BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It doesn't matter!

"More bad things are done by the religious than by atheists. I'm not sure if there are figures which break down the numbers of rapes, murders or assaults committed by those who believe in a God against those who don't believe. But even if every individual murder, rape or assault was committed by an atheist the harm caused by those people who claim to be acting on God’s wishes would far outnumber the harm caused by atheists. So it would be possible to argue that it does matter very much if people believe in God and also that it would be far better for the rest of us if no-one did." So,NOW(for lack of a decent counter-point) you've changed your argument to 'it doesn't matter' Why in the world did you bring,the subject up, in the first place? There are more believers than atheists so naturally... However communists from the former soviet union and China were all atheists and they caused quite a lot of strife. And how many psychopathic murderers (murderous psychopaths) claim outrightly,to believe in God? Haven't you read or seen any of their interviews? They are usually quite irreligious and sometimes even fantasize about being gods or superheroes. The Amish: a very religious American community have never in all of recorded history committed a single murder. And It DOES matter, if the fear of God, makes people relatively good (relative to how they would be if they didn't believe in God or were irreligious like most criminals)
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

The Argument from Degrees of Perfection http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#4 We notice around us things that vary in certain ways. A shade of color, for example, can be lighter or darker than another, a freshly baked apple pie is hotter than one taken out of the oven hours before; the life of a person who gives and receives love is better than the life of one who does not. So we arrange some things in terms of more and less. And when we do, we naturally think of them on a scale approaching most and least. For example, we think of the lighter as approaching the brightness of pure white, and the darker as approaching the opacity of pitch black. This means that we think of them at various "distances" from the extremes, and as possessing, in degrees of "more" or "less," what the extremes possess in full measure. Sometimes it is the literal distance from an extreme that makes all the difference between "more" and "less." For example, things are more or less hot when they are more or less distant from a source of heat. The source communicates to those things the quality of heat they possess in greater or lesser measure. This means that the degree of heat they possess is caused by a source outside of them. Now when we think of the goodness of things, part of what we mean relates to what they are simply as beings. We believe, for example, that a relatively stable and permanent way of being is better than one that is fleeting and precarious. Why? Because we apprehend at a deep (but not always conscious) level that being is the source and condition of all value; finally and ultimately, being is better than nonbeing. And so we recognize the inherent superiority of all those ways of being that expand possibilities, free us from the constricting confines of matter, and allow us to share in, enrich and be enriched by, the being of other things. In other words, we all recognize that intelligent being is better than unintelligent being; that a being able to give and receive love is better than one that cannot; that our way of being is better, richer and fuller than that of a stone, a flower, an earthworm, an ant, or even a baby seal. But if these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a "best," a source and real standard of all the perfections that we recognize belong to us as beings. This absolutely perfect being—the "Being of all beings," "the Perfection of all perfections"—is God. Question 1: The argument assumes a real "better." But aren't all our judgments of comparative value merely subjective? Reply: The very asking of this question answers it. For the questioner would not have asked it unless he or she thought it really better to do so than not, and really better to find the true answer than not. You can speak subjectivism but you cannot live it.
There is no such thing as a disproportionate response to calls for genocide

This is such a dangerous concept I can't believe it is made. What else in the world can we grant carte blanche freedom to our rulers to circumvent all concepts of human rights. To me it is like the 'One Percent Doctrine'. That is if there one percent risk of terrorist attack on US, they must act as if a certainty! The political 'principle of proportionality' to which I subscribe is that governments should only act as far as is necessary. That is, as far as is necessary. There can be no rational reason for going beyond this idea! When two waring factions continually look to present 'credible deterrence' every threat must be met with ultimate anger and aggression, retribution must always be sought. There can be no peace without an end to this mentality. This mentality will not end until the people are brave and back an inspirational leader willing to extend an olive branch.
If it waddles like justice, has a bill like justice, and quacks like justice . . . it's probably justice

How can it be justice without any checks and balances? In this particular incident mossad got their man no problem but what happens when there is mistaken identity and the wrong person is killed or someone gets caught in the middle and killed, then there is no way it could be considered justice. How do oppression and subjugation justify nasty behaviour? They dont. Yes attempts to throw off such subjugation can result in ugly scenes (usually caused by the oppressors) but that does not mean those involved should get off at the end of it. Symmetry is not a very good idea because then Mossad would sometimes have to be blowing up hamas people with suicide bombs which would be both wasteful of manpower and fraught with danger to bystanders.
Murder is murder

"Human Rights" has become the Politically (in) Correct buzzword of our time. It is taking Democracy in a direction which is too far, too far to the left. The idea that an enemy whos avowed aim is your destruction is somehow entitled to protection or his "Human Rights" are more sacrocant than the hundreds of innocent lives his terror group has been responsible for and would be responsible for going forward is laughable. it is another example of how the "left" have hijacked the media and have attempeted to influence public opinion. However, thankfully, more and more of the "silent majority" of law abiding citizens are starting to speak out agaisnt the "left wingers" ideology. For the greater good and for the safety of Jews living in Israel and the disapora the policy of targetting enemies, wherever they may be, has to be continued with. The number one priority is for Israel to look after Jews. Thankfully Israel has the means to do this. All other Countries have their secret services and where neccessary will all act to truy and protect their citizens. But once again, when Israel acts the balagan of left wingers and do gooders are there to climb on their Galloway and Jackson driven antisemitic bandwagon.
Keeps terrorists busy escaping assassination

Way back when the British ruled what was then Palestine, Jewish underground leaders Menachem Begin and Yair Stern had to keep on the run and change addresses almost nightly to avoid detection. Back then it was merely a fear of capture (although Geoffrey Morton, the police officer who arrested Yair Stern, cowardly shot him in the back). Now, Arab terrorists have to keep on the run and fear not only targeted killing (supposedly) Mossad-style, but also unarmed drones in the sky as used by the USA in Pakistan. When you have such fears, you cannot function normally. The occasional assassination serves to keep the danger real, quite apart from serving justice for murderers such as Al-Mabhouh, who would never have been brought to justice thru any legally-acceptable channels. ------ The US kills Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan with unmanned drones so it’s hypocritical to talk of extrajudicial killings. You only need look at 'Operation Mincemeat' to see that the UK too has used forged passports in its own espionage operations. Targeted killing is legitimate self-defence. I remember some years ago the British "attemping" an extra-judicial hit on some IRA members in Gibralter, (I said attempting as, if you remember it failed), nevertheless, why all the hypocracy from the Brits now?
National security

Occasionally states need to get their hands dirty and be willing to engage in practices that might outrage us as individual citizens. This is why states need secret services, so that they can deny it and do things that are outside the public eye, this is why the existance of MI6 was denied for so long. In the case of Mossad they are a secret service for a state that faces a threat that could see the state wiped out. It is therefore right that it should be willing to do anything to protect the state of Israel and this would include killing. The people who Mossad kills are prople who are engaging in practices that are threatening to israel, they are either terrorists who have killed or been involved in killing themselves or are the people who supply arm to those people. The USA has just killed a dozen or more civillians while attempting to kill a few Taliban. The killing of the Hamas terrorist involved no civillian casualties. Who ever did the assasination should be applauded.
There is no such thing as a disproportionate response to calls for genocide

Every day, throughout the Arab world calls for the genocide of Jews and the eradication of Israel are a part of the fabric of those societies. State sponsored and controlled school curriculum, media and even religious instruction all reinforce that truth. Israel has every right to defend herself as she sees fit. History has taught that no matter how well meaning, Europeans and others cannot be counted on to stand up. When push comes to shove, Jews are best served when acting in their own defense. That Hamas was freely elected is of little import. Hitler too, came to power by manipulating the democratic process. Had the allies bombed Berlin in 1939, up to 50 million lives would have been spared. Hitler tried to camouflage his actions- Hamas cannot be bothered. The people of Gaza knew exactly who and what they were voting for. Given that Hamas and much of the Arab world have repeatedly 'promise to finish what Hitler started', Israel's actions ought not cause anyone a moments loss of sleep.
If it waddles like justice, has a bill like justice, and quacks like justice . . . it's probably justice

The concept of proactive self defense can be defined just as broadly as the concepts of oppression and subjugation to justify/excuse some nasty behavior. The symmetry is irrefutable; one's enemy and his sympathizers would have to be profoundly naive and hypocritical to expect softer and more measured responses than they themselves can apparently easily find ways to justify. To paraphrase Tony Soprano: "That's on page one of the godfather playbook."
Murder is murder

Israel makes no distinction between its extra judicial killings of those who have killed soldiers or citizens. Extrajudicial killing, targeted killing, liquidation, preventative strike, targeted thwarting or interception are all just synonyms for murder, and a gross violation of human rights. It is not about one group being worth more, or having more human rights than the other. It is wrong for terrorists to take the lives of Israelis but it is just as wrong for the Israeli state to carry out extrajudicial killings. And John Stewart,Noam Chomsky and many many Rabbis are antisemitic despite being Jews themselves. Speaking up against an atrocity does not make a person; "antisemitic". The Jewish people(just like the Arab-Semites,Orientals,Whites, Blacks,Browns etc) are not Sacrosanct; there are murderers,thieves and wrongdoers in that race just as there are in every other.
They damage Israel's foreign relations & reputation

Carrying out killings on foreign territory without the approval of the government of that territory is unlikely to be viewed sympathetically - particularly if that country's citizens are put at risk as a result (e.g. due to the method or location of the attack or due to the use of forged documents that implicate innocent people). Leaving aside any moral implications from that, such actions are likely to produce negative publicity and negative diplomatic reactions from other states. Israel's public reputation is likely to be harmed by the impression given by such actions that Israel is willing to endanger foreign civilians to achieve its goals - and in countries used to the rule of law, that they are prepared to assassinate individuals rather than engage in a judicial process. Extrajudicial killings may therefore cause more harm to Israel's interests than good.
No solution to the conflict

Extra-judicial killing is illegal, immoral, contributes in no way to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and can only serve to further delegitimize Israel in the eyes of the world. There will be no shortage of volunteers to replace any that they kill - the longer the conflict continues the more Palestinians will see no way out but to attack Israel. The only solution is to negotiate and compromise - as the UK appears to have managed with Northern Ireland. The alternative is to repeat the Nazi 'final solution' which would be an horrendous irony. Unfortunately blood tends to lead to more blood as it is vengence people want when someone is killed.
We Need Human Rights to Guard Against the 'Caprice of Man' !

We need a documented rule of law in order to draw a thought out ethical line in the sand which we will not cross. Man in a moments anger, can easily rationalise any action as necessary in order to allow his base nature to pacify his fury. The 'Right' in question here being that of a 'Right to a Fair Trial' where evidence shall be produced. Errotion of rights are not an abstract myth which you remain untouched by. Corruption and perversion by power, of process, to meet its goal of appeasing masses is indeed real. To many think selfishly of their immediate family and selves with no thought to their many generations to follow who might be blighted with wrongful convictions, assisination, etc. You only need to look to Britain and the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes as to what exessive fear can bring to know this is a real risk !
Keeps terrorists busy escaping assassination

The fact that five Al-Queda operatives were allegedly killed in Pakistan; at the cost of the lives of 700 innocent people is hardly an argument for repeating such atrocities. [[http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/18-over-700-killed-in-44-drone-strikes-in-2009-am-01]] Even the Washington Post says "Al-Queda operative "apparently" killed in Pakistan." [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121104037.html]] U.S law and most human rights organizations oppose the killings of hordes of innocent people as well as terror-suspects(who may or may not be guilty but should be assumed "innocent until proven guilty" if American justice has a say in it.) That others do it and that Mossad has done it before is not an argument that they should do it now, there are differing circumstances between nations and times. A lot is put down to precedent when it should not be, in this case the precedent should make no difference in whether they should carry out extrajudicial killings and similarly "this" should be no reason not to. When a country claims that something is wrong and then goes ahead and does it on the basis that other people do it; it is quite simply: hypocrisy/double-standards/injustice. nations should not be let off like teenagers who submit to peer pressure and the like. In fact; even teenagers suffer consequences even in that circumstance.
National security

National security should not trump the right to life. A state does not have a right to go around murdering people no matter what they were doing. Mossad has engaged in kidnapping people to put them on trial and put them in prision such as with numerous ex nazis and Mordechi Vanunu. Why could they not have done so in this case, it seems that they had plenty of time in which to do so. It seems that they simply murdered because it was simpler and took less time. Simple ease should not be the motivation of a state killing.
We should reward those talented men and women who are prepared to devote years of gruelling training...

We should reward those talented men and women who are prepared to devote years of gruelling training to becoming the best they can be. They often have to give up rewarding careers to train full-time, and rely on their families to support them financially. This puts some very gifted athletes off making their sport their whole life. If the government provided more support, then maybe more people would take the step of training full-time to achieve their true potential.
Being a top sportsman or woman means hours of training every day in order to become the very best. ...

It is not the job of the state to fund sporting success. Even if governments wanted to give money away to top athletes, they have so many more important things to spend our taxes on – like education, health and security. A better way to fund top sportsmen is through the free market. If you are good enough at popular sports like football, tennis, basketball, boxing and cricket, then people will pay to see you and you can become very rich. If you are not talented enough, or your sport isn’t one people will pay to watch, why should the government give you money?
Putting government money into top level athletics promotes sport in general. Successful athletes ar...

There is no evidence that sporting successes leads to more ordinary people taking up sport. In fact, when an Olympics or World Cup is on, most people spend much longer in their chair in front of the television, so they end up being less active! There is some research showing that a few people are inspired to take up new sports, but these are the sporty ones already – it simply affects what sport they choose. Better to spend the money on directly increasing mass participation by funding local sports clubs and facilities, sport in schools, etc.
International sport is good for national spirit, helping to unite a country in support of its team a...

Nationalism is not necessarily a good thing as it can be used to justify and strengthen undemocratic governments. It can also increase rivalry and bad feeling between countries. And when sporting success gets mixed up with government targets, bad things can happen. In the past state-funded programmes in places like East Germany and North Korea have put young athletes under great pressure, with training programmes that were so tough children suffered lasting physical damage. They also missed out on a normal childhood and education. Many were fed drugs to make them perform better “for the good of the country”.
Sport is popular entertainment, enjoyed by millions on television and at live events. Why shouldn’t...

If governments fund top athletes, money ends up going to sports with little popular following. Sports that many people play and want to watch, such as cricket, football, basketball and tennis do not need government money as they are able to sell tickets and television rights to fund their athletes’ pay. So taxpayers’ money for elite athletes instead channels money to minority sports such as track cycling, rowing, sailing and horse-riding., etc.
Using state funding to produce top athletes is the only way to produce sporting success today. Othe...

State funding is not the only way to be successful. The USA doesn’t have government-funded sport but thriving and competitive school and college athletics programmes. Some argue that getting government money can make athletes soft – they will train harder if they have to fund themselves from prize money or have to obtain private sponsorship. State funding is also unfair to developing countries who cannot afford to spend millions on a few top sportspeople. Isn’t it against the sporting and Olympic spirit to try to buy your way to gold medals?
Being a top sportsman or woman means hours of training every day in order to become the very best. ...

Being a top sportsman or woman means hours of training every day in order to become the very best. It is not possible to train in this way while working in a normal job. Athletes can only train full time if they are paid to do so, and given the best equipment and coaching. If we want to see top athletes competing at the highest level, we must be prepared for our governments to pay for it out of our taxes.
The other options to discipline pupils are not helpful.

What qualifies as more severe? The sensitivity of students/children to abuse differs from person to person. A student/child may be traumatized by a slap on the wrist equally as much as another student is affected by a severe fatal beating. There is no black and white standardized measure for the intensity of physical-verbal abuse each of us can handle. Getting permission from parents to hit their children; only makes matters worse. This is equivalent to handing over a free pass to abusive parents to indirectly abuse their children. Secondly, a child is relatively secure when being admonished in his/her own home by his/her own parents(less embarrassing; relatively easier to understand and forgive) ; knowing that a stranger is hitting you with your parents' permission is thus worse than being directly abused by your parents. "The use of any kind of force against children as a disciplinary measure is illegal in 24 countries around the world" [[http://endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/prohib_states.html]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse#Physical_abuse]]
The other options to discipline pupils are not helpful.

Without any possibility of physical punishment there is not much that can be held over a student. Detention may well be the best possible punishment as it provides a chance to teach the student something while showing that they can have their time wasted too. However the supposedly worse options are not much of a discouragement. As a head teacher in the US puts it Principle David Nixon What are we here to do? Educate, This way [using corporal punishment] there's an immediate response, and the child is right back in the room learning. [[Eric Adelson The Principal and the Paddle, Newsweek, 25/4/09, http://www.newsweek.com/2009/04/24/the-principal-and-the-paddle.html%5D%5D However the more severe punishments prevent education rather than encouraging it. Suspensions and expulsions are assuming that the child considers it a punishment. Suspension simply delays learning and expulsion simply moves the problem on responsibility is shifted from school to another school or to the courts.[[http://www.jjpl.org/Publications_JJ_InTheNews/JuvenileJusticeSpecialReports/BBY/kentucky/kentucky.html]] Neither solves the problem of misbehaviour.
Parental consent would create two 'classes’ of pupil.

Parents who give permission to hit their child; do not think there's anything wrong with it. They have grown up with the mentality cited in the yes point above. If schools in general do not give them the choice of letting headmasters/mistresses/the-faculty reprimand their children by the use of force. Then they will admit their kids into Catholic-Schools and Madrassahs where the quality of education is not comparable to public schools in Britain and private schools in the U.S.A(and most of the world) respectively. Allowing parents with these ideas to choose from a wider variety of schools; gives their children equal opportunity to those children who hail from rather pacific homes that do not believe that 'sparing the rod spoils the child'. Denying parents the choice; denies students/children the right to better quality education.