BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bad diet can lead to childhood obesity, and other problems caused by unhealthy eating such as poor c...

Bad diet can lead to childhood obesity, and other problems caused by unhealthy eating such as poor concentration, tooth decay and vitamin deficiencies. Schools can play a part in fighting these problems by providing healthy lunches in their canteens. Even if this is only one of the meals in a child’s day, schools can have a good effect on the overall diet of their students. If children are eating grilled chicken, vegetables and fruit at lunch rather than fried chicken, chips and cakes, that will have a positive effect on their health, and their schoolwork will improve too.
Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t...

Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools. Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for their children.
Schools can play an important role in combating obesity as people tend to get into habits about how ...

Schools need to teach pupils about how to make healthy choices and what makes a balanced diet. They need education on what’s good for you but then need to be given the chance to choose for themselves between an apple and a chocolate bar. Otherwise as soon as they’re out of school, they’ll still eat three chocolate bars because you haven’t changed their mindset. They may even eat more junk food on purpose as an act of rebellion. So schools should serve a range of food, not just salads and other “health foods”, in order to provide such a choice.
Giving the power to declare war to parliament would boost the morale of the armed forces by showing ...

Giving the power to declare war to parliament would boost the morale of the armed forces by showing them that the nation is clearly behind their work. Recent military deployments have often been highly controversial, with decisions made only within a very small circle of ministers and advisers. This can lead to the feeling that troops are fighting “Blair’s war”, rather than acting on behalf of the whole country. A clear mandate from the people’s elected representatives in parliament is therefore desirable.
Giving parliament the power to declare war need not involve MPs seeking to micromanage the campaign....

Giving parliament the power to declare war need not involve MPs seeking to micromanage the campaign. MPs (and their voters) greatly respect the professionalism of the armed forces and are not stupid enough to prevent them fighting a campaign in the best way possible. But the decision in principle to commit troops should be with elected representatives in the legislature. This need not be done through normal legislation, but instead by establishing a constitutional convention that parliament (probably the House of Commons) should pass a resolution committing the UK to military action.
Britain’s international commitments need not be damaged by a change in the power to declare war. Mo...

Britain’s international commitments need not be damaged by a change in the power to declare war. Most of our allies and partners already have a version of the proposed war powers act, and it does not hamper them from committing troops in support of their international commitments. But equally, we should not go to war just because of personal and secretive commitments between individual leaders, but because our representatives judge that it is clearly in the UK’s interest to do so. The expectations of our allies and the international consequences of refusing to commit troops will always weigh heavily on MPs when they consider military action, as they do with the Prime Minister now. In fact, there is a strong argument for also removing the prerogative power to sign international treaties from the Government and placing that in parliament as well. In that way our allies could be confident that Britain’s commitment to any alliance or possible military action really did command widespread domestic support.
Often military action would benefit from much greater thought about definition of objectives and pri...

Often military action would benefit from much greater thought about definition of objectives and priorities. At present military commanders regularly complain that their political masters have failed to set them clear aims, or that the resources made available to them are not adequate for the mission they have been given. The process of parliamentary debate would force the Government to identify and justify Britain’s real aims in a potential conflict, and focus public attention on the extent to which the armed forces are being supported in pursuit of those aims. If the government changed its aims, then it should have to return to parliament for a fresh resolution in support of that new policy.
The prerogative power to declare war is currently in hands of the Prime Minister alone. They can co...

The Prime Minister is not appointed by the monarch – that is a polite fiction symbolising the continuity of the British constitution. In reality the Prime Minister is appointed as Head of Government because he or she is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons. This means that their authority to make critical decisions, such as whether to go to war, already carries democratic legitimacy. And in practice, no Prime Minister would declare war against the will of a majority of MPs, as a parliamentary revolt could lead to a no confidence motion being passed, the Prime Minister losing office and their war policy being reversed.
In reality, sudden unexpected crises which require a rapid response are very rare. Conflicts are us...

The executive (the Prime Minister and their government) is always in business, able to make decisions at short notice when crises erupt. The legislature (parliament) sits for only about half the days each year, with an extended summer recess stretching well into the autumn. As military deployments often have be made at short notice (e.g. Sierra Leone, Gulf War), it makes no sense to take this power away from the Prime Minister and give it to parliament. Britain’s ability to respond quickly to a crisis would be greatly damaged if nothing could be done until MPs had been recalled and assembled to debate it. Our Government is given a democratic mandate to make decisions on our behalf; we should trust them to do so.\ \
Secrecy needs to be considered in any debate on going to war, but it need not be a bar to giving par...

The open process of parliamentary debate could be very damaging to military effectiveness. The success of operations often depends on the element of surprise, which would be entirely removed if the decision to declare war was taken away from the Prime Minister and given to over 600 MPs through televised debates. And if MPs are to debate the issues involved properly, then the secret intelligence available to the government will have to be made known to them. This could aid any enemy and greatly compromise British military planning by revealing the extent of our knowledge, and also risks exposing our intelligence services by allowing their methods and agents to be identified.
Giving the power to declare war to parliament would boost the morale of the armed forces by showing ...

Military morale could be damaged if parliament was given the power to declare war. The armed forces might resent military decisions being made by several hundred “amateurs” with little awareness of what combat involves. And the process of debate and division (voting) would reveal deep splits in political and popular opinion – how will troops feel if they know that not much more than 50% of the nation’s MPs back their mission? At least now the Prime Minister feels personal responsibility of any decision and can call upon expert advice from defence, intelligence and military sources. Because the Prime Minister has a clear electoral mandate to make life-and-death decisions, troops in the field know that the will of the nation is behind them.
Giving parliament the power to declare war need not involve MPs seeking to micromanage the campaign....

If parliament is given war-making powers, it is unlikely to stick simply to issues of principle. By attaching amendments and conditions to a vote to commit troops, MPs may seek to micromanage the campaign and second guess commanders in the field. For example, when voting for a peace-keeping mission they may attach mandates which prevent British troops responding if the situation on the ground deteriorates suddenly – as has happened with other countries’ deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse even than this, if war is declared by legislation then it can be picked apart in the courts as the precise meaning of individual clauses is contested on technical or human rights grounds. The interference of political and legal amateurs in the way a war is fought will make success less likely and will further damage morale.
Britain’s international commitments need not be damaged by a change in the power to declare war. Mo...

Britain’s multilateral commitments may be undermined by this proposal. When the UK joins an alliance or a coalition of states today, its partners know that its government is able to deliver militarily on its diplomatic commitments. This brings the UK great respect worldwide, as well as greater influence with its foreign partners when great decisions are to be made. Potential enemies are more effectively deterred because they know that our threats are not empty. All this will change if war powers are taken from the executive and given to parliament – everyone will always wonder if the Prime Minister will really be able to carry their commitments through in parliament. The problems of relying on other European countries for effective troop deployment in Afghanistan points to the dangers of giving elected representatives too much say in operational matters.
Often military action would benefit from much greater thought about definition of objectives and pri...

In theory giving war powers to parliament sounds a nice idea, but in the real world it would be disastrous. It is impossible to arrive at neat legal definitions of different sorts of military action. In fact, the last time Britain actually declared war was in 1942 (on Siam, now Thailand, for allying with Japan) – but British troops have fought major operations on numerous occasions in the last sixty years, including four times under Tony Blair. On the ground a reconstruction mission can quickly turn to peace-making (e.g. Sierra Leone); a peace-keeping exercise can rapidly become active warfare (e.g. Bosnia, perhaps Darfur). Should the commander on the ground wait for fresh orders as the situation deteriorates?
The prerogative power to declare war is currently in hands of the Prime Minister alone. They can co...

The prerogative power to declare war is currently in hands of the Prime Minister alone. They can consult Cabinet, but they don’t have to; they can consult parliament, but they don’t have to. This prerogative is an outdated remnant of the traditional powers of the Crown, delegated since the 18th century to their appointed Prime Ministers. It is now time the power to declare war was taken away from the Prime Minister and given to the people’s elected representatives in parliament. After Tony Blair chose to consult parliament before committing troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, a precedent for the involvement of parliament was established. This should now be made a formal future requirement for any future military deployment.
In reality, sudden unexpected crises which require a rapid response are very rare. Conflicts are us...

In reality, sudden unexpected crises which require a rapid response are very rare. Conflicts are usually predictable well in advance and so the deployment of troops can be debated, at least in principle, in parliament ahead of time - as was done in 2002 and 2003. When sudden crises arise, a War Powers Act could allow the Executive to act swiftly and send troops while parliament is recalled. The USA’s system gives the President power to act in such circumstances, but they have to seek Congress’s approval of their actions within 60 days. This allows for a flexible response but ensures that the executive is fully accountable for their actions to the people’s representatives, which is not the case at present.
Secrecy needs to be considered in any debate on going to war, but it need not be a bar to giving par...

Secrecy needs to be considered in any debate on going to war, but it need not be a bar to giving parliament the final decision. The general issues are always well known in advance, and this would allow parliament to make a decision in principle on whether war might be justified. Sensitive information could be withheld, or revealed only under controlled circumstances (in private sittings of the House of Commons, or just to the front bench spokesmen for each of the main political parties).
Poverty and inequality must be reduced not only in Western countries, but also in less economically ...

Poverty and inequality must be reduced not only in Western countries, but also in less economically developed states, where a minimum wage would prevent exploitation of the workforce, including child labourers. Whilst national minima will naturally vary across borders, forcing firms to pay higher salaries around the globe will improve the quality of life of the poor. If it is a moral imperative to relieve the relatively poor, then it is much more pressing to help the absolutely impoverished.
Tax credits are notoriously bureaucratic, as their administration via pay packets by firms is resent...

Tax credits are notoriously bureaucratic, as their administration via pay packets by firms is resented as costly and time consuming. Viewed as a political tool to artificially decrease the proportion of national income spent by the state, they also confuse workers. A minimum wage is a clear and simple promise of adequate compensation for labour. In any case, the two policies are not mutually exclusive.
Poverty and inequality must be reduced not only in Western countries, but also in less economically ...

Once salaries are increased, companies will withdraw production from such markets and there will be no income at all. The case of Asia over the past fifty years shows that initially poorly paid jobs tend to increase in skills and wages over time without intervention. Imposing a minimum wage will make a country’s products internationally uncompetitive and reduce inward investment. Imposing such standards upon the developing world would essentially be protectionism by the rich world.
Higher wages throughout the economy are not necessarily negative, as an increase in purchasing power...

As well as being internationally damaging, the macro-economic impact is also negative. As all pay levels are likely to rise, the minimum wage will be disadvantaged by inflation - increased costs are passed on to the consumer, stoking ‘cost-push’ inflation. For the NAIRU (non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) to remain static, a rise in wages in one part of the economy would have to be balanced by a fall in another wage sector.
Tax credits are notoriously bureaucratic, as their administration via pay packets by firms is resent...

Minimum wages are blunt instruments that damage the most vulnerable. Small businesses cannot afford to pay such rates, whilst lower levels of pay for younger workers does not prevent discrimination against employing such individuals as the minimum is proportionately greater than the norm for older workers. A better alternative is a targeted system of tax credits which reduce the ‘poverty trap’ by making work more lucrative than benefits, and which end the ‘unemployment trap’ by topping up low pay with assistance to low income households yet still encourage a work ethic.
Low wages are inadequate compensation for potential workers who are discouraged from entering the la...

Low wages are inadequate compensation for potential workers who are discouraged from entering the labour market. By making labour more attractive, more human resources will be used, thus raising national productivity. Even where capital is substituted (e.g. through use of machinery instead of people), a rise in efficiency will occur. Some studies suggest minimum wages raise productivity as they encourage workers to stay with a company, which benefits as they gain experience, and because they also encourage companies to invest in worker training.
Christmas starts too early.

There are so few bank holidays, especially in Britain, we need the festive spirit to occupy our minds, and we need it for as long as possible. In these secular times, when religion plays little importance in our lives, we need something else. Festive cheer is the answer. Yes, the stores may start flogging Christmas good early in November, and lights may be turned on months in advance of the main event of Christmas day, but this does lift our spirits. We start to think what we should buy others to cheer them up; we talk to old family members, we even offer perfect strangers good will. If this spirit is prolonged by commercialism then surely it is positive and not negative. The good will of Christmas is prolonged, not ruined.
Society's way of pushing us to work harder

Most people no longer believe in Christ. In a recent survey, less than three-quarters of children knew Christmas was to celebrate the birth of Jesus, with 11 per cent believing it was the birthday of Father Christmas(1). This shows us that society sees Christmas as a shopping holiday and society is only too happy to keep this momentum going. As a secular society, the idea of Christmas being religious is a distant memory, and society wants it to stay that way. Christmas is now just a way of society pushing its inhabitants to work. We have images of expensive sofas, big houses and big presents shoved in our faces; this is the old age trick of the carrot enticing the donkey. Work hard, earn money and this is what you can have. Christmas is now a tool used by the government and those in power to entice people into working all the hours God sends in the vain hope of achieving the Christmas dream; comfy house, 2.4 family and expensive presents. In the current economic crisis, it is all the more important; ensuring that people keep spending to keep the economy alive. (1) http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/67635/Santa-was-born-at-Christmas-wasn-t-he-
Christmas is too commercial and people have forgotten what it is really about

Christmas is supposed to be a religious festival where families come together and celebrate. It isn't about plastic santas and lights. Tacky decorations such as these have nothing to do with family, respect or rejoicing for our fortunes. These are simply disgusting and contribute to destroying our planet for no valid reason what so ever. How can people possibly think covering their house in lights and sticking up plastic decorations could look christmassy!
Christmas is more important than presents!

Although we don't have idea when Christ born, Christmas has taken an importance in our lives, even for the people that don't believe in God and obviously in Jesus Christ but anyway they celebrate it. In my opinion Christmas ought to be a celebration where the people think about his relationship with Jesus, but nowadays the people is selfish and they only think in them, they are only worry in the presents and the money that they will need to buy these, this worry has been a big problem in many families because children are expecting many gifts with greedy, the children see and beg us for the most expensive things that they don’t even need. Because of this, parents spend every Christmas a lot of money on presents than the things that are important like feelings and the love in their families. The shops tempt people by reducing items, putting on massive sales months before Christmas has even started. We must return to the original way of Christmas even if we don't know exactly when Jesus born, we must don’t be selfish and think more in the Jesus’ love for us. That is the real meaning of the Christmas
The True Meaning Of Christmas:

Thank goodness ive finally found folk/people who share the same views as myself i think, as to when it comes to the matter of christmas. To believe that i seem to spend most of my days saying humbug to someone or somethink thats completely the ridicule/a whole sherade as to what christmas is really ment to be about. Here in leeds, practically ever shop/restaurant/takeway outlet/supermarket/banks/post offices/government buildings had all their christmas trees up, festtive lights, tinsel/decorations scattered around their environments 6/7 weeks before christmas is even due/here, still november and with myself just celebrating a friends birhday out a bar/restaurant with friends etc, what should be on the music box at a weatherspoons diner/bar but christmas music as to whilst im tucking into a sunday dinner with my friend trying to celebrate his birthday, madness, the whole world has gone mad, im going to boycott xmas this year, not a card, not a gift, a sunday lunch, just a visit on christmas eve for midnight mass, and then again on christmas day thats if the local vicarage is doing sermons on the most sacred day of the year, we shall see. All the best, thank you for reading my message if done so, may you and your love ones have a merry christmas indeed, and may the lord be with you, along with everyone that wont be spending christmas with their loved ones/friends/family, indeed.
Christmas means different things to different people.

One reason is that children are expecting many presents and are getting greedier every year. Because of this, parents and guardians are spending a lot of money on presents rather than the things that are important. Christmas time is the time when shops are receiving a large amount of money; this is their money-making time! Another reason is Santa. Although Santa is quite poplar to children in all countries, he doesn’t have much to with Christmas. However there is one reason; when Jesus was born, the kings bought him presents. So Santa has got a little to do with Christmas but originally his name was St. Nicholas! Christmas is a time to think about the birth of Jesus, and spend time with our families. It is a very religious time and Christians are meant to do religious practices however many don’t; going to church is an example and so is telling the Christmas story in detail. It is believed that 10 % of Christians know the full Christmas story and in detail however 90% of Cristians only know the outline of the story wothout much detail. Another massive exploiter of christmas are shops. They tempt us by reducing items, putting on massive sale months before christmas has even started. Our children see this and beg us for the most expensive things that they dont even need.
Christmas means different things to different people.

To some, Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ. To some, it means friendship, love, giving and receiving. To some it is a time to visit family and have a huge row. To others it is a day of feasting and merriment or even just a well-earned day off work. They are all celebrating it according to what they see as its 'true meaning'. Criticising this would be intruding upon their personal lives.