BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
expensive

On top of the horrid health risks that are involved with smoking cigarettes, the cost of being a smoker is pretty hefty and might surprise the majority of people. To be a smoker not only do you have to pay weekly,you have to get yourself the right amount of expensive packs but the insurance bill of a smoker will cost more than that of a non-smoker. As you ca see a smoker a much greater chance of having health risks as mentioned above. Let,s say that you smoked one pack of Camel cigarettes a day. The pack cost $4.50, multiplied by the days in a month equals $135.00 a month, multiplied by 12 months equals $1620 a year. That is money that can be used for a better education especially for people going to college. Even agencies the cover insurance may not even cover your cost of being a smoker just because they have a smaller chance at having to spend any money on there. For example, a person that smokes will have high blood pressure and have much more frequent doctor visits and will expect his insurance to pay all the time. But the conpany will lose money if they decide to do that. So they may just decide not to cover people who are smokers with health risks.
Eliminates a public health menace

Let's face facts smoking is a public health hazard whether it's passive or done directly. With regard to smoking the damage done to lungs and other internal organs in the form of cancer and other diseases is well documented , not to mention premature aging. Passive smoking also causes problems in that as well as causing lung disease and heart cancer if done over a long time, it also reducing the functions of lungs of people with asthma as well as causing eye problems and increased sensitivity.[[ASH "Smoking and disease" http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_94.pdf Accessed 19.06.09]] . All of this costs the National Health Service an estimated £2.7 billion in try to deal with all the smoking related illnesses as well as hitting the UK workforce in terms of lost productivity.[[http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf]] It's a dangerous drug and it's high time it was treated as a narcotic and banned So if someone was to go around poisoning peoples foods so the person dies, they would go to jail. Also, if someone tried commiting suicide, they would try to be stopped. Well everyday, thousands of people are slowly committing suicide! Helllloooo! The tobacco companies are poisoning people just to make money!! I'm 15 and have cancer and my dad smokes and I just want it to stop. Do you want brain tumors or black lungs? Putting your kids at risk? Do you want your hair to slowly fall out while you realize you have a risk of death? What if you had to watch your baby go through cancer? The little pleasure smoking gives you is not worth somebodys life.
Africa on show

It is not all good publicity. There has been a lot of publicity about townships in poverty right next to swanky new the swanky new stadia. There has also been a lot of worry about the crime rate including rape and 50 murders a day. To reduce the increasing pressure to take action on violent crime before the World Cup South Africa's chief of police told Sky News that his officers should kill criminals if they came under attack. Which itself will probably not have been good for South Africa’s image. A British company has even begun marketing a 2010 stab-proof vest for worried football fans visiting the South Africa. And finally like the Chinese in the Beijing Olympics they may have to deal with journalists looking at other areas such as South Africa’s poor record on pressurising Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe.
Africa on show

Hosting the world cup has immense benefits in showing off South Africa and the African continent more generally. It is a moment for South Africa like the first free and fair for all democratic elections on 27th April 1994 that will be remembered for decades by those who are a part of it. Africa is usually seen as a place of poverty, wars, famine and dictators who often inflict horrible human rights abuses on their long suffering people. The only good image that we regularly see from Africa is of its wildlife, often with an equally bad side of poaching and loss of habitat as is the case all over the world. This means that the world cup is a rare good news story. The world’s eyes will be fixed on South Africa for something that will hopefully leave a good impression on both those who are in the country to see the games and those billions who are watching the games on TV from around the world. This can hopefully help change perceptions from the usual negative perception to a much more positive version. Zimbabwe Tourism Authority’s Chief Executive Karikoga Kaseke says Zimbabwe has a similar goal for the world cup "Our objective is to rebuild the image of this country through 2010, and you can't put a monetary value on that."
Beneficial for African companies

It is not beneficial for Africa, it is instead a sanitized event that is tailored for the big multinationals who take all the advertising and splash their names over everything they can. Are there many big African companies being showcased? It is mostly brands like Coca-Cola, Kia, Nike etc. African companies barely get a look in and the event is policed well to make sure that no companies that have not been recognised by FIFA get airtime, can sell their drinks etc. This corporate branding may be great for the world cup and FIFA but it does not help South Africa or Africa in general at all. Indeed even the small things are being done by sponsors and foreign companies. Local traders have been barred from selling food, drinks and merchandise and even the mascot is manufactured by a Chinese company rather than a South African one. Even the expectations of tourists going to other African countries are not proving to be correct. According Rainbow Tourism Group Chief Executive, Chipo Mutasa “Unfortunately there has not been much business that has been generated other than the excitement we had here over the trip by Brazilian team. We have not seen any increase in business as a result of the 2010 World Cup and this has been a great disappointment to the industry at large.”
Beneficial for African companies

The world cup is potentially valuable for African companies. Africa is known for its production of raw materials, well building stadia and transport infrastructure requires raw materials. South African companies can get their adverts noticed on a global stage and some such as its largest bank FNB. It is not just South Africa that hopes to benefit but the whole of the continent. For some countries this may be unlikely but for South Africa’s neighbours it is more likely. Zimbabwe had a friendly match with Brazil in Harare and it along with other neighbours: Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland and Mozambique hope to gain more adventurist fans coming to see some of the world cup along with Africa.
Unequal ticketing

Africans are not the ones benefiting from getting to see the World Cup due to the price of the tickets meaning that many cannot afford it. Africa is the world’s poorest continent so the majority will probably not even be able to watch what is supposed to be ‘Africa’s world cup’. Tickets were first sold online despite less than 10% of South Africans having internet access. This is only 6.7% for Africans as a whole and there are many of the poorest African countries with less than 1% access. Of the 3 million tickets available, less than 100,000 have been sold in Africa. It is grossly unfair that Africans should be so excluded from their own world cup.
Financially costly for the hosts

There are however some financial benefits as well. It is expected to add $2.7billion to South Africa’s GDP. This will mostly be through the influx of fans to see the games. They will all be paying to get to South Africa and then for transport to see individual games within South Africa. Then there is also the benefits to local tourist industries as fans, who in such a long tournament may stay for the month long length of the tournament or more, will probably see the sites at the same time and finally all these people need to eat and will most likely drink rather a lot so benefiting restaurants, bars, clubs etc. To take Germany as an example In the 15 FIFA Fan Fest sites, the areas for travelling fans watching on big screens, throughout Germany during the 2006 tournament, over 3.5m hot dogs and 4m litres of beer were consumed by over 18m visitors. Over 19 000 staff were employed as a direct result of FIFA’s Fan Fest sites as well as creating the opportunity for official shops to make millions of pounds in revenue through the sale of official licensed products.
Financially costly for the hosts

There are a lot of financial costs to hosting the world cup and it is not FIFA who foot the bill but rather it is the host nation who promises the earth and then needs to work out how to deliver on what it has promised to win the tournament to its shores. What is worse is that almost all big sporting events seem to have the cost to host them initially underestimated, possible to be able to sell them to the public, and then spiral when there is no getting out of hosting the event. This has been the case in South Africa. The South African Public Service Commission puts the cost at Transport - $1.2bn, Stadiums - $1.12bn, Organising committee - $428m, Broadcasting/ICT - $387m, Ports of entry - $200m, Security - $89m, Legacy projects - $45m, Telecommunications - $40m, Arts and culture - $20m, Training volunteers - $3m making a Total cost of $3.5bn. But this may well be underestimating the real cost as South Africa’s infrastructure program in the run up to the World Cup was $52 billion including $9.1 billion in the roads, $2 billion in railways and $2.4 billion in Airports.
Scarce public resources.

The problem is not just the amount of financial cost of the event but that it could have been spent much more helpfully elsewhere. There is a large opportunity cost to hosting the world cup. South Africa is a country with pockets of wealth and a large amount of poverty. South Africa’s Gini Coefficient has risen from 0.66 in 1993 to 0.70 in 20008, where 1 is perfectly unequal. This shows that inequality has been growing and needs to be tackled. Unemployment is around 40%. So why has not all that money gone in to schemes to train the unemployed and get them back to work, or to encourage businesses to set up or come in to South Africa? Instead it has gone on a vanity project that benefits the wealthy most.
Women in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities ...

There is nothing wrong with judging people primarily on their physical prowess - we do this all the time in competitive sport, where fitness and strength are major determinants of success. Every competition, of every kind, values certain qualities over others - we recognise that being able to lift heavy weights isn’t the prime definition of human worth, but we can still give prizes for weightlifting; similarly, we can give a prize to a beautiful woman for her beauty without implying that beauty is all that matters about anyone.
Women in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities ...

Women in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities they may possess (the existence of a ‘talent’ element in many such contests is all very well, but ugly women simply aren’t going to win). Judging women, but not men, primarily on their looks contributes to the subjugation of women because other qualities, such as intelligence, are not seen as part of ideal femininity and therefore not as things to which women should aspire. Ideal masculinity, while in itself potentially damaging to men, tends to be construed in much wider and less restrictive terms - it is notable that male beauty contests, judging men on their physical appearance, are much less popular than female ones.
The image of female beauty promoted by beauty contests is culturally specific and western - it doesn...

Beauty contests, like sport, can be an important focus of national or regional pride. Despite the declining popularity of competitions such as Miss World in the UK, they hold an important cultural place in many parts of the world. The victories in recent years of Miss India, Miss Turkey and Miss Nigeria in Miss World competitions made many Indians, Turks and Nigerians proud, and were seen as symbolic of those countries’ progress in competing with more powerful countries on their own terms.
The image of female beauty promoted by beauty contests is culturally specific and western - it doesn...

The image of female beauty promoted by beauty contests is culturally specific and western - it doesn’t matter how many Asian women win Miss World, they can still only do so if they take part in the swimsuit competition, which may well not be considered appropriate dress in their culture. There were demonstrations against Miss World by feminists and Hindu nationalists when it was held in Bangalore in 1996. Riots in Kaduna in northern Nigeria over Miss World 2002 left more than 200 dead and led to the contest being moved to London.
Beauty contests fail to challenge harmful political attitudes to women. Despite paying lip-service ...

In a society in which women really are valued on the basis of their looks, and in which there really are fewer opportunities for women than for men, beauty contests give women a chance to get noticed and to improve their situations. Winning a beauty contest can be a route to success. Many Hollywood actresses, such as Halle Berry, Michelle Pfeiffer and Sharon Stone, are former beauty queens who simply would not have had the opportunities they have had without the beauty contests they won. In addition, the winners of high-profile beauty contests are able to publicise charities and causes they feel strongly about - they have a public platform they could not otherwise have gained.
Beauty contests fail to challenge harmful political attitudes to women. Despite paying lip-service ...

Beauty contests fail to challenge harmful political attitudes to women. Despite paying lip-service to feminist keywords such as empowerment and self-confidence, they do nothing concrete to aid the liberation of women; indeed, by reinforcing looks as the most important feminine quality, they harm women’s liberation in general. The fact that the organisers of Miss World 2002 had no problem with holding the contest in Nigeria at the same time as a high-profile case in which a woman was due to be stoned for adultery exposes the competition’s hypocrisy; it was only relocated after rioting made it unsafe to hold it in Nigeria.
Dont blame the food.

A lot of lazy parents blame food when it was never a problem years ago when pie n mash and fry ups and fish n chips were the staple diet, and to which contained more calories than a big mac or mc donalds. Why do people blame something else instead of themselves. Get them out walking or playing instead of feeding them while they play on a video or pc game. Refrain from giving them lifts everywhere, let them walk. Stop doing EVERYTHING for them, let them do it themselves so they learn also, otherwise it is a form of abuse.
Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year

Prosecution could be damaging for the child. If they are aware that their parents are in 'trouble' because they are overweight, this could cause psychological problems for the child. Feelings such as guilt, worthlessness and an unhappy body image may occur. These could last well into adulthood and are far more difficult to rectify than a weight problem. Nearly all of weight related illness occurs during adulthood, when it is the responsibility of the overweight person to take action upon their own bodies. Whilst parents can influence and encourage children to pick up healthy eating habits, they cannot be held accountable later in life when the children have grown up. By this point they must take responsibility for themselves. We should be educating and helping families not punishing them. Blame is very unproductive and solves nothing. We need to understand the origins of the child's weight problem in order to gain better understanding, enabling the parent to help their child, not punish them. It can not be clearly proven that a child's weight problem is entirely down to nurture over nature therefore there is no clear evidence which would allow prosecution to occur.
Ignoring the countless warnings about the dangers surrounding obesity is neglect and neglecting a child is a prosecutable offence

Although there are warnings for the dangers, a parent may not necessarily be ignoring these but rather they do not know how to implement changes (see above). It is a very black and white portrayal to say that an overweight child is a sign of neglect. There are numerous factors which contribute to a child's weight which are not a result of parental neglect. Firstly, children spend up to half of their days at school. The food choices that they make during this time are not down to the parent but the child themselves. Even if a parent provides a healthy packed lunch, the child may choose to swap items, or to supplement the lunch with items from vending machines. Schools too then need to take responsibility for the health of children as they are in charge of them during the day. The child may also be in the care of a child minder after school, and may even have their evening meals here. Whilst the parent can try their best to guide the child minder on what to feed them, if they can not be there it is out of their hands.
Its not in the genes.

It is not in the genes unless possibly because the parents have always been fat. It was never an issue til about 30 yrs ago when parents started to get lazy, and in so doing allowed the kids to eat when and what they wanted without any form of excercise. One child I knew was driven everywhere and when not at school his meals and snacks were taken to him in his bedroom where he played on games all day and night. What sort of life is that ? it is abuse and it is happening in too many households. There was only one fat person at my school because we walked everywhere and played outside.
Ignoring the countless warnings about the dangers surrounding obesity is neglect and neglecting a child is a prosecutable offence

Nowadays there are so many warnings about the dangers of obesity that if a parent ignores these warnings it is out of choice. If a parent ignores any danger that could affect their child’s health then they are guilty of neglect and should be prosecutable offence. From experience, I can say that the problem is not as much ignoring the warnings as it is a failure to control the child. Parents are not so ignorant of the medical maladies because they do see and hear the warnings. But many parents are unable to deny their children. They see the obesity as less threatening than the possibility of losing the "affection" of the child. Parents typically do not want to be the "bad guy" who must enforce the rules of positive values and will, in more cases than not, allow the child to maintain a poor diet and eat too often. I am the stepfather of a mildly autistic male who is now 20 years old and roughly 380 lbs. I've seen this played out in person and I can confidently state that, until this allowance of bad vaules is changed, this problem will run even more rampantly. If parents are unwilling or simply unable to make the necessary changes then, perhaps it is time for the legal system to step in...they would if the child were being physically abused. I maintain that the outright allowance of obesity and its many maladies IS physical abuse and should be dealt with appropriately.
Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle

Those studies have been refuted with more recent research that proves that eating habits are the main true cause of obesity at any age. ????????????????? eating habits with no excercise yes but there was more calorise in bread and dripping and fish and chips than there is in a mcdonalds,fact. Folk do not walk anywhere now, they do very little now so eat through bordom. A fit person can eat MORE than an obese person because they burn it off, fact, and proven myself personally. It is not the food it is idleness.
Parents need to understand what constitutes as a healthy lifestyle

It is very difficult for parents to understand what precisely is meant by a healthy diet and therefore we should not consider parents to be the prominent cause of harm. Products can easily be marketed as healthy by using wording such as 'honest' and 'reduced fat'. It can be very easy for parents to believe they are doing the right thing by buying 'reduced fat' snacks. Mass corporations need to take responsibility for the obesity crisis as they manipulate a parents view of healthy. Therefore parents may find it difficult to understand what constitutes as healthy and may have already acknowledged their child has a problem which they do not know how to resolve. A better solution would involve mass corporations portraying a true, unified understanding of a healthy diet.
Elections only come around every four years or so, allowing unethical or incompetent politicians to ...

Elections only come around every four years or so, allowing unethical or incompetent politicians to do a lot of damage in office before facing the judgement of their constituents. And after three years or so, many voters may have forgotten about their offending behaviour, allowing them to get away with it. In any case, regular elections seldom focus on the record of one particular candidate for a legislature, but are a referendum on their party as a whole. If their party remains popular, or if their seat is a safe one, then incompetent and unethical politicians will often be re-elected regardless of their personal failings.
The power of recall is an important part of a fully democratic system. If sovereignty is truly popu...

Recall systems undermine representative democracy, in which citizens choose elected representatives to take decisions on their behalf. Accountability is ensured by regular elections, but in between these citizens should trust their representatives to exercise their judgement responsibly. Many policies may require unpopular short-term pain (in the form of higher taxes, spending cuts, new laws that restrict personal behaviour, etc), in order to achieve a longer-term benefit. For these reasons it is natural for voters to suffer “buyers’ remorse” but dangerous to allow them to act on it – politicians constantly looking over their shoulders in fear of recall petitions will never dare to undertake necessary but painful reforms. We should only judge representatives on their overall record after several years in power.
Recall elections need not be vulnerable to abuse. For a start, in a democracy we must trust the peo...

Recall procedures can be very easily abused. In marginal seats they can just be a way for sore losers to try to overturn a valid election result, leading to permanent campaigning at the expense of good government. Powerful private interests, such as rich lobby groups or media magnates can use their influence to attack politicians they dislike, promoting recall petitions to advance their own agendas. Even where there is genuine popular feeling against a representative, the minority who dislike him or her are likely to be more highly motivated than those who don’t object to his/her behaviour in office, which will distort any process based on obtaining signatures or turning out for a one-off vote without national implications.