BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chemical reactions in young planets create the building blocks of life.

Oparin's theory, while respected and indeed used as the starting point for most xenobiology research endeavors, it's quickly dismissed due to a fact known to every person out there who calls himself a biologist. It fails to predict the exact chain of events that lead to the formation of actual living cells. As of 2009, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" out of inanimate matter. Yes, anyone can replicate the conditions in early planets that allow for the formation of amino acids, proteins and nucleic acids. But that is all, just nucleic acids and nothing more, no particular way or pattern for them to recombine into actual cells. You don't bake a cake by trowing all the raw ingredients at once in the oven and hope they rearrange by themselves into batter. Both entries by LV426
Our fascination makes us believe...

As human beings we are equipped with a mind full of questions and fascination for the unknown. This is our human nature, and sometimes this fascination makes us see and even believe in things that are not true. For many the fascination is the belief of UFOs. In the past decade the reports of people that have "seen" a UFO has increased dramatically. One may ask why more and more people report seeing a UFO? Well, it's really not difficult to find the answer to that. Along with the increase of reports during the last decade or two, we have had major increases in technology. Anything from a digital camera, video camera, cell phones, computers, etc. Nowadays technology is everywhere and sometimes people own more than one of these devices. As a photography student I know how easy it is to alter a photograph and make it seem what it really isn't. To alter a photograph or take something out of context is really not difficult and anybody can do so with just basic knowledge of a computer and a digital camera. And like people say "a photograph is word a thousand words", and many times we believe what we see. Once you are hooked on this belief, your mind starts believing other things even if its not entirely true. These reports of UFO sightings are in direct correlation with our advancements in technology. The reports will continue to increase but none with physical proof of UFOs. I completely agree with the above point. There are some people who dedicate their life trying to prove any type of supernatural phenomena, including aliens, and go to great measures to do so. Photographs are easily altered and many times images in the sky can be deceiving to an untrained eye. To most of us the unknown is unbelievably fascinating yet some people take the subject to unnecessary and even tragic levels. One example of this was the incident that took place in California on March of 1997 involving the Heaven's Gate Cult. Twenty-one women and eighteen men committed suicide because of there believe that the world was going to be "recycled" by UFO's. Their religion combined elements of Christianity with unusual believes about UFO's and thus played the key factor in the multiple suicides. Whatever the reason of why people develop stories that are based on a very active imagination and spare time, they must acknowledge that their words will have some sort of impact on others and consider all the consequences that come along with their words. Authored by roz_here
Methane signatures found.

So far the only thing that researchers, scientists, astrobiologist and theorologists have come to find is more theories that there could be or might be or maybe someday we could find. There is no doubt that someday, not on our call, just God’s saying they will find what they so much search for, one thing is certain no advanced life or intelligent life, such as ourselves exists off Earth in the Solar System. -alone My position on this argument is clearly stated. I never mentioned anything about any intelligent life because i do not believe that there is superior intelligent life elsewhere other than earth. Microbial life yes. If not now, maybe there was before. -listenwell-
The MoD attempts to hide the evidence

We as human beings are so vain to believe that we stand alone in the cosmos as the only intellegent beings. The earth is surrounded with an atmosphere, so it's like a bubble in space, like a bubble in the oceans. So imagin all the bubbles in the all the oceans. Do you really believe that out of all the bubbles we are the only bubble that supports life? Now if you believe that maybe life does exist on other planets, (bubbles in space) don't you think, maybe that life on their planet started millions of years before ours did. And they are very advanced in tecnology. and can travel in space as we travel our skys. And they study us as we study our indigenous animals of our planet. The higher your intellengence, the more likely you are to believe in life elsewhere.
nothing is accurate...

We have all heard of stories where people clame to have some kind of aproch with aliens. Although this stories might be true no one has yet provided any evidence to the public. Its understandable that the Governments does not want to make a big comotion about this mayor issue but there has been people that have made stories intentional to scare the public and to recieve some kind of reward, to see who gets to show the evidence first. We need some answers and we need them now!!
The Government has denied their existence

Perhaps the reason that they lie is that they do not want to cause mass hysteria, or admit that something exists of which they know little about and cannot explain. AND: 'Why would the government lie to us'? Does anyone actually ask that and expect not to get a laugh in the face? The government would make that statement in order to sound knowledgeable and authoritative on the subject. Never mind that there's no way on earth there's any way they could know that. It's like the government making an official declaration about the existence of God. The government. You're serious, aren't you. AND: Because the leaders of one pathetic little island on one pathetic little world haven't ever seen an alien craft, one can conclude that there is no life anywhere else in the universe? I can't even believe I'm arguing. That argument needs no counter.
Vast amount of space.

Intuitively with that vast amount of space and planets, there must be life somewhere out there. Do a few calculations on Drake's equation and convince yourself. [1] (Discussion whether extraterrestrial life has visited the earth is a whole discussion in itself, the question here is whether there is life on other planets or not.) [1] http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html Blue and Red Shift shows how space is expanding and contracting. If space is expanding and infinite, then infinite possibilities exist which makes life on other planets inevitable.
Over the last few decades socialist parties have been marginalised and excluded from the political c...

Socialist parties still enjoy significant support globally, and in some areas such as South America, rapidly growing support. The following of harsh liberal economic policy in most developing nations is generally imposed from without rather than voluntarily. The political and economic success of socialist policies in both Venezuela and Argentina has shown that there are alternatives to the Washington Consensus. And in the developed world too the departure of socialism has been greatly exaggerated. The US has never had notable socialist movements in any case (although many have described its agricultural policies as socialist). Elsewhere social-democratic parties are still major political forces, especially in Europe, and continue to represent the goals of the original socialist movements. Recent examples include the manifesto of Segolene Royale, the French Socialist candidate for President in 2007, and the role of the European Union in promoting social and economic rights for all its citizens.
Over the last few decades socialist parties have been marginalised and excluded from the political c...

Over the last few decades socialist parties have been marginalised and excluded from the political consensus in nearly all of the developed world. Those parties with a socialist heritage which have survived have done so by moving to the right and embracing free market thinking (while claiming they have found a “third way” between socialism and capitalism). Examples include the UK and Australian Labour Parties, Germany’s SPD, most of Italy’s left-wing parties, and France’s Socialists (at least when they were in government). Meanwhile in most developing nations post-colonial socialist experiments have been abandoned as failures, and modern economic and political planning is following the prescriptions of the 'Washington Consensus' and neo-liberal economic theory.
Global economic forces have rendered socialism powerless. Financial speculation, and investment flo...

What investors want more than anything is a stable economy and skilled workforce. Ironically it is the European nations where socialist thought remains strongest (the Nordic Countries) that are consistently ranked as the most competitive economies in the world. Careful state management of the economy, provision of infrastructure and investment in exceptional health and education systems through high taxation have created a dynamic and highly qualified workforce, and attracted huge investment from technologically advanced industries.
Global economic forces have rendered socialism powerless. Financial speculation, and investment flo...

Global economic forces have rendered socialism powerless. Financial speculation, and investment flows can make or break economies, and the agents which channel these monies want to see countries liberalise, privatise and de-regulate more. These more flexible markets generate higher levels of growth and prosperity, and provide higher returns on investment, encouraging more. Countries which try to resist globalisation and liberal economic markets, as in ‘old Europe’, suffer stagnant growth and higher unemployment as a result. Old socialist-style economic models of tight economic regulation and central planning are unsustainable.
The fundamental assumptions of socialism, about class systems and the tensions between them, are bot...

The types of work people do today may have changed in the post-industrial economy, and hereditary privilege may have been dismantled (to some extent). But there still exist identifiable classes living in chronic poverty, only able to access decrepit public services, and as a result denied anything approaching equality of opportunity in life. The gap between the richest and poorest is rising in societies nearly everywhere, and the great strides in social mobility made in the post-war period are slowing or even being rolled back. Good university places and professional jobs in the USA and the UK are now more likely to go to the children of well-off families than was the case thirty years ago. More children born into poor households are dying in them. Thus the concerns of socialism are as real as ever.
The fundamental assumptions of socialism, about class systems and the tensions between them, are bot...

The fundamental assumptions of socialism, about class systems and the tensions between them, are both rapidly becoming relics of the past. An identifiable working class no longer exists as countries move towards flexible service-sector economies. Societies are also more meritocratic with the entrenched class systems all but broken down through rising prosperity, progressive taxation and welfare systems including universal access to secondary and higher education. These elements of the original socialist movement have arguably been so successful in changing society that they no longer have political power to motivate citizens to subscribe to socialist thought.
People's perceptions about the legitimate size and scope of the state have outgrown socialist ideas,...

Socialism advocates a mixed economy with key sectors in the hands of the state. In most of the developed world this is exactly what the political consensus provides, with education, healthcare, transport and some industries still routinely state owned. There is very little enthusiasm for privatisation in these key areas. Economic changes, where they have occurred, have often been in the face of global competition, rather than the changing ideological wishes of voters. Any decrease in citizen interest has occurred in the very age of the attack on the state as provider. This just shows that people don't respect a weak state that cannot protect them from the vagaries of national and global economics.
People's perceptions about the legitimate size and scope of the state have outgrown socialist ideas,...

People's perceptions about the legitimate size and scope of the state have outgrown socialist ideas, and led governments to roll back their activities. Economies are now more liberal, privatised and flexible than ever, and there is no political desire anywhere for taxes to rise. Similarly, the trust of citizens in their governments to protect their interests is at an all time low. If people don't trust the state, or want it to make decisions on their behalf, then there can be no future for socialism.
At least people know what autism is now.

Some recognition is better than no recognition at all. While it is not a particularly good representation of autism, it has the basics right. As a child, when my school realised I had autism, they went from punishing me for being nadly behaved, to treating me like a person with a disability, keeping me away from situations that set off my involuntary behaviour and panic reactions, letting me have a support person to stop people bullying me. They were still useless - they gave me no help with social skills or careers guidance, which I badly needed, and they were extremely patronising - but at least they weren't hostile any more.
Support from the National Autistic Society.

The National Autistic Society is the only British based autistic organisation to have supported. And while as much as I respect and admire the NAS being a member of it, the organisation faces a difficult balancing act with the views and interests of it's parents as opposed to the views and interests of its autistic members. This was demonstrated in the McKinnon case where the organisation took a far more aggressive approach then it should have done. So don't assume that just because the NAS backs something it automatically means that the Autistic community support it entirely.
People think(sometimes wrongly) that ALL Autistic persons are geniuses

It lays down expectations on you to be a genius, making you feel like an underachiever if you aren't, or people will think you're not autistic if you aren't a genius. For a person with autism who takes everything literally or automatically obeys orders, it can make them think the same of themselves. Some people still yell 'retard' at you if you act unusual even if they don't know whether you're autistic or not.
A bad stereotype of an autistic person.

It is practically impossible to represent EVERY autistic person. Autism is such a varied condition, it is different with every individual case. It would take thousands of films, or a film with a cast of thousands of autistic people, to characterise every different possible way that a person with autism could be. At least the character is actually autistic (probably Asperger's, but definitely on the autistic spectrum). Besides, how is it the film's fault that some people are so stupid that they think everyone they meet will be like a fictional character?
A bad stereotype of an autistic person.

Raymond is a very exaggerated stereotype. He has an extreme disability - he is very rigidly bound by a schedule, he cannot do much without assistance, he has serious communication difficulties. His mathematical gift is very extreme. Most people with autism don't have genius-level intelligence or specific skills, and while they have significant difficulties that affect them in every aspect of day-to-day life, it doesn't completely disable them. Also, if memory serves me correctly, he has no physical coordination problems. He makes a poor model of a person with autism. This has now become the most popular stereotype of a person with autism, so people assume that when they meet a person with autism, they will be 'like Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man'. Films such as Rain Man have another less well known negative aspect - they all feature male autistic people. Females with autism are very heavily under-represented. Not only are they a small minority anyway, they are more difficult to diagnose because the female social role encourages women to hide behaviour traits that would lead to a diagnosis of autism, and the fact that almost every single stereotype of an autistic person is male, while female autism is actually very different to male autism, means that people who see a woman with autism might not associate them with stereotypes of autism.
Making autism 'popular' caused a rise in self-diagnosis

After autism became popular because it was featured in a big hit film, it became a 'fad disability'. Everyone thought they had autism. Most of the people who thought they had it clearly didn't - they were trying to gain sympathy while being rude and antisocial, or just trying to get benefits in an era when autism was the easiest condition to get diagnosed with, but nobody really knew what autism was, so you might get a diagnosis even if you clearly aren't autistic. This had a negative impact on people with genuine autism, who now might not be believed, or might have their benefits pool diluted. It also had a negative impact on the people who were self-diagnosing, as they were receiving the wrong sort of treatment and believing a lie about themselves, when they might even have a different disability altogether.
At least people know what autism is now.

Sure but there are different types of awareness. There's a type of awareness that actually shows people on the spectrum in a realistic light and then there is the wrong type of awareness that says that autistic people need to be pitied and despite having special traits suffer from their condition when the reality can be more complex. That type of recognition can actually be counterproductive as it may help a person in their young age it either ignores them as an adult or helps to deny the advanced services available amongst other things. What's more there are now better depictions of autism and Aspergers Syndrome than Rain Man (For example Steig Larsson's Millenium Trilogy or the The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time so the film gives a basic and dated image of autism and the "help" available.
Yes, but yet slightly no.

Civil disobedience doesn't have to be violent; just look at Gandhi. It can be an effective way to essentially tell the government,"Hell No." Unfortunately however, not everyone is logical or full of common sense and sometimes the best intentioned non-violent disobedience can transform into a mob with mindless violence on their mind and foam frothing from their mouth; utter chaos out of order. Still, even with that said, I believe orderly civil disobedience is justified. See: The Civil Rights Movement - Much of it was civil disobedience.
There is no agreement on what CD is.

All though people have some general ideas of what does and does not constitute civil disobedience they do not agree on specific cases. Therefore we can not even agree as to what it is that we are trying to justify or condemn. For example one definition of civil disobedience that I just read includes lawful nonviolent activities such as boycotts. A majority of people in the US say that burning the US flag is an example of trying to incite a riot or at least a fight. Yet an educated minority believe that it is an example of protected free speech. If I were to correctly say in public that soldiers of the US military are scum sucking traitorous murdering war criminals, for just saying what is true, I would be censored in the US by most people but in other lands I would be called one American who has not been fooled. If I were to send a letter to the Secret Service telling them that they will be held accountable for their treasonous actions, the US government would say that I had committed an act of psycho-terrorism. Yet I and the ACLU would say that I had simply expressed a religious prophecy protected by the 1st and yes also the second amendment to the Constitution. Not engaging in civil disobedience no matter how you define it helps criminals maintain power behind a false idea that we should not insult someone or create strife in society. People should remember it is a criminal leadership that often times creates the strife. In other cases the strife is created by genuine disagreements as to what injustice is, such as the abortion issue.
It makes governments more accountable

1) The fact politicians want to hold on to power makes them accountable throughout their term in office. They wouldn’t do anything which would alienate people dramatically for fear of losing votes. And there are many more ways to show that votes will be lost than breaking the law. 2) There are also local elections between general elections, where parties can be rewarded or punished for their actions in government, acting as a very good barometer of public opinion without the need for civil disobedience. 3) Civil disobedience puts pressure on the state to privilege the interests of the civilly disobedient minority over the majority. Compare this with voting, in which anyone who chooses to exercise their vote has equal say. This is why it makes sense to say that voting makes governments "accountable to the people", whereas civil disobedience in a democratic society is (often) anti-democratic.
Law is there to serve justice based on truth.

Law based on truth in itself cannot be broken, only violated. It is under all circumstances advisable not to follow any regulation of any law if it does not serve the truth. Law is to protect justice based on truth and the written codex "the law" formulated to regulate / set in order peoples conducts, who are equipped with equal freedom of choice and equal rights by their creator. If any regulation of the "law" codex is in violation with its purpose, it is justified and even advisable not to obey or follow it.
Sometimes it’s the only way to publicise an issue

Civil disobedience can quickly turn into outright confrontation and even violence. Both Ghandi and Martin Luther King struggled to contain their followers and there aren’t very many leaders like them around. Saying people should get arrested is tantamount to giving them free reign to do whatever they want to get publicity. And let’s not forget the term ‘oxygen of publicity was first applied to the IRA – hardly models for the civil disobedience movement.
Practice comes before law.

Practice comes before the law many will say. I completely agree, but as said before there are legal means of taking care of these things. But regardless, the law does try to reflect what society thinks is morally correct, and sometimes things change overtime. What may seem morally correct now doesn't seem the way then. Completely irrelevant. Lets take something serious first, say murder. Is it wrong to murder somebody now? Absolutely. Was it wrong to murder somebody 60 years ago? Absolutely. Now lets go to something small. Back in the 50's, it was deemed sociably acceptable to smoke at younger ages, such as 14. this was because then, we didn't know the full extent of the harm smoking can cause you. Morals don't change overtime, your knowledge of things do.