BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
3) More social incentive to find a job

The proposition’s claim about the difference in salary vs. unemployment benefit tells us that their understanding or interpretation of an unemployment benefit is incorrect. The unemployment benefit provides people who have been laid off with a certain percentage of his/her normal salary. This money also comes from the insurance taxes that the people who are now unemployed paid for. Nevertheless, the proposition labels these people as ‘parasites’ as if they are leeching the money out of the economy. Though this may be true for a small number of people who are on unemployment benefits, it is false for the vast majority of the people who benefit from the insurance. In fact, some people absolutely need this money because they are unable to find job due to a lack of jobs in the economy. In fact, it is not the matter of people wanting to work or not, but it is rather the matter of whether people can even find jobs at all. Yes, the proposition’s plan may be able to remind people that they need jobs, however it is very unfair for people in circumstances where there is a huge lack of jobs for them. Thus, the opposition believes that cracking the whip on the unemployed for an issue that was neither their fault nor in their capability to amend is very unfair. In fact, the circumstances the people are in right now is so harsh that forcing them to find jobs rather than supporting them will shatter the fragile confidence the unemployed have, thus discouraging them further, as mentioned in the previous rebuttal. This will lead to more unemployment.
Children are less able to make decisions for themselves and to represent their interests. This leave...

Children are less able to make decisions for themselves and to represent their interests. This leaves them at risk of exploitation in the workplace. While parents can represent their children’s interests to their employers but there is always a danger that parent’s interests do not align with their children’s. Discrepancies in interests can arise when the child’s earning power far outstrips that of the parent or the activity fulfils the ambitions of the parent more than the child’s.
Stage fright and the pressure of performance can be difficult to handle for even the most experience...

Stage fright and the pressure of performance can be difficult to handle for even the most experienced adults. It is therefore irresponsible to place these pressures on children at anything but the lowest amateur level. Once children come to realise that financial and competitive success depend on each performance the expectation can become too much. While the child may enjoy it to begin with as the pressure mounts they may feel it’s too late to back out.
Young bodies are not well protected against the rigors of regular physical training. Children’s bone...

Young bodies are not well protected against the rigors of regular physical training. Children’s bones are softer than adults and therefore more prone to stress fractures and disfiguration. The desire to stay small and light for acrobatic moves can lead to eating disorders. The effect of this malnourishment is particularly severe among teenage girls who’s menstruation can stop resulting in a reduced calcium up-take and an early onset of the brittle bone condition osteoporosis. Not only are these risks uniquely acute among the young but children are also in a poor position to correctly assess and accept risks. If they feel unable to stand up to their coach or parents when feeling ill or over-worked they are at more likely to compound existing injuries by not reporting them and continuing to train.
Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon. They are exposed to levels of respons...

Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon. They are exposed to levels of responsibility, sexuality and temptation (e.g. drink, drugs) without the maturity to cope, and it is no wonder that so many child stars go off the rails. At the same time, child performers lose out on a normal social life and may find it very hard to adapt once their brief career is over. Many young sporting, stage and musical starts have 'burnt out' by the time they reach twenty and are left with little education or money (which has often gone to agents, parents or been wasted), and few prospects.
The consequences of such a ban need not be severe. Young adult actors often portray children on sta...

The consequences of such a ban need not be severe. Young adult actors often portray children on stage and in films or television. Nor are there many essential roles for children in the classic dramatic repertoire - the intense focus on children in the media is a modern phenomenon. Sports don’t need to suffer much either, just to change and adapt; gymnastics and tennis have already raised the minimum age at which children can compete professionally, with no negative impact upon the success and popularity of these sports.
If children are working they are not spending their time in formal education. Regardless of what kin...

In the end, education is designed to prepare children for their adult lives and careers. Working in a profession like acting, or training as a football player may be a better preparation for some children’s future than school-based learning. Provided they fulfil legal minimum levels of education why shouldn’t they start their career early? After all, almost every country allows parents to opt to home-school their children even if they have no teaching qualification. Almost all child performers have well-qualified tutors and some child stars go on to achieve high grades in university (e.g. Jodie Foster).
Children are less able to make decisions for themselves and to represent their interests. This leave...

Simply banning child performers will not prevent the possibility of exploitation, merely place it out of reach of scrutiny. At the moment, child performers are official employees and as such their pay, hours and conditions are all monitored by government departments (i.e. the Inland Revenue, Education Ministry, Health and Safety, etc.) and as such must conform to specified standards. When children become amateurs, part-timers or are completely banned there is an incentive to push these limits and hide the extent of children’s involvement. This is only likely to reduce the conditions for children involved.
Young bodies are not well protected against the rigors of regular physical training. Children’s bone...

Just as certain scripts call for the casting of children, particular tricks require long light bodies to perform. While no one would encourage abuses of the body (such as eating disorders) why shouldn’t smaller, lighter and often younger competitors use these qualities to their advantage. Similarly early well-regulated training can help to condition a body for a life time of rigorous use. Training while young can help build strength and muscle development into an athletes body that will improve their performance and protect them from injury in later life. Similarly by professionalising and regulating training you give the child access to a whole range of support staff from physios to nutritionists that should prevent the worst abuses. You are unlikely to stop a driven child from training therefore making it as safe as possible is in the best interest of the child.
Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon. They are exposed to levels of respons...

Modern attitudes to children are a recent cultural development; for centuries children had to go out to work and were treated as adults from a much younger age than today. We should not impose this cultural bias upon those with exceptional talents and supportive families, providing the law prevents them being exploited. Ultimately we must trust loving parents to know best for their own children. A few scare stories should not be taken as representative of the happy and successful performing careers of many talented young people.
The consequences of such a ban need not be severe. Young adult actors often portray children on sta...

The wider consequences of a ban on child performers will be severe. Some sports, such as gymnastics, tennis and ice-skating may collapse without appropriate early training regimes. Television, film and stage dramas would become radically different, and unable to portray society realistically, if they were not able to use child performers. Established classics with key roles for children would have to be dropped or totally rewritten. In film and television, production companies may even go abroad to find a more sympathetic jurisdiction, removing investment from the domestic economy and exposing children to risk in a completely unregulated environment.
If children are working they are not spending their time in formal education. Regardless of what kin...

If children are working they are not spending their time in formal education. Regardless of what kind of work they are doing this deprives them of something so important that we make it compulsory for all children. Although the minimum legal requirements can often be provided by tutors on the set or sports academies it can be hard to keep performance and education in proper balance when one appears to bring so many immediate rewards both in terms of fame and money.
Acting to 'mitigate' climate change will cost a fortune.

Action needn't cost a fortune, using market forces and effective regulation carbon emissions can be reduced at minimal cost. Anyway the people that are causing it can easily afford it... Out of the four possible eventualities, acting now is the best. Either we act or we don't act, and then either GW happens or not. If we do not act, and global warming happens, the enitre world economy would completely collapse, and these third world communities would be wiped out in an instant.
Humankind has the ability to deal with it later

Nobody knows what the future holds, our rate of growth and technological ability may slow down soon as we reduce fossil fuel use. Anyway the effects of climate change are predicted to be such that we have to act now to prevent, as opposed to waiting for a cure. Humanity has only been able to survive in this state due to the fact that very few global disasters have happened - even the black death only covered Europe and Asia. 100 years may be far too late, and we should be acting now rather spending time and money trying to find new ways to adapt. We have the means already - the only problem is getting people to act on it. Every action from demanding that America sign up to the Kyoto treaty to changing the light bulbs in your house can help change the world, and we should be focusing on this.
The impact of bad diet on people throughout the world is leading to a global health emergency. For ...

Putting labels on food packages may actually have a bad impact on diet. In Michael Pollan’s words, what people should be doing is: “Eat Food. Mostly Plants. Not too much”. And they should be cooking food themselves, from fresh, raw ingredients - they shouldn’t be having a lot of processed, packaged foods made in factories. Labels that suggest that certain processed foods are in some way healthy may actually push people away from cooking from scratch, which would almost always be better for them.
The Traffic Light system is the best way to provide consumers with health information about food, be...

The Traffic Light system is the worst way to provide consumers with health information. The colours are unnecessarily judgemental: they suggest for example that even the smallest bag of crisps is inherently “bad” – which it isn’t. One small bag doesn’t lead to serious negative health effects. Moreover, it leads to misunderstanding. In reality, it’s not the amount of fat, salt or sugar that every serving of food contains that makes you unhealthy – it’s the amount of fat, sugar and salt that you consume over an entire day that counts. But when one bag of crisps is coded “orange” and another is coded “red”, you might take home the orange one, but you are very likely to take home more than just one, because you believe them to be “healthier”.
The GDA-system is the best way to provide consumers with health information about food because it al...

The GDA-system is the worst way to provide health information, because it is takes more time to read and understand it. Purchasing decisions are made in a split second, and reading the GDAs costs too much time. Moreover, there is a risk that consumers interpret the GDA as a target instead of a maximum, encouraging them to eat more instead of less salt, fat and sugars. Lastly, it assumes that consumers are good enough at Maths to be able to add up all the percentages over the day and decide at the end if they’ve had too much or not. Most consumers aren’t up to this, and even if they are, they’ll probably wouldn’t like the hassle of counting every calorie.
The two systems (traffic and GDA) are not in competition. Combining them creates a system that carr...

Even if it would generate all the benefits of both systems and leave out all of the disadvantages, consider the amount of information that one label now has to carry. That amount of information will never fit on, let’s say, a candybar. Moreover, it will deliver mixed messages: a small portion of food could be coded red but still contribute only a very small percentage to your GDA – what should a consumer decide? And is it fair to ask producers to do all this work when we’re not sure the consumer even understands it?
Food labelling is an excellent way to make people eat better. People don’t want to become obese and...

Food labelling is an excellent way to make people eat better. People don’t want to become obese and unhealthy, so if you provide them with the right information, they will make a different choice. To make sure the information is actually read, it needs to be clear, specific and understandable. It also needs to be visible at the moment of choosing to buy the product, so that consumers can actually pick an alternative.
People are able to make rational decisions, once they’re given the relevant information. Take a loo...

People are able to make rational decisions, once they’re given the relevant information. Take a look at smoking: a study by the World Bank has shown that the more educated someone is about the health risks of smoking, the more likely they are to quit. And they quit even though smoking is addictive and thus gives them a very powerful biological push to continue. If people can quit smoking, why should they be unable to start eating more healthily?
The impact of bad diet on people throughout the world is leading to a global health emergency. For ...

The impact of bad diet on people throughout the world is leading to a global health emergency. For the first time, teenagers in richer countries may now enjoy less healthy lives and may die younger than their parents. Not only is there a strong moral case to act to change the way people eat, unless something happens governments soon won’t be able to afford the extra healthcare costs. Clearly banning certain foods or forcing people to eat more vegetables would be too harsh. But passing labelling laws will nudge people in the right direction and push food companies to provide healthier choices for fear of losing business.
The Traffic Light system is the best way to provide consumers with health information about food, be...

The Traffic Light system is the best way to provide consumers with health information about food, because it provides very clear visual information which can help a consumer decide without having to read the fine print. Suppose you’re choosing between two bags of potato chips, and one has “red” and the other has “orange”. Without having to read percentages of fat and salt for each bag, you can immediately see that the one labelled orange is the better choice. It requires the least effort for consumers and will therefore be the most effective.
The GDA-system is the best way to provide consumers with health information about food because it al...

The GDA-system is the best way to provide consumers with health information about food because it allows consumers to understand how a portion of food will measure up to their Guideline Daily Amount. So, unlike the traffic light system, it won’t lead to overeating of “healthier” products because it provides more factual information. It says clearly how much of your maximum recommended daily dose of sugar, fat and salts you will have eaten once you’ve eaten this specific product, and will thus give you better information as to whether you should eat that second bag of chips or not.
Food labelling is an excellent way to make people eat better. People don’t want to become obese and...

Food labelling is a pretty poor way of making people eat more healthily. The idea assumes that people actually read the label – which quite often, they don’t. Reasons for this can vary: consumers might be in a hurry when buying groceries or don’t understand the information. A lot of consumers don’t really care enough about the long-term dangers of eating unhealthily and find it too much of a fuss.
People are able to make rational decisions, once they’re given the relevant information. Take a loo...

Even if people would read the label, they probably won’t change their behaviour. This is because humans are not very rational: they often sacrifice a longer term benefit for a short term gain. Take a look at smoking: even though everyone knows that smoking is a serious health risk, people still smoke. “Bad choices” may be a result of peer pressure, maybe because they think it looks cool or because they like the kick of the nicotine in the here and now. \ The same goes for food: the short term satisfaction of a tasty supersized, extra-fat hamburger will outweigh the longer term health benefits of eating a salad instead. This is all the more so because there are very powerful biological factors leading us to prefer fat, salty or sweet foods. In times of food scarcity these foods are the most essential for our survival because they provide the most energy. Thus after millions of years of evolution, we’ve become hard-wired to prefer salty, sweet and fatty foods.
The information on a food-label can indeed be very complicated, but that’s not an argument against f...

But even if people would read the label and are rational enough to change their behaviour, they probably won’t understand the information on the label. For example, what is the difference between saturated fat and trans fat, and why is that relevant? What are “carbohydrates” and are they good or bad? Is what is healthy for an elderly person also good for an active, growing teenager? Being able to understand what’s in your food requires a lot of specialist knowledge which the average consumers doesn’t have.
Healthy competition is a symbol of a flourishing society. It provides a fair and equal opportunity to all the players in the market.

Treating cases of cheating, bribery as negligible without further investigation on the matter is rather presumptuous. Competition would only be fair if every student/worker being evaluated would be put in the same environment exactly, with the same, rather equivalent resources, suited/catered to each student/worker's needs based on individual strengths,weaknesses and personalities. As this is not the case competition reveals a monster of inefficiency labeling undeserving candidates good and bad without basis.
Competition in business greatly benefits consumers. It provides customers with reasonable prices, better quality and greater variety. Further, it maintains demand-supply parity.

But while we wait for the homeostatic recuperation of prices; prices rise and fall uncontrollable in the short run forcing banks and the government to intervene. The rules of the jungle do not apply in civilized society. It is the responsibility of governments to safe guard the interests and conveniences of all their citizens; this includes creating imbalances, regulating markets to inhibit competition making sure that most people emerge victorious. The call of the times is not to extract the creme de la creme of society and annihilate the rest of us minions but to use and cater to everyone. We believe in sacrificing the one for the many and not the statement's converse. Counterargument: "In a competition to offer cheapest possible prices, there is a desperation to cut costs on the products. Therefore the raw materials used are either of a poor quality or are smuggled in without proper payment of taxes.Bulk production of consumer products is often cost-effective. It can lead to high losses when that particular product gets outdated by another new or superior one in the markets. Recently floppy disks got outdated by compact disks." -[[http://www.syvum.com/cgi/online/serve.cgi/gre/awm/awmis002.html]] but i even feel that competition sometimes result in under confedence
Competition in sports while in school improves team building in the work place later in life

Playing competitive sports while growing up is harmful to the community in the long run. Many kids grow up playing competitive sports but the success rate of these kids is slim. Many kids are pushed by their parents to join sport teams against their will while growing up and then take a negative perspective growing up because they are either not good enough to play or are made fun of by other players. This can have a negative effect because once someone is put down enough they begin to believe that they are not good enough to do anything, and begin to feel like outcasts. This is not good for the community because once this child is old enough to start to give back to his or her community he or she will feel less inclined because the community has put him or her down their entire life. This is also detrimental to these individuals when in the work environment because if they are assigned a group to accomplish a project he or she will most likely not be a strong participant in the group causing the group harm. Now instead of working productively as a group the other members have to go out of their way to incorporate this individual into the group taking valuable time away from completing the task at hand, causing delays on turning the project in on time.
Competition in education leads to improvement in the quality of students and enhances their performance. Moreover, it helps evolve superior teachers, teaching methodologies and educational institutions.

Reiteration. On the whole competition ensures that students display the best of their abilities using whatever resources they can. Whether these resources are unfairly distributed or are inherently diabolical is irrelevant because the object of competition is to reveal what students students can do in the exam room that is conditioned the same way for all students taking the examination. If the examination occurs now; the point of the examination is to determine where the student stands now and not how s/he got there. Examiners are interested in what the students know and share within the examination room and at the time of the examination. Competition forces those with a comparable paucity in resources to work harder than their better-equipped contemporaries. And there have been considerable cases in which those from broken homes performed better than those from aristocratic ones.