BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mental health of participants could be damaged

Of course, it is easy to jump on the band wagon and criticise this new big brother style program. The reality is though, that the people who participated found it very rewarding. As to the example of the children burning themselves, I am very sure that before entering the house the children were lectured in health and safety. I am also quite sure that naked flames would not be in the house. Therefore if a child did burn themselves it would be through touching a hot object, in which case it would be a short pain followed immediately withdrawing their hand from the object. Upon seeing this, the parents are a wall away and it would take them a matter of seconds to get to their child. This is more protection than a child gets in regular day life! A rewarding experience for all involved, including the viewer.
Reality TV forces ‘celebrities’ on the public

On the other hand, those who are arguably ‘talentless’ appear on reality TV shows and make themselves a fortune. Who are we too argue? Maybe it is their good business sense to run to a tabloid after eating a witchetty grub and the newspaper obliges. Despite what anyone thinks, they have made themselves a few million from their fifteen minutes of fame. Maybe it was all worth eating a kangaroo testicle.
'That' racial argument

As much as we do not want to admit it, unfortunately racism does still exist in our society. This argument indicates that racism is still alive and kicking; what damage it can do to the individuals involved along with everyone else and how television and the rest of society can and should fight against it. Moreover, it brought the debate about racism to the fore and to the masses. Internet forums were full of people discussing what was and was not racism. This dicussion helped educate many people who weren't aware they might have been causing offence. In addition, we should remember that Shilpa Shetty won Celebrity Big Brother that year, in part, no doubt, because Britons wanted to show we weren't all racist. So by showing the comments of the few we were able to see they weren't shared by - in fact were abhored by - the many. This has to be a good thing.
People have died in connection with reality TV

There have been thousands of people that have participated in reality TV shows; of course some will be unstable. In most of the reported deaths, the link between the suicide and the reality TV program is tedious. In the example provided about ‘Extreme Makeover’, the suicide happened four months after being told she would not receive the makeover. The sister of the woman who committed suicide on this occasion was bipolar. This leaves open the possibility that mental health issues ran in the family. Surely this is a stronger link as to why this woman committed suicide as opposed to it being the fault of the realty TV program. One of the other reported deaths through reality TV was the death of a television producer who committed suicide after appearing on a reality TV show. However, once again, there was another reason behind the scenes, she was an anorexic. I am sure if we looked closely at all the cases, we would see the real reasons for their tragic deaths instead of using reality TV as a scapegoat.
Many reality TV shows are distasteful

Distasteful to who exactly? The prude British nation? This is the crowd that reality TV was created to fight against. It is designed to expose human nature for what it really is. It is meant to be different. If the actions of the people on these shows offend you, then it shows that you cannot accept reality, what happens on Britain’s streets day in and day out. Yes, a lucky donee had to be chosen to receive a kidney; doctors do this sort of selection everyday. And if the government were not able to find a kidney for the people who needed it, why is it so wrong that a reality TV show gave someone the opportunity to choose who their organs go to? It is meant to be heart warming. But the old, conservative cynics among you want to criticise anything which breaks against stiff upper lip Britain.
Reality TV is ‘good for business’

According to a survey conducted in 2007, the popularity of entrepreneurial reality television programmes – such as The Apprentice and Dragons’ Den – is good for business! Biddy Financial Services found that 42% of bosses of enterprises believed that these programmes inspired a new generation to go into business for themselves and have seen their own staff develop more ambition (1). (1) http://www.businesshighstreet.com/news/18152705/Reality+TV+is+good+for+business
Embarassment for participants

Reality TV shows do feature members of the public who volunteer to appear in such programmes. If you have seen the programme before, you pretty much know what to expect. However, the unexpected occurred in a show aired by Sky One in ‘Find me a Man’ where half a dozen fit young men competed for the attentions of a glamorous woman in a mansion in Ibiza. Little did they know that the ‘glamorous woman’ was in fact a man. Viewers appear to love to laugh at the misfortunes of others (those poor souls on X Factor…), yet can you imagine the embarrassment these men would have to endure when they returned home? The six threatened to sue Sky for defamation in 2003 for breach of contract, personal injury and conspiracy to commit sexual assault (because several of them had kissed and cuddled her) (1). Maybe Sky should have thought first of the embarrassment and degradation they may cause their participants before the potential for ratings. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3237797.stm
Some reality TV shows are just good fun

What makes reality television so gripping is the way we get to see other people’s lives and how different they are compared to our own – we are not going to get that from Emmerdale or Eastenders! Reality television shows how people react to different situations and as an audience get to see how it all pans out. The viewers do love when celebrities get involved. These are the people that we watch on television everyday, the people we listen to on the radio, the people who read the news and run our country. As humans, we love watching celebrities out of their comfort zone; away from the stylists, luxury and comfort. Television has to appear to all kinds of people and reality television is one aspect that has proved to be popular. Many of these shows do not offend or embarrass anyone and are simply good fun.
Mental health of participants could be damaged

With the inevitable crash and burn of Big Brother on the way, Channel 4 is making a new show similar to it to fill the void. Baby Brother (1) will see a house filled with children aged 8 to 11, who will live alone for two weeks and will not be able to see their parents unless something goes wrong. Does anyone else spot the flaw in this plan? It takes an 8 year-old to burn himself and has to wait for his parents to come whilst the whole nation watches? Not only is it distasteful and frankly disgusting, what kind of concerned parent lets their child leave their sight for two weeks? It is completely ridiculous. The children who have been forced by their parents to be involved in such an experiment will surely be scarred for life. (1) http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/reality-tv/baby-brother-has-channel-4-gone-too-far/
Reality TV forces ‘celebrities’ on the public

The general public are frankly getting sick of the world of ‘celebrity’. Not only that, but are being constantly bombarded with idiots who achieved fame by pleasuring pigs and Calum Best (congratulations, Rebecca Loos). Plus, they are making millions out of doing so by selling their stories to tabloid newspapers. The aforementioned Miss Loos made herself £1.15 million from selling her story to the News of the World (1). Now, if that isn’t reality tv going too far, then I do not know what is. (1) http://money.aol.co.uk/rich-lists/reality-tvs-celebrity-rich-list/article/20070607061609990001
'That' racial argument

It was possibly the widest publicised racial argument in the world’s history. It was splashed across the cover of every newspaper printed; causing uneasiness between world leaders and sparking more than 3,500 complaints sent to Channel 4 (1). Shilpa Shetty endured endless bullying about aspects of her culture, particularly her accent, by housemates Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jo O’Meara. Jade Goody’s mother, who also entered the house, refused to call Shilpa by her name, instead referring to her as ‘The Indian’. The arguments that erupted in the house led to effigies of Big Brother producers being burned in the streets in India where Shilpa is a popular household name. It was even the subject of discussion at Government level and India’s trade minister warned Gordon Brown that the spat was damaging relations. Big Brother aired arguments that offended thousands and thousands of people, yet still returns for more. Additionally, this year, thousands of Indians got to watch Jade being diagnosed with cancer on the Indian version of the show. Reality TV is simply out of control. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6265127.stm
People have died in connection with reality TV

Makeover shows are a different kind of reality TV: we watch stylists such as the brilliant Gok Wan ‘makeover’ women who lacked confidence in their physical image and turn them into what society would consider beautiful. Many of them do go away happy and the public are happy as a result. But some do go wrong to the point that people have died in relation to the reality TV show. ‘Extreme Makeover’ (1), encouraged family members to mock the appearance of their relative before she underwent her makeover. The night before her life-changing surgery, Hollywood producers dumped Mrs Williams and sent her back to Texas in distress. Not only was Mrs Williams distraught, but her sister actually committed suicide after attacking her image on the show. Some may argue that this is a one-off; that it is due to the personality of the person who participates, but Mrs William’s sister was the fifth suicide in connection with reality TV. (1) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article568583.ece
Many reality TV shows are distasteful

Even the most avid viewer of reality TV shows will be disgusted by some shows that are aired all over the world. A TV channel in the Netherlands is to broadcast a programme where a terminally ill woman will pick someone to receive her kidneys. Two heterosexual men were to appear in a show where they had to persuade friends, relatives and strangers that they were, in fact, gay. Up to 20,000 people applied to take part in a series which would have seen ten men stranded with forty lapdancers – with no touching allowed. Thankfully, this was an elaborate joke. The Fox network took people who were adopted, put them before a line-up of strangers and asked them to pick their real father and won £50,000 if they spotted their parent. Not only does these ridiculous programmes offend the morals of society, it is just plain distasteful.
Confidence

If people would stop tiring their skin with frequent hair removal and harmful cosmetic applications; a natural glow appears. The glow of healthy beautiful skin that no cosmetic product can bring out. And this skin is relaxed,happy,bare and beautiful. The taste of the sun basking on your skin cannot be matched with rays filtered with foundation/concealer/sunblock/sunscreen. Counter: What about the stress of not doing it right? of being told you look horrible? All these fashion gurus, notoriously promote low self esteem and tarnish self image leading to a variety of indirect health problems. Coupled with the directly adverse effects these products have on our skin; this is unacceptable.
While heavy makeup isn't encouraged ; having no makeup on is also considered to be unprofessional for working women.

Being clean, looking prim and proper, dressing in smart conservative clothes is very possible without make up on. Pulling one's hair back is not the hardest thing. And most women get into trouble for showing off our figures(both deep necks and turtlenecks draw attention to the torso) or looking too sexy/attractive for the workplace. It should depend on where you work.
Almost everybody with a permanent tattoo wants to remove it at some point, causing even greater problems than the initial application did.

Entirely removing a tattoo is impossible. Tattoo removal always leaves scars(mainly Keloids) [[http://www.everytattoo.com/healthrisks.shtml]] People get bored of their tattoos; trends change,people get fat/skinny/fair/dark/pimply. There is an artificiality to it that can weigh on you pressuring you to empty your pockets for removal and even then get less than satisfactory results. Some tattooists are not as good as others; sometimes pigment spills; causing a blurred look, at other times people don't like the pattern on their skin.
Bald spots

[[http://www.baldingblog.com/2006/01/19/eyebrow-hair-loss-2/]] Women who excessively pluck/thread and therefore harangue their eyebrows can lose them all together. This weird obsession is dictated by the mass media of our zeitgeist, some people go as far as stating that eyebrows are unclean/unhygienic(the way ancient Egyptians felt about hair); and it makes me wish I was an adult in the eighties. [[http://www.baldingblog.com/2006/07/24/what-causes-missing-facial-hair/]] bald spots can be indicative of cancer. Also methods such as laser treatments/plucking/bleaching done frequently enough, to be permanent cause adverse health consequences in the long run.
90% of us reportedly share expired makeup

Which increases the risk of infection/scratching/damage tenfold. Sharing make up means sharing bacteria. Using the same blush-on/mascara for years means consistent exposure to your bacteria. dried-up/hard/expired makeup is bad for your skins/eyes/etc for obvious reasons. [[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hanging+on+to+that+favourite+lipstick+is+a+health+hazard.-a0164395086]]
Animal-products, alcohol and their derivates are not good for the skin

Point to Muslims: most make-up is not halal; a very small limited range of halal makeup products has recently been introduced by one business woman. She claims that most makeup products contain pork derivatives. Many animal rights' activists are also against this old but previously unnoticed practice. [[http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=4586]] What research have you done? She seems to be expanding her business through the B.B.C and other sources that I feel are reliable. You on the other hand...
Wealth creation does not prevent redistribution to the poor at the same time.

Even if the encouragement of wealth creation is directed at areas that can help the poorest they will not be effective at redistributing wealth. In industry most profit will always go to the bosses, who are already rich, while in agriculture corrupt local politicians will demand a larger share and more taxes from the resulting wealth. China is a good example of this happening, corruption has soared and industry created large profits while depressing wages as much as possible. The wealth may help those at the bottom but they should be gaining a lot more. Even China recognises this inequality may be a bigger challenge than wealth creation. Min Zhu The increase in inequality is the most serious challenge for the world... I don’t think the world is paying enough attention. Min, currently at the IMF, was previously deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China.[[Philip Aldrick, Davos WEF 2011: Wealth inequality is the "most serious challenge for the world", The Telegraph, 26/1/11, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/8283310/Davos-WEF-2011-Wealth-inequality-is-the-most-serious-challenge-for-the-world.html%5D%5D
Wealth creation does not prevent redistribution to the poor at the same time.

What poor countries need is broad based development that helps everyone and not just the rich. Often the people in the poorest nations are reliant upon agriculture to provide for subsistence farming while the elite siphon of large amounts of government income and rely on money from natural resources such as diamonds or oil. Even when this does lead to more wealth (such as when the price of raw materials are high) it does not provide balanced growth. The governments of such poor countries should be aiming to increase the productivity of farms to bring the subsistence farmers out of poverty and encourage industry so as to provide other options for work. Growth that is focused on the poor can result in income distribution declining at the same time as creating wealth. China has been a good example of poverty reduction. The Chinese government laid the foundations for rapid economic growth, around 10% per year for the last thirty years. Thus 31% of population were living in poverty in 1970’s today it is 2.8%, meaning there were 400 million fewer people living in extreme poverty in 2001 than 20 years previously.[[ Fighting Poverty: Findings and Lessons from China’s Success, World Bank, http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:20634060~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:469382,00.html]] with Human Development Index Ranking in 1991, of 101st (out of 177 countries) which rose to 85th in 2005. While at the same time the difference between rural and urban per capita income rose from 824 yuan in 1990 to 5,850 in 2003 and China’s Gini coefficient rose from 0.3 to 0.45 from 1982 to 2002 with it continuing to rise.[[content.undp.org/go/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=1399501]] Surely pulling those millions out of poverty is worth a corresponding increase in inequality?
Redistribution is a moral anathema.

Taxation is simply the price paid for the maintenance of a stable society, which prevents real theft. Redistribution is not only state philanthropy but a prop to the social order, capitalism's fig leaf if you like, to prevent revolution and hence much greater theft! Also much of the rich are in fact not earning the money the 'earn' they get said money from taking advantage of others and basically stealing natural resources of which they have no right or even just being lucky enough to be born into rich families the rich often have more than they need and it is merely humane to help those in more need, what should happen is that the rich should give willingly to those worse off however this has been proven not to happen. A mistake in the opposing assertion is that all of George's taxes go to the poor. A hefty portion of his taxes go to the construction of roads and the national defense. George cannot build his own roads nor hire his own army- but he and millions of others, when their money is pooled, can achieve both of these things, along with tons of other things that come ahead of welfare.
Redistribution is a moral anathema.

Redistribution of wealth is legalized theft. If a George earns $150,000/year and 50,000 of that is redistributed to the poor, it is no different than if George was not taxed at all and 5 low income families broke into his house and stole 50,000 dollars worth of his belongings. Some think that redistribution is a good idea because they assume that because the rich have wealth, they don't need more. Because they have earned their wealth, to remove it in order to give to others is simply theft.
No, but redistribution is also important for the sake of social stability

Without wealth creation there would be nothing to distribute, so it is is important. However :- We need to distinguish between those who genuinely create wealth and those who get wealth by skimming a percentage off of other people's wealth creation. Even the most dynamic entrepreneur did not do it by themselves. Key employees in very small companies risk almost as much as the owners, and this should be recognised with things like profit sharing schemes. Entrepreneurs would not get far without the person who empties their dustbins. We live in a very interconnected world. Reliable services and availlability of well educated, well motivated staff are crucial. Creating wealth can bring rewards in terms of a better standard of living for the individual and his/her family. It does not follow that the wealth should automatically be retained by heirs down the generations, for ever more. Each new generation should have to make their own contribution anew if the wealth is to be sustained and grown. We should therefore have both Inheritance Tax and a Wealth Tax to progressively reduce unfair and unjustified levels of inherited wealth. Pay rates for different levels of job need to be fairer. At the moment in the UK, the top few percent get too much, and most low level jobs get too little. If the well off do not start to share a little more, they may well have to learn to live behind high walls and barbed wire fences as they often do in Latin America, as disorder spreads through the rest of society. Finally, we need to stop elevating Capitalism to the status of a religion. We have recently lived through a period when many in the Financial Services world made complete fools of themselves. The system would probably have fallen over completely were it not for the taxpayers of Europe and the USA. We need to re-establish that Democracy under the Law is the supreme authority in our society, and that the proper function of Financiers is as a "Service" to wealth creation.
The Commonwealth professes high ideas but fails to live up to them. Despite the pious words of the ...

Failure to currently fulfil high ideals does not invalidate an organisation which seeks to strive towards them. The Commonwealth is helping to establish democracy and respect for human rights as international norms, and countries which have seriously repudiated these have faced sanctions and expulsion (e.g. at varying times Pakistan, South Africa and Nigeria) until they have begun to change for the better. Countries wishing to embark upon political reform gain a great deal of support from the Commonwealth; this is made even more valuable by the fact that most Commonwealth states share similar parliamentary and legal systems in the Westminster tradition.
The Commonwealth is a sham as its members always pursue their own self-interest when it conflicts wi...

It may be true that the developed nations in the Commonwealth, such as Britain, are able to ignore the other members from time to time. Nonetheless, it acts as a forum for them to seriously commit attention and resources to the problems of the developing world and this in turn affects their actions in global bodies, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation. The real winners from the Commonwealth are the smallest and least developed nations, who can use its formal and informal channels to win bilateral trade deals, development assistance and support in international negotiations.
In practice the Commonwealth is ineffectual. It is indecisive, dithering for years about imposing ev...

Proceeding by consensus and through moral suasion are always open to accusations of weakness, but the Commonwealth has never pretended to be a powerful organisation for enforcing international norms - and many of its members would never have joined it in the first place if it did. Instead the Commonwealth works through constructive engagement, encouraging its members to aspire to high standards of human rights and democratic accountability and running programmes which educate their citizens in these concepts. Action has been taken in the past against the worst transgressors and is all the more effective for being rare.
The Commonwealth is a pointless legacy of the British Empire, which serves only to bolster Britain’s...

The Commonwealth is a pointless legacy of the British Empire, which serves only to bolster Britain’s sense of importance in the world and to make it appear that its monarch still has a role in the modern world. Yet the British Empire was founded upon colonial aggression and exploitation and should be repudiated, rather than celebrated in diluted form through the continuity the Commonwealth symbolises. International organisations should be truly global and progressive, rather than culturally anglo-centric and backward looking.