BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Many models are under pressure from agents and designers to be thin. As a result, many develop eati...

Many models are under pressure from agents and designers to be thin. As a result, many develop eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa. In the recent past, several models have died as a consequence of eating disorders and a need to be thin. Others turn to drugs in order to fight their body’s natural craving for food. Having minimum physical standards would ensure that young girls could not be put under pressure to adopt extreme diets. Such an objective standard would be much better than asking for doctors certificates or having age restrictions, both of which could be got round by dishonest agents.
Many girls idolise models and feel the need to mirror their thinness. Models of a very low weight a...

Many girls idolise models and feel the need to mirror their thinness. Models of a very low weight are setting bad examples to these girls and can be held responsible for the increasing number of girls with eating disorders. The fact that some websites celebrate anorexia and hold up skeletal models as examples to follow shows how influential fashion can be. The fashion industry must take responsibility for its actions and avoid promoting extreme thinness as a desirable norm.
Fashion is promoting an unhealthy image for women to aspire to. Studies have found that most women ...

Fashion is promoting an unhealthy image for women to aspire to. Studies have found that most women feel that they are overweight, even if they are healthily normal for their height. This leads them to feel guilty and depressed, to start fad diets and buy unnecessary slimming products. We should be promoting bigger, healthier sizes so that fashion will reflect real women and not the unhealthily thin minority.
Very thin models need to be protected by the state from themselves. Many models are too young to be...

Very thin models need to be protected by the state from themselves. Many models are too young to be considered fully adult in any case, and so restricting their freedom to prevent them harming themselves is easy to justify. And even very thin adult models may not be able to freely decide about their own bodies and health. Anorexia nervosa is a mental illness and sufferers are not in a condition to make rational decisions to protect their own health. Combine this with the low education of many models, and the pressures on them from agents and the fashion industry, and it is time the state stepped in to protect them.
It is politically incorrect

The individual, particularly the religious individual, does not exist in isolation in modern society. The problem with a society that allows religious expression is based in the nature of religion itself. Unlike political opinions and political freedoms, religious ideals deal in the realm of "absolute truths", whereby a mentality of absolute right and absolute wrong are created. Because religion is inherently a social belief, religious groups tend to exist and view themselves as separate entities to others, creating power blocs which transmit into political structures. In combining this belief in an "absolute truth" with political power, distinctions between religious and ethnic groups are heightened, dividing society and leading to conflict and resentment. A world without public religion would encourage association without prejudices and lead to greater social cohesion. Because the state has to take into consideration the collective good as well as individual good, it can justify action against individual beliefs in order to promote the wellbeing of a whole society.
Laws of a country

So a law is to be obeyed, no matter how unjust it is? If a country was to forbid any Religion from publicly worshipping, should it be followed to the letter or should a stand be taken for allowing freedom of Religion? Remember that the USA felt it necessary for white people to get their own services seperate from black people. Did that make it right? Should have Marther Luther King jr. and all the others involved in the Civil Rights movement accepted such a fact rather than fighting against it? Just because something is a law does not make it just.
Religious symbols harm no one

Physically, no, religious symbols cannot harm anyone. But consider the massive impact that certain symbols have had on sets of people over the years. Many of the most violent and destructive movements of history marched under supposed religious banners, and a lot of psychological harm can be done by reminding people of hardship they have suffered by these people. The schwastika (Gershwin's Law!), for example, is a symbol taken from Hinduism, I doubt any Hindus would march around wearing one on their sleeve.
Children in public have the potential to make your life that little bit harder

We were all children once. We just have to put up with these annoyances just like everything else in life. Kids have rights to do things and be free. To some extent all kids are loud and obnoxious and they eventually, hopefully, grow out of it, but if this behavior continues and the child is still out of control. One must wonder is it the childs fault or the parents? Actually, it is believed when we're children we are disobedient to learn right from wrong and experience the meaning and understanding of responsibility. Some children who disobey learn quickly rigth from wrong, learning from mistakes and becoming a well behaved citizen; some children do not. It is all based upon how that child is raised up until they're an adult, and what experiences they endure.
I agree!!

Greetings fellow site mates. I am Professor Megan Leigh Johnston and I disagree that kids should be silent in public places. Some people really hate little ones but....... WE WERE ALL THEM ONCE! If i recall when i was a kid (40 years ago), I can remember my parents who have recently died, shouted and screamed and swore. On public transport kids should have fun. Kids are actually very polite. If you think about trains trams and buses, a lot of kids give up there comfy seats for the fellow elderly! Kids should be listened to full stop
HOWEVER, a child of2-10 years old cannot be blamed solely..

Adults often have the stresses of the world on their shoulders, and the last thing they want is children screaming in their ears in public places (unless perhaps a park or a funfair/some children-only type place). I don't blame children solely, in fact I largely blame the parents... if a child of mine was screaming in public, or tearing about the place giving everyone around us headaches and disturbing the peace, I would quietly take my child to one side and try to get them interested in something else. It's mainly bad parenting that causes kids to run riot and annoy everyone! I don't have kids, partly by choice, so why should I have to listen to other peoples making a racket when I go out!??
It is a draconian idea that can stunt development

Alright I've read both sides and I agree with some and disagree with some but I will try to humbly agree with the statement and this is why. Firstly I feel some are taking the saying to a extreme. This is not needed. I'm always being told how well my children behave in public simply because nobody but the people at my table or by my cart can hear them. They are still asking questions and being curious. They are still behaving like normal children but they are not disrupting the meals and shopping experiences of others. You can teach your children to speak there minds in a controlled intelligent way when they're upset, as to avoid being gutless. Being seen and noticed and pleasing to the parents and the community does not mean raising spineless children, and when exactly did it become undesired to have polite soft spoken children around? Screaming yelling and other such behavior is frowned on when a fellow adult does it and if you raise your children to ignore these behaviors they will become loud poorly spoken grown ups. You can not get a steady job screaming and talking back to a future boss. You can't have passing grades arguing loudly every time you dislike your work. The world we live in is built around conforming to a ideal. I may not fully agree with the ideal but I do believe that firstly we survive and then we debate the means. Humans did not survive in the times of cave men by screaming and flipping out every time they got excited or angry and as "civilized" people nor should we...
What it really means!

No! That's not what it meant at all, it just meant that the children should mirror what their parents were. If their parents had taught them to be civilised and quiet and repect their elders and them then to go into polite company and be rude and interrupt etc...it doesn't reflect well on the parents does it. The statement just means that they should sit quietly until they were spoken to - that they were able to "voice their opinion" if they were asked. Of course their opinion was valued, its just they were taught that they shouldn't feel their opinion was important over all others or that they had the right to interrupt etc...that's all. I am also a child, and I know this.
Children in public have the potential to make your life that little bit harder

All children, when not properly trained, can be a real thorn in your side. And that's just when you're sitting in a restaurant, riding on a train, or shopping in a centre. It's true that babies cry, but this is natural, it excercises their lungs and vocal chords and therefore they can't be blamed. But brats that appear to revel in running up and down shouting in public places can make life difficult.
HOWEVER, a child of2-10 years old cannot be blamed solely..

...its after all the parents that are meant to teach them how to behave both privately and publicly; that must treat them well when they behave well, and punish them when they are out of turn. Swearing and screaming at a child is not the answer. Parents should be taught how to be parents before they teach their children how to be people. My name is Tess Groody and I am a kid myself. You guys are selfish and senseless for blaming everything on kids. I have been exploring topics on this humblee site; Debatewise, and found alot of debates are based on kids and what a neuisense they are. I looked at the debate on the topic that children should not eat as much salt and sugar, and all the people who posted a comment were saying how kids are so obese these days. Have you looked at all the grown ups these days?! jeez. Seriously you guys. I'm in a poof because of all you people out there you are disrespectful to us!!!!!!!!!!
It is a draconian idea that can stunt development

'Seen and not heard' is a Victorian ideal based on the idea that quiet, obedient children are superior in some sense. However, we should not be teaching young human beings to be completely submissive and to not express opinions, otherwise they will grow up as gutless, unconfrontational and easily controlled. Leaders are not usually the quiet ones and if we continue to tell children to be "seen and not heard" all we are doing is crippling their ability to grow up and be successful people.
What it really means!

The phrase children should be see and not heard was set in the victorian times now its the exact opposite. I am a child who is writing a speech on the topic: Young people should be seen and heard. What some of you dont realise is what it actually means. Before children were not allowed to stand up and voice their opionion, what they said did not matter in society. Adults did not care what children said. The children did not get opportunities to stand and say a speech like i am participating in now. This is the real meaning. I know this and remember i am only a child.
The war was fatally undermined by those at home – by anti-war journalists and protestors; this has l...

There’s also a pragmatic reason against the US involvement in Vietnam – the war was unwinnable. A guerrilla war would last forever, in terrain the Americans could never understand. The enemy cared about the conflict much more than the USA’s troops. America’s enemies were everywhere, and for the most part could not be told from friends. The Vietnamese would never, ever give up this fight. Unless willing to kill on an even more vast scale than that actually used, wiping the Vietnamese race from the face of the earth, then eventually the Americans would have to give up. So why start?
This is all true. It is truly a great shame and we should do all we can now to put the situation rig...

The war did tremendous, lasting damage to the fabric and environment of the Vietnamese country. 20 million gallons of Agent Orange, along with large amounts of other defoliants, was dumped on the landscape in colossal proportions (in order to deny the enemy cover), laying waste to vast areas of land (15% of Vietnamese farming land will remain unusable for the next 200 years), poisoning water and food supplies, putting massive amounts of hugely dangerous chemicals in the food chain to such a degree that a wide variety of diseases are inflicted on the inhabitants of the land, and thousands more are crippled or horribly deformed, including – as genetic damage is passed from mother to child – babies born today and babies yet to be born. Landmines by the thousand and vast quantities of unexploded ordnance still cause death and injury today. None of this would have happened if the USA had not been involved, even if prolonged conflict had nevertheless occurred – because the participants would not have wielded the technology the USA misused to such tragic effect.
The Domino Theory, initially propounded by President Eisenhower, suggested that one nation becoming ...

The Domino Theory, initially propounded by President Eisenhower, suggested that one nation becoming Communist makes it more likely that others will too. Without American involvement, the South would quickly have fallen to the North and the nation, united under Communism, would have joined the Communist bloc. The nation adds its strength and materiel to the forces opposed to the West and to democracy, and becomes a threat to its neighbours – in this case, the unstable regimes of Indochina and Southeast Asia more generally. Communism would spread through these countries, to Indonesia, from whence it would threaten Australia. The USA had to oppose this, not least because their opponents also believed in this theory and the North Vietnamese were being greatly aided by their (often rival) Communist sponsors, China and the USSR. Success in Vietnam would encourage both great Eastern powers to offer such overt support for Communist revolution elsewhere. In the long term, this expansion would threaten the USA itself, by which time it might be too late to act: this therefore was self-defence. Hindsight’s a wonderful thing, but at the time the USA’s fears were well founded: the forces of Communism in the world were extremely strong, with conventional forces much stronger than those of the West. Allowing those forces to gain strength by dominating further countries would have been criminally irresponsible. Furthermore, the ability to oppose the Communists in ‘proxy wars’ was a valuable one: it ensured that battles took place away from areas more important for the USA’s national interest (most importantly, like US soil). It ensured that men and materiel that might otherwise have been deployed elsewhere were not. It is true that Communist Vietnam posed no significant threat to its region post-unification: but would this have been true, if the North had not had to engage its forces and strength in years of bloody conflict, merely to achieve unification in the first place? Delay allowed Vietnam’s non-Communist nations time to strengthen their defences? The war gave Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines a breathing space so that they could not be overrun, as Cambodia was. At least in part, they owe their existence as vibrant, free, capitalist nations to the USA’s stand in Vietnam.
If the US hadn’t participated, the non-Communist peoples of South Vietnam would have been persecuted...

If the US hadn’t participated, the non-Communist peoples of South Vietnam would have been persecuted even more than they were. As it was, after the South was invaded by the North in 1978 over a million fled and millions more were killed, tortured and persecuted in the aftermath of the war, and in the years since. In an absurd example of this, anyone with any element of professional success – doctors, lawyers, civil servants, professors, teachers – had their lives ruined, at the very least being forbidden to practice their vocation, even to this day. The fate of those millions who suffered so greatly under the Communists after the fall of the South shows that it was right to assist the non-Communists in opposing them.
As Britain did in the Falklands, the USA acted in Vietnam not only to protect those directly involve...

As Britain did in the Falklands, the USA acted in Vietnam not only to protect those directly involved but also to send a message to those opposed to the West and to democracy that the guardians of liberal values were not weak. This gave pause to the expansionist desires of Soviet and other forces and thus helped to avoid more direct and bloody conflict such as invasion of Western Europe.
The war was fatally undermined by those at home – by anti-war journalists and protestors; this has l...

The war was fatally undermined by those at home – by anti-war journalists and protestors; this has little to do with the successes of US forces in the field, which were actually much more impressive than the modern-day impression would have it. Viet Cong veterans now admit the effectiveness of the Operation Phoenix teams, who carried out large numbers of targeted assassinations on VC cell leaders (and of Project Cherry, which did the same in Cambodia). This was effective because there were only so many people who were truly motivated to fight for Communism and the North – the idea that millions were anti-USA and anti-ROV is a myth, as demonstrated by the millions of refugees that fled from the VC, and fled from the South when it fell to the VC. Had this strong attack on the infrastructure of the VC been stepped up, and coupled with a hearts and minds campaign that really did yield some concrete results, and with a stronger approach earlier in the campaign (such as the mining of Haiphong harbour and the destruction of the Ho Chi Minh trail in the 1960s rather than the 1970s), the war could have been won. The fact that the USA didn’t do these things when it should have doesn’t mean it couldn’t have So the USA didn’t pull out because it was losing – it pulled out because of political pressure on the home front. Even after that, South Vietnam could have won on its own had the USA honoured Nixon’s promises to Saigon to bomb North Vietnam if it violated its treaty obligations, as it did in invading in 1973 – promises broken, again, for political reasons (Watergate, this time). The war wasn’t lost militarily – it was only lost politically. [Mutually exclusive 2nd line of rebuttal: people accept this cliché that America ‘lost’ the Vietnam War. But in regional conflicts like this, it is impossible to say that events produce a definitive winner and loser. Did Russia lose the Afghanistan War? Is she ‘losing’ in Chechnya? Who ‘won’ in Crimea, or in the Boer War? In most examples, there are positive and negative outcomes for both sides. Here, the USA got a lot longer to help the rest of East Asia shore up against Communism, producing such vibrant capitalist economies as South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia etc. Vietnam became independent. To ask who ‘won’ is to compare apples and oranges.] And in any case, the logic deployed by the opposition – that it is wrong to fight a war if you lose – is deplorable. If the Nazis had won World War Two, would it have been wrong for the Allies to have fought them?
It may be true that many who opposed the South’s government were not Communist, but rather nationali...

It is false to present the USA’s actions as the restraint of Communism. Many non-communists in Vietnam opposed the Southern government, because it was so corrupt and so oppressive. Diem wasn’t elected, he was appointed by the Emperor – he cancelled elections, made himself President and refused to initiate post-colonial land reforms, ensuring that more than 80% of South Vietnam’s land was owned by less than 5% of its people. Many people wished fervently for national independence, especially following the fight against the Japanese during which they were promised it by the Allies, and they saw Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh movement (which had valiantly led opposition to the Japanese) as truly delivering that, as opposed to the South Vietnamese government, which was a tool of the West. Bundling all those that opposed this as Communist was one of the worst ideas the West had during the whole Cold War, ensuring that many people who were not necessarily inclined towards Communism at all were radicalised, as the Communists became the focal point of resistance against the corrupt government of South Vietnam and of the Americans that supported it. Even Ho Chi Minh was more nationalist than Communist, but he was forced to rely on Communist allies because the leader of the capitalist world turned against him and supported the French in their colonial ambitions, and then directly opposed him itself. If the Allies had honoured their promises for independence, Vietnam would perhaps have become a valuable ally in the Cold War, rather than such a problem.
The North Vietnamese authorities violated the Geneva agreement first by failing to allow those of it...

One prime opposition to the administration in South Vietnam was not Communist but nationalist sentiment, driven by the broken promise of Geneva for free elections in the South – which the USA and Britain reneged upon because Ho Chi Minh would certainly have won them. It was profoundly wrong to break this agreement and this dishonesty sits at the heart of the USA’s actions in Indochina, totally undermining the claim that it fought for democracy.
All the suffering US personnel underwent is only an opposition to the war if one believes that the w...

The suffering endured by millions of US citizens could have been avoided if the USA had kept out of this conflict. The 58,000 soldiers that died, the soldiers that suffered terrible injuries, the soldiers were captured and ill-treated, the soldiers that suffered Post-Traumatic Stress, flashbacks, hallucinations, breakdowns and psychoses for years afterwards even to this day, and the relatives and loved ones of all of these men: all their suffering could have been avoided. The USA chose to inflict that terrible suffering on its own people by interfering in a conflict it shouldn’t have been involved with in the first place.
It may be true that many who opposed the South’s government were not Communist, but rather nationali...

It may be true that many who opposed the South’s government were not Communist, but rather nationalist or anti-Diem etcetera. But the effect is the same as if they had been: they served to undermine anti-Communist forces and helped the Communists. It is true that Diem et al were far from perfect – but in the fight against Communism, necessity forced the West to have dealings with many people whom one might not have chosen to have dinner with. Vietnam was no different. On the other hand, many nationalists were opposed to Ho Chi Minh and the Communists – because they didn’t want their country and its citizens to be drawn in to the communist collective. So this argument stands for both sides, not just for the opposition.