BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Youths are impressionable

It is absurd to think that something as transient as music or a game could affect a youths life to such an extent. We should stop looking for a scapegoat and give children support from the family in terms of love and proper role models and the government in terms of education. If children are affected by everything then how are children afected by music such as venetian snares whose music is breakcore. If children are affected by everything then can you imagine in 1992 when mortal kombat arrived. I dont remember trying to fireball my teacher or send electric through my mates head to make him explode. Another example is the ads, video games from japan such as samurai etc which are very famous for their violence However, the crime rate at that time was not increasing. In fact, it decreased Furthermore, violent video games aren't molding violent people, it is the violent and troubled people that are drawn to the games. If someone plays grand theft auto for hours then shoots a cop, that person would probably have hurt someone anyway. Is it worse because that person is a cop? No! A cop's life is worth no more then any other person out there, no matter what the circumstances. A small minority may be influenced by violence in video games but this does not warrant banning violent video games outright. It warrants better parenting and education and healthcare systems. Regarding the ( Grand Theft Auto ) argument and it relating to Columbine, the two teenagers were indeed fans of violent video-games, but GTA was not mentioned by the media, the game that was mentioned was DOOM 3, where the media claimed that it was there that the two teens created a level to imitate Columbine so they could plan their shooting, but this claim was later debunked when it was learned that they ( the two teens ) did not initially plan to go inside of the school.
'Violence' is a blurry concept and could lead to banning good games.

What does 'violence' mean? Are Sonic and Mario too violent? If an overweight plumber or a hedgehog the size of a person tried to jump on my head from a great height I would be seriously hurt. And yet Mario and Sonic are great classics that would ruin the video game industry if they were banned. If a game is good, the joy it brings to its fans worldwide will greatly outweigh the minority of people stupid enough to emulate the violent scenes in it.
The problems in Afghanistan show exactly why the US should not get involved in foreign affairs. We ...

The problems in Afghanistan show exactly why the US should not get involved in foreign affairs. We should remember that one of the main reasons Al-Qaeda attacked the US from Afghanistan in the first place was because it objected to American troops being present in many Islamic countries. If the US stopped its foreign intervention there would be none of this 'blowback' in the first place, and it would be more secure.
The US is the world's only remaining 'superpower'. It is not just more powerful than other nations,...

The US is the world's only remaining 'superpower'. It is not just more powerful than other nations, but is in a class all of its own. For example, the US spends not only the most on its military - but actually more than the whole of the rest of the world put together. America does not need partners and allies to protect itself - and it shouldn't weaken itself by having to compromise and follow the rules and demands of these other nations.
Foreign policy is always either immoral or doomed to failure. If the US seeks to negotiate with rog...

Missile defense is a perfect example of a system which is strengthened by international cooperation (such as the current US plans to place radar stations in Europe). Also, cooperation in alliances can lead to better deterrence (see the example of NATO). More generally, it is too gloomy to say foreign policy cannot work. There are still major problems, yes, but globally the world is becoming increasingly less violent, and wars are increasingly rare. This is almost entirely a result of increased political and economic cooperation and integration through organisations such as the UN, EU, G20 and WTO.
The primary responsibility of a state is to its own people. American citizens are the ones who fund...

If the US really did just focus on its own soil this would certainly demand that it gave up many of its foreign resources and business interests, which would hardly help support the ‘American way of life’. And while nationality might be important, surely ‘humanity’ runs even deeper? Would the US really uphold its own principles of freedom and justice if it closed its eyes to ethnic cleansing, war crimes or even another holocaust? How can we even use words like ‘responsibility’ if we ignore these things? The very idea is wrong and disturbing.
If the US stopped getting into conflicts abroad, it could put more emphasis on its own defence. Its...

There are still many global issues (including terrorism) which cannot be prevented even with huge armies or forces. Soldiers also cannot prevent climate change, the spread of diseases, flows of refugees or the production and transport of illegal drugs. To deal with these issues, the US must work with the whole international community, so that it can help create joint agreements to tackle these problems wherever they come from. It is also a mistake to think America can largely support itself in fuel and other essentials. Trade is vital to Americans’ present standard of living, and that means trade routes and trading partners also need protecting.
The problems in Afghanistan show exactly why the US should not get involved in foreign affairs. We ...

It is unrealistic to say that the US could just stop intervening abroad. Firstly, the issue of terrorism would not go away if they US brought its forces home. It would allow America’s enemies to once again set up bases in foreign countries, and to find state backers for their plots. The goals of Al-Qaeda are the destruction of America - not just stopping its intervention in Islamic countries. If the US did isolate itself, it would give terrorist groups total freedom to grow and plan attacks.
The US is the world's only remaining 'superpower'. It is not just more powerful than other nations,...

The US may well have very large and advanced armed forces, but this does not mean it has the power to do anything it wants. Look at cases like Afghanistan today, where for all its military might, the US cannot control the comparatively weak Taliban forces. What the US needs here is better intelligence, political influence and local support. These are exactly the kinds of things it can only get from allies and partnerships with other countries.
Foreign policy is always either immoral or doomed to failure. If the US seeks to negotiate with rog...

Foreign policy is always either immoral or doomed to failure. If the US seeks to negotiate with rogue states like Iran or North Korea, it only gives legitimacy and support to their controlling, murderous and corrupt regimes. If it seeks a military solution it risks military disasters like Vietnam, or undermining the stability of entire regions (as with the Iraq conflict). There is no international solution to these problems. American based systems such as domestic missile defence and nuclear deterrence are the best options to stop threats to America.
The primary responsibility of a state is to its own people. American citizens are the ones who fund...

The primary responsibility of a state is to its own people. American citizens are the ones who fund the American state, work to make it successful, and often give their lives in its defense. For the USA to put the interests of other people in front of theirs is a betrayal of this loyalty. Also in global terms, the world system works best when all states take care of their own people. No country or international organisation can look after every human in the world – and it would mean anarchy and disaster if they tried to. A system of nation states is the best and most secure way to provide for humanity, and this system works best when states each focus on supporting their own populations.
If the US stopped getting into conflicts abroad, it could put more emphasis on its own defence. Its...

If the US stopped getting into conflicts abroad, it could put more emphasis on its own defence. Its armies and troops can be brought home to defend its own borders and cities - rather than fighting and dying in unwinnable foreign wars. American citizens and troops would be safer if the US government put all of its focus on its own security, rather than foreign affairs. The US can more than support itself with essentials such as food and fuel and it can secure everything else it needs through trade.
The Scots themselves would vote against independence if there was a referendum.

The Progressive Scottish Opinion poll in the Daily Mail showed that while almost half of those questioned backed the Nationalists, the survey suggested 31% were in favour of independence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6942352.stm Effectively there are only 2 major parties in Scotland, the SNP and Labour. The Tories and the Lib-Dems are fairly irrelevant. The Labour party is unravelling by the minute. The SNP are winning their political arguements hands down. Labour have commited to letting the Scottish people have their say in a referendum. If they go back on that they will further lose credibility..
The many hidden subsidies to SE England would end.

Between 2000-2010 London produced on average a £17bn tax surplus (tax revenue generated minus public spending consumed). By comparison, Scotland typically produces a 1bn surplus. South East England (excluding London) also has some of the lowest public spending in the whole of the UK, just over £6000, compared to Scotland's £8000+. The reality is the South East of England subsidises the rest of the UK.
Other small nation-states like Norway and the Republic of Ireland are successful

Scotland is far better disposed in safeguarding its economic interests and territorial sovereignty by remaining a part of the UK, which is larger in size and has greater clout. The UK was created due to similarities in culture and kingship. By pulling resources together the UK became the prominent power of the 20th century. Consolidation of states is occurring today. What do think the EU and NAFTA are? The main aim of the EU is to consolidate European nations into one economic and military block to compete with the world. Sound familiar? The British did it 200 years ago.
The Union has served both countries well for 300 years

300 years is a small amount of time, historically speaking. The Union was forced upon the Scots and now they are rejecting it. Their views should be taken seriously. The empire served Scotland quite well through the 19th Century. The advantages ran out in 1914 when the First War dealt Scotland a huge blow. From there on the Union disadvantaged Scotland. We lost all our locally run companies, Britain fell down international league tables and we have little influence in UK/EU. UK governments only really care about the City of London.
Scotland will be unable to survive economically without England

Scotland has 70% of Europe’s energy reserves, primarily in the form of oil that is found in the North Sea. Profits from the extraction of such oil, for e.g., are channelled to England The mcrone report written for westminster 30 years ago and hidden becuase it would prove the fact that the oil is in scottish waters and scotland would be not just a viable but wealthy country disagrees with the view that scotland receives more from the Uk government that it gives to it. The person claiming that 'The North Sea is international water, etc' displays an abysmal lack of knowledge on international law. Go, read some books, come back and try again when you know what you are talking about.
Less segregation equals less hostility

Scotland and england are not in fact one nation but two. The union was an attempt to make scotland and england one nation. It has therefore failed as the argument against ceding form the union shows. Why would england or scotland choose to be hostile to one another just because they are different nations. This argument that independence for scotland would create hostility is false. Is England or Scotland hostile to France or America or Australia just because they are separate nations? No, of course they aren't. What we do as responsible humans is agree to disagree and each follows his own democratic path.
Westminster governmental control is undemocratic.

Westminster governmental control is undemocratic because if Scotland votes for a completely different government from england then they are having a government forced on them that they did not elect. The people of Scotland were never given a choice in a democratically elected parliament on wether they wanted to be governed from london. This means that westminster is acting as a dictator and not a government. Even if scots reject the government voted in at westminster they have no choice but to accept what westminster imposes in scotland as they are not equally represented as a country in the westminster parliament. Unless, that is, if the majority of Scottish MPs elected to the Westminster parliament call for independence..
The many hidden subsidies to SE England would end.

There are many hidden subsidies to SE England or London, these would end with independence the money remaining in Scotland instead of bleeding out to support London. One good example is the BBC: it collects about 400 million a year in revenue from Scotland, but has to cook the books in order to disguise how little it spends in Scotland. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/thebbc/-Myth-of-BBC39s-39made.3719199.jp With independence that money stays in Scotland and helps builds a media industry, with all its downstream supporting industries. Right now Scotland is subsidising the SE England media capacity, and the cosy lives of the chaps in Broadcasting House who got their jobs because of their connections to the middle England school and university network. Another example is the spending on Oxbridge to create top league universities. Spending per student head at Oxford is 3 times that of Edinburgh. It is a sensible policy to create top league universities: but Oxbridge is in SE England, subsidised by the Scottish taxpayer. THE BBC Tax (TV licence) is another subsidy to London from Scotland. We know BBC only spends 3% of its budget in sCotland but raises 9% of its revenue here. So lots of (well paid) TV jobs in London. MOD is also very much run from SE England. That's where all research establishments are, all the HQs all the senior officers and chief civil servants. A huge boost to economy of SE england.
Other small nation-states like Norway and the Republic of Ireland are successful

An independent Scotland will have the right tools to match its population, nurturing a smaller and more open relationship between nation and state. If we accept the argument against, then it also should apply to the rest of the world. Therefore, Denmark should form a union with Norway and Sweden, Mexico should team up with the USA and Canada, France and Belgium with Germany and so on. Gosh, these nations will be so happy to know that UK Unionists have stumbled on the recipe for Nirvana. All you have to do is form a union with the nations surrounding you! But wait! They haven't done it! Why not? Are they stupid? No, it is we Scots who have been stupid for being taken in by the Unionists' schemes! So, the natural condition for a nation appears to be one of independence. And to that we should aspire. Yes, we should model ourselves on the Swiss or Singapore. Small, successful nations who eshewed mergers with larger (and less successful) neighbours.
It is time to take the next step.

Britishness is dying. Scotland has its own parliament, its own laws and legal system. National feeling and self-confidence are high. If the union had succeeded then scottishness would not still exist only north britain would exist the fact that scottishness and scotland still exists as a country in peoples minds shows that declaring a country out of existance does not work unless the country as a whole has agreed to such a move. This has not happened in scotland. People in scotland do not define themselves as north british they define themselves as scottish.
In the end, Independence is about Freedom.

By this << logic, is it not the case that if the Shetlands vote to stay in the UK they should be allowed to do so? Is it not the case that if individual constituencies vote to stay in the UK they should be allowed to do so? Infact why stop there, why not let each individual person decide what country they want to stay in. The "self determination" argument is deeply flawed. By its own logic it does not stop. Sorry nationalists but you'll have to do much better than that.
Semi-independence is unsatisfactory

Scotland's position is not directly analagous to that of Ireland. Despite Alex Salmond's economic 'acumen', a fiscal black hole has already emerged in the financing of Scottish public goods. Without the economic backbone to support a fiscal contraction like that which led Ireland to the forefront of business growth and innovation in the 1990s, there is little hope for anything but tax hikes. These would, and have already been, concealed in income tax and tweaks to council taxation: the SNP needs to maintain its pedagogic pedigree. Many of the differences between Scotland and England are typical of any nation in the world, with the exception of the smallest, i.e. it is not unusual for parts of countries to have strong regional identities. This is true even for the different regions in England itself (e.g. London, Newcastle, etc.).
Scotland can't afford to be independent

Scotland is quite capable of standing on its own two feet. Economic dependence on England is bad for England and bad for Scotland. The change would not come easily, but it would be for the best. In fact, if Scotland gained independence, it would become the full beneficiary of the royalties from North Sea Oil and, with a much smaller population than Britain, would be able to heavily invest in its future, far from London's interference. Scotland most certainly can afford to be independent. In fact, Scotland would be one of the the richest countries in Europe. A recent study showed that scotland, if independent, would have a budget surplus of, at the very least, 2 billion pounds. Evidence can be traced at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry _sectors/natural_resources/article3954031.ece the tiny url for this is http://tinyurl.com/6dha2o This recent study backs up the McCrone report written over 30 years ago for the Westminster government and classified as top secret until released under the freedom of informantion act that said exactly the same thing. The only difference being that inflation over the years has now increased the surplus figure to 2 billion. The fact that the argument against Scotland ceding from the union says that there has been investment in infastructure in some of the inner cities that are the poorest areas of the UK, shows that the union has not benfited Scotland. If it had these areas would not be the poorest areas in the UK. The 'against' brigade ask, Who owns the oil rights? Well, Scotland does. And International companies can not bypass Scottish pipelines and refineries to avoid higher taxes. To attempt to do so would amount to theft on a grand scale, similar to...but I won't go there...yet.
Relations between Scots and English are deteriorating

Scots should recognise that devolution has put England at a disadvantage, and should press for reforms to the way Westminster works. Satisfying English grievances would put the marriage back on an even keel. Divorce is unnecessary and would be painful "Relations between Scots and English are deteriorating" Speak for yourself! It's very sad you don't like someone because they are English. I think that says all you need to know about the nationalist argument.
The Scots themselves would vote against independence if there was a referendum.

Current opinion polls are irrelevant, as in the absence of a Nationalist majority in the Scottish Parliament, and due to other parties' bilateral agreement to prevent a referendum, there will be no vote under this government. If, in the future, a majority of MSPs are in favour of a national referendum on independence, then a national opinion poll would be worth looking at. Were the Scottish populace to elect an SNP majority parliament, then they would also likely vote in favour of independence. Consequently independence is not a current option, but a future proposition. Therefore such contemporaneous statistics are irrelevant. We are probably very close to a tipping point. There is a large number of people who do not care very much about the constitution. They can be very easily swayed by scare stories or a biased question often asked by pollsters. Essentially, the Union is being defended in Scotland by Labour who now look like a party in serious decline who have lost any sense of their original values and a huge number of footsoldiers. The SNP is getting stronger by the day.
In the end, Independence is about Freedom.

Whilst agreeing with the previous "For" points, and asserting empahtically that Scotland notonly could, but does more than support itself economically, there is a superior argument at stake. Independence is about Freedom to make our own decisions (and yes, mistakes) and to build a new home for our Nation, which is, and always has been distinct, even within the Union. The cause of Freedom is eternal, and fires the imagination and inspires endeavour and effort in every generation. The Union has served its purpose, and its time is over. Advance Caledonia, long live the cause of Freedom
Semi-independence is unsatisfactory

Fiscal powers and economic control remain at Westminster. Independence will allow Scotland to cut business taxes (like Ireland) to promote economic growth. Some of the decisions taken at Westminster are not always in Scotland’s best interests, for example the positioning of Trident submarines at Rosyth which put Scotland under threat from terrorist attacks in reprisals to descisions Westminister made. The argument against states that the differences between Scotland and England are typical of any nation in the world. This argument is fundamentally flawed in that Scotland and England are not one nation but two. Scotland is not a region of England like London or Newcastle but is in fact a seperate country. It seems to be acceptable to call scotland a region but not england i.e." regions in england itself" why is that? It is also assumed that the capital city of the UK is London. There is no basis for this. Indeed, the UK does not have a capital city. There are numerous reports that show that Scotland would be economically vastly more wealthy than any western european country including England and yet the lies about fiscal black holes continue. See here: http://tinyurl.com/6dha2o for proof or go look at the mccrone report. Scotland who also not waste money on big defence projects so beloved of Tory/Labour. So expenditure per capita would drop. The cretans in Westminster go through the motions of pretending to have different views, when in fact it is merely a mouthpiece for all things English. It, like Rome has seen its day and although they try to potray themselves as some form of superpower, is just a symbol of the fact that they cant accept where they stand in the pecking order. Scotland on the other hand is a country that has a solid reputation of being innovators and leaders in many areas. We do not need England and never will again. We did them the favour of getting them out of the financial mess they were in during the seventies, when the IMF took charge of the basket case economy that forced a three day week, no garbage collections, and RATS ON THE STREETS INSTEAD OF IN WESTMINSTER WHERE THEY LAY.