BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Innovation would slow.

In a world of controlled internet, if you have a great idea for a website, you can't just pay a small fee for a domain name and hosting service and get your digital career underway. You will have to tango with the internet service providers. You'll have to make sure your content won't offend them and, to make sure people can load your site in a timely fashion, you'll have to pay regular additional fees. For many would-be bloggers, website developers or online service wizards, this means the difference between entrepreneurship and wage labor, taking control of your destiny and more of the same, your website's life and death. Allowing the internet service providers to control web will significantly knock out much of the innovation that it has already produced. How many companies have met with success from the get-go? Some have, no doubt, but most have struggled and scratched out a meager living for years before becoming profitable. A controlled net will only make that process more difficult.
Internet-goers will not tolerate slower connections

This argument is predominantly psychological. Once we have learned to accept a higher standard of quality out of some aspect of our lives, we will not stand to have that thing taken away. Nobody in their right mind, for example, would think of reversing civil rights victories like women's suffrage. It's the same with internet speeds. Psychologists Shunmuga Krishnan and Ramesh Sitaraman published a study in 2012 concerning internet users behavior with fast and slow loading videos. They found that "viewers start to abandon a video if it takes more than two seconds to start up, with each incremental delay of one second resulting in a 5.8% increase of abandonment rate." If the video is interrupted, viewers will also tend to watch less of it. If internet service providers begin slowing the rate at which videos and pages load, internet users will have to be committed to the subject to stick around. The more casual viewers will flock to the promoted fast-lane sites instead.
Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet.

Like Vince Cert, who maintained that the beauty of the internet lies in its ability to move the same amounts of information around at the same speed at all levels of the internet, many believe that the internet will cease to exist as we know it if a biased net takes over. This is what is known as the end-to-end principle. The end-to-end principle allows the internet to expand infinitely. Because all data travels at the same speed and is treated the same, all aspects of the internet are open to innovation equally. Let's say that, for some reason, digital banking was prioritized by either the government or cable companies. This would then draw the most attention from internet users, it would be the fastest activity on the internet, and if would be innovators wished to get involved in the field, they would flock to some aspect of digital banking. There is always a finite amount of broadband capability on planet Earth, and because digital banking was preferred, other facets of the internet would slow. Some believe that this would throw off the entire balance of the internet, and certain areas would become backwaters while others would draw the focus of everyone. The end-to-end principle has proven an excellent quality in several American systems and institutions. It is present, for example, in our slightly regulated and hopefully even-fielded economy. In their 2000 essay "Open Access to Cable Modems," Mark Lemley and Laurence Lessig write: [t]he principle of End-to-End is not unique to computer networks. It has important analogs in American constitutional law and in other legal contexts. Vis-A-vis the states, for example, the dormant commerce clause imposes an End-to-End design on the flow of commerce: No state is to exercise a control over the flow of commerce between states; and the kind of control that a state may exercise over commerce flowing into that state is severely limited. The "network" of interstate commerce is to be influenced at its ends-by the consumer and producer-and not by intermediary actors (states) who might interfere with this flow for their own political purposes. Vis-A-vis transportation generally, End-to-End is also how the principle of common carriage works. The carrier is not to exercise power to discriminate in the carriage. So long as the toll is paid, it must accept the carriage that it is offered. In both contexts, the aim is to keep the transportation layer of intercourse simple, so as to enable the multiplication of applications at the end. Stripping away net neutrality is about more than allowing the cable companies to get bigger and richer. It's about maintaining values and consistency in our world.
Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business.

Businesses should be allowed to control their products as they please, since they created and invested in them. Instead of creating more problems for the economy and businesses by regulating it, the government should give these companies freedom and allow them to make their own decisions. “Telecommunications companies, having invested billions of dollars from consumers and government subsidies in new network infrastructure, claim the right under U.S. law to operate the network with minimal government interference.” [[http://www.imprintmagazine.org/life_and_style/digital_divide_issue_net_neutrality?page=0,1]]
A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom.

The Internet is founded upon principles of the free market - people are allowed to publish content and the content's success is based upon whether or not people like it. Instead of interfering with the free market, the government should allow businesses to direct themselves. Otherwise, the system veers dangerously towards socialism. [[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html]]
Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services.

Many net neutrality activists would have you believe the internet is a green pasture of freedom in which information disseminates freely. This is not exactly true. Like Cerf said, innovation is welcome at any and all levels of the internet, and yet, in recent years, it has become dominated by single oligarchic rulers. Google is the main search engine, YouTube is the main video hosting platform, Amazon is the main retailer, Netflix is the main film and television hosting site. The list goes on. For almost any information or service you could want from the internet, one company usually dominates the field.
The intentions behind the war must be good. States have the right to use war to restore a just peac...

Reality is a lot murkier than theory. How are we to determine a state’s intent? Sometimes good intentions are bound up with bad; public justifications for war may not always represent the real reasons. And who is determine if a peace is just or a wrong has been committed? The nation initiating the war will use its own values to justify its intentions, and these values may be at odds with those of the other party to the conflict. Furthermore, the best way to protect innocent lives is by peaceful means, not by endangering them through armed conflict.
War must be a last resort. The state is justified in using war after it has tried all non-violent a...

Sometimes going to war before all alternatives are exhausted is the most moral action. For example, a nation might decide to go to war if it determines that waiting would enable to the enemy to increase its strength and to do much more damage than an early war would have inflicted. This, after all, is the bitter lesson of the failure of appeasement in the 1930s. Waiting might allow an invading state to entrench itself so that far greater force would be necessary to remove it at a later date.
The war must have a reasonable chance of success. War always involves a loss of life, but expending...

Sometimes it is morally imperative to fight against overwhelming odds, as resistance fighters did in World War II. Also this condition may give large nations free rein to bully small ones because they could not win a war. It also may cause a country to surrender in a war it might actually win. Weak countries have won wars against powerful ones – look at the American Revolution. Finally, the point at which a war became unwinnable, and therefore unjust by this definition, is often only identifiable with hindsight – consider the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, or the American involvement in Vietnam.
The goal of the war should be proportional to the offense, and the benefits proportional to the cost...

We have seen that a proportional response frequently doesn’t work. Suicide bombers continue to blow up victims in the Middle East despite the response. Why should a nation tolerate continued aggression for the sake of proportionality? And if a nation knows it is likely to be attacked, why should it wait to disarm the aggressor? Is not pre-emptive action justified to prevent the loss of innocent life? Finally, what of deterrence: a vigorous response to an aggressive act may not be strictly proportionate, but by making all potential aggressors think twice about future actions, it can be justified as saving more suffering in the long run.
The war must have a reasonable chance of success. War always involves a loss of life, but expending...

The war must have a reasonable chance of success. War always involves a loss of life, but expending life with no possibility of achieving a goal is unacceptable. Thus, if a fighting force cannot achieve its goal, however just, it should not proceed. Charging an enemy’s cannons on horseback or throwing troops at a pointless occupation are clearly not just actions.
A Just War satisfies six criteria:\1. Wars are just if the cause is just. Nations should be allo...

The criteria presented for Just War present several problems:\ 1. Just cause is an elastic concept. Who determines what is “aggression”? Could violating a disputed border region (e.g. Ethopia-Eritrea, Pakistan-India) or imposing economic sanctions (e.g on North Korea) be aggression? And if a state is unable to defend itself, can another state intervene militarily on its behalf? These borderline cases make invoking this criterion very problematic.
Chidren are not their parent's "property"

Just because a mother gives birth to a child, and the parents financially support the child does not mean that they would try to control all aspects of the child's life. It should be remembered that while it the responsibility of the parents to care for their children, it does not mean that they treat their children like subordinates who must do as the boss (in this case the parents) say. However, it is true that children are in turn responsible towards their parents and should be grateful to their parents for all they have done for the sake of the child, it does not mean that the children would feel bound to abide by their parents rigid rules at all times. A child is a separate human being with different emotions and different states of mind and parents should consider that. Even though parents may adhere to strict parenting for the welfare of the child, the child should not be suffocated with excessive strictness and should be allowed enough space to grow on their own. A child is a different entity from the parents and should be respected and treated as such.
Children need to experience hard-won success and might not find it on their own.

While children are capable of achieving high goals, they won't necessarily do so on their own. They are equally capable of becoming easily frustrated and feeling something isn't worth the bother, especially if they don't enjoy it. Many things aren't enjoyable if you're bad at them but are enjoyable if you're good at them. 'What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you're good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up. But if done properly, the Chinese strategy produces a virtuous circle. Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in America. Once a child starts to excel at something—whether it's math, piano, pitching or ballet—he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not-fun activity fun. This in turn makes it easier for the parent to get the child to work even more.' (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html) Sometimes the child will find something they love enough to put in these hours of practice but quite often they don't. They might not be naturally drawn towards something or might not have access to the thing they're gifted at. It is important for children to have this experience so parents should make sure they do, even if it means making a child persevere with something against their will.
Kids deserve some freedom.

I think that kids with strict parents are most likely to go into different "modes" when the parents are strict to them, kind of like depression or feeling like their not loved because their parents don't let them do anything. The parents on the other hand think that their doing a good thing for their child and that it would help them go far in life and become successful. But kids do need freedom and if their parents are overprotective and strict, than that kid is most likely to go into depression or have suicidal thoughts.
The child may genuinely be incapable of doing what you want them to.

As a child, before I was diagnosed with autism, the teachers in my school tried to make me do several things that were impossible for me - ignoring triggers for panic attacks, controlling involuntary behaviour and interacting socially at the same level as other children. It wasn't that I never tried - I actually couldn't avoid failing. I was punished and degraded for this and so I assumed everyone was hostile and I couldn't talk to people, full stop. I also could not (and still can't to this day) function in day-to-day life if deprived of computer games. This was attempted for several months and all it achieved was to do me lasting psychological damage and make me more fragile and hence more dependent on my computer. To the writer of the article, using a computer game was seen as a useless activity for a child but for me it was not, it was a necessary activity. Parents aren't magically completely empathic with their child, they often make mistakes. If a child is failing and you don't understand why and you just keep pushing them, you'll just break something, in the same was as you don't try and fix a machine by trying the same thing over and over when it doesn't work.
Setting clear boundaries and strict rules causes children less stress.

Children need to do know the ground rules and be clear of the boundaries. If you are vague and ambiguous when giving orders, strict about a matter one day but relaxed on the same matter a different day, the child will be confused and not know how to react, it will stress them out more to never be sure what is and is not OK than it is to be punished strictly a couple of times but to know exactly why. Children need to have ground rules so that they can comply with them throughout their life. If they are unaware of deviant behaviour and they continue that behaviour due to lack of rules being enforced then they would be continuing with the negative behaviour which is not acceptable. In the article 'Why Chinese Mothers are Superior' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html there is an example where the father calls the child 'garbage' for insulting their mother. This is intended to show that disrespecting parents is offensive and was something you shouldn't do - a behaviour that makes you seem like a piece of garbage. The child is not actually treated like a piece of garbage, quite the opposite - they aren't allowed to behave in a way that would demean them so much.
Kids with overly strict parents are under a lot of pressure.

People who want something from someone tend to pressure them. Parents want their kids to do well in school, life, ect. Thus, kids with overly strict parents are under a lot of pressure. When kids have overly strict parents it leads them to be under a great deal of pressure. Pressure to do well in school, not act out, be mature, and overall be the best. In countries like China and Korea, there is not much room for learning from your mistakes, or trying things on your own. The parents do not want failure, and do not want their children to do anything that would bring them shame. This happens all over the world, not just in these places. For example, in some households kids need to be virtuous all the time. Their parents impose guilt and control them if they do not act accordingly. Trying to please your parents in school is already a lot as is, but imagine constantly being held up to an impossible standard? I don’t think its wrong to want your children to be well rounded and successful people, however holding them to impossibly high standards is harmful no matter how well intentioned you claim to be.
It is better for them in the long run

However, saying this. Children receiving such a large amount of pressure at such a young age can be traumatising to them. Some Chinese parents can be overbearing and do not even give out much praise as in their opinion, an A is what is expected of the child and is not really deserving of any praise as it is not particularly significant. The child will try their hardest to impress their parents or attempt to reach the high goals their parents set for them and some will inevitably fail. This leads to low self-esteem, shame and disappointment. In this case, some may give up, some may be mentally affected and some may rebel. Giving up may lead the child to lead an adequate or even under-average, unsatisfying one, disappointing the parent further and severing any bonds between them. Being mentally affected does not necessarily imply that the child would be made mentally handicapped or insane, but that they may have a fear of failure induced by their childhood - this will affect them in nearly all aspects of their life and some may not be able to handle, and some (especially if they are teenagers) may even resort to self-harm. And the last option, rebellion. This may be alcohol, partying, sex, drugs - these are all ways for the child to vent and let out their frustrations on the world and their parents. This will only lead to a downwards spiral, and they will end up in a worse situation than they would have if the parents did not pressure them. Most of these are all possibilities that may occur when a parent does pressure their child too much. So in this case, it is not better in the long run.
Specialisations shouldn't develop before all the basic skills are taught.

You don't start building before you've laid the foundations. A child at school is still learning about the basics of everything they need to know in life just to survive. They need to concentrate on learning it all, not in specialising in any of it. The curriculum only really starts to specialise at GCSE, where children are actually expected to narrow down what they learn and choose for themselves from a list of subjects. They aren't supposed to specialise in one area until University. To expect a child to hyper-specialise in an area means they can't concentrate on all the other vital things they need to learn.
Children want to feel accomplished.

The article 'Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior' (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html) points out that Chinese mothers 'assume strength, not fragility'. Children want to know the joy of working towards something that is genuinely difficult and achieving it in the end after hours of dedicated practice. They are capable of picking themselves up when they fail and feel that this makes the victory greater, the same as adults. If you act as though they will be traumatised by feeling like a failure or being treated as such, the child will also think this way about themselves and never try and aim high. If everyone around them treats them as though they are emotionally fragile, they will assume this is how they are supposed to be and act neurotically. If you expect them to succeed at the highest level, they will assume this is the level that they are supposed to be working at and so will aim that high and eventually succeed.
Strict parenting leads to overweight children

Kids with overly strict parents tend to be overweight. Current research has shown that kids who are raised by very strict parents are five times more likely to be obese than kids who are raised by more democratic parents. One reason may be, that children with strict parents do not learn how to properly control their eating habits because they are not used to making decisions for themselves, whereas children with democratic parents learn how to make healthy choices. For example, a strict parent might tell their child to finish all of their dinner without listening to the child’s complaints that he or she is full. Thus, kids learn to ignore their bodies’ signals and they develop overeating habits. Another similarity of strict parents and overweight in children may be that food is a means of control for the child. Food may be the one thing their parents don’t have control over, and the child overeats because it makes them feel like they have control.
It is better for them in the long run

Though in school, children will want free reign and playtime, it is genuinely important they are guided towards education too as some children just won't go down that road themselves. Though this may seem unnecessary at such a young age, it is the opposite. The older a child is, the further down the road they are; whether that is the educational road or an alternative. It is hard to change their mind in the future, especially during their teenage years. Whilst they may seem crestfallen that while all their friends are on Xbox, they are studying or revising for an exam, it will pay off in the long run. On the exam results day, their palms will be sweating and they will be nervous but there is a much larger chance that they will ace everything - this is so much more satisfying than if they achieved a handful of Cs, and a few Bs and Ds like some others. They will feel proudness and a sense of achievement. They will carry on their journey down this road and end up with a good career and a good life. They won't regret it in the end.
A child needs to develop a personality.

If you force a child to practise something that isn't their real interest in life, you are making changes to their personality that you don't have the right to change. Some people are artistic, some are scientific, some excel physically. Children might not want to practise the same thing you want to, or even something you find useful (they may see a use for the talent that you haven't thought of). Nobody can decide who a person is except themselves, even their parents. Parents already pretty much have power over life and death over their children when they are young and constantly condition them to behave a certain way by everything they say and do. The child needs some way in which they can decide who they are.