BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You aren't setting up a good relationship with your child from the start.

it is good to let your child know that there is time to play and time to be serious, by setting this grounds it will not only help them to excel but also understand the meaning of management. When there is someone in charge, then and only then can there be work done, without discipline a child wont know the value of time or even being proud of their success. Although a child at such young age will not be expected to understand this value, we should not forgo that this is the time to develop this values in them, praise when you need to scold when you have to and who else but the parents them self should be the best people to teach. "charity begins at home".
Chidren are not their parent's "property"

Parent should control their children, it is the duty of parents to teach their child the values and responsibility that they need to be a part of society. But it does not mean that they should be treated like subordinates, a parent is a pillar of strength a person who the child can fall back to when in need of advice and support, answers to questions they don't know and mentor of society. They are our responsibility and not an object that should be evaluated, God gave them to us and we should care for them. Like an animal who shows love to their children we should also do the same for aren't we a higher species? If you can hire guards to take care of your property, so should you do so to provide the same for your children when it comes to safety, Your Child is yours and yours alone to keep, for till they can think and decide for them self, it is your responsibility to teach them and mold them to what you see fit. For in the end what we want for every child, what every parent whats for them is just to give them the best. So that they can fit in to Society and live Independently.
Children need to experience hard-won success and might not find it on their own.

Children do not need to experience hard-won success caused by pushy parenting. Children that are raised to be ambitious, determined, and overall hard-working human beings will be the most successful in life. However, a child's parents will not be their the kid's entire life, and they should learn instead to push themselves on their own. Children know their limits better than parents do, therefore it is clearly better to not cross such boundaries. Many children enjoy certain activities not only because they are good at said activity. In order to become better, it does not simply just take hard work, but it also takes talent, dedication, and true passion. Over-working every child that ever lived to do an activity was not the key to success, I can assure you, but their excellence came from raw talent, not pushy parents. For example, take any physical activity. In this case, let's use ballet. One gets good at such a remarkable art as dance by practicing, obviously, but only the professionals have talent. This is why "Chinese parents" are so pushy with their children; because they push their kids far beyond their limits in order to completely make up for the lack of natural talent and true desire for the activity that that child really has. When was the last time you heard an Asian parent ask their child if they would rather play soccer, be a sculptor, or play in the Royal Philharmonic? This leaves the child with no choice of what their heart truly desires in life, and what their "calling" is, focusing instead on being completely well-rounded and good at everything. Life isn't fair, and perfection will always be impossible, but it is not until their child is in the orthopedist's office with 3 metatarsal stress fractures and a torn ACL that the idea to maybe stop working their child so hard even remotely crosses that parent's mind. Still, most of these parents just push, and leave their child to face having both knees replaced fast forward 30 years in order to make up for the damage that they will never be able to fully repair, all from this parenting style. Most of these parents are just living vicariously through their children, so they need them to excel in order to feel complete and alive. No matter what the child excels at then, it really isn't hard-won success: it is pushy parenting and when the child finally does succeed, it doesn't matter to them, because it was always the parent's unfulfilled dream.
Kids with strict parents are more likely to rebel.

Research has shown that teens act aggressively towards authority. Teens and young adults see overly strict parents as authority. Thus, kids with strict parents are more likely to rebel. Studies show that children raised with a strict parenting style tend to be more angry and rebellious as teenagers and young adults. Its not unusual for a parent to tell a kid to do something, and they do the exact opposite, because they, “felt” like it. If parents constantly set rules and boundaries for their child, there is going to come a time when the kid has had enough. They will begin to break the rules, and feel powerful doing it. Teens especially, do not adhere to rules and consequences. They are at the age of discovering their identities, finding independence, hormonal changes and peer pressure, all of which lead to acting out against mom and dad. Trying to control every aspect of their life is not what’s best for them, because in the long run they wont appreciate it, and in turn, will go against everything they were taught just because they want control.
You aren't setting up a good relationship with your child from the start.

If all the time you spend with your children is to push them into studying and admonish them for mistakes, your child will see you as another teacher. In the example in the same article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html, the mother is angry at the father because the child reacts more positively to the father while the mother does the real hard work. If your child has positive experiences associated with both their parents as well as experiences of them expecting them to work hard, being proud when they do and disappointed when they fail, they will understand that their parents are people who look after them, who mean them well and can always be trusted to talk to or turn to in an emergency. A child at a young age can't be expected to just understand that a very strict parent still loves them without it being demonstrated to them.
It is wrong to place economics over human rights when weighing up the right foreign policy choices. ...

It is wrong to place economics over human rights when weighing up the right foreign policy choices. Ultimately, World Trade Organisation membership should not restrict the United States’ freedom of action. WTO membership already carries a high price in preventing the US Administration from protecting American industries and farmers from unfair foreign competition, including dumping. As US jobs are increasingly outsourced abroad, it may be time to reconsider our membership of the WTO. Given the USA’s economic weight and friendly relations with developed democracies around the world, bilateral and regional trade deals could be a preferable alternative to the WTO.
Some of the most important international issues relate to human rights, especially as the US is enga...

Some of the most important international issues relate to human rights, especially as the US is engaged in a global war against extremism/‘Islamofascism’ and needs to highlight the values that make America the ‘land of the free’. Without the moral high ground the US will lose the ‘War on Terror.’ Showing that American values are universal, and that the US is pursuing a consistent policy in support of human rights and democracy is critical at this time.
While economic sanctions are not perfect policy tools, they do provide a means to symbolically punis...

Often economic sanctions have the opposite effect of increasing the influence of an authoritarian regime by causing a “rally around the flag” effect. This only serves to legitimize and increase the power of the abusive and authoritarian leaders in question. The leader merely has to blame the outside power for the ongoing suffering to trigger a backlash against the outside power and support for the regime. Examples of this can be seen in North Korea and Cuba today, and in Iraq and South Africa in the past.
We should take an international moral stand against forced labor, because it is the right thing to d...

There are no moral absolutes in international relations. Countries stand against one atrocity but not another one. Many are hypocritical. Even the United States adopts the rhetoric of human rights while violating them in many ways. China can point to Guantanamo Bay’s prisoners and the “extraordinary rendition” of foreign terrorist suspects as examples of US double standards. Given this, how much are we prepared to hurt the US economy and American consumers by banning trade with every possible unpleasant regime?
US money and goods should not be used to support human rights abuses committed by the government in ...

Trade is a human right. The ability to buy and sell freely involves the right to exercise choice and the right to control your own property free from interference. These rights are fundamental to being a human. Arbitrarily restricting a person’s right to trade is both unfair and unjust because it victimizes innocents who least deserve it, the lower class and those who are having their human rights violated to begin with. Economic sanctions and other forms of trade barriers are blunt instruments which punish innocent business people and their employees, in both China and the United States. The sanctions against Iraq were a prime example, only serving to kill innocent people and children by the thousands.
The US is the largest single market in the world, and the largest importer in the world. The US doe...

China is a major regional power in Asia and becoming more so around the world. China trades with other sanctioned countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Sudan, and does not need to deal with the USA to retain its economic progress. So human rights abuses would occur anyway as China is able to trade with many other countries. Only by allowing trade can the US have leverage with China and spread its liberal values there. China may not need US trade, but it does value it and this gives a chance for American standards of liberty, democracy and human rights to be promoted within the country. US films, music, magazines and computer games are all popular in China, and these all spread a message of personal freedom and autonomy which undermines the authoritarian values of the regime. Personal interaction between American and Chinese citizens is also valuable in promoting democratic values and the concept of human rights, whether these are through business links, tourism or education (tens of thousands of Chinese students study at US universities each year). All of these contacts would be severely reduced if trade sanctions were put in place.
Trade with China helps fuel Chinese military might. Cutting trade helps reign in Chinese military m...

Trade barriers with China harm the US economy more. The US and Chinese economies are tied in two major ways. First, the US and China do a massive amount of trading together, which makes trade relations between the two countries critical to economic stability and international security. Also, the Chinese hold a significant amount of US debt in the form of US Bonds. If angered, they could sell them off, which would cause a significant shock to the US economy with the prospect of recession.
It is wrong to place economics over human rights when weighing up the right foreign policy choices. ...

Trade barriers against China would violate World Trade Organisation agreements and allow China to sue the US for violations. The United States had an opportunity to block Chinese membership of the WTO but chose not to object. Reversing US policy now would look inconsistent and will anger China much more than an original veto on WTO membership would have done. Such a change of course would also bow to the protectionist lobby within the United States, encouraging them to push for further steps against free trade. American prosperity rests upon free trade and should not be put at risk.
Some of the most important international issues relate to human rights, especially as the US is enga...

Economic sanctions on China harm US-Sino relations. China will perceive sanctions as containment, which will shatter the relationship. The US-China relationship is critical to solving a host of international issues, including proliferation, terrorism, and above all, human rights. China is taking an increasingly responsible role in international affairs, as its status as a Permanent member of the UN Security Council demands. For example, it is the key to coping with the threat posed by North Korea, and is also in a position to make or break US policy with regard to Iran. Given the USA’s global priorities, it cannot risk alienating China at this time.
While economic sanctions are not perfect policy tools, they do provide a means to symbolically punis...

While economic sanctions are not perfect policy tools, they do provide a means to symbolically punish and isolate evil regimes. They also demonstrate to the international community what values a nation should stand for. The US refused to trade with Hitler or Pol Pot, why should it make excuses for China? Such a stand would solidify respect for the international order and is a moral obligation for policy makers in Washington.
We should take an international moral stand against forced labor, because it is the right thing to d...

We should take an international moral stand against forced labor, because it is the right thing to do. China’s booming exports include goods produced by prisoners, including many sent to labor camps for political offences without fair trials. They are forced to labor unpaid in prison workshops and assembly lines. This amounts to slavery which should not be tolerated in any form. Buying products such as toys or electronic goods which were produced by slaves is effectively an endorsement and encouragement of that very enslavement.
US money and goods should not be used to support human rights abuses committed by the government in ...

US money and goods should not be used to support human rights abuses committed by the government in China. For example, joint ventures with state-owned companies free up other Chinese government money to be spent on their systems of control and oppression. Companies like Google have accepted the Chinese government’s demands that they operate censorship on its behalf. The only way to ensure we do not become partners in oppression is to refuse to trade with China.
The US is the largest single market in the world, and the largest importer in the world. The US doe...

The US is the largest single market in the world, and the largest importer in the world. The US does not need to trade with China to maintain its economic supremacy. Although the USA runs a trade deficit with China, it is China which needs the US most as an export market for its consumer goods. Without an entry into this huge market, and also access to US technical expertise and investment, China will not be able to sustain its rapid economic growth. Because the Chinese Communist Party relies upon this growth to give it legitimacy, and fears that a slowdown will generate unemployment and with it a rising tide of protest and calls for political change, the threat of sanctions can be used to press for human rights improvements.
Trade with China helps fuel Chinese military might. Cutting trade helps reign in Chinese military m...

Trade with China helps fuel Chinese military might. Cutting trade helps reign in Chinese military modernization. China is one of the fastest growing economies in the world and one of the only countries capable of becoming a superpower any time soon. Limiting trade with China would slow its rise to superpower status and maintain US supremacy. This is especially important because under the Taiwan Relations Act the USA sells weapons to Taiwan which is in an arms race with China. Further Chinese military development risks war in the South China Sea between it and Taiwan, and the possibility that the United States could then be sucked into direct conflict with China.
These people are breaking the law and need to be punished.

By using file-sharing technology like BitTorrent and sites like Pirate Bay, people are illegally distributing and receiving copyrighted goods which they have not paid for. This is stealing and a crime which should be stopped quickly. Slowing down or stopping file-sharers’ internet is the best way to do this, as it can be done without having to go through the courts and warning letters will still be sent before the connection is severed.
Lord Mandelson has pushed this plan through with a personal objective

Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group has accused Lord Mandelson of basing this plan on “private conversations.” The business secretary dined with David Geffen, co-founder of DreamWorks and founder of Asylum Records while he holidayed recently in Corfu. Although a Business, Innovation and Skills spokesperson has denied these rumours and said there was no connection with this meeting and Lord Mandelson’s decision. Mandelson has gone against the expert opinions of former communication minister Lord Carter and two secretaries of state by putting this proposal forward. [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/25/internet-file-sharing-digitalbritain]]
The music and film industries are suffering due to file-sharing.

File-sharers are directly responsible for damaging the music industry. Per Sundin, CEO of Universal Music said the decline in music revenues in the past 8 years can be fully attributed to illegal file sharing.[[http://bestdownloadsguide.com/?paged=2]]Worldwide music sales fell about 7 percent last year, said John Kennedy, chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Meanwhile, growth in downloads from iTunes, the biggest legitimate digital service, came to a halt.[[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/technology/15iht-digital.4-408839.html]] This needs to be stopped otherwise the music industry may be harmed irreparably, curtailing the development of new music and films.
These people are breaking the law and need to be punished.

The (il)legality of file sharing is still a legally hazy area, with legislation far from homogeneous around even the European Union. For example, in several countries only the act of uploading unlicensed copyrighted files is illegal. Legislation used to combat file sharing is often not geared to these new technologies, making court cases long and complicated. Because of this hazy status of the purported crime, it seems inappropriate to put a complicated cut-off process in place before all the details surrounding file sharing technology and the law are finalised. The government's assertion that this is the "best way to do this" is baseless. Severing an internet connection requires dissolving a legal contract between the user and a third party, the internet service provider. This is not an easy process, as well as unjust, illustrated below in the Opposition's point on internet service providers. Moreover, the novel nature of both the punishment (cut-offs) and the crime (file sharing), as shown above, means that this is hardly a case where courts can be bypassed in convicting criminals. Bypassing courts requires both crime and punishment to be completely clear, and with the case law worked out into the details so the judicial bureaucracy can apply it. This is not the case here: new jurisprudence is added on a regular basis as important court cases are concluded. For example, it is unclear whether the user of the computer or the owner of the internet connection is responsible. In comparison to other cases of bypassing courts, such as speeding tickets, file sharing fails the test.
It is not fair the ISPs are being forced to police their customers

The government proposes to make the private service provider responsible for cutting off internet access to their users, as inferred from their proposal to bypass courts above. Depending on internet service providers (ISPs) to police their users is wrong because it is the government's responsibility to enforce the law, not any private service provider's. ISPs are angry that they are being asked to police users and foot the cost of this enforcement. A spokeswoman for Virgin Media said that was a, “heavy-handed, punitive regime that will simply alienate customers.” [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8219652.stm]] Specifically, the costs of the infrastructure to monitor (illegal) downloading, as well as salaries of the legal and technical staff needed for a proper cut-off process, are being shouldered by ISPs themselves. To illustrate how unjust this is, it can be considered akin to weapons manufacturers being taxed to compensate murder. These costs are unfair to the ISPs, and are at the same time a societal cost as they are passed on to the consumers of said ISPs.
Peace and Globalisation

The period before 1914, well we know how that ended! Trade and globalisation does not mean peace. Just because people like to make money does not mean that they think that peace is the way to do it. Independent non-European/Western countries would not have thought the period up to 1914 as peaceful. It was a period of massive expansion by the west, at the expense of every other culture on earth. It involved numerous small wars around the world. Similarly both the periods after WWII and in the 1990s may have been relatively peaceful with no really big wars but there were a lot of small wars, such as in the Balkans.
Being rich because of globalisation is anyone's game

Kenichi Ohmae, a guru of global company management, (Japanese) feels the idea that boundaries are diminishing and corporations are becoming increasingly international is something to celebrate. the closer we come together , the fewer prejudices,stereotypes and fears we have/hold for each other. this coming-together creates entrepreneurial opportunities for even those people in the least developed parts of the world. Trade thrives on constant exposure/interaction and is the capitalist measure of progress. Globalization prods everyone irrespective of race,colour,creed and/or destination to be able to grab the brass ring of international cosmopolitan economic success. It is anyone's game.
survival of the fittest

Most people get trampled on in an economically competitive Hobbesian-type set up with little or no regulation/protection/safety-nets/safe-guards from loss. Counter to counter: Actually the whole point of this debate/Copenhagen etc is that animals/plants/biodiversity/the-planet/us cannot survive natural evolution in terms of us competing with them for resources and killing them off(endangered species list, extinct species list) and expending lifeforms/ethereal-resources that we depend on; exponentially so that our own survival is threatened.
Peace and Globalisation

As mentioned in the summary peace and globalisation seem to fit together. The most peaceful periods in the history of the industrialised world (so since about 1820 or so) have been the times where there is globalisation in action. So following the second world war as trade recovered from war and depression and there was the GATT later WTO processes. Through the 1990s with US hegemony and the dominance of neo-liberalism, and the period from 1870-1914 when the European powers expanded around the globe opening up new markets. Liberals have argued for centuries that trade is good for peace and prosperity. Trade creates interdependence between countries meaning that starting a war is more painful economically. Of course so long as everyone is interested in making money through trade why go to war?