BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It will promote active waste management by stores

If we allowed people to take food that was carelessly left exposed to the public, supermarkets could indeed get in trouble for allowing their products to get into the wrong hands and be consumed. They could attain liability[[http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/foodlaw/]] from people eating such food. Whilst this may seem like a miscarriage of justice, by allowing it to legally occur, we will be encouraging supermarkets to dispose of their waste more efficiently.
Society has an obligation to prevent this kind of behavior

1) The argument for legalizing the taking of food out of supermarket dumpsters is thoughtless and foolish. 2) Allowing people to take food from dumpsters would create a greater risk and burden for society than the poverty or hunger that provokes such behavior. 3) Trash cans and dumpsters are inherently dirty places and much of the food being thrown out is already spoiled. These facts make grocery store waste containers harbingers of disease. By arresting or threatening to arrest individuals who "dumpster dive", we are protecting them from illness and freeing up the time and resources available in medical facilities for less preventable injuries and illnesses. 4) Society and the government have a responsibility to protect people from illness and conserve its social resources, preventing people from eating out of the trash is a part of that responsibility. 5) If dumpster diving were legal, supermarkets would be liable for the divers' illnesses and would likely have vagrant encampments behind or near their storefronts. People would become ill and possibly infect others, threatening the health of taxpayers as well as leaching their money through emergency medical services.
Super Market Waste is ridiculous

Supermarket waste is already far to high anyway and most of the stuff thrown away is not actually dangerous it gets thrown away because it doesn't look right or is not fitting with the supermarkets food standard, as well food is not even chucked away if it has gone off it gets chucked away if it is close to going off and as most supermarkets get there bins emptied every couple of days most of the stuff in there is fresh and perfectly fit for eating even with complete packaging. I often go scavenging in the bins behind my local supermarket I don't agree with the waste and see it as a cheaper and worthwhile thing to do. don't get me wrong some of the food is bad for you and unedible once its chucked out like meat for example but this just requires some common sense on the part of the person who goes rooting.
The supermarket could get into legal trouble.

If food is unfit to eat to the extent that it is actually dangerous, it should be disposed of more carefully than leaving it in bags outside the back of the shop. What if it spreads diseases, animals eat it or desperate people eat it whether or not it is legal? Alternatively, if legislators rule it to be legal, perhaps they should also grant legal protection to the supermarkets. They have not represented the food as safe, quite the opposite in fact. Everyone doing it knows that most of the food is rejected for safety reasons.
Scavengers cause problems for the shop and make the atmosphere unpleasant.

Not everyone who would want to eat food thrown out is an unpleasant scavenger. The woman was just an ordinary shopper who saw an opportunity for some free food. Students will also do anything for free food because they are in so much debt through no fault of their own. Some Freegans (http://frugalliving.about.com/od/bargainshopping/p/Freegan.htm) will eat food that would have been thrown away because of a well planned out strategy to live with as little waste as possible and as an anti-consumerist statement. Security guards should be intelligent enough to know the difference and to use their common sense to keep dangerous intruders away.
£1 trillion of aid in the past 50 years has only caused the African economy to deteriorate

Financial contributions from the West have proved little help to Africa. Between 1970 and 1998 when aid was at its peak, poverty rose alarmingly from 11% to 66%. This statistic alone suggests aid is damaging to African welfare. Africa began borrowing money in the 1970s when interest rates were low, but a rising rates in 1979 caused 11 African countries to default. Even after restructuring, they fell deeper into debt. While the Marshall Plan had been a success, the same approach would not favour Africa; as Moyo contends, it lacks the required institutions to utilise capital efficiently. Debt servicing meant money was passing from the poor to the rich, leaving Africa in a precarious global position. Furthermore, countries which have rejected aid as an approach to combat poverty have prospered, indicating an additional correlation between aid and a ruined economy. (1) (1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/19/dambisa-moyo-dead-aid-africa
Africa deserves the opportunity to assert itself as an equal global partner

As Moyo and many others claim, Africa would benefit significantly more from enterprise-led development and involvement in business deals. In addition to delivering financial results, this would also encourage a pro-active approach on Africa’s part, allowing it to help itself prosper according to its own analysis of needs and objectives. Moyo asserts the Chinese have done more for Africa than the US, noting the impact of making equal business deals rather than patronising and preaching to governments. In China, African produce is welcome with a population of 1.3 billion and only 7% of farming land. Africa’s opportunity for success by such methods is evidenced from past conduct: its GDP has doubled from $130bn in the 1980s to $300bn today. (2) Rather than being pitied and condescended, Africa should be granted the independence to get back on its own two feet. (2) http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dambisa-moyo-aid-dependency-blights-africa-the-cure-is-in-the-credit-crisis-could-be-the-cure-1522996.html
‘Systemic aid’ is detrimental to African society

While aid threatens the economy, it also poses hazards for society in Africa. As Moyo contends, it merely fosters civil war as people fight over scarce resources which cannot feasibly be equally distributed. According to Dr Napoleoni, $1.6bn of $1.8bn in aid received by Ethiopia in 1982 – 1985 was invested in military equipment. (3) Aid is limited in respect to where it comes from; some donors refuse to make payments unless a proportion is devoted to a specified cause or if some act is done in return. Moyo refers George Bush’s demand that two thirds of his $15bn donation towards AIDs must go to pro-abstinence schemes. Such requirements further impede Africa’s ability to create a domestic policy and think for itself. Aid is solely to blame for its dependent state. (3) http://current.com/items/88956227/live_8_money_raised_for_africa_goes_to_civil_wars.htm
Aid is donated inefficiently as a quick-fix solution

Moyo points out that intelligent African women with the potential to rectify the situation are pushed to one side by globally recognised figures promoting ‘glamour aid’ such as Bob Geldof and Bono. Nothing suggests such people have any expertise or knowledge in such a field; they are simply talking because they are listened to. While their efforts should not be dismissed, they undermine the powers of those elected. Large multiple payments make little difference to Africa’s economic climate. They are simply gut reactions stemming from our pity and guilt at African poverty, allowing us to sit back without getting too closely involved. Moreover, it is evident from aid given during the Cold War that intentions are not absolutely altruistic, but simply a tool to build alliances in the world of geopolitics.
The global economy in its current state facilitates this move

Though Moyo suggests banning aid completely, she also proposes borrowing from bond markets rather than international governments and institutions. The bond market allows for the buying and selling of debt securities, with no credit risks and higher interest rates. Such an arrangement suits Africa as aid lending has become too relaxed; more money is lent when a country defaults. Capital markets will not take the same attitude, which will help Africa to control its finances. The global economic downturn presents a valuable opportunity for plans to be reviewed. With a shortage of capital all round, Africa would benefit from resorting to market-driven interventions that have impacted hugely upon the economies of other countries.
Turning off aid is a controversial and capitalist experiment

Naturally our gut reaction to the prospect of turning off aid completely is one of disapproval. It is hard to see what effects such a move would have other than rapidly increasing the death rate. While Moyo suggests generations in the near future will benefit from this approach, the argument is unconvincing as 50% of the population in most African countries are under the age of 15. Currently, the most common response of the west is to contribute financially. If we put a stop to this, are we not just offsetting responsibility? Such an attitude should be discouraged as it conflicts with ideas of charity and interdependence. While aid may not be the perfect solution, it surely has its benefits.
Aid serves a purpose and should not be discouraged

While generous donations of aid may not have delivered the solution anticipated by the West, its attempts should not be ignored. Firstly, we learn through our mistakes and would not have been able to discover the effects of aid without testing it for a period of time. Secondly, philanthropy and charity should be supported and encouraged in a way which promotes interdependence rather than dependence. While African welfare and economy has diminished somewhat in the same years as it has received payments, this is not to say that aid has done no good. Clearly there is no absolute solution to such a high-scale issue. Nevertheless, balanced interdependence and careful management of resources could present opportunities in future for enterprise-led development, allowing Africa to prosper by itself.
£1 trillion of aid in the past 50 years has only caused the African economy to deteriorate

While aid appears unsuccessful for Africa, the approach itself should not be criticised. Western countries have simply provided African countries with generous payments allowing them to stabilise their economy. It many aspects of life, emphasis is not often attributed to what resources are available but how they are used. Though more guidance on how to invest the money may have been useful, Africa itself must take responsibility for how it has spent the money. The evil behind aid is allegedly overreliance: a country becomes dependent on receiving more and more aid. However, a focused approach to budget and organisation of capital could certainly put aid to good use.
Africa deserves the opportunity to assert itself as an equal global partner

Africa lacks the resources for international trade. It is no surprise that westernised countries respond to its needs by throwing money in Africa’s direction; as a country in the business world it would simply slow things down. However, if Africa utilised aid payments effectively, there may be some potential for this position in future. Furthermore, Africa’s trade with China is not an example that should be followed. Concerns have been raised as to China’s long-term interests in protecting its income by force. Moyo states this is irrelevant as we are only concerned with progress now. Surely there is no advantage in securing money temporarily for Africa, we need a solution that will last.
‘Systemic aid’ is detrimental to African society

Resources will only be scarcer without aid; further chaos and corruption will ensue. There would be no need for fighting should resources be shared out equally. If aid is transferred to governments there is surely a centralised method of doing so; aid itself is not the problem. Africa could escape the issue of receiving payments according to donors’ vested interests by administering a list of causes for which it desires support, accepting contributions where demands fall exclusively within its categories. Again, aid is not detrimental but its careless distribution and allocation is.
Aid is donated inefficiently as a quick-fix solution

While African politicians are often unheard in comparison to public figures and celebrities, at least someone is taking action. The Live AID and Live 8 concerts raised colossal sums for Africa in addition to enormous global awareness. Though these might not be the desired campaigners, it is surely better that some measures are taken than none at all. Furthermore, philanthropic contributions on such a vast scale are nothing but altruistic; the West is under no duty to provide Africa with such means but has done and continues to do so. While the Marshall Plan in the Cold War had its ulterior motives, it is unlikely that western countries would opt for a country so far away and lacking in resources when hoping to win over an ally.
The global economy in its current state facilitates this move

Many would assert this is not a sensible position to take in the current financial climate. Many countries who have resorted to borrowing from capital markets are now starting to struggle. High interest rates are not desirable on any loan. Rather than expending further resources in interest, Africa would benefit from using the donations and transfers it currently receives in a more effective manner. While Moyo sees the recession as an opportunity for major reform, each country has immense problems of its own to tackle; sufficient time and effort could not be devoted to Africa as well.
Turning off aid is a controversial and capitalist experiment

Though the solution is one most would not dare to utter, the fact that Moyo herself is African and proposes a theory upheld by many Africans suggests this is no capitalist experiment on Africa. In addition, Moyo notes that while capitalism has exhibited many flaws in its history, it has also made the best efforts at combating poverty. Rather than leading to a further decline in poverty, the solution will provide security for the children of those currently experiencing the conditions. Moyo reminds us that African parents are no different from American parents in that they will be willing to comply with such a method despite the challenges it will pose to their own welfare.
Aid serves a purpose and should not be discouraged

It seems clear from Moyo’s analysis and justifications on a great number of issues as to the detrimental effect of aid that it is not a desirable solution by any means. While such contributions may inspire humane attitudes in society, this cannot alone validate the passing of vast quantities of finance to Africa which serve no useful economic purpose. Interdependence is something to strive towards but by relying on the help of western countries, Africa merely exhibits dependence. In order to gain recognition as an equal global partner, independence is crucial. Aid must be prohibited.
Mental illnesses are simply behaviours that are not considered socially acceptable.

A socially debilitating condition can(and does in most cases) turn into a life threatening condition without treatment. Concerned people should be able to opt for treatment. While people who do not feel that they need/want treatment should have the choice not to. The nineteenth century(and many centuries before it) saw a barbaric treatment of anyone deemed odd/strange/awkward/threatening, people were picked up and forcibly locked up in asylums for esoteric & suspicious reasons. Psychiatry/psychology has come a long way since then. There are means of measuring chemical imbalances (serotonin levels being a common example). There are sometimes detectable physical symptoms of mental diseases. ALL diseases are known to have a psycho(mental) and a Soma (physical) element. Many diseases are psychosomatic, where physical symptoms caused only psychologically emerge without there being any medical explanation(all reports are clear/normal). A common example is of false pregnancy or pseudocyesis [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_pregnancy]]. Many women without ever mating start manifesting symptoms of pregnancy for purely psychological reasons. What is mental illness? Seeing things differently from all those around you? Not sharing an experience with other people? Frustration over being doubted? Hallucinating (and/or a manifestation of other temporary features of drug abuse)
Mental illnesses are simply behaviours that are not considered socially acceptable.

There are those that claim mental illnesses to simply be behaviours that are not considered socially acceptable. What’s more, the means of judgment used to make diagnoses of such are not medically but socially and ethically based (Scheff, 1966). In other words, those that don’t behave in the ‘good’ and ‘proper’ way, are cast out from society as misfits. Throughout the centuries, there has been much evidence to suggest that this has been the case. During the nineteenth century, there was a rise in recognition of a new form of ‘illness’ known as ‘madness’. Along with this, there was also a rise in hospitals and asylums. However, it was not always mental patients that were put into asylums but anyone deemed to be ‘deviant’ (Samson, 1995). In this way, madness in the asylums was seen to be a tool of social control, an attempt of the authorities to safeguard the running of the country’s economy. As Goffman (1961) argues, the function of asylums was to ‘mould their inmates into some socially approved purpose’. More recently, look at the case of ADHD. Timimi (2005) points out that this ‘condition’ has become diagnosed more frequently within the last 10 years. He argues that what we understand to be ‘normal’ childhood behaviour is controlled by ‘health experts’, such as psychiatrists and psychologists, defining what behaviour is acceptable and what isn’t. This he says, has lead to a ‘particular version of childhood’ emerging and those who do not fit into it are labelled with mental ‘disorders’ such as ADHD. Timimi suggests that although disorders like these are being treated as a biomedical problem, one which blames the genetic make-up of the child, they in fact have no true biomedical basis: they are socially constructed as an explanation for children who exhibit behaviours outside of the prescribed norm.
The terms crazy/mad/mentally-ill/mental/bonkers/coo-coo-bananas/demented(even-retard, thought that's a disability not an illness) have been reduced to casual insults rather than real official medical terms.

It may have started off being mostly only 'socially constructed' but in contemporary medicine it is only an illness(where you are prescribed health-care) if a different mental-perspective/mind-set makes one a danger to him/her-self or society. Or that a person her/himself feels that s/he will not be able to function without treatment.
The terms crazy/mad/mentally-ill/mental/bonkers/coo-coo-bananas/demented(even-retard, thought that's a disability not an illness) have been reduced to casual insults rather than real official medical terms.

It is now seen as ignorant to call a psych patient, that. People who would have in the past been termed 'mentally ill'(or any of the term's equivalents) are now just new-age-y hip fashionable therapy buffs.
Surely the fact that mental illnesses have been around for centuries...

Proves that they are not socially constructed? Social systems have changed drastically over these centuries and yet the concept of mental illness - or at least that some people behave oddly and their minds aren't working in the same way as others - has pretty much always existed in some form or another. This is not only in the same culture over hundreds of years, but also in several cultures that are very different to each other. Much of what is seen as faulty, or how people are treated when they show signs of faults, is different from culture to culture, but much is the same.
Bio-Remediation

Bio-Remediation refers to the process of introducing external elements to breakdown environmental pollutants and detoxify contaminants. In this particular case, it refers to using genetic modification to break waste material to reduce its toxicity. The increase in number of pollutants in the environment is alarming, especially those resistant to degradation. Of all measures that have been employed, both biological and physiological, bio-remediation has stood out as the most promising strategy. Bioremediation is often preferred because it has several advantages over its conventional counterparts. Natural occurring organisms like bacteria, yeast and fungi have always been used for this technology to work. But if they could be genetically modified before implementation, it's suggested that the effectiveness of the bio-remediation process could increase manifold. Various bio-molecular and metabolic engineering techniques are designed and employed to modify microorganisms, which in turn modify pollutants to become less harmful elements. Applications include industrial effluents and accidental oil spills. Usually, when the bacteria is released into the toxic area, it spreads, breaking down the toxic material into non-toxic wastes like carbon dioxide. The more toxins it breaks down, the more the bacteria reproduce and multiply and the faster the contaminants are destroyed.
Economic Effects

Any logically sound business would want to make profits from GMO development. Farmers want a profitable return and at the same time, the consumer wants less costly food and medicine. The economic impact of GMOs is going to be felt on all levels whether we like it or not. There's a complex array of varying factors which influence the pricing of GMO products, including labelling regimes in the global and local markets, marketing margins, consumer attitude towards GM products, and price effect enjoyed by non-GM products, among many others. It is said that GM crops result in better crop yield. From statistical estimations, it has been seen that corn and soybean yield could increase significantly, consequently increasing farmer income. Scientist believe that with GM crops, the world could grow more food than ever before in its history.
Production of Edible Medicine and Vaccines

It is important to note that development of edible vaccines is still at very early stages. So far, the benefits outlined are only human-centric. It has not been articulated clearly how implementation of this project would affect insects and other animals that feed on them. Moreover, it is not clear how appropriate dose control would be effected. For example, one cannot specifically deduce how many apples could be considered enough for treatment. Also, fruits are not the same in size or content, and plants could change from one generation to another. Oral ingestion of the medicine creates another problem because of the different environments it passes through before final absorption into the bloodstream. For example, the stomach is highly acidic. There is also a high risk of potential contamination of non-GMO plants due to pollination. Lastly, there's no clear visual difference between regular fruits/milk and vaccinated ones. The medicinal one might be unknowingly consumed, creating problems.