BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The meat produced by factory farming is cheap because it is of very low quality. It is ‘mechanicall...

This intensive type of farming brings meat down to a price affordable to the poorest in our community on a regular basis. Historically, classes in industrial societies have always been demarcated not only by wealth but also the consequent effect on diet and health. This was obvious by the most basic of measurements – broadly speaking, richer people have been taller, because they’ve eaten better. Intensive farming has done much to stop that disparity, ensuring that high-protein, nutritious food is available to all at low cost. It’s all very well for the trendy urban middle class to pour scorn on factory farming, but without it, the poor will have an even worse diet. Consumers are much cleverer than you think. They know that the meat they’re eating isn’t the same as traditionally farmed meat, and they choose to buy it nevertheless. They have a right to make that choice.
Factory farming sees animals as ‘products,’ ‘commodities’ for production and sale just like bricks o...

This is sentimental nonsense. Unless the state is going to impose vegetarianism (and that’s not being proposed here) the business of food will continue, and that business should be efficient and productive like any other – that’s in the interest of the producer, who makes a profit, and the consumer, who gets a low price. Many of these animals exist because we eat them, anyway – pigs, cows, sheep, chickens – all animals that are bred in their millions because we want to eat them. Man should treat man with respect and dignity – but animals are not our equals, don’t have any capacity for higher thought, and can be used for our benefit without any moral problem.
Large-scale beef farming has significantly added to the damage to the ozone layer, as cows and their...

Come on – a cow fart joke is one thing, but you can’t seriously argue this! Are we really supposed to believe that cow-produced methane is even in the same league as pollution from big business and industry? The topsoil point is more substantial. But that’s an argument for better rules requiring the upkeep and replacement of turf, not for banning a whole industry.
Incapacitation

If a convicted murderer is put in prison for life, it means that there is no chance of him harming anyone else unless he escapes, which is very unlikely. He is completely incapacitated. He has no chance of taking revenge against the people who put him into court, the family of the victim, the judges or anyone else. Family and friends of the victim will remain in fear if he is released. The locking up of murderers will mean that crime rates will drop as there is no chance of him coming out and committing murder or any other crime. This is particularly true for resource-poor countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, etc. which have police forces with limited resources, without effective systems and are not able to monitor released convicts. Even in developed countries, monitoring released murderers is costly and if it is not done the murderer may kill or commit other crimes again. As we the proposition are saying that life in prison should be the minimum punishment, the chances of a murderer commiting crimes again decreases significantly. The opposition might say that some murderers may change while in prison and should be released, but the fact is that we will never know for sure that whether the prisoner will change again after s/he is released.
Deterrence

If life imprisonment is set as the minimum punishment, it will act as a deterrent for future crimes. People will think twice before committing murder. Murderers will try to make the court think that the killing was justified to reduce his sentence. But this is dangerous and if, according to our motion, he knows that he will not be able to reduce his sentence, he may not commit the murder in the first place since there is no chance of him getting anything but a sentence of life in prison. There are conclusive statistics that prove that capital punishment acts as a deterrent, which means that life imprisonment will also act as a deterrent too, even if not to the same extent.
Economically Better

The opposition has given some statistics about the cost per inmate in the USA to show how exorbitant the costs of keeping inmates in the prison will be. However, at the same time, they recommend anger management programmes so that murderers can come out as better people. We believe that these programmes are not foolproof and can easily release a person who will kill again. However, if we consider that this works, and we follow the case presented by them, it seems the costs will be higher. Pursuing anger-management programmes which require hiring of many highly-skilled psychologists is likely to be more expensive than only giving the basic facilities to prisoners in most countries. In developing countries, finding able psychologists willing to work in prisons is not only unlikely but almost impossible. And to add to that, this huge investment would not always give the result expected and thus leading to misused money. In addition, keeping these convicts in prison means that the people in the society are freer and this may lead to greater economic activity. This is particularly true for countries where businessmen are often the targets of extortion followed by murder. There are many such countries in South Asia and Africa. Bangladesh is one such country (One can see the search results in a local daily when searched with “businessmen dead” - http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailystar.net&q=businessman+dead&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailystar.net.) Due to the reduction of crime rates through the punishment proposed by us, the businessmen may act freely, leading to greater economic activity. A better law and order situation may also encourage multinationals to locate in some developing countries.
Government Will

We are already aware that the basis of formation and sustenance of a government are its three organs-the legislature which makes the laws, the judiciary which is the final interpreter and the executive which implements them. In the recent past, it has been observed and witnessed final interpreter and the executive which implements them.. One clear message which these steps of the government are giving is that ultimately the motive which sustains is the betterment of society by giving an opportunity to change. This has further proven our point that reformation and restitution and change are not tough to do unlike what side proposition thinks. There are several viable sources which also support our argument. The bible says that "the person should be rather healed than punished because this healing will then help in making that person a better human whereas the act of punishment will only make us lose another life
Incapacitation

Considering the arguments which have been put forward by the proposition instead of incapacitation we propose capacitating them. One thing is very much evident that according to them once a mistake, blunder or an illegal act has been committed by a person then that person's life should be brought to an end by restricting that life to the walls of the prison only. This is an extremely inhumane and insane approach towards an issue as sensitive as a person's life and in this case even if a murder has been committed by the convict still what we are talking about is the life of a living soul. Just like the old saying “every criminal is a product of the society” proposition team proves that they are very much part of this society and not the society which believes in change, restitution and reformation because one life has gone does not mean that the one which is still there shouldn’t be given a chance to survive. Also the fact that counter arguing what they have put the rebuttal for the same is that once they have gone to jail and face the hardship they would not like to repeat it as they just want to go through all that again .The side proposition has also failed to realise the effect it will have on their family. If the person is a parent won’t it affect the condition of the of the family and boast their moral. Fine if a mistake is committed but he has already served imprisonment for 12 or more years so he deserves parole or companionship. An eye for an eye then the whole world will be blind and by not wanting to believe that a person can change, we'll let him die??How different are we all from the convicts then?? the last point put forward by the side proposition is that there can be no assurance that the person has reformed, then is how they suggest that let drug addicts also be confined indefinitely. what is the guarantee that the addict isn't going to resort back to drugs, so lets confine him also! in most cases a convict comes from violent backgrounds where from childhood he grows up seeing people vent their anger through violence in such an environment the child grows up thinking that it a rational way of reacting and it becomes a habit. in situations like these when the person is put into jails ad given anger management classes he changes and thus he should be given a chance. coming to the point that the convicts family will be scared of him, we feel that the family will want their loved ones coming out as a new person rather than watch him rot in jail. if giving a person death sentence can be against his human rights how is keeping him in confinement for the rest of his life any less than death, so is it not against human rights as well.
Deterrence

according to the proposition, “If life imprisonment is set as the minimum punishment, it will act as a deterrent for future crimes. People will think twice before committing murder”. This argument completely overlooks the significance of the intention behind the punishment given to a convict. The major reason behind giving any sort of punishment to a person found guilty of murder or any act is to make them learn a lesson. But by sentencing them with life imprisonment this intention cannot be fulfilled. The only result of this step would be further acceleration of the detestation experienced by the convict. A full stop will be put to any scope of improvement in the person and it is easy to put a full stop but very difficult to continue writing after the comma. We the opposition believe in continuing writing. Also, according to a report, in Unites States of America, the state spends more than $25,000 per inmate each year which is more than $1 billion in total. We can easily imagine what the figures will be if these convicts are made to live their entire lives in the prison and if the setback to the economies as developed as USA will be so substantive then we can easily surmise how disastrous an effect it will have on the less developed countries like India, Bangladesh,Pakistan,etc.The point that if u keep some one for the rest of their life in confinement then he will try and escape and when he does so he is more blood hungry than before. So by keeping him without giving him an opportunity we are in fact aggravating his anger. First that indefinite confinement does not deter the person from committing crimes in future .Second keeping him in confinement is violating his right to life instead it further elevates the feelings of detestation and resentment. Allowing him to languish in the prison will only frustrate him: not act as a deterrent
Economically Better

The proposition believes that the anger management programmes, counseling, sessions, medical facilities etc, as recommended by us, for helping the convicts are supposedly not "fool proof" .In accordance with that. We might say that several other things are also not full proof. For e.g.: the security systems of the prisons, the police force etc of several countries and especially developing countries like Bangladesh ,Nepal etc and thus convicts or prisoners can easily escape, so forth and so on. However, while analyzing the case presented by them, what we have noticed is that there is a hell lot of a difference between the expenses which will be incurred on the basis of the reason, motive and result desired. One price will be paid to save a life and another to help in ending one. To facilitate the means to an end. Along with this, with the price paid for the classes there will be a potential hope that those expenses surely can be reduced one day but with the policy of indefinite life imprisonment, we cannot have any such hope and can easily imagine that in the long run, it will be the cost incurred in the proposition's policy which will be higher. Furthermore, the point of the proposition that confining the prisoner in the walls of the jail is economically viable also lacks substance and logic. They need to realize that cost per inmate is much higher than the anger management and other psychological activities. They seem to contradict their own statement by saying on one hand that Bangladesh is an underdeveloped country and on the other by saying that keeping the convicted murderers is economically viable. We wonder how that is economically viable since confining them in the prison would eventually mean setting up of more and more cells and employing more and more persons to supervise the cells which is not so viable for underdeveloped countries which lack the adequate funds and resources. We however feel that unless we give out clear examples it might be a little difficult to understand. Let’s say that once this model of theirs comes into force there are about 10 convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment. Now he state has to provide for these 10 convict and then there are 10 more the next month; they now have to provide for 20 and this number keeps increasing. Instead if they had a counselor the first 10 could have been released and the state would have to provide for less convicts and thus no matter what the time period we consider there will always be less convicts to provide for if they are released. "They need to realize cost per inmates is high. Also if life time imprisonment is the minimum punishment there will be a need to build more cells to provide space for the pre-existing convicts as well as the additional. Instead if there is a counselor then this counselor not only provides for the murder convicts but even those for other crimes as well
Social Will

In numerous cases it has been seen that many murders were committed by people who were suffering from various mental or emotional problems. Tormented childhood, improper upbringing etc are some of the reasons responsible for these convicts to act in such away. What is expected from us humans is again a "humane approach" to help these people. Proper medical facilities etc can be very helpful in these cases instead of just bringing their life to a dead end. There have been numerous convicts who've pursued their degrees from the prison and later have contributed to the building and development of the society as proved before. So the point which we the opposition is remonstrating is that many a times the person who is found guilty of an act may actually be innocent. What is needed is, that one chance to be given to the person. That one chance to improve upon the mistakes that were done before. That one chance to welcome a positive change which will help in SAVING a life. To further prove it that’s its society will for such a move is like there are like almost 10000 petition written to USA President to remove the Code Of Criminal Procedure that after serving the sentence of murder in the prison the person should be left on parole after he or she is deemed fit to be a part of the society again. For that matter even social networking sites such as orkut and facebook have groups and community to support the same. This proves completely the point that it’s the will of the people who wanted change in system unlike the proposition who still don’t accept change
Realistic endings prepare children for actual life scenarios

Happy endings can teach more about desired behaviour than other endings, by associating good feelings with prudent behaviour. The reader learns to associate the good feeling of a happy ending with the kind of happening that led to that. Taking the example given by the proposition, a book ending with 'Johny learned how to save money, and was no longer at risk of losing his home' is the better ending to a story, and it is certainly not the ending of a story that tells you you you won't have to save money. If the story associates constructive behaviour with a happy ending, it is perfectly ok.
Teaches us that morality isn't black and white.

The complex morality inherent in the original fairytales is unsuited to the nascent minds of the children who are the target audience of such tales contemporarly. Creating clear juxtapositions between good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral is simplistic but it will not have an egregious impact. Learning is a slow process, and one small step in that process is establishing a foundation on which complexity can be built. Happy endings in stories provide hope and teach readers that doing the right things, being a good person has its rewards. This may not be true in real life, but that is no reason not to advocate the pursuit of such ends.
Books should be kept the way the author dreamed them to be.

When disney change the ending of a fairy tale or other child's story they are changing what the author planned for the story. These so called "happy ever after" endings are unrealistic, unexciting and pointless! When a great children's story is produced it shouldn't be changed simply because it might make a child cry. Children have to exposed to the real world some time, you may be able to change the end of a story but you can't change the ways of life and most certainly can't shield your child from them forever!
Hopeful endings are important for morale

Morale is vital to overcome any crisis, including the financial crisis we live in now. Humans need mental well-being in order to survive just as much as they need physical well being. According to the article on the BBC news website about the hoax, the obsession with happy endings in films began in the 1930s. Entertainment is also used widely to boost morale in wartime. What better way to inspire feelings of hopefulness than to consistently show images of situations having positive outcomes?
Seeing better endings encourages us to produce better endings.

The purpose of showing a happy ending isn't only to say 'look, happy endings exist', it is also to say 'This is how it should be. Why isn't it? Maybe you should go out and make it like that.'. By only showing actions resulting in the consequences that they have now, stories don't leave the possibility of things ending differently. This is both unimaginative and doesn't encourage children to aim to change the faulty system they're living in and create their own endings. The aim of original fairy tales was often to teach children to stay in the community, not to question their elders, to grow up to be responsible – all well and good, unless your elders are oppressive and the system they're setting up for you isn't working!
Truly faithful versions of fairy tales would be unsuitable for young children.

Many original versions of fairy tales involved the kind of gory violence and (often bizarre) references to sex that would get a film an 18 rating today. Partly this is because the story would have been passed on by word of mouth, with the storyteller able to moderate the story themselves depending on how resilient the particular child was to such things, whereas a film or a video game with good graphics – the media children are most likely to be interested in - requires you to explicitly show everything that is happening.
Realistic endings prepare children for actual life scenarios

In a recession, what we need is advice on how to save money, not assurances that we won't have to. A recession won't magically get better again and neither will any other life situation. Many original versions of fairy tales were designed to teach important life lessons, like 'don't go out in the woods alone at night' or 'don't trust strangers'. The consequences are bad because the characters made stupid decisions that should be punished, or because they were in situations where life wasn't ever going to go perfectly for them. Making the consequences to the actions positive instead of negative ruins the entire point of the tale.
Teaches us that morality isn't black and white.

Many 'happy endings' in films leave me feeling sympathetic for the villain. I automatically look for their motive and find ways in which their actions aren't purely evil, and where the situation could have been resolved without killing them or completely wrecking their life's work. In films where 'the hero wins' and 'the villain loses', the morality is entirely bipolar, teaching children that some people are good and some people are evil and we shouldn't question this. This kind of thinking isn't what we need in a situation where it has already caused wars. In original versions of fairy tales, the morality is often quite complex, with main characters performing evil actions, the most unsympathetic people turning out not to be evil and nothing being as it seems. Fairy-tale magic isn't something 'good' or 'bad', its something untrustworthy, a bargain that you don't know the conditions of, with dire consequences if it isn't kept.
A more interesting story

Stereotypical Disney 'happy endings' are very formulaic, shallow and, to be frank, boring. Young children, when you discuss a film or book with them, often enjoy changing the ending - I know quite a few young children who invariably change it into a bad ending. Young audiences want something fresh and exciting just as much as older audiences. Drawing more from the original, which a young audience probably has never heard before, would provide them with something new to think about.
Let's not feed any more fake happiness to our children please!

Adding superfluous happy endings to stories do not necessarily make them better stories, it just turns them into an unbelievable, unrealistic load of tosh. However, while it is necessary people, especially children should be provided with happy endings to convince them that life is indeed full of joy and merriment, it is ill-advisable that writers come up with happy endings that seem to occur through chance or miracles. Children need to be taught the murkier aspects of life as well as the brighter aspects. Happy endings are of course welcome, but not when the path to the happy ending is unrealistic and achieved through impractical and coincidental circumstances.
Hopeful endings are important for morale

It's true that a lot of happy endings turn up in war time, but it's also true that this tends to be orchestrated by authority as propaganda. There's nothing wrong with feel-good entertainment, but when it's all that's available it would end up feeling manipulative and undermining the intended effect. In times of stress it can also be cathartic to experience non-happy endings. They allow you to express the fear and sadness you've been feeling safely, and leave you understanding that you're not alone in suffering. Confronting your own fears is an important part of coping with a stressful situation, and pretending the worst can't possibly happen is rarely healthy. When terrible things happen humans tend to gravitate towards bleak entertainment. King Lear was revived after WWII because when people were struggling to understand the terrible things that had happened, they searched for an interpreter. Sometimes sad and tragic endings are what we need to cope with the horrors of the world.