BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wider media coverage-Greater hope of success

The Black September terrorists chose the Summer Olympics of 1972 in Munich,West Germany [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre]]to stage their political grievances by taking members of Israeli Olympics team hostage because they knew they will get a lot of media attention there, since reporters from all over the world would be present in the Olympics.Greater the media coverage, greater is the publicity and more are the chances of legitimacy of the terrorists' cause.The more attention hostage takers can seek, the more are the chances that they will succeed in meeting their objectives which means that broadcasting acts of terrorism provides terrorists greater support.Therefore absence of media coverage of hostage taking would mean no hope of publicity of the terrorists cause and no hope of its legitimacy thereby reducing hostage taking cases.
Musharraf lost all popularity with the lal masjid crisis: same event , different media stories swaying majorities

the Lal Masjid(red mosque) situation was simple , the media brought into light how the Pakistani government was negotiating with rocket launching terrorists and also how 'innocent' people in the Mosque were killed by the evil government. Islamic fundamentalists were horrified that the government could attack a Mosque. Ignoring all the weapons and terrorists found and killed at the mosque. Where as the liberals were angry about why the government was talking to these barbarians in the first place. And there were the human rights activists hollering 'women and children' killed. When the occupants of the red mosque were kidnapping Chinese people and killing people everyone was appalled but once the government took action all hell broke loose because of opinionated rather than objective media coverage.[[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/asia/13pakistan.html]] Some media stations portrayed the act as admissible and irrefutably right. While others depicted the same hostage situation at the Red mosque(where reportedly, a number of women and children were forcibly locked in) as a deplorable human rights crisis. While still others made it an attack on Islam. This crisis resulted in 154 deaths only, yet because it was a majorly reported hostage situation and the conflict was flaunted everywhere, it had dire consequences for the Pakistani government.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lal_Masjid_siege]] None of the Waziristan wars which resulted in the deaths of 'thousands' of Pakistani soldiers and civilians, each[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan_War]], were given anywhere near this much attention and condemnation. This marked the fetus of the Pakistani general/president's demise. If there was no media involved, there would be no hype and the Pakistani government would not have suffered to this extent. The foremost reason for terrorist/criminal activity IS to be heard/seen/'sympathized with'/'given attention' and the media hands it to them on a silver platter. [[http://news.google.com/news?oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=lal%20masjid&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn]]
people forget their re-useable bags

It is a lamentable and rather devastating reflection on the current state of human apathy that somebody should argue that helping to reduce the negative impact of human beings on the environment is an "unwarranted inconvenience". Indeed, it is an inconvenience that we should have to replace fossil feuls, or drive hybrid cars, or improve home insulation. If things were easy or convenient, you can bet that consumers have already adopted that process. Don't worry though, if we keep going the way we are none of us will be around to apologise for our collective naivity and arrogance.
Plastic bags suffocate and kill

Plastic bags can and have killed/(have been used to kill) many an animal (including human beings) and they only have one singular use(carry things) for which, they can easily be substituted (with other bags) for.[[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=36KHSp3INo3W6gPN0_HOAw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Plastic+bags+suffocate+asphyxiate+kill&spell=1]] A baby was deliberately suffocated with plastic bags in this particular case:[[transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/20/ng.01.html]]
causes loss of jobs

I sometimes forget that the protection of plastic bag manufacturers is more important than attempting to clean the planet we live on. I forget that, so long as the workers in the plastic bag industry are OK, we will not suffer any environmental damage. Economic conditions should not impact upon the manner in which we address a problem that is contributing to the destruction of our planet. To believe that the livelihoods of a few workers is more important than preventing environmental damage is a ludacrous sentiment that deserves significant criticism.
the environmental war needs to be won elsewhere

You might as well argue that a very small percentage of the human population has A.I.D.S or S.A.R.S or Cancer. Should we stop fighting disease, since most people at any particular point in time, are healthy? If we let the sale and purchase and inefficient disposal of plastic bags(including large black garbage bags) continue then more will be produced to be sold and inefficiently disposed in the future.If we stop production and sales, here and now, then one more environmental hazard(existing and in the making) will be checked off the list. As we all know, demand causes sales and production. Stop buying and/or using plastic bags and production & sales will eventually cease.
It messes up future with too much plastic bags and ends ups that we might have to leave earth.

Those of you say that it dosen't harm the enviroment you are totally WRONG!. Because turtles eats plastic and die by mistaking them by jelly fish. Also maybe some animals is close to extincit because of plastic. And its also very harm for earth earth wil really get dirty and we might have to leave the planet if this gos on so people who says no dont ban it
Used as a marketing ploy

Anya Hindmarch launched a bag to combat plastic bags. But this was merely a business woman making a profit out of the negative press attention to plastic bags. The bags she made were in fact made in China using cheap labour. [[Isabelle Chevallot, The Guardian, 12 May 2007]] If plastic bags were banned, shopping bags would be just another way for scrupulous entrepreneurs to make money out of people believing that not using plastic bags is helping the world. In fact, sweat shops would be used to create maximum profits.
They litter our streets

This is an argument against a society's attitude towards consumption. But the war against plastic bags is not worth the relatively little gain, the problem will remain long after a ban on plastic bags is placed on people. Instead we need to recognise our dispoable society and start looking at the bigger picture. Instead of picking on the small features of the problem, we need to get to the roots. And here, the roots is not the plastic bag, but our attitude towards consumption.
people forget their re-useable bags

Re-useable bags may sound ideal. However, do people actually remember to bring them shopping each time they go? If they do not, what happens is that they have to buy more re-useable bags which means that more plastic is being used. Yes, the idea is that they are not disposable and so do not fill our dumpster, but the reality is, after a few times of forgetting to bring your reuseable bags, you will have accumulated many of them. Eventually, you people will throw them away, just like they did with plastic bags. A ban on plastic bags seems like an unwarranted inconvenience when you look at the long term consequences.
Wildlife concerns

even if we are to ban plastic bags the litter that gets into the ocean won't stop the animals will just get trapped in the other items that we replace plastic bags with such as cloth it could rap around them and smuther them almost 30% faster than any plastic bag couldand any heavier items could sink to the bottom and kill ofthem plant life the animals thrive on plus most turtles will realize the difference between the plastic bags and jellyfish as soon as they startchewing on it and most of the time when they are close to it. Hunter schofield
causes loss of jobs

The production of plastic bags is a big industry. There are factories which produce the bags and distribute them. Let us not forget that these factories may cause poolution, but they also have a vast amount of staff policing the production. In the time of a recession we should not be looking to thwart thriving industries but save them. Factory workers are finding it increasingly difficult to get work in this day and age and the ban of plastic bag distribution would only make their plight for employment even tougher.
Environment destroyement

Yes, plastics use must be banned .Throwing poly bags plastics could make the soil unfertile (soil pollution). this is very bad. we need fertile soil caue it helps plants to grow, which is our food. Animals also need soil cause it make plants to grow and animals eat plants.we can say they indirectly depend on soil. burning plstics cause very polluted gases which could make our lungs weak on breathing them, also can cause many lungs diseases like asthama. daily more than 5 crores poly bags are thrown. so, we can do a little work to avoid plastic like we can use paper bags instead of poly bags. try a lot to avoid plastic.
environmental damage

Plastic bags for use by consumers in supermarkets and other stores should be made illegal. In the UK alone, over 13 billion plastic bags are handed to consumers each year, representing a substantial proportion of all floating marine litter[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/13/plasticbags.pollution]]. More than this, plastic bags are responsible for the deaths of huge numbers of marine species, who mistake the bags for food. Consumers must accept that it is hugely wasteful, massively unethical, and potentially deadly to continue using plastic bags. Supermarkets must be told by the government that continued supply of plastic bags will result in large fines, whilst those supermarkets who remove all their bags can be rewarded.
the environmental war needs to be won elsewhere

Plastic bags are being vilified for harming the environment when the reality is that they make only a small percentage difference. In the US plastic bags account for less than half a percent of domestic refuse[[Leo Hickman, The Guardian, 11th August 2009]]. The only reason why they are being unfairly scrutinised is because they are white and so stand out like a sore thumb when dropped as litter. Instead of banning plastic bags and claiming to be an 'environmentalist' people should target the larger issue; over consumption. If the people of the world stopped stuffing their trolleys to stuff their faces, not as many plastic bags would be needed and our domestic waste would be reduced dramatically.
No need to ban, add a tax

taxes may well reduce the number of plastic bags that are handed out and used by consumers however a reduction even by 90% would still leave more than a billion bags a year used in Britain, this still seems like an aweful lot plastic bags added to those that are already in the oceans and spread across the land. Some rich ones didn't even care of the tax,so ban it is better than adding tax. If we ban it,they can't buy any plastic bags n they will buy recycle bags.
The Great Waste

Plastic bag production uses almost 10 percent of the world's annual oil supply. Only 3.5 percent of this number are recycled. This means that much of the planet's precious natural resources are being used to produce plastic bags that many of us maintain are unneccessary. The chemicals and compounds that go into making plastic bags could also be utilised in a far more effective manner. These two factors show that plastic bag production is a waste of resources, which could be being used in a far more effective way. Also there is alot of animals dieing about like 100,000 animals dieing each year by plastic bags.
They litter our streets

Not only do plastic bags fill up our landfill sites where they will remain forever more, but people throw them into the streets. They accept plastic bags when they do not need to and once out of the shops take their items and litter the streets with the unwanted plastic bags. Animals can caught in them, motor accidents are caused, and many end up in trees. As a society, this shows that we do not need plastic bags if we are willing to just throw them away. Plastic bags should be banned and replaced with bags that we would not so readily disregard.
Causes expense to consumers in a time of recession

If you have/had a cloth bag or a relatively sturdy durable plastic bag already, with longevity, so that can be used be and reused over and over(without getting torn or damaged or inefficiently disposed like a standard plastic bag) .Then you will not have to buy 'carrier bags' every time you went to the market. If plastic bags are banned, people will buy nice big bags that are much more useful. Since this would only be a one-time purchase the costs in the long-run will be significantly lower for shoppers and supermarkets alike(in monetary as well environmental terms.)
Wildlife concerns

Plastic bags often end up floating in the seas- the home to many mammals, fish and invertebrates. One species that is at great risk from plastic bags is the already endangered Leatherback turtle (amongst others including the Green turtle, see the article below). Turtles often mistake floating plastic bags for jellyfish- their only food source. The tragedy is that once they eat the plastic bags, they can get caught up and wrapped round the gut or in the throat, causing suffocation and starvation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-519770/Banish-The-Bags-The-Mail-launches-campaign-clean-country---planet.html
People can and do recycle plastic bags

You might as well argue that a very small percentage of the human population has A.I.D.S or S.A.R.S or Cancer. Should we stop fighting disease, since most people at any particular point in time, are healthy? If we let the sale and purchase and inefficient disposal of plastic bags(including large black garbage bags) continue then more will be produced to be sold and inefficiently disposed in the future.If we stop production and sales, here and now, then one more environmental hazard(existing and in the making) will be checked off the list. As we all know, demand causes sales and production. Stop buying and/or using plastic bags and production & sales will eventually cease. To argue that plastic bags once BANNED will be replaced by more plastic bags. Is almost as redundant and (oxymoron-ic) as my posting the same rebuttal against this AND the next NO point.
No need to ban, add a tax

Place a restraint where people will feel it most, their pocket. By placing a tax on plastic bags you are not limiting people’s choice but you will ct down on plastic bag use. This can be seen in Ireland where a 15p tax has caused a reduction of 90% on the plastic carrier bag use[[Isabelle Chevallot, The Guardian, 12 May 2007]]. The revenue gained would also be valuable to the government who could put it towards environmental issues already caused by the use of plastic bags. This is a much more effective way of dealing with the problem.
Freedom of choice

Why should we not be free to chose to take a plastic bag? As with everything else there must be a market price for plastic bags that includes the cost of making them and the cost to the environment in the monetary cost (therefore providing revenue to clear up the leftover plastic bags), at this particular price there will still be some people who are willing to pay the cost for the convenience of just being able to pick one up with the shopping, or if a shopper has forgotten to bring their own bags with them they should be able to buy plastic bags at the shop. There is no need for an outright ban on plastic bags.
Plastic bags suffocate and kill

Well if Animals have to die, just force them to mate as much as you can until they are over populated, then if some are killed it will be ok, and the same thing for children. If each couple has atleast 10 children, then out population will be atleast five times of what it is. Essentially people do not seem to be bothered about ruining animals lives, or often even those of other human beings through other forms of pollution so why be bothered about plastic bags in particular? Yes plastic bags can cause damage but why are people throwing plastic bags in forested areas and other wildlife habitats. The civic agencies should be making sure that plastic bags do not get to such places, those they gater from streets should be recycled or reused which is possible meaning we really need an improvement in infrastructure to solve the problem.
PLASTIC BAGS DONT HARM THE ENVIRONMENT

Is infrastructure really the problem? It is because we think that it is someone else's problem that we misuse the plastic bags. Most people don't even care about that the misuse so why bother to teach them when we can save the environment, and just get rid of them completely! Which should come first; the Earth's environment, or puny little plastic bags? Unfortunately most plastic bags are not biodegradable, so yes, plastic bags do harm the environment. If you are asking people to USE the plastic bags, wouldn't that mean more people throwing them on the streets? Paper bags can equally well do the job, they hold stuff just as well as plastic bags do. Of course both types of bags have disadvantages. So while it can be asked, "what if the paper gets soggy and breaks? What do we do then?' Well, I would respond with 'Well, what if the weight is too heavy and the handles of the plastic bag snaps?" Paper bags are just as good as plastic ones, and so do many people around the world agree. I bet there was even a country where they had never heard about plastic bags, because they thought paper was just such a fantastic invention. So; the Earth's environment, or puny little plastic bags? So what about Infrastructure or what ever that is. They kill alot of animals you might see this picture and be horrified by the effect of plastic check this site on the below.http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bags-choke-e1336237536746.jpg and also humans too this is not fake just to tell you i also could lose population!
Causes expense to consumers in a time of recession

Instead of letting people pay for what they buy, the banning of plastic bags in reality will lead to people having to pay to carry their purchases out of the store. Plastic bags are cheap to produce so supermarkets are willing to give them out for free. To ban them would mean that supermarkets would charge for the more costly forms of carrier bags. This is putting an additional financial strain on families who do large grocery shopping trips. In a time of a recession, surely the policy of banning plastic bags should be left aside.
Spread Awareness

By banning plastic bags, not only will we reudce all the environmental issues such as animals, litter and landfill, we will also spread awareness globally and even potentially nationally. For example, say Australia bans plastic bags, in a couple of years time, all these issues would be on their way to being resolved and America's government might think "Wow, we didn't realise this was such a big issue! And look, 5 years ago Australias landfill was overflowing with plastic bags that do not break down and now the small perentage of cloth bags that do go in landfill (not many go in because cloth bags are so reusable) are gone very quickly because they break down into what is not unhealthy for the environment! Maybe we should ban plastic bags too so we can recieve such a great effect!" And the England may copy, the France and Japan and China and Brazil etc etc. Do you see what I mean. People realise it is a big enough issue to make a law and see this great effect and actually CARE!
People can and do recycle plastic bags

Plastic bags are being labelled as part of our disposable culture. However, the reality is, people do re-use their plastic bags of their own accord. Many people will use them on their future shopping trips, or hand them into recycling centres, and many people use them as bin liners. Ireland has seen a 400% increase in the purchasing of black bin liners since their plastic bag tax was introduced in 2002[[Leo Hickman, The Guardian, 11th August 2009]]. This means that the free white plastic bags are merely being replaced by larger blag plastic bags which have to be paid for. The banning of plastic bags is not all as proponants would have you beleive.
Paper

Paper can be reused. If all you do is put cans in it, its not dirty. They can be reused. I have many bags that i reuse. They are very useful. All you do is grab some before leaving and you're set. >>> Within the united states the are more trees grown than cut down every year. Americans plant roughly 1.5 billion trees. Our Paper companies are committed to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative which is an organization that understands the need to use trees as resources and does its best to keep trees alive in the world so that they can always exist. Remember, without trees, paper companies would be without a job. why would they want that? They are not mindless idiots.
Loss of Technology

if you are to ban plastic bags humans as a race will lose a lot of technology because plastic bags are used for more than just supermarkets plastic bags are actually used to build and support structures when architects are making them without plastic bags it would be very hard for us to make houses they are used to package up areas on walls so they can see through the plastic when they are making the wallsso they know they did not block anything important banning plastic bags would cause most people with brocken walls have to pay a lot more to get them fixed as well as the price for house will raise plastic bags should not be banned. Hunter Schofield
Non-biodegradable

An estimated 17 billion plastic bags are given to British consumers. We do not need this many plastic bags in the world. The pollution caused by their creation alone is enough to warrant a ban on their manufacture and their use. In addition, they do not degrade well in our rubbish dumps, so they will remain on this planet forever more. We cannot have this accumulation of plastic bags and the only way forward is to ban their distribution and use.
It isn't stealing to take something that has been thrown away.

'Theft by finding' implies that someone lost something and you found it and failed to return it. This isn't the case if someone threw something away. Tesco don't want the food back and have no intention of doing anything with it. If taking away rubbish was illegal, refuse disposal workers would be criminals. its like arresting a freakin mouse they are the ones who threw away their food so its not exactly theirs any more so how does it become theft when she took something that is free (i guess) damn i feel sorry for the innocent women who got arrested i mean come on for all we know she might be poor or something or starving you arrested someone who was trying to stay alieve wow that is ummm i dont know CONFUSING!
Waste not, want not.

It is a waste for the supermarket to just throw the food away when someone else can eat it, and then not even let people take it away. Only the poorest and hungriest people would resort to scavenging from the back of a shop, they need the food the most and can't afford to buy it, so why not let them have the food? The food couldn't have been sold anyway, the shop can't stay open if it has no power and they couldn't have refrigerated the food, so they couldn't store it for long enough for someone to buy. If the shop actually had a plan to store it somewhere else and sell it at a reduced price or or give it to charity, that would be different, but they are just throwing thousands of pounds worth of food away. Such a policy would make the shop more popular in the long run.