BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Widening of Valentines Day market in recent years

In recent times, the idea of single people being able to enjoy Valentines Day has been more prominent. Many clubs and bars now offer singles nights on Valentines Day to help people meet partners, through schemes like speed dating. It may be cynical but some may claim this is an attempt by businesses to widen their Valentines Day market, cashing in on the misery of singletons by pressuring them not to be alone.
Valentines Day may offend Hindu and Muslim values just to make money

In 2003, there were mass protests in India and Pakistan about the exporting of Valentines Day to their countries. The right-wing Shiv Sena group argued that the occasion encouraged lustful behaviour by the youth, undercutting traditional values for the benefit for Western businesses (1). Surely attempting to market Valentines Day to cultures which may take great offence from its messages illustrates the ugly greed of the modern concept. (1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2749 667.stm
Much of the snobbery about Valentines Day comes from those who have no-one to spend it with

Valentines Day is a topic that always excites debate because it can be an emotional time for those who are single and unhappy in that situation. Whilst criticism certainly isn’t exclusive to those who are single, one can see why cynical sentiments would be likely to arise from those who can’t really enjoy the occasion. By painting the day as a capitalist sham, frustrated singletons may gain some satisfaction by cheapening the experience for others.
Dependable payday for businesses

Whilst Valentines Day does provide a big payday for many companies, this is not necessarily a totally negative thing. For one, it helps to ensure consumer spending which aids the general health of national economies – never more of a concern than now. It also helps to bring money into developing countries, who have become dependant on the 14th of February to keep their economies stable - ‘South American countries…export huge quantities of flowers on the occasion of Valentine's Day’ (1) (1)http://www.theydeserveit.com/valentines-day/valentin es-day-facts.html
Valentines Day may offend Hindu and Muslim values just to make money

Causing offense does not in itself make something illegitimate, or indeed, a bad influence. Some Muslims are appalled by the freedom with which the Western world commits blasphemy, yet would anyone truly suggest limiting our freedom of speech? Nevertheless, just as our supposed blasphemy is not intended to offend Muslims or indeed, evangelical Christians, Valentines Day is not intended to offend those whose abhor 'lustful behaviour'. If they don't like it, ignore it.
The title of the day is based on a common error

Whilst the idea of St. Valentines Day as a day of love is long established, it is actually based on a basic misconception. It is in fact St. Raphael who is the ‘patron saint for happy encounters’ (1) and not St. Valentine. This is a fact commonly accepted within the Church, but something which most people are ignorant to. Seeing then as the day is based on a falsity, surely its credibility as a genuine celebration of loving union is damaged. Perhaps a 19th century marketing department decided ‘Valentine’ had a nicer ring to it than ‘Raphael’… (1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888539.stm
The spirit of the celebration is not based on spending

The idea of a special day on which couples can unite and spend time together is healthy in our busy, modern lives. In a survey of 1017 people, 90% said that they would prefer a day’s worth of undivided attention from their partner to a token gift (1). This surely illustrates that the majority of people see the day as an opportunity to spend quality time with their significant other, rather than being an opportunity to be showered in lavish gifts. (1)http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALe qM5hViTJdmsXhPMsFlcsVme7JLj0gAQ
Dependable payday for businesses

Due to the idea of Valentines Day being ingrained in our consciences as a day where we must celebrate our partners, it represents a reliable income stream for card companies and other businesses. For example, in 2006, $13.9 billion worth of chocolate and cocoa products were shipped into the USA (1). Thus it could be argued that the occasion represents a chance for capitalism to prosper, using the pretence as love as a vehicle to make money (1)http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=25964&z=3
Physiological Abnormalities

Schizophrenia cannot be merely environmental because evidence from post mortems and MRI and CT scans indicates that there are physical abnormalities present in the brains of schizophrenics which are not demonstrated in the 'healthy' brain. The most consistent finding is that schizophrenic brains demonstrate enlarged ventricles (which indicates loss of brain cells)[Nopoulous et. al 1997]]. Structural abnormalities have also been found in the temporal-limbic areas and the prefontal temporal cortex [Dwork 1997]]. There is also a reduction in cortical grey matter [Gur et al 2000]] and reduced volume in the basal ganglia and limbic structures [Velahoulis et al 1999]].
Schizophrenogenic mother theory (Fromm-Reichman 1948)

The somewhat Freudian approach that all mental disorders are products of bad early childhood experiences is hardly ever fully evidenced. There is little evidence to link parenting styles to Schizophrenia and even the link between the illness and poor communication could be symptomatic not causal. Studies [Liem 1974]] showed that even parents of 'normal' children were confused when talking to schizophrenic children and thus it is less a fault with the parents than an effect of dealing with Schizophrenic patients.
Excess Dopamine

Patients with Schizophrenia do not have increased levels of homovillic acid (the main metabolite of Dopamine) so thier Dopamine levels cannot be higher than average. Also, to be theraputic anti-psychotics have to reduce dopamine levels to below normal (which produces the parkinsonian side effects). If 'excess' Dopamine was to blame why would it not be effective to reduce it to normal levels?
Schizophrenogenic mother theory (Fromm-Reichman 1948)

It was proposed that scizophrenic behaviour stems from the mother's behaviour toward the child in early childhood. Mothers with cold, rejecting or detached styles of parenting create psychological distresss in the child. Later in childhood these mothers create 'double blind' situations - scenarios in which whatever the child does is not right. Evidence has shown that in families where there is Schizophrenia communication is much less clear.
Expressed Emotion Theory (Brown 1959)

In the 'Camberwell Family study' Brown measured relapse rates of Schizophrenia when patients returned home, and when patients returned to hostels after treatment. He found that they differed but there was a third factor present which helped determine the success of their recovery which he termed 'expressed emotion'(EE). High EE was characterised by a family environment with low warnth, parental over-involvement and hostility. Of the three test groups in the study the group that spent the longest time in the high EE environment ws the group that was most likely to relapse.
Excess Dopamine

Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia were initially treated with antipsychotics. Doctors knew through clinical trials that these worked, but were not aware of why. The drugs sometimes produced Parkinsonian side-effects (usually caused by low dopamine levels) it was thus deduced that the antipsychotics were reducing excess Dopamine, which was the cause of the illness. The drugs work by blocking post-synaptic dopamine receptors.
Government spending is the only way to increase much needed consumption

The US government is currently spending incredible amounts of money and we have not seen a consequent increase in GDP. In order to get the economy to post pre-crash levels of growth, the government would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars. Given that the fundamental problem of the economy is related to risk management (i.e. firms leveraging their balances with very risky assets that have lost a great deal of their value), it is unclear how spending would solve this problem in the long term. It should be noted that while providing subsidies is as easy as signing a check, creating an effecting regulatory scheme requires significantly more effort. It is very probable that fiscal stimulus will reduce the incentive for reform during the period of fiscal expansion, leaving the problem unresolved by the time governments run out of money.
Government spending is the only way to increase much needed consumption

Astute observers of the economy (like Nobel-laureate Paul Krugman) note that we are currently experiencing a liquidity trap. Essentially, the theory is that macroeconomic factors have rendered impotent monetary policy as a tool for increasing aggregate demand in the economy. The theory, supported by data, is that interest rates can go no lower (while the nominal rate is 2% in the US, the real rate is somewhere near zero) and that the money purchased at low rates is then pushed into savings rather than consumption. The only way to kick start the economy is to use fiscal policy to stimulate demand. Fiscal policy has the advantage of actually putting money where it needs to be—the government has the ability to attach strings to free money that mandates that it be spent on consumption. The added revenue will maintain pre-crash levels of demand allowing businesses to operate at capacity and stem the threat of layoffs which result in the deadweight loss associated with finding new jobs. Empirical precedent indicates that this is the most successful course of action. The New Deal policies of FDR (basically massive fiscal stimulus) resulted in economic growth back in the direction of full capacity; in 1937, the rate of growth dropped significantly when FDR decided to pursue a more fiscally austere approach aimed at balancing the budget and curtailing the printing of money to avoid inflation. World War Two reversed this trend by requiring massive fiscal spending (and consequent increase in the GDP). (1) (1) Most of the aforementioned points are based on some superb summary graphs by Brad DeLong: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/post-world-war.html
Government spending can be targeted, while private spending cannot

The fact that the government has the power to indicate where it will allocate resources is a frightening, rather than heartening, fact. It is no secret that the government tends to subsidize those industries in which they have a vested interest. For example, developed nations across the globe maintain ludicrously high levels of agricultural subsidies despite the disastrous effect on the global impoverished. Recently, domestic automakers in the US have requested a "bailout" from the government—and policy makers are listening not because they have a good case, but because they have spent millions of dollars on lobbying and they are fortuitously located in many swing states. It is no surprise then that these companies remain unprofitable while paying their workers over one-third of what their equivalents working for foreign-owned auto makers do, all the while creating inferior products. Fiscal spending is most likely to go to those businesses that have the resources to grab the ear of a representative. This is especially distressing considering one of the main engines of growth in developed economies is the group of small businesses that have both the flexibility and incentive to pursue entrepreneurial venues. Larger companies (who also have the resources to devote to lobbying) often have institutional barriers to change (older management resisting the changes requested by the new, employee unions which make firing costly, loyalty to corporate boards, etc.).
Government spending can be targeted, while private spending cannot

The current global economic recession is the result of very specific causes which are transparent to market observers. This allows regulators the ability to subsidize the areas of the economy that would provide the greatest prospect of growth. Alternatives that rely on the private market cannot account for the behavior of individual consumers. Measures like tax breaks and stimulus checks may see a diversion of more income into savings which will not address the need for greater consumption in the short term. Further, government has the benefit of vast information networks (statistical bureaus, employed economists, robust demographic databases) that can respond in a dynamic fashion; on the other hand, private consumers and businesses tend to have sticky preferences that do not change unless the market has given sufficient signals (i.e. it takes awhile before consumers notice the incremental increases in prices, or decreases in quantity per package of, say, cereal).
Just an observation

Who has not read somewhere at some point claims that the level of consumption in industrialized societies is far above that which is sustainable for the global environment. So it is perhaps a miracle that these levels of consumption will be suddenly curtailed. Yet in the short term people need to eat and have a place to live. So something needs to be done. What is really annoying is that the causes of these events have been pointed out for a long time. What ever happened to the saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My solution would be to throw everyone in the US in to prison and then ask the Cubans and Venezuelans and Iranians and Vietnamese and Nicaraguans and Haitians and Angolans and Gambians and Iraqis and Indonesians and Chileans to come and guard the prisons. (Say I had clicked on the No point. Why did it come up on the yes side?)
Monroe doctrine

It is sensible to give great powers some room when they are growing. Britain did this when allowing and to some extent enforcing the Monroe doctrine in the 19th Century when the USA was itself not yet powerful enough to do so. Indeed the original suggestion was that the USA would support Britain in a declaration against imperialism in the Western Hemisphere.[[ Primary Documents in American History, Monroe Doctrine, Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Monroe.html ]] President Monroe the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . . we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their [European colonialism] system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety... It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. [[President Monroe, President Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/monroe.asp%5D%5D Britain’s willingness, as the pre-eminent power of the time to go along with this prevented any conflict between the two powers and eventually a peaceful handover of hegemony. On the contrary when Germany arose Britain could not allow Germany to have an equivalent (some form of control over the continent) as it was directly against British interests. This then lead to war. As the US and China are on different continents it would be possible for the US to follow the British example and allow some equivalent of the Monroe doctrine over East Asia. This could then avoid conflict and prevent the two powers from antagonising each other.
Threat to regional peace

It is always difficult to tell what the future will bring. However with the claim on submarines is that really so dramatic. Yes China is building newer submarines, however its sub fleet has been steadily shrinking from nearly 120 boats in the 1980s to around 55 today.[[Greg Grant, CNO Roughead Disputes China Sub Claim, DefenseTech, 16/6/10, http://defensetech.org/2010/06/16/cno-roughead-disputes-china-sub-claim/%5D%5D The main thing of course is that the new ones will be more effecive, but it is not just numbers that count. If the USA can stay ahead in technology, especially in such an environment as submergables when stealth and being able to detect your enemy is important then it can retain the advantage even with fewer boats.
Threat to regional peace

Throughout history China has been preoccupied with land invasions to the detriment of its naval capacity. However, due to it's now favourable situation on land China is now turning it's attention to its naval power projection. According to Robert Kaplan, the Chinese could field a submarine force larger than the US navy's within 15 years.[[Robert D. Kaplan, The Geography of Chinese Power, Foreign Policy, May/June 2010, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66205/robert-d-kaplan/the-geography-of-chinese-power (pay) http://www.scribd.com/doc/33682433/The-Geography-of-Chinese-Power (free)]] The East and Southern China seas are of great importance to China's power status. Beijing views the incorporation of Taiwan into the Chinese mainland as being key to the advent of a 'Greater China'. The existence of an independent, democratic Taiwan with US support in the Eastern China sea is a threat to the 'Greater China project'. If Beijing was allowed to have its own 'Monroe Doctrine' it would be free to 'incorporate' Taiwan (possibly using military force) into the mainland and enable China to radiate uncontested military power in the region. This would threaten Japan, Philippines, South Korea and Australia and raise justifiable doubts over US commitments in the region.
Sovereignty of the Seas

Just because there is another naval power in the region should not mean that a dominant power should not have an equivilant of the monroe doctrine. Britain had its determination that the Royal Navy would be bigger than the next two navies combined during the 19th century when France was also a major naval power. This is pretty similar. Britain was a bit more flexible than the Monroe doctrine. The Mediterranean was a core interest for her, just like China claims the South China Sea and as such she kept a fleet in the med that was as big as the French navy there. France of course has a long Mediterranean coastline while Britain is some distance away.
Sovereignty of the Seas

The comparison with the Monroe Doctrine is a false one: It essentially entailed Anglo American co-operation in keeping out other western naval powers, most notably Spain. As Spain’s Navy was greatly inferior to that of Britain, and recognizably in decline this presented no problem. The US was the only naval power in the region, where China differs is that Japan stands on its doorstep, itself a Naval power of equal strength to China. Far more comparable than the Monroe doctrine would be the Seventeenth Century British (English) claim to Sovereignty of the British seas, this was asserted against the Dutch, who made a living fishing in British (mostly Scottish) waters. They were the top two naval powers in Europe, as Japan and China are in Asia, England was in China’s position as the rising naval force against the more established Dutch, which could be read as the Japanese. The result was that England went to war with the Dutch three times in a quarter century, generally touched off by small incidents at sea. In 1672 the HMY Merlin sailed through the Dutch battle fleet which failed to render the salute the English felt their due as sovereigns of the British seas, this seemingly trivial incident was whipped up by the nationalistic British press used shamelessly by the government as an excuse for conflict, leading directly to the Third Anglo Dutch war. [[Pieter Geyl Orange and Stuart (London, 1969) p.325]]. It is not hard to draw a comparison to the arrest of the Chinese fishing boat captain and the dispute over exercises in the Yellow sea and the much larger diplomatic conflicts they engendered. the comparison can go further England was in a good position to close off Dutch trade in the event of conflict and thus erroneously expected an easy victory. In a similar vein China's Foreign Minister Yang reminded that Southeast Asian states they are "small countries" who depend on trade with China for their prosperity, while China is a "large country." Thus Southeast Asia should back off from conflicting maritime claims. [[Dan Twining, China's maritime aggression should be wake-up call to Japan, Foreign Policy, 20/9/10, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/20/chinas_maritime_aggression_should_be_wake_up_call_to_japan%5D%5D Equally economic ties might seem to provide a powerful disincentive to war, China is Japan's biggest trading partner, with $95bn worth of trade in 2009. But the Anglo- Dutch example is also instructive, English Maritime power was dependent upon naval stores brought from the Baltic, a Dutch dominated trade. Thus each time England went to war with the Dutch it precipitated a major crisis in its own naval industrial complex, but that failed to deter them from starting another war later on.
Reciprocity

Why should china be respectful to other nations in East Asia that have trampled all over it for the last hundred and fifty years? This is particularly the case with Japan but also includes the USA and other countries that were puppets of the colonial powers. After all is there really equality in nations anyway? Foreign Policy Foreign Minister Yang's reminder that Southeast Asian states were "small countries" who depended on trade with China for their prosperity, while China was a "large country." There was therefore little chance of equality in their relations, Yang suggested. China's neighbors simply would have to take that asymmetry -- and, he added pointedly, their economic dependence on the China market -- into account before "internationalizing" their dispute with Beijing over competing maritime claims. [[Dan Twining, China's maritime aggression should be wake-up call to Japan, Foreign Policy, 20/9/10, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/20/chinas_maritime_aggression_should_be_wake_up_call_to_japan%5D%5D If not all powers are equal then why should there be reciprocity. China is simply being more open that big powers do what they want while the little do what they must to survive.