BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nature and Nurture

Whilst genetics are widely accepted to play a role in people's characteristics, they are not the be all and end all. If someone is proven to have a genetic predisposition to violence, that inevitably makes life more difficult for them. However, is this not simply being used as an excuse? If this gene exists, it is surely how someone deals with it that should be considered. Many people with serious anger or violence issues go through anger management and come out of it able to control their anger and stop themselves from becoming violent. If people have a predisposition to violence, make no effort to get help with it, and then go on to commit violent crimes should not get any sympathy from the judiciary. On the other hand maybe if someone has such a predisposition to violence and has clearly made every effort to manage their condition and ends up committing a violent crime should maybe have that effort taken into consideration. However this would require proof in terms of the genetic predisposition in order to prevent it being used as an excuse by those with no right to use it.
Not "in court," but other considerations should be made.

It should not be an issue "in court." Court is for determining whether or not the person in question committed their act. Their motives as a human being, and potential to contribute something positive to society, are much more complex issues. Yes, some people are more prone to committing violent behavior than others, just as some are more prone to mental illness such as depression or schizophrenia. And if one does not believe in some abstraction such as a "soul" or a "spirit" that operates independently of the physical universe, then these individual, inherent "traits," "variations," whatever you want to call them, must have scientific causes, which makes the issue much more complex. The factors may be in our genes, or in the acquired trait of brain damage from high lead levels in someone's sphagetti. Who knows. Certainly not a jury. I suppose if we possess "souls" apart from the body it would be much simpler, one can make black and white statements such as "she is a good soul" or "he is bad one," because there is no scientific way to discuss a soul. That being said, the second step (the first being the determination of whether the person willfully committed murder, which is the purpose of a trial) would be to assess, with the help of mental health professionals, the murderer's deeper intentions. This may sound vague but basically it means differentiating between "type A"'s (someone who is willfully antisocial, shows no remorse, and expresses no wish to become a functioning member of society) from the "type B's" (someone who wants to become a functioning, contributing member of society, but needs professional help to achieve it). Of course there is no clear line between the two types, it is not an either/or issue; there is a whole spectrum between the types. This is why I say "NOT IN COURT" because it is too complicated an issue for a jury or a single judge. If a person is found guilty of murder they should receive their due sentence. Justice is justice. But after the sentence is laid down, there should ideally exist an extended system of justice where perhaps a group of mental health professionals convene to determine if extra tax money should be spent on helping those who were genetically less able to control their behavior. The tax money would be spent on extra counseling and correctional programs to help them achieve their goal of becoming a normal member of society. Provided that is, REALLY, their goal, and they are not feigning good intentions so they can go out and kill more people.
Allowing free communication helps people to understand other people and their culture. The more link...

Language is often seen as a badge of identity and more conflict may be created if the global community is seen to prefer one language over another. Even ‘neutral’ languages like Esperanto use the Latin alphabet and are based on Romance grammar rules. These do not reflect global diversity and can be especially difficult to learn for those whose languages do not use words or alphabets but rather characters like Chinese or Japanese. If groups or individuals feel unable to express themselves (or are ignored because they do so outside the official language) they are likely to feel frustrated and angry.
Works of poetry, songs and novels could be translated into just one language providing access for ev...

Translation is not always successful in preserving ideas or literary constructions meaning cultural diversity may be lost. However many new works a global language would provide access to, true appreciation is best gained from studying them in the language in which they were written. By reducing the use of other languages we risk cutting people off from historical documents and literature in their old languages, works which often carry emotional or religious significance. Understanding of some languages may be lost altogether if they are not spoken everyday.
If everyone spoke the same language it would be much easier for people to move and work in different...

Picking just one language disadvantages those whose languages are replaced especially if they are unable or unwilling to use the new language. It would be extremely practically difficult and expensive to teach everyone the new language, especially when literacy levels, even in their own language are very low in some countries. Those without good enough language skills may find it hard to get a job at all, thereby disadvantaging those without access to good education.
Limiting foreign investment protects the national interest. Inward investment is nothing more than ...

The whole idea of investment curbs affronts the ideal of the free market. Any such curbs are a form of barrier to free trade and a step towards protectionism. In an era of trade liberalisation, this is undesirable on ideological grounds. Strategic interest arguments can be made for almost any industry but are simply excuses for protectionism. Increased peace between nations will come through mutual interdependence rather than aggressive displays of national self-sufficiency, which have no place in a peaceful post-cold war world.
A cap makes a clear connection between national policy objectives and the economy. This represents a...

Globalisation means that economies are becoming more not less interdependent. Therefore, now more than ever it is impractical as well as undesirable to introduce trade barriers. Other countries will be offended at this snub and will respond, economically or diplomatically, by further isolating the country concerned. There is also a clear link between economic openness and good government, because the global investment markets demand high standards of accountability, fiscal competence and political responsibility from governments. Because citizens also benefit from cleaner government and better policies, they also have an interest in an open economy.
Economic Growth is best when it comes from within. The available money supply within the economy is...

Economic Growth is best when it comes from within. The available money supply within the economy is a fairly accurate indicator of its ability for self-sustained growth. If too much reliance is placed on overseas money, there is a “bubble”, so that when overseas investors withdraw their money suddenly, there will be a disproportionate shock on the local economy – which it will not have enough funds to counter itself. This was seen in the 1997 Asian Crisis, when foreign investors rapidly withdrew money from countries such as Thailand and South Korea.
A cap would insulate the home economy from the extremities of the global economy. The cap would limi...

A cap would insulate the home economy from the extremities of the global economy. The cap would limit the amount of foreign competition. Therefore, in times of bitter rivalry between different economies and businesses, the domestic economy would receive some protection as part of it is not exposed to the same global pressures. \ The impact of any global or foreign economic downturn would also be reduced. In recession, companies often withdraw their overseas investment and this causes a further economic downslide in the host economy. By limiting the foothold foreign companies can achieve in the first instance, this trend would be limited in its impact.\
A cap acts as a disincentive to swift withdrawal of funds. Given that there is a limit on investmen...

A cap acts as a disincentive to swift withdrawal of funds. Given that there is a limit on investment, any existing foreign investor will think carefully before withdrawing funds from the economy. Given that they can easily withdraw and redeploy (in better times) in other economies, they will not be as keen to withdraw from an economy where subsequent redeployment may turn out to be much more difficult.
Limiting foreign investment protects the national interest. Inward investment is nothing more than ...

Limiting foreign investment protects the national interest. Inward investment is nothing more than a form of economic imperialism. Therefore, reducing it simply reduces the effective power of rich foreigners to impose their will on the host economy, for example by buying up the majority of productive land. It is also important in uncertain times for a nation to control its own destiny by ensuring strategic and sensitive industries (e.g. arms manufacture, broadcasting and print media, pharmaceuticals, food production) do not fall into foreign hands.
Economic Growth is best when it comes from within. The available money supply within the economy is...

A cap would reduce inward investment. At the straightforward level of analysis, imposing a cap means limiting the amount of inward investment. This may have disadvantages, but inward investment can be crucial to economic growth. The Asian Tiger economies relied heavily upon inward foreign investment in creating their economic success, and China is doing much the same thing today. The true story of the Asian Crisis of 1997 has to be put in context; the countries concerned rapidly returned to growth and have continued to benefit from foreign investment. In any case, the risks of having an open economy are reduced by the role of the International Monetary Fund in easing such shocks.
Putting a cap on foreign investment and so reducing the likelihood of a bubble economy developing ac...

The message a cap sends out will scare off investors. Even if they are able to invest because, for example, the cap has not yet been reached, investors will consider that the government has a nationalistic economic policy that they are willing to vary to suit the home economy. Prospective investors will therefore wonder whether, in future, the government might make other economic interventions against their interests e.g. expropriating property? They will be less keen to invest, when they can invest in more transparent regimes elsewhere.
A cap would insulate the home economy from the extremities of the global economy. The cap would limi...

A cap would raise the cost of capital and so slow the economy. A cap would limit the pool of capital available for business. This would increase competition for those funds, so the cost of capital would rise. This would increase the costs of doing business locally, a cost which may well be passed on to customers.\ Independently of the question of the cost of capital, a cap would damage the economy overall. Inward investors would be more circumspect about investing, while the fact that domestic businesses enjoyed a protected semi-monopoly would discourage them from efficiency because they would be subject to a weakened market discipline.\
Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man.

With running, boxing is the purest form of sport. All sport is about testing the human body and reactions against others. Boxing does this in the most simple and direct way possible. There is no point trying to deny our human nature - man is an aggressive animal and sports provide a safe outlet for that aggression. Contact sports such as rugby, American Football or Ice Hockey can also be brutal. Society was much less violent sixty or seventy years ago when children were often taught to box at school. That way they learned to control their aggression and to keep violence for the ring.
Boxing exploits young men (and sometimes women now).

Some boxers have been exploited, and that is wrong. And some have “wasted” their money on high-living - just like rock stars or footballers do. Should the government stop them spending their own money as they wish? Many boxers do handle their money and other affairs sensibly, for example, Evander Holyfield, or Lennox Lewis. More important is the way boxing offers a way out of poverty for working class boys. There isn’t much hope in the inner cities. Isn’t it better for children to want to be boxers when they grow up than drug dealers and gangsters?
Boxing has to have stricter rules than other sports because it is so much more dangerous.

Those in charge of boxing work hard to make sure that it is as safe as possible. Both professional and amateur fights are run under very strict rules to make the risks as small as possible. Medical staff and equipment have to be on hand, and boxers are checked before fights to make sure they are fit enough to take part. Having different weight divisions (Lightweight, Middleweight, Heavyweight, etc.) means that fights should not be too unequal. Referees are there to stop fights if necessary. Amateur fighters wear headguards and aim to score points rather than knockouts. No other sport takes such care with its athletes.
Boxing makes violence look cool.

Boxing isn’t just about a few minutes of violent activity. It is also about thousands of hours of hard training and self-discipline - that’s not a bad message to send to young people. Sports such as pro-wrestling, where violence is staged like a show are much more dangerous. At least in boxing it is obvious that getting hit hurts and does lasting damage. In any case, most boxing is on television too late at night to have much effect on young children.
There is no reason to think that if boxing was banned it would continue “underground”.

Making boxing illegal would just drive it “underground”. It would still go on, in remote barns and cellars, because men would still want to fight and others would still be prepared to pay to see them. Banning drugs or underage drinking hasn’t stopped people from doing those things. Once boxing is underground, it cannot be regulated and fights will become much more dangerous. Bare fists may be used rather than gloves, fights may go on until one boxer is knocked out, and there will be no medical support when injuries do come about. Boxing is much safer when it is legal but regulated.
The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing

Though the risks of injury in boxing are significant, boxers are aware of the realities of their sport and are more than adequately compensated for these by the big purses at stake in fights. We allow individuals to take risks in all walks of life - in business, smoking, gambling and hang-gliding. Every attempt is made to ensure that the risk of injury to boxers is minimised: thorough medical checks are undertaken; doctors and anaesthetic equipment have to be present at ringside; referees intervene to stop fights and gloves have been made heavier to slow hand speeds. The best thing that government can do is to minimise the risks of injury to boxers.
As a first step, professional boxing at least should be banned.

It would be very unfair to ban professional boxing in particular. Top amateur boxers will wish to train full-time, which can only be done by turning professional. They may be forced to go to other countries without a ban, or to appear in illegal, unregulated contests on an “underground” circuit. In any case, the lighter divisions of professional boxing are similar to the amateur sport in the rarity of knock-outs and the role of scoring in deciding fights - why should they be banned? Finally, amateur boxing is not without its critics - even at the Olympics there have been many scandals over biased scoring and the way the game is regulated.
Boxing is a very dangerous sport. Every year both amateur and professional boxers die in matches.

Boxing is a very dangerous sport. Every year both amateur and professional boxers die in matches, or afterwards as a result of injuries. Others, such as Michael Watson, are disabled for life as a result of beatings in the ring. Medical studies also show that boxing can lead to long-term brain-damage, and to illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease. For these reasons all the major medical associations call for an end to boxing. Banning boxing would mean an end to needless deaths, injuries and brain-damage.
Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man.

Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man, and above all to knock him out. The sport appeals to the worst and most violent parts of human nature. Such a savage sport has no place in modern society. We should not let men do this to each other. We should not offer money to encourage them to fight. We should also ban it as a form of public entertainment.
Boxing exploits young men (and sometimes women now).

Boxing exploits young men (and sometimes women now). Some start before the age of ten. They often don’t have enough education to make a proper decision about the risks of their sport even once they are adults. They train hard for long hours, trusting a coach to prepare their body and a manager to arrange fights and handle money. Often those around the boxer do very well at his (or her) expense. This gives them a reason to make the fighter take more fights, even if that would be dangerous. Even successful champions (e.g. Mike Tyson) often end up broke and desperate.
Boxing has to have stricter rules than other sports because it is so much more dangerous.

Boxing has to have stricter rules than other sports because it is so much more dangerous. Injuries happen in other sports but they are accidental. In boxing the injuries are the point of the sport and they are much more serious. In spite of all the regulations, deaths and serious injuries take place every year in boxing. And they happen in amateur fights as well as professional ones, so headguards seem to make little difference. Clearly it is not possible to control boxing well enough so that it is safe. The only way to make boxing safe is to ban it.
There is no reason to think that if boxing was banned it would continue “underground”.

There is no reason to think that if boxing was banned it would continue “underground”. Cockfighting and badger baiting were banned and they are almost unheard of. If caught, those breaking the law by organising or watching a boxing match could be punished severely. This will scare off others from trying to stage fights in future. Without television coverage there will be no money left in boxing. It is not as if boxers have nothing else to do. With their athletic talents they could make it in other sports instead.
The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing

The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head from the permitted target areas. A body of medical evidence is building up to suggest that even if a boxer survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a greater susceptibility to diseases such as Parkinson’s. Although the incidence of injury is much higher in sports such as basketball, rugby or riding, the risk of serious injury in boxing is far greater. In fact, that risk is so great that boxing should be banned. A ban, quite simply, would mean fewer people dead, injured or permanently brain damaged.
As a first step, professional boxing at least should be banned.

As a first step, professional boxing at least should be banned, as it is already in countries like Sweden, Cuba and North Korea. Even if adults wish to fight each other for sport, violence should not be encouraged by financial reward. The amateur sport is at least much better regulated, with credible governing bodies and tough rules on wearing helmets, the length of fights, the role of the referee, etc. Knock-outs are very rare and serious injuries much less common than in the professional game (although there are still deaths each year in amateur boxing).
Boxing is a very dangerous sport. Every year both amateur and professional boxers die in matches.

Boxers know the risks of their sport and choose freely to fight. They are also well-paid for the dangers of fighting. We have to allow people to make their own decisions in life. The government should not ban something adults choose to do unless it clearly affects other people. In boxing, it is the boxer who takes the risk and who will pay the price, no one else. Other sports are also dangerous, for example horse-riding, skiing or parachuting - should we ban those too?
Because of its huge resources, only the federal government can help regions recover from massive dis...

Because of its huge resources, only the federal government can help regions recover from massive disasters quickly and efficiently. States simply do not have the financial reserves to rebuild, especially as a natural disaster will damage the state economy and so reduce their tax take. Nor do individual states have the expertise to coordinate a massive reconstruction campaign. States must rely on federal entities like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that have experience in dealing with overwhelming and continuing crises.
In the wake of a disaster, state and local administrations are often overwhelmed by its impact. The...

In the wake of a disaster, state and local administrations are often overwhelmed by its impact. Their own offices and employees are likely to be directly affected, greatly reducing their ability to respond effectively to the situation. If humanitarian aid is to reach afflicted citizens, and a coordinated recovery and rebuilding plan put into place, it will require the intervention of the federal government. The national executive branch can call upon the resources of the armed forces and civilian administration to bring order to a chaotic situation and establish the clear lines of authority necessary to start rebuilding.
The federal government should advance the “general welfare” and the prosperity of our whole nation d...

The federal government should advance the “general welfare” and the prosperity of our whole nation depends on each part of the Union being as productive as possible. But some parts of America are much more prone to natural disasters than others, requiring some federal support to make it possible for economic life to go on in states that are at risk from floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. By offering insurance subsidies in such states, the government makes sure that families and businesses can settle and invest for the future. But because government had a role in encouraging people to settle in such vulnerable areas, it also has a duty to help them in exceptional circumstances when insurance policies would be insufficient to deal with the damage from natural disasters.
The government exists to protect citizens and to help them recover from crises. When disaster strik...

Government intervention in rebuilding is not the answer and only serves to cover up the government’s previous failures. Rather than being “acts of God”, many disasters happen either because of government laxity (a terrorist attack) or are made worse because of inadequate government preparation (a lack of hurricane warning systems or earthquake building codes). Focusing on the role of government in recovery encourages a mentality that excuses earlier government negligence and does not help prevent similar crises in the future.