BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is the nature of any encyclopedia to present known facts, and to emphasise these over expressions...

It is the nature of any encyclopedia to present known facts, and to emphasise these over expressions of opinion. In as much as this is a criticism of Wikipedia, then it is a criticism to any reference work, traditional or collaborative. In any case, the main Wikipedia entry for a controversial topic is not the only material available to the user – there are discussion pages which reveal its editing history, clashing viewpoints and rival authorities. These are a rich source for opinion and complement the main articles.
Wikipedia is not threatened by variants and rivals that also seek to promote freedom of knowledge. ...

Wikipedia is not threatened by variants and rivals that also seek to promote freedom of knowledge. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s founder has consistently said that he is not trying to drive traditional encyclopedias like Britannica out of business, nor to become a monopoly provider of online information. The key principle is the freedom of information, presented as neutrally as possible. This has led to Wikipedia being banned in China, after Jimmy Wales refused to censor articles to make the site acceptable to the Chinese government.
Wikipedia’s goal is to make all human knowledge freely available to everyone in the world with an in...

Wikipedia may make articles available for nothing to those with access to the internet (i.e. still only a minority of people in the world), but many of these articles are not worth reading. Entries are often very badly written and can be very unreliable or misleading. Even on the internet there is no such thing as a free lunch – the high cost of a traditional encyclopedia pays for articles written, checked and edited by experts and professionals. And Wikipedia does not simply provide a poor quality alternative. Worse, it will drive traditional, high-quality encyclopedias out of business by destroying their business model. If Wikipedia makes it harder for ordinary people to access reliable information then the world will be a poorer place.
Wikipedia seeks to achieve its democratic goal by democratic means. As an open-source project it re...

Creating knowledge by consensus or some kind of Darwinian democracy is fatally flawed. A fact is not true simply because lots of people think so. Traditional encyclopedias are written and edited by academics and professional experts, whose reputation is put on the line by the articles they produce. Anyone can write a Wikipedia article, regardless of how much or how little knowledge they have of the subject. Worse, because contributors are effectively anonymous, it is impossible to assess the quality of an article on an unfamiliar topic by assessing the credentials of those who have produced it.
Wikipedia harnesses the best qualities of humanity – trust and cooperation in pursuit of an unselfis...

Wikipedia is not immune to the worst qualities of humanity – as is shown by a number of scandals affecting the site. Entries can be deliberately vandalised for comic effect (as happens every April Fool’s Day), for commercial gain, or simply to mislead or insult. Some of these deliberate errors are picked up and corrected quickly, but others lie on the site for long periods. Notoriously, a respected journalist called John Siegenthaler was extensively libelled in an almost solely fictitious article which was not detected for months. Recently one very senior editor was exposed as a college drop-out, rather than the distinguished professor of theology he had claimed to be. Such examples seem to confirm the doubts of Larry Sanger, the original project coordinator for Wikipedia. He has since left and written a number of warning articles about how open to abuse the online encyclopedia is.
Wikipedia emerged very well from the only systematic comparison of its quality against its leading t...

The 2005 Nature comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica clearly found that the online encyclopedia was less reliable. However, the Nature study itself was badly skewed, and Britannica disputed nearly half the errors or omissions for which it was criticised. On this basis, Wikipedia is not just 30% less accurate than Britannica; it would be two and a half times less reliable. In addition, the Nature study took no account of the written quality of the submissions under comparison. All of Britannica’s entries are edited carefully to ensure they are readable, clear and an appropriate length. Much of Wikipedia’s material is a cobbled together from different contributions and lacks clarity.
Why would you want to make something illegal after it has been legal for years.

It has been legal for so long it does not make sense to change it now. If they hadn't advertised cigarettes as flashy as they were advertised ( handsome people in movies smoked , while nerds had healthy pink lungs!) people would not have become addicted. This means it is all the government's fault! They did not check if it was as dangerous so allowing the tobacco companies to ruin lives
Class exploitation

Smoking and the industry just like the narcotics industry are a form of class warfare. As tobacco advertising is being banned in the UK companies are heading towards less economically developed countries exploiting the people in search of profits. This is adding to a figure of five million people who die worldwide each year as a result of smoking and is yet another strain on a continent that has enough problems to deal with HIV or Aids [[ BBC News World Africa "Why do we still smoke in Africa "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4361837.stm Accessed 19.06.09]]
Damaging health

Smoking is a very bad habit.It has many bad side effects.it causes many fatal diseases like bronchitis,liver cancer,blood cancer, breathing problems etc.which can kill people.It also causes heart related diseases.It makes infections in the internal side of our body.Because of it, every year about 50,000-1,00,000 people dies in the world.It has tobacco in it which is very very dangerous for human health.Sometimes it gets harder to breathe for the smokers.It also can be dangerous for the friends & family of a smoker.As a Substantiation we can take the matter of Hafiz who is a student of CTG. university.(-THE DAILY AJADY)..He died of cancer last year because of smoking.Smoke made his liver infected.So he died with an unbearable pain.Like Hafiz there are so many people are dying.So we should take necessary steps to make people live.We should make smoking illegal. Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths[[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/tobacco/cancer]]
It would never work

Evidence suggests that in spite of possible practical difficulties of the smoking ban in pubs and bars, it has been a considerable success: if we are to believe Health dept. figures, 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the ban being brought in ^1^. Further evidence suggests that in previous discussions, wider enforcement has been seen to be more practical than narrower enforcement: in the case of the current smoking ban, evidence from a Camden subcommittee opposed initial plans to restrict smoking bans to only those pubs and bars serving food, on the basis of enforcement difficulties ^2^. If precedent is anything to go by - and it as least as good as unsubstantiated common sense - an outright ban might be quite easily enforced. ^1^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7480856.stm ^2^ http://www3.camden.gov.uk/templates/committees/documents/14971.doc
Being regulated out of existence anyway

Just because something is heavily taxed and regulated doesn't make the activity wrong and the regulations on it working it right. The high taxes on smoking force people some people to buy illicitly whether in the form of smuggled cigarettes from France something that hits the treasury to the amount of £2 billion a year or fraud cigarettes. [[ Action on smoking and health (ash) "Facts at a glance " [[http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf]]
getting rid of something doesnt nessecerily mean that it stops.

First, get your facts straight. The underground railroad was used to transport slaves out of America to Canada or Mexico. Also, there is a difference between alcohol and cigarettes. Alcohol is easy to conceal and easily can be drunk, unlike cigarettes which require you to light them and smoke them. Obviously they would do it in secluded locations (alleyways, underground, homes, etc), but that doesn't mean everyone is doing it. For example, drugs such as cocaine and heroin, are banned and people do still use them, but not as much as if it was legal. If a government was to make smoking illegal, it would limit the amount of smokers dramatically.
It would never work

It's a great idea but in practice how would it work? Taking them out of the shops will leave greater problems since many people smoke because they are addicted and not because they enjoy it. Making something illegal is of course easier than it seems. We must weigh in not only the reasons why, but also how are we going to implement a certain set of provision. We have to realise that making something illegal does not automatically solve a problem, instead it might create even more problems as a repercussion to such a decision. Making illicit drugs such as heroine, cocaine, etc. was agreeably a good decision. However, the consequences of making such commendable decisions also involve the allocation of large amounts of state resources (read: tax payer money) to combat illegal drug trafficking. Apparently, making these drugs illegal did not really stop people from using the drugs (fyi: drugs are still a lucrative business, if not why would people risk their lives to smuggle it). That said, the same goes for cigarettes, I don't see any strong reason that making cigarettes (or smoking them) illegal to be of any use in the context of making people quit the bad habit. People who smoke are addicted to it, and as those people who are addicted to illicit drugs, they will always find ways to circumvent the law. Making smoking illegal does not automatically make the business less profitable. As I see it, the demand for cigarettes are still high everywhere, and this kind of policy would only create "black markets" for the item. This in turn would put burden on the law enforcement to combat such black markets (read: more personnel, more funds needed), and of course these burdens would be passed on to tax payers who pays for all the cost of faithfully enforcing such a new law. I believe that the restrictions and requirements which are already in place (i.e. restricting smoking areas, limited advertisement methods) are sufficient enough to tackle the problem. Moreover, the current approach is right on track where the government should sponsor and support policies that would decrease the demand for cigarettes (if the demand for cigarettes were to fall substantially, the business would be less lucrative, and soon enough nobody will be in the cigarette business). This is not a policy that would effectively reduce the demand, simply making it illegal is not addressing to the demand problem.Thus, what I see in this is another burden for the state budget, with little or minimal impact on the real issue at hand.
Would You Smoke a Cigarette if you knew...

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer. Some these chemicals include... *Benzene-(petrol additive)- derived from coal & petroleum (you know, what you put in your car?) *Formaldehyde-(enbalming fluid)-used to perserve DEAD bodies (if you have ever dissected before, it's that nasty scent that comes out of the specimen) *Ammonia-(toilet cleaner)-used for flavoring *Acetone-(nail polish cleaner)-fragrant volatile liquid, used as a solvent *Arsenic-(rat poisoning) *Butane-(lighter fluid) *Lead-(used in batteries and pencils) And my personal favorite... *Nepathelene-(the key ingredient in MOTH BALLS) If that isn't enough to ban smoking around the entire planet, then I hope that this will... The list of diseases caused by cigarette smoking includes... *Chronic Obstructive pulmonary diesease *Coronary Heart Diesease *Bladder Cancer *Esophageal Cancer *Laryngeal Cancer *Lung Cancer *Oral Cancer *Throat Cancer *Cervical, Cancer *Kidney Cancer *Stomach Cancer *Pancreatic Cancer *Peptic Ulcer Diesease
The buying and selling of tobacco products should not be made illegal

The buying and selling of tobacco products should not be made illegal (as the sale of drugs has). There is no paucity in pot-smoking college students, even though the transaction is illegal. American tycoons smoke Cuban cigars despite the law in their Country. Making the sale/purchase of cigarettes/pipes/cigars/etc illegal will (as in the case of illegal narcotics) only give rise to the boom of a black market for these products , thus crime(Theft, murder and smuggling). Also, the hate (for self and others), guilt (for doing something illegal) and desperation (from addiction, loss/test of self-control and the inability to come clean/get rehabilitated without legal prosecution) will most naturally lead to a host of psychological/psychiatric problems (Prozac nation), followed by more crime(increased suicide-rate, theft etc). However, the public use and abuse of such products SHOULD be illegal. This will permit people who choose not to smoke, to avert the health risks of passive smoking. The black market will NOT emerge, since transactions (buying and selling of tobacco products) will be legal (and the black market having to incur added costs would be unable to compete with legal prices). Smokers restricted from public circles/events will have the incentive to get rehabilitation and work towards losing the habit. Once public smoking is illegal smokers might even take the health concern seriously.
Being regulated out of existence anyway

In the UK the tobacco industry are running out of ways to advertise and sell cigarettes anyway and people are running out of options to smoke them. For example tobacco companies can't advertise or sponsor events or teams etc. They can not sell cigarettes to people under 18 . Also people can not smoke in most "enclosed" public areas or workplaces with a few exceptions. Not to mention the major warnings on cigarette packets that companies are compelled to put on by the Department of Health [[ Ash "Ash facts at a glanceTobacco regulations"http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_96.pdf]]. In fact Liverpool City Council are proposing to give newly released films depicting people who smoke an automatic 18 classification over riding what ever classification the British Board of Film Classification may have for that film.[[BBC News "Smoking Actors to be rated 18" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8105585.stm%5D%5D Given these restrictions isn't it time to give it the final legal kiss of disapproval and ban them completely?.
getting rid of something doesnt nessecerily mean that it stops.

In the late 1920's in America, alcohol was banned. There was something called a underground railway or something. Where people went underground and bought cans and bottles of alcoholic products. they drank it in clever ways (teacups,in/outside coffee shops) ECT ECT! Thus meaning is if the government BANS anything, it is still not stopped in the Country so leave people to have freedom of choice/speech!
Slippery Slope of overzealousness in other words "Nanny State"

Making smoking illegal is about as much "nannying" people as making heroin illegal. During the 1800's, opium was legal, many people were addicted to it and spent large amounts of their income on inhaling the fumes. This applied throughout society from the rich to the poor. As a result the growing and marketing of opium poppies and their products was outlawed (This step was not taken until well after 1900, the opium trade was well developed by then). This was not considered nannying people, but rather a step to better society by trying to eliminate a habit that could destroy lives. Whilst smoking is not as expensive as opium was, it still takes a significant amount of money from people who can't afford it, and inhibits their ability to develop as people.
Cigarettes are just as bad as cars.

A fair point but the chemicals in an "average" cigarette add to the effect of the CO2. We have measures to reduce CO2 emissions from cars and there are things called catalytic so why aren't we trying to reduce the harmful effects of chemicals from cigarettes down to a minimal level. Oh and nicotine is a poisonous drug in it's own right. Farmers use it to kill bugs and three or four cigarettes worth of it or a single large drop would be enough to kill a person [[National Institute on Drug Abuse "Nida for Teens" http://teens.drugabuse.gov/facts/facts_nicotine1.php and Ann Meeker O Conell How Nicotine Works" How Stuff Works p7http://health.howstuffworks.com/nicotine7.htm]]. Why should we say a drug that effectively partially enslaves and kills is just as bad as your average motor or a Toyota Prius when it serves no purpose only to hook a person to their death or until they can get out again. Let me make it clear Nicotine is far worse than a Toyota Prius or your average car.
Eliminates a public health menace

Smoking is a hazard but its effects are massively overstated by the smoking lobby. For instance although lung cancer affects "0.01"% of non smokers smoking increases the likelihood of a person who started smoking in their teens have a chance of developing lung cancer at 2% if they stop at 30 and 16% if they stop at 70 [[Forest "Smoking and Health"http://www.forestonline.org/output/Smoking-and-Health.aspx Accessed 19.06.2009]] Also smoking could potentially help protect against Alzheimers disease as well as reduce stress something that can cause just as much serious problems for people as smoking does. [[Forest "Smoking and Health"http://www.forestonline.org/output/Smoking-and-Health.aspx Accessed 19.06.2009]] Secondly it pays its way so to speak, the UK treasury gets an estimated £8,000 million from revenues that's money that can go towards hospitals schools etc[[Ash http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf Accessed]]. Why take away a good source of revenue that can help?
Why would you want to make something illegal after it has been legal for years.

That is the dumbest argument i have ever heard. So, because we made a mistake in the past we are not allowed to fix it? Yes they made it glamorous in the media, yes the government allowed this to happen because they didn't do their homework on it. But that doesn't mean that since we made a mistake in the past it is set in stone forever! If that was the case then how the hell did we get Amendments to the Constitution? Think before you write please
Class exploitation

The Health secretary who was present when the ban was enacted, John Reid famously said it "was wrong for middle class politicians to ban what for many working class people was their only pleasure". [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3789591.stm]] This means an outright ban on smoking far from being an act of liberating people would be tightening the screw on an already strained working class by a puritanical middle class nanny state.[[Patrick Wintour http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/oct/27/smoking.health1%5D%5D.
Slippery Slope of overzealousness in other words "Nanny State"

Banning smoking would be a yet another slippery slope down the road of overzealousness leading to a nanny state if we aren't in one already. Given that a significant amount teachers and schools are chafing at the bit because of health and safety regulations and worrying about. What's next alcohol? There are some groups calling for that to happen, does the government ban alcohol with all the consequences that would bring.
Damaging health

It is the case that smoking is an unhealthy habit, and that it harms the smoker and those physically close to the smoker when they are smoking. But that's no argument for a government-enforced ban on smoking. Eating fast food is unhealthy, so is it up to the government to shut down all fast food restaurants? Drinking alcohol is unhealthy, and many innocent bystanders are harmed as an effect of drunk behavior (drinking and driving, drunken arguments, etc), is it up to the government in that case to eradicate all alcohol from the country? Of course not. In all of these cases, it is up to the individual to make the decision for their own health. As for preventing secondhand smoke, smoking regulations enforced by the government, ie smoking is not allowed within 50 feet of a public building or inside the workplace, etc, seem to be a good idea. But there's no need for complete government control of tobacco products/cigarettes.
Cigarettes are just as bad as cars.

Walking outside in a polluted city like San Francisco or Karachi or LA or a city in china(16 of the world's most polluted cities are in China) [[http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028,00.html]], you are already damaging your lungs from all the CO(carbon monoxide fumes) put in the air from car emissions and all the people exhaling Carbon Dioxide(why are very polluted BIG cities, very populated too? people use cars and aeroplanes/airplanes(used by people vacationing to places with cleaner air and traveling businessmen) which cause a lot more pollution than cars[[http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html]]). Cigarettes release chemicals that are bad of course, but they are a preferable means of getting your smoke. Electronic vaporizing cigarettes do not produce second hand smoke and are hugely unpopular but won't be for long. It's better to be the smoker than to be the person whose face is being smoked into(statistically passive smokers are at a greater risk) .
John Stuart Mill - the principles of power and harm in Liberal Democracy

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. ... Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." [[J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 1859. Chapter 1. see http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html ]] The principle that only those actions which harm others should be legislated against is being eroded by legislation on obesity and narcotics in particular. Certainly, it is true that there is an extent to which something such as smoking falls into the category, for it has demonstrable negative effects on others in certain cases. However, these are the cases that have already been legislated against with the ban on smoking in public, indoor places. At the point at which the extension of the ban on smoking crosses the line from protecting others to controlling the behaviour of the individual, it transgresses the principles upon which a liberal democratic society is based