BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools are the best place to create lasting lifestyle changes.

Given all the responsibilities our society has transferred from parents onto schools and educators in the 21st century, is it really sensible to include caring for nutritional choices to this already bloated and unmanageable list? We need to ask ourselves, is it actually right that kids turn to schools and peers about lifestyle advice, when this is so clearly a domain of parents and families and so obviously a burden on an already taxed public school system.
Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf.

We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body. We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough. When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition. What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.
Targeting schools will be an ineffective strategy.

Even if students spend a small fraction of their time in schools – and 6 hours is by no means an insignificant amount of time – it is still an incredible opportunity for intervention for a very important reason. The reason is the incredible potential for homogeneity of experience. at least in the aspect of food offered. We are able, to certain extent, control the school environment in such a way as to promote healthy choices and eliminate bad ones. When students return to their homes, we have lost that opportunity. In a nutshell, one healthy meal per day is much better than none. It can also be contended that children often share experiences from school with their parents and siblings back home. Thus a healthy environment in school could, potentially, find its way into homes we couldn’t otherwise reach by any other means.
“Junk food” sales are an important source of funding for schools.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the schools from finding ventures that are just as profitable with companies that offer healthy drinks and snacks.  In fact, most of the existing contracts could simply remain in place, since most of the firms are conglomerates that could just as easily offer healthy alternatives to soda pops and cookies. Where that would prove impossible, it is simply a question of priorities: how many children afflicted by diabetes type 2 are worth a field trip? How many a new sports program or new equipment?
Pupils will bring unhealthy food with them to schools.

First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK). In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school. A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school[1] hours to support the schools strict rules.   [1]Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285939/Judge-declares-fast-food-takeaway-near-school-unlawful.html, accessed 09/10/2011
Schools need to practice what they preach

Under the pressure of increasing media coverage and civil society initiatives, schools are being called upon to “take up arms” against childhood obesity, both by introducing more nutritional and physical education classes, as well as transforming the meals they are offering in their cafeterias.[1] Never before has school been so central to a child’s personal and social education. According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan, American children and teenagers spend in school about 32.5 hours per week homework a week – 7.5 hours more, than 20 years ago[2]. School curricula now cover topics such as personal finance, sex and relationships and citizenship. A precedent for teaching pupils about living well and living responsibly has already been established. Some schools, under national health programs, have given out free milk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case they are not getting enough at home[3]. While we are seeing various nutritional and health food curricula cropping up[4], revamping the school lunch is proving to be a more challenging task. “Limited resources and budget cuts hamper schools from offering both healthful, good-tasting alternatives and physical education programs,“ says Sanchez-Vaznaugh, a San Francisco State University researcher.[5] With expert groups such as the Obesity Society urging policy makers to take into account the complex nature of the obesity epidemic[6], especially the interplay of biological and social factors that lead to individuals developing the disease, it has become time for governments to urge schools to put their education into practice and give students an environment that allows them to make the healthy choices they learn about in class. [1] Stolberg, S. G., 'Michelle Obama Leads Campaign Against Obesity', New York Times, 9 February 2010, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/michelle-obama-leads-campaign-against-obesity/, accessed 9/11/2011 [2]University of Michigan, 'U.S. children and teens spend more time on academics', 17 November 2004,  http://ns.umich.edu/index.html?Releases/2004/Nov04/r111704a, accessed 09/08/2011 [3] Kent County Council, Nutritional Standards, published September 2007 http://www.kent.gov.uk/education_and_learning/school_education/school_meals/school_milk__healthy_eating.aspx, accessed 09/08/2011 [4] Veggiecation, 'The Veggiecation Program Announced as First Educational Partner of New York Coalition for Healthy School Food',18 May 2011, http://www.veggiecation.com/newsroom/press-releases/64-the-veggiecation-program-announced-as-first-educational-partner-of-new-york-coalition-for-healthy-school-food, accessed 9/11/2011 [5] ScienceDaily, 'Eliminating Junk Foods at Schools May Help Prevent Childhood Obesity', 7 March 2010, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302083500.htm, accessed 9/11/2011 [6] Kushner, R. F., et al., 'SOLUTIONS: Eradicating America’s obesity epidemic', Washington Times, 16 August 2009, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/16/solutions-eradicating-americas-obesity-epidemic/, accessed 9/11/2011
The cost of intervention is too high

The cost of intervention is too high. The United Nations has neither the money nor the support of the international community to undertake speculative missions. Already it fails to meet its targets for troops to provide peacekeeping in countries which request its help. The USA already contributes nearly a quarter of the UN's peacekeeping budget and cannot afford more at a time when it is already stretched by major commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is difficult to see where else the necessary funds could come from. The reconstruction of Afghanistan is expected to cost as much as $15 billion over the next ten years, ‘plus the cost of training a new army and police force’.[1] At a time of financial austerity, American citizens are entitled to ask whether their money is being spent prudently. The lives of intervening soldiers are not pawns, they should not be unnecessarily sent into death-traps like Somalia in 1990.[2] [1] Rotberg, R. I. (2002, July/August). Failed States in a World of Terror. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/africa/failed-states-world-terror/p4733 [2] Dickinson, E. (2010, December 14). WikiFailed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/13/wikifailed
Intervention in fragile states is simply a new form of imperialism

It is not for either the USA or the UN to impose a government upon individual countries. Doing so would deny the people of the failed state the right to chart their own future and be absent of the authorisation of the UN Charter, which states the organization is not allowed to intervene ‘in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state’.[1] Furthermore, if the USA, or any one country, regularly intervened it would create more hostility towards that country, with accusations that it is acting out of a self-interested desire to exploit peoples economically. The personnel of that country could rapidly become a target for attacks. Nor is it desirable to encourage the UN to increase the level of its intervention in the domestic affairs of member states. This might start with weak countries but could rapidly become a habit and encourage the organisation in its ambitions to become a world government. [1] Ratner, S. R., & Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/saving_failed_states
Failing states can infect a whole region

Failing states do not infect a whole region. The contagion theory is hard to apply beyond a small group of countries in West Africa - elsewhere failed states do not tend to drag down their neighbours with them. For example, countries bordering Somalia, such as Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Eritrea, are far from perfect but none of them are close to being considered a failed state. In fact, whilst Somalia is seen as the basket case in the region after the failed U.N. intervention in 1992, the percentage of its population that lives on less than $1 a day is in fact less than those of its West African neighbours.[1] Therefore, in most cases the best solution to the problem of failed states is not intervention but for regional groups (e.g. ECOMOG in West Africa, the African Union in Western Sudan, the European Union in Macedonia, Australia in East Timor) to take responsibility for their areas rather than to overburden the USA and UN. In sum, ‘not all failing states pose true dangers to the peace’ and therefore the U.N.’s responsibility for ‘international peace and security’ is not a sufficient basis for action to resurrect all failing or failed states’.[2] [1] Coyne, C. (2006). Reconstructing weak and failed states: Foreign intervention and the Nirvana Fallacy. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from Foreign Policy Analysis, 2006 (Vol. 2, p.343-360) p.351 [2] Ratner, S. R., & Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/saving_failed_states
The United Nations has the constitutional power and capability to intervene to prevent failed states

The United Nations has demonstrated that it lacks both the organizational ethos and the forces required to effectively prevent the failure of states. The veto power on the Security Council ensures that troops for intervention are only mandated when they suit the interests of the most powerful states. Furthermore, the nature of the UN’s forces, almost always composite forces made up of a number of different states, renders them ineffective once on the ground. The example of Sierra Leone is telling, a ceasefire was only agreed upon three years after the UN entered the state, and as late as 2009, the UN’s own head in the region noted the country is still in a precarious situation, ‘with ethnic and interreligious conflicts and increasing threats from international crime’.[1] Failure was not prevented, merely put off. [1] Security Council (2009, September 14). Sierra Leone’s success in transition to stable democracy depends on government providing ‘peace dividend’, Security Council told. Retrieved June 21 from United Nations: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9740.doc.htm
Failing states should not be provided a safety net

Punishment for the actions of irresponsible governments should not be handed down to civilians. The ‘safety net’ purports to protect civilians by preventing the failure of states; it does not guarantee the protection of those governments responsible for the near-failure. Furthermore, the fear of future failures is much more pronounced when states are left to fail, to export their anarchy to neighbouring states and their contraband to the world. As Rotberg therefore claims, ‘preventing states from failing, and resuscitating those that do fail, are…strategic and moral imperatives’.[1] [1] Rotberg, R. I. (2002, July/August). Failed States in a World of Terror. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/africa/failed-states-world-terror/p4733
International development is a more effective method of preventing failed states.

Western aid ‘cannot reach its intended recipients because of violence, irreconcilable political divisions, or the absence of an economic infrastructure’.[1] There is a need to change the rules for access to US aid programmes (e.g. the Millennium Challenge Account) and trade preferences (e.g. the African Growth and Opportunity Act), and those of international organisations in which the USA is influential (e.g. the World Bank, G8 moves on debt relief). At present these programmes are structured to reward developing countries with particular government policies (e.g. protection of property rights, focus on education, sustainable budgets, anti-corruption measures, etc). Sensible though this seems, it denies international help to those states whose people need it most - those where government is weak or absent. Funding microcredit schemes, education, health and sanitation programmes in the more stable parts of failing states, and providing meaningful trade access could all provide long-term benefits to the USA. [1] Ratner, S. R., & Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/saving_failed_states
Failing states can infect a whole region

It is in the interests of international stability that failing states are rescued before it is too late. Failed states often infect a whole region, as the collapse of Liberia did in West Africa - a problem known as contagion. Neighbouring states back different factions with arms and squabble over resources, such as the diamonds of Sierra Leone and the mineral wealth of Congo. Internally neighbours are destabilised by floods of refugees and weapons from next door. Their own rebel groups can also easily find shelter to regroup and mount fresh attacks in the lawless country just over their borders. Former U.N. Secretary Boutros-Ghali claimed, as his justification for support for failing states, that the U.N. has a responsibility under its Charter to ‘maintain international peace and security’ amid fears ‘the demise of a state is often marked by violence and widespread human rights violations that affect other states’.[1] Intervention prevents this by entailing the establishment of conditions for reconstruction which thereafter provides physical infrastructure, facilities and social services. The ultimate goal therefore of the intervention is to ensure that both the state concerned and the region as a whole require no further military or monetary support.[2] [1] Ratner, S. R., & Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/saving_failed_states [2] Coyne, C. (2006). Reconstructing weak and failed states: Foreign intervention and the Nirvana Fallacy. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from Foreign Policy Analysis, 2006 (Vol. 2, p.343-360) p.343
The United Nations has the constitutional power and capability to intervene to prevent failed states

The United Nations, and its resident body, the Security Council, has both the right and the capability to intervene in countries in order to maintain the peace. Peace in this sense represents more than the absence of bloodshed, but also provides the means by which aid organizations can enter a territory and provide the requisite resources to prevent civilian suffering. The United Nations have proven their efficacy in this area, mandating an intervention in the Ivory Coast in 2003 that sought to prevent the exacerbation of tensions between the government and rebel forces.[1] A ceasefire was eventually brokered in 2007 and the failure of the state averted. U.N. forces in Macedonia during the 1990s were also credited with ‘successfully contributing to the prevention of conflict spill over and having a stabilizing effect in the country’.[2] U.N. interventions to prevent the failure of states can and do work. [1] BBC News (2003, February 5) UN backs Ivory Coast peacekeepers. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2727365.stm [2] Kim, J.  (1998, July 23). Macedonia: Conflict Spillover Prevention. Retrieved September 9, 2011 from CRS Report for Congress: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/98-333.pdf
Failing states should not be provided a safety net

Being willing to step into every fragile state could create a moral hazard. Irresponsible governments will assume that they will be bailed out by the powerful states, like the US, and the UN, who will always intervene to prevent unnecessary and wide-spread suffering.[1] This in itself makes future failures much more likely, as there is no incentive for governments to tackle corruption, crime or the other issues that push states to the brink of failure.[2] There needs to maintain a culpable fear of failure, separate from the regime change and economic reconstructing often enforced by the UN and IMF on failing states. [1] Kuperman, A. (2006) ‘Suicidal Rebellions and the Moral Hazard of Humanitarian Intervention’ in T. Crawford and A. Kuperman eds. Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention (London: Routledge). [2] Rotberg, R. I. (2002, July/August). Failed States in a World of Terror. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/africa/failed-states-world-terror/p4733
International development is a more effective method of preventing failed states.

The current US approach to international development, in which aid, loans or market access are conditional upon good governance, should be maintained and even extended more widely. Such conditions provide incentives for developing countries to put constructive policies in place and reward those who fight corruption. As past failures show all too clearly, there is no point throwing money at chaotic, lawless and corrupt regimes - it will never reach the people anyway. In any case, humanitarian relief is not conditional and the USA continues to respond with compassion to emergencies anywhere in the world. It should also be noted that special measures to support states identified as at risk of failure could in themselves be harmful. Discussion of intervention will scare off investors and help to bring about economic collapse - becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.
States should act to help civilians in failing states to prevent humanitarian crises

States should act to protect their own civilians first and foremost, not those in failing states. As such, soldiers should not be sacrificed for the lives of civilians elsewhere; that is not what soldiers enlist for nor does it fit a state’s role as a guarantor of security for its own citizens. Civilians in failing states are the ones that ultimately need to take the responsibility for usurping the incumbent powers in their state. Furthermore, even if it were the case that states should act to prevent failing states, there are means to do this that do not include intervention; charities can provide humanitarian assistance, states can offer mediation services if there is a dispute and diaspora communities can provide finance.
Failed states are havens for drug-smugglers and terrorists

There is very limited evidence to support the theory that failed states become havens for terrorists. It is true that there are some Al-Qaeda sympathisers in Somalia, but these seem to be few in number and no greater in threat to the USA and its allies than similar groups in other countries. Nor is Afghanistan a good example of this theory; Osama Bin Laden was invited to take refuge there by an established government - the Taliban - only after they had successfully grabbed power in Afghanistan. Before this, Bin Laden was sheltered in Sudan - not in the war-torn and lawless south, but in the northern part where the government was in firm control.[1] Here the problem was not a failed state, but rather one with an extreme Islamist government. On the other hand, Iran and Syria are both accused of providing bases for terrorists, but neither could be considered a failed state. [1] Hehir, A. (2007) ‘The Myth of the Failed State and the War on Terror’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, Vol. 1/3, pp. 307-326
Interventions can fail and eventually cause more harm than good

Interventions can, and do, fail, however so long as their intentions are good, they must still be attempted if the effects of failed states are to be prevented. Furthermore, the humanitarian catastrophes linked to failing and failed states: ‘mass migration, environmental degradation, regional instability; energy insecurity and transnational terrorism’ are not the fault of a failed intervention, but a failed state.[1] The U.S.-led intervention in Somalia in 1992 is a case in point; though the intervention failed and, it could be argued, exacerbated conditions in Somalia, it did not lead to the state’s failure, it merely failed to prevent it. As such, the U.S. cannot be blamed for attempting to stand with Somalis and save their state; that they failed is unfortunate, but the subsequent continuing humanitarian catastrophe is not the fault of intervening forces.  So long as there is hope that interventions can prevent failed states, the success rate is above 0%, they should be attempted for the alternative is little better for the civilians concerned. [1] Patrick, S. (2006) Weak states and global threats: Fact or fiction? Retrieved June 24, 2011 from the Washington Quarterly (29:2, p.27-53) p.27
The cost of intervention is too high

The cost of intervention is lower than the cost of inactivity. Sometimes, as in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, the situation will become so bad that US military intervention is necessary - this is hugely costly compared to funding preventative action through the United Nations. The role of failed states as reservoirs from which refugees, narcotics, terrorism, illegal diamonds, etc. are exported means that the USA already spends many billions of dollars a year in dealing with the mess they create. Finally, there is an opportunity cost of lost trade and investment which applies to the developing world and developed economies alike (e.g. the benefits to the US of trade with oil-rich Angola, Sudan and Congo).