BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We have no right to cause unnecessary suffering to animals that we wish to eat. Recent research in ...

We have a right to exploit natural resources to feed ourselves. It is more important that people are well fed than that animals are comfortable. This principle is accepted with land animals: chickens are often raised in cramped conditions. Moreover, nothing is done to stop pain to wild fish when they are caught. People should be encouraged to eat fish. Fish are a nutritious source of protein and are high in essential omega-3 fatty acids. The most efficient way to produce large quantities of fish is to farm them. This avoids the unpredictability, danger and cost involved in trying to catch wild fish in rivers and oceans. Fish farming makes cheap fish available for people to eat: it should therefore be encouraged, not banned.
Fish farming is harmful to wild fish. Diseases and parasites spread from fish farmed in cages in th...

Many of the problems raised by the proposition could be addressed by farming fish in tanks on land, rather than in cages at sea. In any case, fish farms do more to protect wild fish than to harm them. Overfishing means that natural stocks are currently severely depleted. For example, cod may die out completely in the North Sea unless there are drastic cuts in the number caught. Fish farming greatly reduces the need to catch wild fish. Unless we stop eating fish, fish farming is the only way to preserve wild fish. Furthermore, trawling in the oceans often results in bycatch, where unwanted animals are needlessly caught in nets and killed (e.g. dolphins, and fish which are too small or from protected or uncommercial species). Long line fishing for species like tuna leads to the death of millions of seabirds who are attracted to the floating bait on hooks trailed behind ships. None of this happens with fish farms.
We have no right to cause unnecessary suffering to animals that we wish to eat. Recent research in ...

We have no right to cause unnecessary suffering to animals that we wish to eat. Recent research in the UK, the USA and Canada has shown that fish are able to feel pain. In many countries, including the USA, there are no regulations to minimise pain to fish. Large numbers of fish are packed into small cages, in which lice and infections spread easily between fish. Cases of lice eating down to the bones of farmed fish are common. Fish are not stunned before they are killed, and are sometimes killed by suffocation or being frozen. At very least, fish should receive the protection against cruelty that farm animals (e.g. pigs, cows) receive. It would be better if fish farming was stopped completely.
Fish farming is harmful to wild fish. Diseases and parasites spread from fish farmed in cages in th...

Fish farming is harmful to wild fish. Diseases and parasites spread from fish farmed in cages in the sea to wild fish. According to Greenpeace, a typical salmon farm of 200,000 fish produces roughly the same amount of faecal matter as a town of 62,000 people. Faecal matter reduces the oxygen level in water. This leads to toxic algal blooms, which kill marine life. In the northern Pacific, over 1 million farmed Atlantic salmon have escaped from fish farms. These have competed with wild Pacific salmon for food and the number of Pacific salmon has fallen. There has also been interbreeding between escaped and wild fish, weakening the wild stock. To avoid these problems, fish farming should either be banned or be subject to much stricter environmental controls.
Farmed fish is not healthy. Fish are fed chemicals to make them grow faster. The long-term effect ...

Farmed fish is not healthy. Fish are fed chemicals to make them grow faster. The long-term effect of these chemicals upon humans is unknown. To deal with disease, farmed fish are fed even more chemicals and antibiotics. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are present in many fish farms. These bacteria are consumed by humans when the fish are eaten. Eating the fish could therefore risk human health.
Rising Costs Of Energy

Although Wind Farms are potentially expensive in the short term, prices for energy are still rising, despite the enormous dip in crude oil prices in 2008/9. Coal and Oil is running out, and supplies are determined by countries that stockpile Oil. Oil is merely a convenient energy source, with a little effort better and more renewable energy sources can be brought to the forefront! Although it is not known for certain when any oil and gas peak might be it is certain to come at some point. The peak oil argument runs that we have been using oil since the 1900's at an explanentially increasing rate, this is unsustainable and at some point we will reach a point where the discoveries of oil no longer match up to demand. Once there is too little supply compared to demand we will have reached the peak. This will result in very large price increases as there will no longer be any slack in the system. At this point all kinds of renewable energy become essential, wind will also no longer be uneconomic.[[http://www.oilscenarios.info/]]
The Politics of Other Energy Forms

Internationally Coal and Oil are viewed quite negatively with a lot of people associating piracy, corporate greed and Political corruption and negligence with that particular form of energy. Oil and Coal are used as bargaining powers in diplomacy with countries like Great Britain and Russia amongst others using their apparent abundance of these particular resources as a bullying tactic. Gas has often come to the forefront of diplomatic rows in Europe with Russia turning off natural gas in payment rows, with other countries like Germany and Hungary even experiencing a knock on effect from this row. [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/02/russia.ukraine]]
Negative visual impact

Because wind farms do not require fuel and the wind is more powerful at sea, wind farms can be built offshore, thus resolving protests that they are a blemish on the natural landscape inland. This partially depends on location, in my view the wind turbine in south reading positively improves the look of the area! while there may often be local opposition to a turbine it is likely that this is simple nimbyism and will dissipate once the turbines are up - there is now a 2nd planned for Reading “It’s pushed the boundary of wind energy. The turbine at GreenPark is much more important for another reason – it’s the most visible, possibly in the world and definitely in Europe. We have had fantastic feedback from people in Reading saying it’s a landmark.”[[http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2005365_turbine_is_an_ecotriumph http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/10081_decision_on_plan_to_site_turbine_in_greenpark%5D%5D
Cost will make energy prices rise

Although they may be expensive in the short term, overall they will actually save us money. Companies like British Gas offer 'Green tariffs' which offer competitive prices and source all of your energy from renewable energy sources [[http://www.britishgas.co.uk/our-universe/our-tariffs.html]]. Besides the cost isn't the issue with wind farms, they are saving the planet by being much more environmentally friendly in comparison to other energy sources.
Renewable/sustainable

Initial capital outlay aside there is no need to provide more fuel and the source will continue indefinitely. Unlike Nuclear power stations that need to be shut down safely at a massive cost to energy users and the Government. Thus windfarms save money and are not a drain on environmental resources. Things need to change in terms of the carbon impact we are having on the world, a recent news story on an antarctic ice bridge which held a ice shelf the size of Jamaica intact shattering has given a new warning, things must change. [[http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-warning-as-antarctic-ice-bridge-shatters-1663430.html]]
Negative visual impact

Many regard windfarms as a blot on the landscape. They are necessarily very tall and need to be placed in exposed – and thus prominent – locations like on hills and outcrops. There have many times been protests in towns and villages against the erection of wind farms[[http://www.stopcambridgewindfarm.org.uk/]]. In general wind farms can be seen from miles away, they are over 100m high usually and just one is never built, the farm usually comprises around 10-15 plus.
Wildlife

Birds often fly into the sails of turbines, either injuring them or killing them. The building work amongst the continued distruption of the large geographical area of the farms also damages and encroaches upon areas which are usually protected. Endangered and protected species of birds and other animals are threatened by the wind farms [[http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177]]. So it can be argued that wind farms have a negative impact on the surrounding ecology.
Wind Farms Help Reduce Carbon Emissions

Unlike other forms of energy production such as coal and gas fired power plants, wind farms do not emit carbon as they use the wind. In fact they even reduce carbon in comparison to normal energy methods. According to the American Wind Energy Association a single 750Kw wind turbine prevents as much carbon dioxide from being emitted each year as could be absorbed by 500 acres of forest. [[http://www.awea.org/faq/co2trees.html]] Carbon emissions are a known factor in causing global warming and so not emitting this is a major point in favour of wind farms.
energy choke points

There are various choke points in world energy supplies that are vulnerable to terrorists, windpower is however domestically based so not nearly so vulnerable. To quote the Energy Information Administrarion "Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global sea routes. They are a critical part of global energy security due to the high volume of oil traded through their narrow straits. The Strait of Hormuz... and the Strait of Malacca are two of the world’s most strategic chokepoints. In 2007, total world oil production amounted to approximately 85 million barrels per day (bbl/d), and around one-half, or over 43 million bbl/d of oil was moved by tankers on fixed maritime routes. The international energy market is dependent upon reliable transport. The blockage of a chokepoint, even temporarily, can lead to substantial increases in total energy costs. In addition, chokepoints leave oil tankers vulnerable to theft from pirates, terrorist attacks, and political unrest in the form of wars or hostilities as well as shipping accidents which can lead to disastrous oil spills."[[http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Background.html]]
Unrealiable therefore not the whole solution

While it is not the whole solution due to this unreliability it should be remembered that all types of power are not 100% reliable as they need maintainance, may not have fuel (especially a problem with worries of peak oil and gas) etc. It should also be noted that demand in the UK is not flat, there are major spikes in demand at certain times... for example everyone goes and turns on the kettle just after eastenders ends! this means that there would need to be reserves anyway no matter the main electricity generator. Wind turbines will be connected to the national grid so it is likely that if the wind is not blowing strong enough in the south east then it will be in the north of scotland.[[http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html]]
less conscious

[[http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/02/a-woman-s-place-is-in-the-church.html]]- Frat boys, choir-boy-molesting-priests, gang-rapists, gangs etc have two things in common: They are generally all-boys and that they are horrible. One boy in the company of ten women is likely to behave much better than five-ten boys/men/males with one girl. Boys in all-male stags are up-to no good.
Give the girls a break

The left will have us believe that there are no such things as platonic friendships between members of the opposite sex. Or that homosexual relationships are a myth. Or that the only thing that foments girl-rage is boys. Fact is; so long as people are being themselves, are not worried about what other people think and remain civilized it's all good. The moment people are pressured to have/be-in physical relationships and are trying to fit into gender stereotypes/standards that is when there's a problem. But when this occurs naturally and it is human nature to have certain feelings after puberty; there is no problem.
boys perform better in co-ed schools and girls perform academically better in girls only schools.

According to several studies boys do better when there are more girls than boys in a classroom because girls help them focus. Males are natural competitors; while girls are encouraged to be shy and submissive no matter how gender-neutral a society claims to be. Males around girls feel the need to prove themselves while girls figure if they seem dumb and popular boys will like them. Therefore under-perform and boys perform better in coed classrooms. This is just to impress boys but also not to be judged by girls around them. If a girl participates aggressively in a coed classroom she is laughed at by the 'mean/cool/hot-girl'-crowd. Girls learn that being enthusiastic in the classroom is not for them. [[http://missbakersbiologyclass.com/blog/2010/02/25/do-girls-help-boys-focus/]]
boys are more aggressive, violent, stereotypically masculine in boys schools

Boys feel the need to prove that they are in fact boys and thus indulge in shootings and bombing other than other masculine pranks which they would be ashamed to perform in the company of girls. There is no paucity in spit/fart bombs,slingshots and other such weaponry in a boy-dominated classroom. [['Catcher in the rye'- must read for all those who think boys are gentle in the environment of their sex alone]]
On Research

Actually most research suggests that both boys and girls perform better in single-sex schools. Boys are afraid that girls will call them nerds/dorks if they perform 'too well' academically. They spend more time attempting to be entertaining/charming/annoying to impress girls than concentrate on the lesson. the research on the above-right is simply about how in "coed classrooms" if there are more girls than boys then boys do better and does not say anything about boys-only classrooms. [[http://privateschool.about.com/cs/choosingaschool/a/singlesex.htm]] [[http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-singlesexvscoed.htm]]
less conscious

[[http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-singlesexvscoed.htm]]- Consider this comment from one of the boys in the single-gender class: "We don't just do war poems and Macbeth, we do Wordsworth too. It's a challenge, in a way, which Mr J sets us to show the girls we're capable of doing it, but I couldn't talk about these things if there were girls there!" Boys care more for what girls think of them than what other boys think of them. A giggle from a girl can be life-threatening; boys feel they do better around boys because the judgement is less harsh/felt. excerpt "Interviews with [these] 'non-macho' boys suggest that these boys did not feel exposed in single-sex classes. . . .Such boys told us - without exception - that they felt at ease and comfortable, that they did not experience bullying or aggressive behaviour from other boys, and that they were not intimidated by the atmosphere in all-boys' classes." (p. 86) Percentage of students scoring proficient on the F.C.A.T (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient boys in single-sex classes: 86% scored proficient. The numbers speak for themselves. Again; less threatened by bigger males who tend to be less aggressive when there are no girls to impress/scare/intimidate
Give the girls a break

Girls perform better when there are no boys around. And girls-only groups unlike boys-clubs tend to be civilized. Compare sororities with fraternities. Women when in the company of other women and no men; tend not be catty/biting/rude but rather are not scared to be happy helpful and open. There's a lot of singing/dancing,make-up and slumber-parties/beach-parties/parties. Girls have fun with other girls and need not worry about jealousy over boys or annoying/intrusive boys or looking bad or whatever. If all the boys were in boy's schools then girls would need not worry about most of the problems women face. Also we can openly communicate about girlie matters, feelings and hormones without being conscious.
boys are more aggressive, violent, stereotypically masculine in boys schools

Again; this is in reference to schools that have student bodies that are predominantly male. Boys only feel the need/pressure to be stereotypically male when in the presence of few women; when there are more girls than boys; boys don't have to worry about not being able to bring a girl to a school dance or to have to compete with bunches of other boys for the female minority. They do not hate girls when there are none or too many; only when they are in a minority. When in the company of boys alone; boys are less homophobic; are happier to be themselves (no girls to impress or fight over) and overall are pleasant. In "Catcher in the rye" the only tension between the boys comes from girls/sex.
Santa

Yes, Santa may not be real and businesses may be scaming money, but it can all come down to the feeling of joy. To buy your five year old son a big fire truck and see his face when he opens it is priceless. Yes you may have just spent $100 on it, and seeing a 5 year old smile isnt going to take that money out of yuor bill, but seeing the joy in anyones face and knowing that it is because of you, is a pretty good feeling. People are eternally seeking joy and happiness, but to give it to someone can be even more rewarding. There will always be the problem of money but money is not everything. Money can buy things that make you, or people around you happy, but it can not buy happiness. It may seem cliche, but it is most definetly the truth. And even though christmas and santa may be a scam on the surface, there is always another side to every dstory. Think about it from the businesses point of view. Imagine a small, locally known store that gets a small amount of income each month and has employees to pay. December can be a very useful time of year for struggling businesses. The profit can jump rapidly and can effect peoples lifes to their benefit. So why should we ruin finacial success for small businesses and take away the joy of children just becasue we want to save up for a new car? New user>>>> This person talking of 'joy' may want to join the 'yes' column. Christmas is not about the joy of receiving gifts, it's about NOEL aka the JOY OF CHRIST. The above point is just as consumerist as all the rest. The sooner people get that into their heads, the better.
Santa

Santa Claus. A fat, jolly and reindeer owning man who resigns in the north pole. As believeable as this sounds, we all know perfectly well that Santa isnt real. Since old Saint Nic, who gave away purses of gold to those in need, Santa has degenerated to working in a factory, surrounded by magical elves, and Mrs Claus, who bakes cookies and cakes. It has brought up a lot of disscussion, but how Santa fly around the entire globe in 24 hours? And how can he fit down our chimmneys after eating all Mrs Claus' biscuits? Imagine how many washes Mrs Claus would have to do to get all the soot out of his jolly red suit. We had to admit it, but Santa Claus is fake, falso and phony fat man. So why does Santa Claus continue to fly to our house? Because corperate businesses market him. Companies like The Warehouse or ToyWorld wouldn't have nearly as much profit in December if that fat, red man didnt come and drink our milk. Practically every shop can profit from Santa. Even security stores could scam money, by asking how Santa Claus gets into houses that dont have chimmneys, and saying that purchasing a home security system can protect your house even more. So wheather its his impossible flying dynamics, his unfeasible home, his unbelieveable time constraints or even his unrealistic elf workers, the story of Santa all comes together to prove that Christmas is most definetely all just a scam for money.
Christmas exists without concept of gifts

Christmas is clearly not a scam. It is a historical, celebrated festival that is marked all over the Western world (and increasingly in the non-Western world). It honours a religious event, the birth of Christ, and present buying is, whilst also a long-standing tradition, not at all compulsory. What people choose to do to mark the occasion is their own business. No one obligates them to buy presents. It is possible to celebrate Christmas giving simple gifts at the end of a relaxed family meal, or possible to burn out one's overdraft and credit cards buying opulent gifts and an expensively showy meal for extended family. No one makes anyone choose either of those options, or any other. Advertising naturally encourages people to take one option over the other; businesses want to make money, so of course they subvert the meaning of Christmas into being about buying as much as is possible for as many people as possible. They do not hold anyone down and force them into it. Admittedly there is a lot of psychological pressure placed on parents, in particular, to buy as much as they can, but it ultimately comes down to their own decision whether to shop or not. Even if someone does buy more than they can afford, the word 'scam' is not accurate to describe this. The word implies that people are spending money on something which ultimately is not as promised, and cons them. They are not. They are spending money on gifts, which they then give to people, who then use the gifts. This is a valid transaction for all parties. The central point, however, is that without any purchases at all, the concept of Christmas would still stand. There would still be religious celebrations. There would still be family meals, where people gather together to be close to each other. This seems to imply that it is not a scam.
A lot of research points to the fact that internet/television addiction causes grades to suffer and is bad also for your eyes

The internet plays a great role in studying; you cannot access JSTOR offline. Students conduct most/all of their research for school projects on the internet. The internet is hoarded with websites that aide in examination/test preparation. All boys go-to porn sites but not all boys get bad grades. The key is to keep boys from getting addicted to porn and in making sure that they have organized study schedules/time-tables. Girls get addicted to chatting; again the key is in moderation. Everyone chats on msn/G-talk/Yahoo but everyone isn't failing courses. Men can usually not make friends unless they get drunk and watch sports at bars/pubs. Boys can't keep friends unless they go-to porn sites and play some kind of sport. Women/girls need to read Sweet Valley high equivalents; watch romantic comedies or T.V shows/sitcoms on family or highschool to interact with other girls effectively. However, there are no solid rules for women/girls; because girls tend to have small intimate friendships based on unique interests; while men/boys socialize in throngs. Friends are necessary for healthy development; so cutting children/teenagers off from the only means they have to strike friendships will make their grades suffer even worse than an addiction to these things does . [[http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/2/9/8/p212983_index.html]]