states-even a broken clock is right twice a day, also more than one individual has won the California state lottery simultaneously, if history has thought us anything, it is that nothing is exclusive. If you agree with latter you surely must acknowledge that by mere chance there is higher probability of life existing somewhere in outer space, than there is of life being exclusive to earth. Life, the concept of life has shown it is not biased, it will thrive wherever and however it sees fit, after all it has transformed from single cell creatures to enormous dinosaurs to inquisitive humans. Even if analyze this topic through a religious stand point you cannot deny- life exist outside of this earth. Most religious believe in a Deity of some kind who rules in the heavens. If God , any God created the earth IT surely must have come or existed somewhere else besides earth, the Heavens are not located on earth therefore life exist in other planets, unless you can prove the location of your God here on earth. I didn’t think so. Whether you are logical or religious person you must acknowledge the probability of like existing outside of earth is more likely than the opposing argument, so there is only one sound side to take; life does exist on other planets. -Certo
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE......

The "alien life" that NASA along with other scientific research intities are studying is the microbiota organisms, and not "little green man". Organisms that are very similar in cellular composition as to the one that started life here on Earth. Currently NASA's Astrobiology Research Center have found microbes in the permafrost of Siberia, Alaska, and Antarctica. These microbes are able to survive in harsh climate conditions for thousands and even millions of years. Therefore, our reseach to finding life on other planets should be focused on these organisms. Mars, Europa (Jupiter's moon) among other planest in our solar system contain ice caps similar to the ones that we have here on Earth and is very possible to find this type of organisms there as well.
Chemical reactions in young planets create the building blocks of life.

In his book, "The Origin of Life", the Russian scientist Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, theorized that the conditions present in planet Earth millions of years ago allowed for chemical reactions between the gases in the primitive atmosphere and stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur, creating amino acids. Over the course of millions of years, these amino acids would combine into proteins and eventually into nucleic acids, the substance organic cells are made off. It's simple basic chemistry, certain elements combine with each others under certain conditions (UV rays from the sun, high concentration of methane in the primitive atmosphere). While he only applied his theory to this planet, we can deduct from it that the conditions needed for the synthesis of amino acids can exist in the vast majority of planets in our universe. Let's just take a look at the way stars, planets and solar systems are created. By simple force of gravity, dust floating around in outer space and composed mainly of iron and carbon condenses into rocks that eventually crash into each others, every time producing heat and melting into larger rocks, until, after millions of years, all the dust has been taking in, no more crashes occur. At this point, the protoplanet cools down, a solid crust is created and the molten iron remains in the core. Let us remember the theory proposed by Oparin. What do we need to generate life out of inanimate matter? A hot and condensed atmosphere composed mostly of methane (a gas produced by volcanic activity from the planet's core), we also need carbon, iron and sulfur, common minerals found in the space dust we mentioned earlier, finally,add some UV rays (coming from every single star in the universe and much more condensed in young planets due to the lack of a dense enough atmosphere). It's not magic, there is no divine intervention, just a simple chemical reaction that can be easily replicated in a laboratory.
Thousands of reports yearly

Yes there have been an abundance of reports on UFO sightings yearly. That is correct and I have no doubt whatsoever on this statement, but what I do doubt are the actual reports of the UFO sightings. Many of these "hundred of thousands" cases in which an individual witnesses the sight of a UFO end up being false. Often times they reult in having a very easy reult such as confusing a metallic balloon floating in the sky for a UFO. Also sometimes thinking a shooting star is a UFO shooting across. Airplane and zeppelin lights also cause a great confusion in determining UFO's. A quick search on the net does produces thousands of hits but it also produces thousands of FALLACIES. Maybe it's not that we're so desperate for a scientific explanation but that we are so desperate for a visit, or an obsession if you will which is fed by the media. Many movies regarding extra terrestials have been produced forever feeding our obsession with "UFOs". I experienced one of those "quick" searches online as you called it and many of the videos i saw did not seem very genuine. What you see online can be simply a result of video editing because obviously they will not show you the whole picture. Authored by Lah_88. Your point is so good I could not have wrote it better myself! I agree with everything you wrote. But, I can add that since we are so desperate for a visit our minds can play trick on us by making us see things (like a UFO) that are not actually there. Second, about that quick search online I can assure you that the majority of those pictures and videos are fake because of today's technology anyone can spice up a picture or a video. As well as the reports any bimbo can make a report saying that they saw lights, a flying saucer, UFO, etc just to get attention specially from the media. Authored by mona23
NO,NO SOLID PROOF

Simply because there is no "solid" proof found by us doesn't mean that it's not out there. How long does it usually take for the truth to come out in any given situation? How long was it before we found a cure for the common cold? Or for headaches? It took many attempts, none of which we were completely sure of, to find the solution. This is no different from finding out the truth about extraterrestrial life. I agree that we cant jump to conclusions based on individual stories, but we shouldn't tune them out either. Uncredible or not, their stories have sparked curiousity in even the best of people and the fact that no one can find evidence to completely shut down the controversy leaves a shimmer in the inquiring mind of many. -Ghoulia