BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Preservation always involves a trade-off with development

Every decision to preserve a building or a site of public historical interest necessarily prevents the possibility for future developments. The resources required to redevelop an existing site are frequently greater than the resources required to produce a new development, and it is crucial whenever a site is chosen for preservation that the benefits of preserving it outweigh the potential benefits of allowing new construction to appear in its place, or for resources to be put into alternative projects. An over-zealous approach to preservation, be it through architectural listing or restrictions on certain types of development can in fact stifle growth and prevent the development of areas which may seriously benefit from new investment and growth. It is a fitting irony that in 2006 the Department of Media, Culture and Sport exempted Fortress House, the then home of English Heritage, from listing: a location which has since been redevloped into modern offices[[http://www.macegroup.com/projects/project-library/23-savile-row]]. Similarly, the recent Grade II listing of the Milton Keynes shopping centre, thecentre:mk, has drawn complaints from its owners who have argued that future developments and improvements will now be severely restricted [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/jul/16/milton-keynes-shopping-centre-grade-listed]].
'Historical Importance' is certainly preferable over importance to certain influential individuals

As with almost all debates surrounding development and preservation, different individuals and groups will hold important stakes in their outcomes. Lobbyists and local pressure groups will frequently campaign to preserve or to redevelop old sites, and the notion of 'historical importance' as a defining feature of preservation at least gives a legal and practical criterion for decisions on preservation. No doubt such decisions and debates will still be susceptible to pressure from those who seek to benefit, but if a candidate for preservation can be proved to be of cultural and historical value, investments can be safely made with the reassurance of public benefit as being placed first and foremost.
The danger of mothballing

A key influence on George Reid's report was the fact that, in order to save a £13 million pound budget hole, four National Trust for Scotland sites had to be left to fall into disrepair or 'mothballed'. If strict priorities on what justifies preservation are not made, there is a very signficant danger of many underfunded, low profile preserved properties receiving sub-standard maintainance and eventually being left derelict. By enforcing clearer and perhaps less generous guidelines on buildings which are worthy of preservation, resources can be focussed more effectively on a smaller number of preserved properties, and can maintain a higher standard of preservation overall, even if it comes at the price of some less historically important sites.
Internet gambling is especially dangerous. Someone can become addicted very easily – they don’t eve...

Internet gambling is especially dangerous. Someone can become addicted very easily – they don’t even need to leave their home. This also means that they are gambling in private. They may therefore be less reluctant to wager very large sums they cannot afford. It is very hard to know the identity of an online gambler – there have been several cases of people (including children) using stolen credit cards to gamble online. \ Online gambling may be hard to control but that is not a reason to try – making an activity more difficult to pursue will still reduce the number of those who take it up. It is not impossible to put effective deterrent steps in place, such as the recent US ban on American banks processing credit card payments to internet gambling sites.
To gamble is irrational and reckless. There may be the possibility of winning a big prize, but the ...

Gamblers know that, overall, they are likely to lose money. They gamble because it is a leisure pursuit that they enjoy. There is nothing irrational about this. Some people get an enjoyable thrill from the remote possibility that they might win a huge prize – even if they lose, they enjoy the experience. Some forms of gambling are highly sociable. For example, many people go to bingo halls to spend time with friends. Society accepts people spending (“wasting”?) money on other leisure pursuits with no material benefits (e.g. cinema tickets, watching sport) – gambling should not be any different. It is patronising to suggest that people, including those on low incomes, should not be able to choose how they spend their money.
Gambling is addictive. Many people end up gambling to try to recover money they have already lost. ...

Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically addictive. It is only psychologically addictive in some people. Only a small percentage of gamblers have an addiction. Many more get enjoyment from gambling without problems – why should these people suffer because a few others get addicted? The risks of gambling addiction are well known. People can make a conscious choice to start gambling, and are aware of the risks of addiction. Treatment programmes can address the problems of those who are addicted.
Gambling promotes unhealthy values. It makes people concentrate of winning money. This implies tha...

There is no evidence that gambling makes people not care about others. People do not gamble because they expect to win lots of money. Most gamble as a form of entertainment. There are many areas of life where success is not the result of merit or hard work. Someone born to well-off parents may get many advantages in life without merit or hard work. There are therefore no grounds for thinking that gambling promotes undesirable values.
The economic benefits of casinos are exaggerated. They generally only create low-paid jobs for loca...

Far from harming neighbourhoods, casinos can revive areas. They create jobs and cause money to be spent on transport infrastructure. The jobs are not just in the casino itself. More jobs are created in hotels and other parts of the tourism industry. Casinos have helped to regenerate many places that previously had considerable poverty and social problems (e.g. Atlantic City in New Jersey).
Internet gambling is especially dangerous. Someone can become addicted very easily – they don’t eve...

It is impossible to stop online gambling. When it has been banned, people have just used sites based in other countries. It is better to legalize and regulate online gambling than to drive gamblers to poorly-regulated foreign operators. Regulation can reduce the problems identified by the proposition. For example, online gamblers can be required to give personal details when registering (e.g. occupation, income). If this information suggests they are spending more than they can afford, the company can block their credit card. In any case, most online gamblers do not get addicted. Why should they be denied an activity that they enjoy?
To gamble is irrational and reckless. There may be the possibility of winning a big prize, but the ...

To gamble is irrational and reckless. There may be the possibility of winning a big prize, but the overwhelming likelihood is that a gambler will lose money. Casinos calculate their odds so that they will always make a profit. Gambling attracts people with little money who are desperate for a windfall. These are the people who can least afford to lose money. They should be protected from the temptation to gamble. Gambling should be banned, or at least very tightly controlled.
Gambling is addictive. Many people end up gambling to try to recover money they have already lost. ...

Gambling is addictive. Many people end up gambling to try to recover money they have already lost. This is known as ‘chasing losses’. It results in people staking more and more money, most of which they will lose. Gambling addicts often turn to crime to feed their addiction. Addiction is highly damaging to families, since gamblers will spend whatever money they can on gambling. People start to gamble without thinking that they will become addicted. Once they become addicted, it is too late. As with drugs, it is better to ban gambling to stop people getting started in the first place.
The economic benefits of casinos are exaggerated. They generally only create low-paid jobs for loca...

The economic benefits of casinos are exaggerated. They generally only create low-paid jobs for local people – the casino companies usually bring in managers from elsewhere. There is still considerable unemployment and poverty in places like Atlantic City. The problems associated with casinos (e.g. crime, gambling addiction) outweigh the economic benefits. In any case, an immoral industry is not justified by the fact that it creates employment. Jobs could be created through many other industries that cause fewer moral and practical problems (e.g. theme parks).
The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and G...

The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and Great Britain have clearly lost their position among the most powerful nations and their role was long ago taken over by Germany and Japan. These two countries are the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget and deserve a permanent seat in the Council. Moreover, as permanent members pay an extra share for their seat, Japan and Germany’s contributions would bring considerable amounts to the UN budget.
A rise in UN membership should be reflected also in an increase in Security Council members. In 194...

A rise in UN membership should be reflected also in an increase in Security Council members. In 1945 there were only 51 UN members, so eleven Council members were adequately representing all voices. Today the UN membership has risen to almost four times the number of the original one, yet there are only fifteen voices in the Council. Important views of countries that are not represented in the Council are therefore neglected.
The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and G...

Giving Germany a permanent seat would hardly be a step forward in an endeavour for a more equitable distribution of seats in the Council. The UK and France hold a veto power over any amendments and aren’t willing to give up their seats, so adding Germany would mean that the EU would have three permanent seats in the Council. That wouldn’t be a fair geographical distribution. \ Neither Germany or Japan is as deserving as has been suggested; although both are rich they have been struggling economically for a decade while other countries (including the UK and France) have continued to grow. Compared to other nations, both Germany and Japan are military insignificant. This is important as the Permanent 5's status currently reflects great power realities - they are the countries most able to project power abroad and so have the ability to implement (or block) UN security decisions.\
Builds team cohesion

Sports intiations should NOT be banned as they bring the team together and allows fellow team mates to get to know eachother's characters on and off the pitch. Rather than making the new team members feel inadequete, it can help to give confidence to those characters who are generally shy when meeting new people. For example, after a night out with the squad, the next time they meet to train, everyone will have common topics to discuss in conversation and therefore act as an ice breaker in awkward situations, making the new team member feel more at ease/relaxed and as though they can be themselves with the rest of the team. Surely this is a good thing! The team members are not forced to drink, as they have freedom of choice and can always say no. Very often these people who stand up for themselves and although will join in and enjoy the night, will also know their limit, often gain more respect than those who are dictated to and follow the crowd. In the future, the newer students will soon become friends with the older ones as the team grows closer together and bonds, therefore these people would be looking out for their future mates rather than stitching them up.
The Dangers of Drinking Excessively!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is acceptable for a sports team to have somekind of initiation where the freshers or new players have to meet a challenge set by the third years. However, when this challenge reaches the level of parading through the public in broad daylight dressed as Nazi officers commanding freshers dressed as Jews to drink on demand until they vomit, the line has been crossed. University initiations are no stranger to the news headlines, in recent years there have been a reported three deaths and several others linked with initaitions. This can be due to the pressure or even force put on the first years to drink well above their acceptable amount. This can lead to serious health problems or even in some cases death.
It gives negative reputation to students/sports teams

Alternatively the freshers in particular and other students find themselves attracted to the teams for what they offer- for example, if you love hockey and there is a hockey team on offer to join, you will join it. A lot of people find the initiations beneficial to get to socialise with other members of the team and really good fun. Some students may care about the reputations of the teams, but a lot of students who get into the drinking too much mentality and suffer through these initiations are not likely to.
Because people have died...

It is the individual's choice to drink excessively, whether they are pressured or not. Fatality is horrible and there will be no forgetting that, but it was not the initiation that killed those poor people it was their lack of self-control and ability to say "no, I have had enough, and if you do not like that and laugh at me and be horrible then fair enough, but I do not need you to have a good time" and then join another society or meet with better, and like-minded people.
Choice

In some sports, this can be deemed as a valid point, however in others if students do not take part in their respective initiation then they will be never picked for the team. For some people this is an impossible scenario to believe. They love their sport so much, that they force themselves to drink to ensure a place on the team. Men's rugby and and men's football teams do not allow students just to join the team just for the 'sport side,' they have to participate in the 'social side' as well, this can unfortunately lead to health risks and consequently in some rare cases deaths.
initiations

If i were to join a sports team i would be very happy if that were the case. I think it would be completely acceptable to have an initiation to build friendships and respect to strengthen team chemistry. However as a bloke whos wants to play rugby, if i am told that i wont be selected to play in the team if i don't put a bag on my head and take orders from a ' Nazi officer ', i feel i have only one choice. Just don't join the team. And because of that reason i wish they would ban such initiations so that i can play the sport i love whilst at uni.
Encourages binge drinking and bullying

Sports initiations are a large part of university life and in order so survive in a sporting club soial circle it is genrally seen to be a good idea to complete an initiation ceremony in order to gain respect. they can be both a fun challenge for freshers and something new that a lot of people havent done before. It is also fun to have to participate in an initiation to get into the particular club. In personal experiance of socials so far; everyone has had the opportunity to say no to drinking or even attending. Although initiations can sometimes be taken too far e.g. the rescent news headlines, this is not a typical ceremony. It is not that harsh for every team as the majority of captains are more responsible than that!! In conclusion these initiation ceremonies should not be banned because they encourage team bonding outside of training, they can be fun and entertaining for all and not just for the older years and you do have the opportunity to say no so why should they be banned if they are done in a safe area and within reason?
Builds team cohesion

You are right, people have the choice whether to drink or not. But this choice is not a practical one. If you go out and most people are drinking whilst you remain sober, you are not going to feel part of a team; in fact you would feel alienated. Alcohol causes people to get rowdy, and a group of people getting rowdy can only lea to one thing, arguments. These arguments could occur against another group, or even within the group; in which case the purpose of team building would be defeated. Why can initiations not be based around a food meal, a proper chance to sit down and talk to each other? If people remain sober they will all get to know their true selves and not the drunken idiot that appears by night.
The Dangers of Drinking Excessively!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Although there is another point stressing the similar opinion that I am about to make, I just want to make it clear that, it is the student's choice. The initiation ceremonies do not physically force/harm the freshers- if they did, that is criminal and the ceremonies would certainly be illegal by now, but what ever happened to people doing their own thing? There have been several news articles on this subject, and all have students complaining that they felt ashamed and forced to drink. Be an individual and stand up for what you believe in. Do not drink too much otherwise it will have disastrous consequences. We all know this. People choose to behave badly and thus have to accept the consequences of their actions.
Offending other people

Sports iniations; When being initiated into a sports society/team, initiations are supposedly tradtional. These initiations can appear to be rather rash and not thought through, especially if they are taking place in the community. People who parade themselves as a Nazi officer forcing students to drink more and more shows a clear lack of insight into what the public may think of the particular institution in question. And how they will react. Taking this into account having an initiation ceremony can be a fun time and a chance to get to know new people, and make new friends. However, somewhere there has to be a line. The students in question should think about the consequences of their actions next time. I think this calls for a supervised running of initiation ceremonies by all universities throughout the country. Also a supervised running of initiation ceremonies will put a stop to people drinking to the point where they end up dead or in hospital. Hopefully this will allow people to carry on these so called traditions without offending other people.
Involves peer pressure

I feel that sports initiations at universities can sometimes become too extreme and lead to problems such as giving the institution a bad name, offending external others for example the general public and putting new players off joining a sports club which affects the teams performance in the long run. Although it is the individuals choice to become involved, freshers tend to be bullied into drinking games as they do not want to stand up and refuse to take part. When you are new to an institution, the older students like to gain respect from you. However, i do think that on some occasions they should take a step back and if they see anything becoming out of control they should take more responsiblity. In conclusion, i do not think people should be peer pressured into taking part in anything. It is down to the individual as to whether they take part as some people have joined the team to become a successful performer and support the university, not just for the social side! Initiations should take place in a safe environment, be fun and challenging but at the same time should be controlled so that people enjoy the time and are not ill!
Encourages binge drinking and bullying

The sports initiation should be banned because they encourage the "binge drinking" culture that is already becoming widely popular with young people, especially university students. The initiations or even just a general night out to celebrate a match win strongly emphasise this through having the quantity of what one person can drink as the main focus of the evening. Generally this is done through peer pressure and makes younger students feel inadequete if they don't live up the older students' expectations or demands. Not only this but this type of drinking to excess, as we all know, can lead to serious health consequences, in past cases-even death. Some would say that this form of peer pressure is bullying and intrusive on other's feelings and beliefs. This type of behaviour could have a detremental effect on the sports club as it could put off potentially really good players joining the sports team all together as fear that they will be forced to act in a way that they disagree with or that they feel would make them become less dignified. Not only this but this type of behaviour, although traditional and with an original positive purpose of building team cohesion and morale actually is destroying teams, tearing them apart. Therefore, no matter how well a sports team may be performing in competitive events, they ruin their reputation and that of the institution they are representing during these "team building exercises!"
Theft is bad

In our first argument we showed why patents in general are necessary for incentivizing pharmaceutical research and that they are a legitimate property right. The proposition case would be for making a one-off exemption for anti-retroviral drugs. They would be doing this not because patents in general are bad, but because AIDS is a special case. Why is AIDS a special case? Surely it is not because of the ethics of AIDS being a life-threatening disease, there are many other life-threatening diseases, but we wouldn't abolish patents on their medication, because it would stymie the innovation in the drugs for those diseases. AIDS is a special case, because it's such a significant political issue and is such a visible and big problem. The proposition has to concede that patents are a legitimate property right, so the issue in this debate is really who should pay for alleviating AIDS? What proposition's case really would be is that we should finance the mitigation of AIDS by stealing money and work from the companies who created the anti-retroviral drugs. This is clearly illegitimate. Essentially this is theft from the few to fuel a public will. These few are mainly the shareholders of the pharmaceutical companies, which include old ladies who have put their pensions in the stocks of the company. Through such theft the pharmaceutical companies would not get anything in return for their investments and labor, not even any political capital and goodwill, because that would be gobbled up by the government who goes through with this motion. Our argument is that if governments and societies believe that AIDS is such a serious issue, then they should support charities, foundations and initiatives (such as Elton John's [[http://www.ejaf.org/]], Elizabeth Taylor's [[http://www.elizabethtayloraidsfoundation.org/]]) or international plans such as PEPFAR [[http://media.www.vanderbiltorbis.com/media/storage/paper983/news/2008/12/10/Newsfeatures/George.Bushs.AidsFighting.Legacy-3578911.shtml]] [[http://www.pepfar.gov/]] (created and promoted by George Bush) to tackle the disease. Funds accumulated through such schemes could be used to purchase the anti-retroviral drugs at market price and distribute them among the infected.