BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
it is counter-productive

As history has taught, religions can not be simply banned, religions are a person’s belief and by banning them all you are doing is driving the religion underground and harbouring resentment. If you disagree with a religion the only way to challenge it is through information campaigns and disillusionment, although it is a slow process it is much more ethical as it puts faith in human beings to choose their beliefs for themselves as well as providing an ongoing productive debate.
False memory syndrome

As with any profession there are bound to be bad practitioners. However, the instances of false memory syndrome when related to childhood sexual abuse are actually minimal and the reported cases were largely attributed to one, now discredited, doctor. Nonetheless, it is important to refute the central claim that memories can be planted. Good therapists will be extraordinarily careful about imposing their own ideas onto their client. They will know the power they wield and will be cautious about exercising it. They will provide a space where a client can remember long blocked memories without
False memory syndrome

Therapists wield great power and have the ability to plant all kinds of suggestions in the minds of their patients. There have been cases where therapists have caused their patients to falsely remember instances of childhood sexual abuse. These we know about because of the seriousness of the accusations, and it is likely that there are many other cases where the therapist either directly or indirectly has caused the patient to remember an incident which did not take place or was not as remembered. Such false memories cause great harm both to the victim and the accused.
Therapists provide a friendly ear

One of the most important benefits of seeing a therapist is their ability to listen. We often don’t want to burden our friends with our problems – either because we’re embarrassed about them or because we felt we’ve talked about them enough. A therapist is a captive audience. Their job is to listen to you. The unburdening that can happen simply through the act of being listened to is worth the therapists fee alone. You wont be critisized. Not everyone is actually capable of making new friends - some of us just have terrible social skills - and it is certainly too much to ask to 'get a new personality'!
Therapists offer essential insight into the world

The problems people go to therapy for are the problems people have always faced. People have been bullied, raped or abandoned since the dawn of time. The difference is that people used to keep a stiff upper lip, didn’t used to bawl in public and would manage their emotions so they didn’t take over. Therapy is a symptom of a sick culture, sick in the sense that it seeks the easy way out rather than suffering silently and waiting for things to pass.
Therapists offer essential insight into the world

The modern world has created a whole host of new problems our ancestors didn’t have to deal with. In addition, the move to cities and the breaking of family ties means people have no clear path to follow or elders to seek advice from when in difficulty. Therapists are the village elders, the people you go to when in trouble because they know what you’re going through and how to get out of it. The insight they offer is not available from our peers. Parents are the other usual source of advice but they can also be the last people that the patient in need of therapy wants to go to. Therapists fill this much needed gap.
In many senses nuclear energy is clean. It does not produce gaseous emissions such as greenhouse ga...

In many senses nuclear energy is clean. It does not produce gaseous emissions such as greenhouse gases, which are harmful either to the population or to the environment. It is true that it does produce radioactive waste. Since this is in solid form it can be dealt with much more easily and stored away from centres of population. The damage caused to the environment and populations due to the burning of fossil fuels is far in excess of the damage done to the environment due to the nuclear industry including even the Chernobyl catastrophe. In this sense nuclear energy is very much preferable to the burning of fossil fuels at the moment. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently.) However, this trend will only continue with investment. Judging from the pace of development of nuclear technology since its inception it is fair to say that with more investment nuclear energy will become an even more desirable source of energy with many of its current drawbacks curtailed. The high price of oil at present looks set to continue, and makes the economic case for investment in nuclear power even more attractive.
It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has had bad reputation for safety. Not all o...

It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has had bad reputation for safety. Not all of this reputation has been deserved. The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively for their entire lifetimes. The two major nuclear accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, were both in old style reactors, made worse in the latter case by poor Soviet safety standards. In this debate, the reactors the proposition are advocating are new reactors built to the highest safety standards (such as those under construction in Finland at present). Such reactors have a perfect safety record. Perhaps the best guarantee of safety standards in the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency with which the industry is presenting itself. Many of the problems in its early days were caused by excessive control due to the origin of nuclear energy from military applications. As the gap between the two separates so the nuclear industry becomes more accountable.
It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ...

It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. For the reasons explained above (diminishing supply, environmental damage) we can rule fossil fuels out immediately. We also see enormous problems with every form of alternative energy. The most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power. However, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace tens of thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped. The subsequent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam project in China. Solar energy has never lived up to expectations since it is hugely inefficient. A solar panel the size of Europe would be needed to power a city the size of London! Wind energy is only marginally better with an unsightly wind farm the size of Texas needed to provide the energy for Texas alone. The worst performers of all have been geothermal and tidal energy which have been hopelessly inefficient because no rocks have been found that are hot enough and no waves have been found that are strong enough! The great irony is that not only are most renewable sources inefficient but many are also ecologically unsound! The opposition to the building wind farms in certain areas has been just as strong as the opposition to nuclear power because wind farms destroy the scenery, being so unsightly and large, and may also be bad for wildlife.
Spreading the peaceful use of nuclear power brings us important security benefits. Under the Non-Pr...

Spreading the peaceful use of nuclear power brings us important security benefits. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty the declared nuclear weapons states (the USA, UK, Russia, France and China) have promised to assist other countries in gaining access to civilian nuclear power providing that they in turn do not seek nuclear weapons. This has only happened to a limited extent but as an increasing number of countries seek to use nuclear material for military purposes, it is in the interests of the declared nuclear weapons states to uphold their side of the bargain more vigorously, so that others can be held to theirs. This security calculation is strengthened by events since the end of the Cold War. Many former Soviet nuclear scientists lost their jobs and may be tempted to sell their skills to the highest foreign bidder, including to rogue states seeking nuclear weapons. It is in our interest to promote peaceful use of nuclear technologies, encouraging these scientists to find employment in an industry which is both peaceful and useful.
The majority of the world's electricity is currently produced via fossil fuels. These are a finite ...

It is a curious fact that the number of further years that fossil fuel resources will last has remained unchanged for the last few decades! It is virtually impossible to predict how long these resources will last because there are undiscovered resources and because the rate of use cannot be predicted accurately. There are still vast unexploited resources in Canada and Siberia (to name but two). In addition some estimates predict that the lifetime of natural gas is about 350 years! There is no need at the moment to search for a new power source. That money would be better spent on creating technology to clean the output from power stations. We can explore other sources of energy when it becomes necessary in the future. When we do so it will be from a much more advanced basis making development easier.
In many senses nuclear energy is clean. It does not produce gaseous emissions such as greenhouse ga...

Even apart from the safety issues, there are a number of problems with nuclear power. Firstly, it is expensive and relatively inefficient. The cost of building reactors is enormous and the price of subsequently decommissioning them also huge. Without massive government subsidy the nuclear industry cannot make money and building new plants is uneconomic compared to other methods of power generation. Then there is also the problem of waste. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. Governments have frequently resorted to dumping waste into the sea; an action which it has been shown has lead to an increase in radioactivity along many coastlines.
It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has had bad reputation for safety. Not all o...

The nuclear industry has a shameful safety record. We can pick out a number of separate problems. There is always the risk of a meltdown or explosion. At Three Mile Island we were minutes away from the former and at Chernobyl the unthinkable actually happened. The fall out from Chernobyl can still be detected in our atmospheres. The effects on the local people and the environment were devastating. It is perfectly true that modern nuclear reactors are safer but they are not perfectly safe. There is always that chance of a disaster and if we build more reactors then sooner or later there will be another Chernobyl. It is quite simply not worth the risk. The dumping of nuclear waste, as explained above, also presents a host of problems. There have also been a number of 'minor' accidents in nuclear power stations recently. Reprocessed fuel from the United Kingdom was recently rejected from Japan after it emerged that test results had been fabricated. The Nuclear Inspectorate in the UK has also been very critical of safety standards within the industry. We have been told by the industry that these are problems are being ironed out and that they will not happen again. Time and time again, however, these same problems reoccur and we have to conclude that the industry is not to be trusted. It is too dominated by the profit motive to really care about safety and too shrouded in secrecy to be accountable. In addition, the nuclear industry has had a terrible cost on the lives on those living around power plants. It cannot be a coincidence that the rate of occurrence of certain types of cancer, such as leukaemia, is much higher in the population around nuclear plants.
It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ...

The proposition lists a number of problems with alternative energy. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough to serve mankind. It is also true that initiation of alternative energy schemes, such as the Aswan dam, have caused problems. But the opposition are not advocating a blanket solution to every problem. Many dam projects, for example, could have been replaced by solar power had the technology been available, without the downside to the dams. In addition, there is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can exploit; tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions etc. and so any given country can in principle become self-sufficient with renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on oil. Indeed, if the whole world went over to nuclear power, supplies of usable uranium ore would run out within a few short decades. This prevents countries from achieving self-sufficiency in energy production.
Spreading the peaceful use of nuclear power brings us important security benefits. Under the Non-Pr...

Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism. This applies just as much in the USA or other western countries as it does in the developing world. If a September 11-style flying bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple 'dirty bomb' (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people.
The majority of the world's electricity is currently produced via fossil fuels. These are a finite ...

The majority of the world's electricity is currently produced via fossil fuels. These are a finite resource and will run out shortly. Current (2005) high oil prices reflect both rapidly rising demand for energy across the globe, and the limited supply of fossil fuels to meet this need. Although estimates are very variable as to exactly how long fossil fuels will last it is possible that oil will be exhausted within 50 years and coal within 25 years. It is therefore a necessity to find a new source of energy; we must therefore start to convert to nuclear energy now (so there is not a major crisis when fossil fuels do run out) and invest in nuclear energy for the future.
Forcing equal maternity and paternity leave leads to better decisions about childcare: it is difficu...

Couples can best decide how to divide childcare for themselves: individual couples are in a better position to know what is in the interests of their family than the state. There are many cases, for example where one parent has a more successful career, where decisions about childcare can be made in an informed way without the need for both parents to spend time at home. The idea that women (or men) are unable to make informed decisions because of social conditioning misunderstands the idea of choice. If we see choice as a decision between competing options based on our individual preferences, the source or origin of those preferences makes no difference. Social conditioning could be argued to influence all of our choices: is my preference for tea really a ‘true’ preference, or is it merely socially conditioned since other people like to drink tea? If fulfilling my preference to care for my children makes me happy, why should the state tell me that my interests would be better served through different choices which would make me less happy? Such claims are likely to lead to resentment. Furthermore, if some women are indeed socially conditioned to want to sacrifice their careers for childcare, forcing men to spend a few months at home after the child’s birth is unlikely to make any difference to society’s expectations.
Forcing equal maternity and paternity leave leads to better decisions about childcare: it is difficu...

Forcing equal maternity and paternity leave leads to better decisions about childcare: it is difficult to know whether you would like to care for a child until you have tried it. Forcing equal leave encourages both parents to develop the necessary skills to care for a child, such as changing nappies, preparing food or bathing. This means that couples are in a better position to make long term plans about care arrangements for the child. Furthermore, social conditioning may undermine a couple’s ability to choose under the status quo. From a young age, women are encouraged to play with dolls and to be caring, leading to expectations within both society and individual couples that the mother is more suited to caring for children. This means, firstly, that some women may choose to sacrifice their careers when it may not be in their interests. Secondly, other women may sacrifice their careers because they think that society expects this of them, even though they may not want to. Forcing both parents to spend a period of time with the newborn child is a necessary means for overcoming such expectations: it strengthens the claim that both parents should care for children.
Forcing equal maternity and paternity leave will improve society as a whole: under the status quo, t...

Forcing equal maternity and paternity leave will not improve society as a whole: firstly, it is not evident that equality within society will improve. Women are presumably perceived as a risk not just because of maternity leave but because of the fact that a greater percentage of women than men abandon their careers altogether. Unless this changes (and it is unclear that it will so long as the social conditioning identified above continues) equality in the workplace will not be achieved, undermining the claims of equality within the home or within wider society. Secondly, this policy will increase parental leave at the expense of those without children. Wages for parental leave are, in effect, docked from the salaries of all workers (on the basis of the average number of weeks of leave taken by each worker). This is paid for by people who never take leave, generating another subsidy for parents, paid for by the non-child bearing. Given that those without children have none of the pleasures of raising children and already subsidise education and child benefit, it is unclear why they should suffer a further burden. Thirdly, maternity and paternity leave are incredibly disruptive, particularly for small businesses and it is important to minimise parental leave for this reason. Allocating parental leave to women is more pragmatic than allocating such leave to men: women need time off work to recover from pregnancy and labour. Moreover, their ability to breastfeed and the hormonal bond which develops between mother and child during pregnancy indicate that women may have comparative advantage in caring for the child at this stage.
Forcing equal maternity and paternity leave will improve society as a whole: under the status quo, t...

Forcing equal maternity and paternity leave will improve society as a whole: under the status quo, there is a persistent inequality between men and women in the workplace. Young women are often perceived by employers to be a risk: there is a serious possibility that they will become pregnant and take long periods of time off work. When choosing between men and women with equal skills, employers have an incentive to choose the man. The consequence of this is that women, whether they wish to have children or not, find it harder to secure employment or promotion, and earn less as a result. Unfortunately, this inequality within the workplace spreads to the household. The fact that women earn less means not only that they are more likely to give up their career to care for children, but also that they are also more likely to be the victim of breadwinner dominance: men can legitimately claim that they earn more money and so should have a greater say in decisions about their choice of house, car, holiday or child’s school. This inequality in both the workplace and the home affects the way that women perceive themselves and are perceived in society as a whole. Forcing men and women to take equal maternity and paternity leave prevents employers from identifying one gender as a risk, removing the incentive to employ men ahead of women. This leads to greater equality within the workplace, reduces inequality within the home as a result of breadwinner dominance, and improves equality between the genders in society as a whole.
Forcing equal maternity and paternity leave is better for children: firstly, children are more likel...

It is unclear whether forcing equal parental leave is better for children: parents with little interest in childcare are unlikely to develop skills even if encouraged to stay at home. In the worst cases, parents who would rather be at work may resent their child as the cause of their forced leave, increasing perceptions of the child as a burden. This is unlikely to improve the relationship with that child. In addition, there is nothing to stop paternal interaction with a child at evenings and weekends: it is unclear why a parent needs time off work to interact with their child. Finally, if we want to improve relationships between parents and children we should encourage parents to spend more time with children when they are older and more aware of their surroundings.