BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Artificial consensus

The head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic research unit trying to cover up evidence that implies that climate change may not be happening or is less bad than feared shows that the 'consensus' in science over this problem is entirely artificial. Ignoring data showing that the world is not warming is fundamentally against what scientists should be doing, it is bad science. Climate is changing, it has done so for thousands of years, but there is evidence to suggest that humans do not cause it. 31 000 scientists have signed a petition that there is no evidence that human actions cause the catastrophic heating of the earth. The petition argued "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of ... greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments."[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html]] Renowned Scientists H. Schmitt and F. Singer supports this point of view. The reason you do not see many such scientists is because there is pressure on scientists who question global warming. Scientists just cannot get funding if they do not write in support of ‘global warming’.
It is fair that people who earn more income should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. ...

It is unfair that people who earn more should pay at a progressive rate. Even on a standard rate, they already pay more tax, because they have a higher taxable income. Therefore progressive tax rates are a form of double taxation, as higher earners pay tax on more income, and then at a high level. This is further unfair to them since high earners are the least likely group to benefit from much taxpayer-funded activity e.g. welfare.
Progressive taxation should increase the total tax take. This means that increased funds are availa...

Progressive taxation is an inefficient way to increase the tax take. Because of resentment, increased evasion, reduced incentive to work and administrative complexities, a progressive tax rate can actually lessen rather than increase the total tax take. This is in nobody’s fiscal interest regardless of whether they favour small or large amounts of taxpayer-funded spending, since it equates to a more demanding system producing less agreeable results.
It is fair that people who earn more income should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. ...

It is fair that people who earn more income should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. The tax supports the administration of their country which provides the sort of operating environment in which they are able to earn their wages in the first place. Even when paying a higher marginal rate on the top end of their earnings, they will still take home more than people who are paid less with a tax rate anything up to 100%.
Progressive taxation forms a buffer for the lowest earners in society. This is because the lowest t...

Progressive taxation forms a buffer for the lowest earners in society. This is because the lowest tax band will apply to earnings beneath an initial threshold. Therefore, the less one earns, the higher percentage of one’s pay is not taxable. A certain “block” at the bottom of each income may be tax free altogether, and by definition this will form a much larger proportion of a low earner’s income than it would in the income of a high earner. This protection for the poorest is important, because most countries also operate customs tariffs and sales taxes, which tend to hit the poor more than the rich in terms of the proportion of their income going in indirect taxation; progressive direct taxation redresses the balance.
Certain Universities are impressive

Any one with a first and upper second degree should be proud of their qualification because they have a greater chance of getting jobs or getting graduate degrees than people with a lower class degree(irrespective of the university they graduated from). In reality, universities throughout the country tend to have the same standard of teaching, and whether you go to Oxford or London Metropolitan, the lectures will be just as good. Certain universities are just more elitist and harder to get in to than others. However, employers will assume that someone who went to Oxford is smarter and therefore a better asset to their company than a person who went to London Met, which is a shame because they should give each person equal opportunities. I believe that it should not matter which college or university that a student goes too. This is because what employers look for when employers want to hire someone is if the person is qualified enough to do the job. I mean there are a lot of highly qualified people out there who are working. Some people have more skills than other people. What the employer wants to do is find the bottom line. This means that if the employer wants someone with a college degree than the employer will get the person with the college degree. So, this means that it does not really matter what college or university a student chooses to go to. What matters is if the student gets a degree from any university or college. This is because employers want the best person working for them. This is because that person should have certain skills from college that the employers need.
Certain Universities are impressive

There are Universities that, justified or not, have a certain amount of grandeur about them. At the very moment of mentioning them they have an impressive nature about them. This is not only with Oxford and Cambridge, but also those Red Brick Universities in Britain's oldest towns. If nothing else, these Universities would certainly make a person feel proud of themselves for attending such a university and being able to tell people about it. It is however likely that employers from red brick universities will prefer red-brick university alumni for employees because they can relate to them(being alumni themselves). [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_brick_university#The_civic_university_movement]] I agree, it does matter what college or university a student goes to. At each college or university there are a lot of different things. Each and every college and university is different. Some colleges and universities are known well for what kinds of facilities that they have. Other colleges and universities may have a really well built gym. While other colleges and universities have really low income gyms. These gyms have really old and out of date equipment. Or, the colleges or universities do not have a gym at all. On the other hand, some colleges and universities have a really good recreation area. I have seen colleges with bars, pool tables, and a lot of places to eat as well. Also, I have been to colleges that have a small cafeteria. The recreation area is a place for students to go to relax after doing all their homework.
we should concentrate on the skills that we obtain

But certain universities have certain features which make it easier to obtain such grades! [[http://www.oxbridgeessays.com/blog/top-10-uk-universities-625/]] This shows how universities are assessed. The better research score of a university the better educated the lecturers are in that university. They will have undertaken more research and so will have a greater level of expertise in a particular subject area. All this means that the University you attend does make a difference to the education that you receive. This is a good topic to choose because it rises up many other topics. As a whole each and every one needs to concentrate on their skills. This is because skills are important for each and every job. At some colleges and universities a student can go to a huge lecture hall and learn from a teacher. But, other colleges teach in the classroom with smaller classes. Some students prefer the big lecture halls. This way it makes it easier to lose attention in class. But, in the classroom with smaller classes the student has a better chance of getting to learn a lot more about the subject. This is because the student has the ability to talk and work with the teacher. This would be almost impossible in other colleges and universities with big lecture halls. But, in colleges and universities with small classrooms this makes it a lot easier to learn.
we should concentrate on the skills that we obtain

Going to University should not be like collecting badges. University education is not only about the institution you go to but the skills you learn. If we are suggesting that those skills are of differing quality, then we are saying something is very wrong with our education system. All of our Universities are assessed against the same objective criteria by many external examiners and their research and teaching assessed by many different institutions. Therefore, a 2:1 from one university should be the same as another. [[http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/quality/ext_exam/index.shtml]] [[http://www.gold.ac.uk/quality/examiners/]] What the argument on the left asserts is that better universities have better lecturers and therefore better opportunities for a student's development. It does not say that there is any difference in a merit or distinction from different colleges.
It won't get you noticed where it matters.

C.Vs are submitted before the interview call. People who have graduated from better-known universities are bound to be preferred over those with similar academic and extracurricular performance but with degrees from universities with less star-quality. This is especially true in professions where marketing/advertising/image is at the forefront, customers trust and are impressed by MBAs or Lawyers with Red brick college or IVY league degrees while such professionals from lesser known universities are sidelined. The exception to this rule lies in the realm of the medical profession, where a doctor is a doctor no matter where s/he graduates from.
It won't get you noticed where it matters.

It might impress people but it won't get you a job - it is inadvisable to boast about where you went to University in an interview when you could be talking about how well you fit the job role and what you would give to the company - actual skills such as innovation and business sense will help you survive in the recession. As a politician it would impress some people but it could also be a disadvantage if people think you're elitist and can't relate to the people you're making policies about. They will be just as impressed by someone who starts off with nothing and works their way to the top.
The way murder hunts/cases are covered could be giving copycats and those seeking a legacy a place in history

Agreed, that such coverage inspires bad eggs. However, the chase more than usual, acts as a deterrent. It scares wannabe criminals. Reminding them of how they will be chased,cornered and at times gunned down. This essentially, counters the effect of the glamorized attractive criminal life ubiquitously projected by the international film industry.
Newspapers report sensationalist stories beacuse they sell.

I agree it is not fair when papers play up certain facts to scaremonger, or exaggerate issues just to make a story juicier. A completely balanced argument is not often presented and this can persuade public opinion. In extreme cases this can lead to misguided actions, such as prejudice and fear toward people wearing a burkha for exmaple, or the outpouring of sympathy for Raul Moat after his death was broadcast. Despite this, newspapers cannot be held responisble for peoples actions, yet they should have an understanding of the power and influence they can have.
Is the most effective way to spread important information

The internet and traditional mass media are the most effective ways to spread information on the world rigth now. Its creation changed forever our access to information and has become an indispensable part of daily life in the modern world. But we have to remember that less than 30% of our global population has access to the internet [[http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm]], therefore, media 24hour intense broadcasting of illness prevention or possible spread, terrorist menaces and murder cases become, on most cases, vital for people's security. No matter the opinions on these matters, they always promote prevention, maybe it can seem obsesive and repetitive... but what if you only have access to traditional media on a determined hour of a day? can the governments truly take on the task of informing all of its population of such things? can they have similar reach? The spread of a certain illness, murders and terrorist threats ARE A PROBLEM, its coverage, helps PREVENT THEM. The value of prevention can only be truly understood by those who underestimated it when they most needed it.
The media has a duty to report any news it feels the public needs to hear about

The media should be free to choose what it broadcasts or writes about so that the public has free access to information. The public has a right to know. Information inundation harms information also. Too much information confuses people. Every bit of available information cannot realistically be shared with the public. The public understands that they are being exposed to selective data. That the news media is sharing its version of the story. Different news stations therefore; have different fan bases. However, the hard facts in the coverage of the same story are the same for all news stations. 'That' is your objectivity/transparency.
Coverage of things such as swine and bird flu spread unnecessary unsubstantiated panic

The media irresponsibly takes a quote from a professor of medicine on the worst case scenario 'it could be a global pandemic' and emphasizes this point as if this is the inevitable progression of the disease. This was the case for both the bird and swine flu epidemics. In reality a small number of people were affected by the diseases. In the case of swine flu, normal flu actually kills more people every year. Counterargument: It is the responsibility of physicians to do be up to date on the most recent health concerns, particularly the emergency physicians, so they can properly diagnose their patients. The media is responsible to address the issue, but too much attention was paid to these 'pandemics' and the media irresponsibly boosted fear, not awareness.
The way murder hunts/cases are covered could be giving copycats and those seeking a legacy a place in history

Programmes created by the media such as the specials covering the Raoul Moat murders and the Derick Bird shootings create a sort of glamourous position on tv for these individuals. More so are programmes such as the 'Britain's deadliest murderers' which work to glamourize and immortalise their 'legacies' in history. This could arguably lead to copycats who seek their place in history.
Often only one side of an argument is available.

A lot of the mass media produce very one sided, sensationalist often right wing views on terrorism, illness, murders and rapes. More often than not this is to generate sales, and it works! The Sun is the best selling newspaper in the U.K. Murderers, Paedophiles and Terrorists are exploited by the Tabloid newspapers to make money. They know what they are doing and they know what sells. In doing this they often succeed in making many people think that there is no alternative argument, and if someone was to challenge it, then they would be wrong. This is wrong and both sides of an argument should be available to the reader. Counterargument: Selective coverage curtails freedom of speech by hiding information that is relevant but not suited to the tastes of certain news people.
Newspapers report sensationalist stories beacuse they sell.

The papers report on sensational issues beacuse they sell papers. It is clear the floods in Pakistan are a more devastating issue than whether Peter Crouch has cheated on Abbey Clancey, but what has made the front pages? Likewise Charles Taylors war crimes are far more serious, yet it wouldn't have recieved so much attention had Naomi Campbell not been involved. I wouldn't have had a clue who he was, or what he had done unless I saw the pictures of her giving evidence in court, but it made me take notice. It has become part of our culture, we love a good scandal, if only to make ourselves feel better. The papers exaggerate stories because it is more exciting to read. But it doesn't mean we have to take what they write as gospel. The speculation over facts gives us something to natter about with friends as we escape for a moment from our own problems to realise that there are many people much worse off than us, and many things just simply out of our control.
The media has a duty to report any news it feels the public needs to hear about

Absolutely agree that every media has its right to broadcast/write any news they want, as it is their job and obligation to do so. However, the media itself has a social responsibility which has to be carried out to the society by filtering certain issues that are considered improper to be published with one or some arguable reasons to be deemed. While it is true that it is the media's responsibility somewhat to filter information, they also have an obligation to provide all types of information to the mass, giving them wider choice of information. They should not impose a particular viewership or readership unto their clientele. Counterargument: It is the responsibility of the media to not distort information. When the news media claims to be transparent and objective, it is relaying the idea of delivering perfect information to the public. Cutting what it deems inappropriate out, is not even making the 'effort' to relay the real news. Reiterating that the public has the right to know, should not be shielded from the facts and not be spoon-fed selected misleading subjective tit bits of what originated as information.
Coverage of things such as swine and bird flu spread unnecessary unsubstantiated panic

A pandemic is always global; an endemic is local. Don't shoot the messenger. The media also calms people down about these issues. It was the news that got doctors to relay that most of us cannot contract the virus. Also; no awareness of swine flu would hypothetically have translated to no cure, no funding and no research. The fact that the news propagated the swine flu threat meant that lives were saved; many patients who would've otherwise dismissed their (fatal)illness as the common cold; recovered in hospital beds.
Tax evasion is rendered much easier by tax competition between states in a single market, allowing u...

Although people of different states may make conscious political choices about the level of taxation under which they wish to live (point 3), often the economic consequences of fiscal decisions are unclear in advance. Having relatively similar countries with different taxation systems allows clear comparison of the levels and approaches that work best to provide revenue and prosperity. Free market competition in economic policy will allow the best practice to come to the fore and be adopted elsewhere; harmonisation denies this possibility.
Environmental taxes (e.g. on fuel, energy, emissions, etc.) and pro-health taxes (e.g. on alcohol an...

Overall corporate tax burdens are actually higher in Britain and Eire than in France or Germany due to the greater number of allowances available in the latter two, supposedly “high-tax” states, which narrows the base upon which tax is levied considerably. This means tax harmonisation measures will have unpredictable effects which may not please those who advocate them most enthusiastically.
Trade within the single market. Tax competition is unfair, especially when it is used to lure busin...

Trade within the single market. Tax competition is unfair, especially when it is used to lure business from one EU state to another, as Eire has successfully done in the last decade, and as Britain arguably has done since its accession into the EU, undermine the principle of a single market. Economically inefficiencies also result, with industries locating in areas in which they have no real competitive advantage and perhaps stifling the development of businesses which would have a more secure long term future in that area, especially given the short-term fluctuations common in taxation policy.
Social Europe – Non-harmonised taxes mean tax competition, which will result in lower taxes everywhe...

Social Europe – Non-harmonised taxes mean tax competition, which will result in lower taxes everywhere as governments pander to business in an attempt to safeguard jobs. Countries such as France and Germany should not be forced to sacrifice their welfare states through such a process of beggar-my-neighbour competition. Ultimately all EU countries may be forced through a race to the bottom to have lower tax revenues than they need to secure the welfare spending their citizens would like.
Tax evasion is rendered much easier by tax competition between states in a single market, allowing u...

Tax evasion is rendered much easier by tax competition between states in a single market, allowing unscrupulous individuals and businesses to set up mazes of cross-border holding companies, shell companies, bank accounts, share holdings, proxy directorships, claims about value added during manufacture abroad, etc. Tax harmonisation would render the tax system much more transparent and thus make evasion much more difficult than at present.
Environmental taxes (e.g. on fuel, energy, emissions, etc.) and pro-health taxes (e.g. on alcohol an...

Environmental taxes (e.g. on fuel, energy, emissions, etc.) and pro-health taxes (e.g. on alcohol and tobacco) will only be effective within the single market if their levels are harmonised in the cause of the common good. Currently, governments’ attempts to meet their Kyoto targets and to improve the health of their citizens are undermined by cross-border tax competition. This is especially obvious near borders between EU countries, e.g. Northern Ireland and Eire petrol taxes, Britain and France petrol, tobacco and alcohol taxes.
Trade within the single market. Tax competition is unfair, especially when it is used to lure busin...

Governments within euro area have already given up two of the three main tools that they previously used to regulate their economy (control over their currency and inflation). The power to adjust taxes is now the only major means they have of stimulating or checking their national economy, giving up this power would risk economic disaster, especially given the one-policy-fits-all application of the euro to very different economies.States within the USA have different taxation policies within a single market, weakening claims that such competition weakens a single economic area.
All countries stand to gain overall from tax harmonisation, although individual measures may be unpa...

Democratic accountability is threatened by tax harmonisation. Arguments over differing levels of taxation and spending are often the issues that decide elections. Removing this power from national governments and ceding it to Brussels weakens accountability and distances citizens from decisions that affect their lives and jobs very closely. Different peoples may value different sorts of state, choosing between “Scandinavian” and “Anglo-Saxon” extremes in terms of taxation, welfare spending and egalitarianism; such choices are legitimate and removing such choice is undemocratic.