BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There will be a severe case of side effects

1. experts(even the pro-cosmetics) warn that the physical pain is quite severe. This includes back pain, bruises, and so on. This is so serious that you may have to wear head bandages after a surgery. 2. Also, years after you have surgery, you will have to face the later side effects: that is, the effects which will disfigure you. a very funny example of this is South Korea: you often see people who suffer because of those effects. You will know if you ever surf in the Korean Internet.
There are dangers involved in any kind of surgery.

We should not restrict freedom of choice. Certainly there’s an element of danger involved. But we let people box. We let people bungee jump. They undertake these dangers for fun or for money. Why shouldn’t we let people undertake dangers in the pursuit of beauty, and higher self esteem?\ Furthermore, cosmetic surgery is becoming safer and safer. It is increasingly strictly policed and sky-high legal pay-outs by bad surgeons have ensured that practitioners take more and more care. Technology in surgery and in implants and so forth is forever improving. The scare stories the proposition talk about are the worst examples of thirty years ago – they’re nothing to do with cosmetic surgery today.
People have freedom of expression. .

It is laughable to think that having larger breasts or lips can be classified as the use of ‘freedom of expression’. How low has our society gone if we think the most valuable use of our right to freedom of expression is the right to have cosmetic surgery and dye our hair? The availability of cosmetic surgery and the making it more acceptable only lets the idea infiltrate society that it is ok to want physical perfection, and that appearance is important. Surely we would want our young to grow up with higher hopes and aspirations.
It shows us for the spoilt race we are

Cosmetic surgery only serves to show everyone how spoilt we are. What we want we can get, even if we pay thousands and go under the knife for it. When people feel that there is something that they cannot possibly achieve, it humbles them. The feeling of not being able to get something reiterates to us how we are merely mortal and not Gods. However, cosmetic surgery changes this perception. We feel we can achieve all we want to in life, and that only feeds our vanity and our spoilt natures. We would not want this for our children, so why do we want it for grown adults?
It's intention is to make money.

The development of cosmetic surgery over the years has been intertwined with that of reconstructive and more general medical surgery. Cosmetic surgery has greatly aided reconstructive surgery. For example, maxillofacial surgery, or surgery of the jaw, has developed with insights from both plastic surgeons and oral surgeons. It’s impossible to say in some areas who contributed the greatest advances, the cosmetic or the mainstream. To shut down cosmetic surgery would be to cut off a valuable outlet for research and discovery. The market can sometimes create great benefits: people work hard in pursuit of profits and often their work can help us all. Plenty of people make a good living from normal medicine and they are not criticised, the same should be true for privately provided medicine: there’s nothing wrong with turning a profit.
Good and Bad

I believe that cosmetic surgery is a personal option but in some cases it becomes a bad addiction. In the case of the personal option, i don't think that plastic surgery is necessarily a bad thing. All human beings have some sense of insecurity and for some people that insecurity is their appearance. I think that plastic surgery is a self esteem booster, which a little boost is not a problem. For example, my mother's friend Valerie was self conscious about the size of her breast for twenty four years of her life. She would not go out in public with a bathing suit on, she would be very selective on the type of blouses she would wear, and she felt that men would not date her because of her breast size. She finally decided to pursue a breast augmentation. Afterwards, she says that she felt like a different woman. No longer was her self esteem low, but she actually felt good about herself. As Valerie describes, "This minor cosmetic surgery drastically changed my life." These circumstances where plastic surgery is minor but creates a positive change in a person's life are not bad. Also cosmetic surgery, in many cases, helps save people's lives. For example, a burn victim needs new skin on their face so that they will not bleed to death or a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer and has to remove her breasts in order to survive. Cosmetic surgery is changing their appearance just like someone were to change their hair color, or get an ear piercing. If the changes are made moderately to make someone happy than ultimately I believe there is nothing wrong with it unless it becomes excessive. Secondly, I believe when cosmetic surgery becomes an obsession is when it turns into a bad situation. People start changing their perception from a physical to a mental problem. That is why I believe that cosmetic surgery should have limitations. If someone is coming in weekly for a different procedure, than i classify that as a problem. At this point people get surgery not because it makes them happy but because it has become a norm to their lifestyle. This is why doctors should come up with a test to evaluate the mental state of their patient before they undergo procedures. The test should ask specific questions so that doctors can tell if their patient is at a point where the surgery is going to make them happy or the surgery is just another form of an addiction. I don't believe it would be difficult to tell this distinction because in my opinion there is a fine line between the two types of people. Overall, this is the reason that I chose to argue it depends. Each individual person truly contributes to cosmetic surgery to be both good and bad.
There are dangers involved in any kind of surgery.

There are dangers involved in any kind of surgery. Sometimes we must accept those dangers, as they come in the course of necessary medical procedures. But with elective surgery – procedures people don’t need, but rather merely want – the risks can’t be justified. These risks apply both to the surgery itself, and to the long term. For example, leaking silicone breast implants have been a widespread problem and can lead to death. Once, paraffin was often injected into the face to smooth wrinkles, with disastrous effects. Silicon often finds its way into other parts of the body, such as the lymph glands, and can prevent the early detection of breast cancer as doctors often think real lumps are silicon leakage. Who today knows the full future implications of injecting the highly dangerous poison Botox into one’s face?
People have freedom of expression. .

A legal argument can be made for cosmetic surgery. Under the Human Rights Act which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights, we have the freedom to express ourselves, Article 10 ECHR. If we feel that our body does not reflect who we are as people, then we have the right to change it. If we can dye our hair, change our clothes and have piercings, why should we not be able to express ourselves via cosmetic surgery. Now, this right would not extend to NHS payment for the cosmetic surgery, but if someone can afford to spend money on their own appearance, there is no reason why they should not be able to, and there is a legal reason why they should be able to
If the person had a car crash or was burned in fire, the might have a cosmetic surgery to improve their appearance

If a person did get into an terriable accident,and in thier unfortunate case their body was severly damaged .Then (I think) they would not only suffer physical dismay but mential dismay as well. Can you imagine having the same appearence for most of your life and then suddenlly you look in the miorror and you see,not you but someone/something (there have been cases where these poeple refer to themselvs as something instead of someone) else? If most people we under these circumstances then they would not be able to handle the emotional warfare between what they see and what they know, and the only way SOME might find out of hell, is to plastic surgery...(unfortunatly) hi my name is santhosh my trunk was burned i want surgury to get my first look
The black market argument applies to everything illegal.

The black market argument applies to everything illegal. Of course that risk exists, but the number of those undertaking the activity will be smaller, as you concede. Lack of legal safeguards and medical accountability, and the probability that only badly qualified doctors will offer illegal operations will deter almost everyone from risking black market surgery. Fewer operations must be desirable if it is agreed that the activity concerned should be banned. Black market activity will be vigorously policed – and after all, its usually pretty obvious if someone has had surgery.
People go into debt copying celebrities

Surgery is becoming more and more common, and contrary to popular belief, it is not among the rich. Poorer people now are considering cosmetic surgery as a viable option for them. These people will save and save, sacrificing their ordinary day lives in order to look like celebrities; whether that be extreme fanaticism or just having the “perfect body”. This is not healthy, if these people did not have the option to have cosmetic surgery they would live better lives. They would spend their money on things that are more important that their appearance. A case can also be made that cosmetic surgery helped create our recession. People filled their heads with ambitions of looking good, and took on debt in order to cover the cost. This was debt on credit cards and mortgages which ultimately led to the credit crunch.
It's intention is to make money.

Pointing to accidental side-benefits of cosmetic surgery will not cover up the fact that its intention is to make money, not make people better. If a fraction of the efforts pumped into it went into proper medicine, the medical world would be much more advanced than it is today. And the fact that the benefits arise from chance merely serves to highlight the greed that constitutes the essential nature of cosmetic surgery: those benefits ought to be all of medicine’s aim, not an accident resulting from it. Certainly people make money and careers in normal medicine, but they are giving treatments that aim to make people well, not look different.
It can alleviate mental illnesses

This is not solving the problem at route. The problem is the perception that the mind has on what is important. All cosmetic surgery is doing is changing the appearance but not the mental state. Someone who has such a mental disposition to these illnesses will have their offending limb changed, but they will ultimately always find something they are not happy with. Instead of cosmetic surgery, these people should be offered psychological help. Cosmetic surgery only masks the inner problem.
Wealthy people need to spend their money some how

Whilst money changing hands is always good in an economy, the reality is the money is going from the hands of the rich back into the hands of the rich. Surgeons are already among the upper middle class stratum. Then you have to take into consideration that rich people will use the most experienced and popular surgeons. These surgeons will be of a higher income than the other surgeons (who would still have a hefty salary). The wages paid to cleaners and the other menial workers would pale insignificant to what the surgeons were earning. The surgeon would then keep the money and they would save it, so the money would still be redundant in our failing economy.
it depends

someone said that : " i love the artificial beauty rather than the natural ugliness".that point of view is right, in some extent. comestic surgery is not bad, itself.we cant deny that enhance the apperance is the demand of people coz everyone always want to be more good-looking in others' eyes. The point here is the way you make it. If you take too much advantage of comestic surgery, it's really dangerous and you can face unforeseen consequences. then it's too late for u to regret. Donatella Versace is a typical example.(i'm sure you guys know her- famous fashion designer ).Her face changes drastically due to some unfortunate plastic surgery. so think carefully before you make any comestic surgery .
There is not the need for the number of graduates being produced

I agree that no-one should feel pressured that one career or education path is better - however, you are hypocritically advocating the same thing to happen in the opposite direction! While no-one should feel that university is the only choice and that it is all about prestige, similarly they shouldn't feel that they can't choose their own life path. I, personally, would support incentives for people to move into skill areas that are most needed - however, that is vastly different from intentionally making it impossible for some people to achieve their full potential. This is their lives - they should do what they enjoy the most and want to do with it. They have the right to determine their destiny. And if that's detrimental to the economy, or otherwise, that's a shame - but ultimately you cannot force people to sacrifice their humanity and their life goals for the sake of others. If they choose to, we should definitely welcome and support that. But there will never be a time, no matter how dire the circumstances, when we can tell people that their own dreams don't matter.
Capping admissions is a sub-optimal method of improving the value of university education.

It is essentially analogous to DeBeers horading diamonds to artificially raise the price of the few diamonds it does make available to the market. In the example, those in favor of the proposition would claim that rising diamond prices are indicative of higher quality--any price gain over inflation relects a greater demand for a diamond. The problem here is that the proponents are focusing on the individual diamond rather than the aggregate diamond market. Just as allowing more diamonds to hit the market would reduce prices, so does more university students reduce the relative value of a college education. However, the aggregate economy is left better off because more people are learning how to think at a much more productive level (essentially the main purpose of state-sponsered education to begin with). Further, I would argue that competitive pressures would encourage students to differentiate themselves in more creative and value-driven ways. In the United States, this is seen in the practice of obtaining internships over the summer, which have the added bonus of reducing transition costs that occur in the shift from the educational to employment environment.
With so many new universities and colleges, employers can't tell the difference between the good and bad.

There are so many new universities and colleges opening to meet the huge and growing demand for higher education, that many employers have no idea how to distinguish the poorer institutions from the better ones (and sometimes fail to realise there is any difference at all). This leads them to believe that a candidate from Edinburgh University who has a 2.1 degree is the same as another from Oxford Brooks who holds the same level of degree. A call for greater distinction is not merely snobbery, but actually founded on fact – not only do the entry requirements for universities differ, but they also differ hugely in terms of the type and level of education they provide. Scottish universities (particularly the Ancients which are St Andrews, Edinburgh and Glasgow) require an undergraduate to undertake a range of different subjects in the first two years in order to complete a degree, rather then focusing on just one. Thus a student leaves university with a range of advanced disciplines, even though on paper, it seems as if they have the same education as those from an English university.
There's a national shortage of skilled labourers

The increase of university goers over the past decade or so means that fewer and fewer people are learning skilled trades such as those of an electrician, plumber, carpenter, joiner or builder. As a result there is a national shortage. Many labourers are having to be employed from overseas, and while this in itself is not a problem, it does show a lack of diversity in Britain. This can often produce a shortage of labourers in other countries (for example Poland) making the problem more widespread.
There is not the need for the number of graduates being produced

There is a recognised shortage of front-line, hands-on practitioners, in the form of plumbers, electricians, service men and women (police, fire and medical), etc. This, coupled with a demonstrable shortage of engineering, mathematics and science graduates, produces an over-population of humanities and media graduates who may have been better suited to other professions or workplaces. For some reason, academic achievement is considered more important that engaging in a career that you want, or that you are exceptionally well-suited to. Sir Ken Robinson[http://bit.ly/rkYC6D & http://bit.ly/paSYmD%5D%5D, talking for TED, tells the story of a fireman who always wanted to be a fireman. When he was a child, he was told "You can do better than that", meaning he could do a 'proper' job, by getting a 'proper' education. But he wanted to be a fireman. When he saved the life of his teacher and his teacher's wife, he said "I hope he thinks better of me now". We should encourage people to follow careers that they enjoy or are well-suited to, or both - not just assume that a university education is the paramount achievement. What is the ultimate outcome of a perfect education? University professors; not valuable services. We do not realise how many fantastic gardener's, artists, writers and eletricians and service men we are losing because of the pressure society put into the individual to sign up. This is because everybody thinks that it is easier to become enrolled into a university.
Students don't always attend university simply for career advancement

Those who attend university often gain a lot more than simply attaining another qualification to help them in their career. Most undergraduate students have never lived away from home, so living in a safe, regulated university environment proves very helpful in making the adjustment between parental dependency and an independent life. Students also often find themselves having to financially support themselves, at least in part, and this is invaluable for self-confidence and also imbues them with the basic skills needed in later working life. Reducing the amount of students attending universities would also reduce the amount of young people with these social and financial skills, and unless other institutions are set up in place of universities to provide these skills, there is more to be lost than gained in making them more selective.
A university degree has far less worth than it once did

Distinctions can be still be made between those who entered university simply for a more ‘rounded’ education or as a stop gap before working full-time, and those who attended university for the sole purpose of furthering their career. It is beneficial that a crowded marketplace means that people are having to stay on at university longer in order to gain more unique qualifications – this means that those in the top jobs have far more knowledge and education than they would have 50 years ago when further qualifications were not needed for distinction.
Many don’t ‘use’ their degree after graduating, yet still end up in huge debt

Many university courses now actively address the issue of transferable skills and help students realise how their degree work applies to their CV. There are plenty of skills one can get from most degrees - meeting deadlines, communication, teamwork and working independently being some of the more obvious ones. Taking a degree demonstrates that the candidate has shown serious commitment to their education at a non-compulsory stage, and seen it through to completion. A large number of graduate vacancies merely specify that the candidate needs a degree, rather than a specific subject. This demonstrates that they have faith that a degree in itself is a mark of merit, and that graduates will have skills aside from the specific subject-related ones.
Wide university education produces a literate, multi-skilled and widely knowledgeable nation

Quite apart from the fact that the nation also needs to learn more practical skills (which one cannot learn through most university educations), there are many ways in which one can become culturally aware, widely read and more 'artistic' without the long years and large debt of a university education. The British media has improved so much and become so diverse that there are many high quality documentaries that have brought a wider education to those with interest outside university. Libraries, evening classes, and the internet can provide all the education one could want to those with a specific interest but with no real urge for a degree or career in that field. If self-education were promoted more in this manner, and university was kept separate for those who wanted to learn for career advancement rather than education for education's sake, then thousands of young people would be more financially and vocationally secure.
A university degree has far less worth than it once did

Fifty years ago, a university degree was so much rarer than it is now. Having one immediately distinguished you from the competition when it came to starting a career. With so many graduates leaving university every year, the marketplace is becoming flooded, and those who really need to set themselves apart from the rest in their academic field are having to stay longer to do post-graduate courses. This means much higher debts upon graduation, and also means that they are older and have less 'practical' workplace experience than some others, giving them one possible disadvantage, even though they've gained another.
Many don't 'use' their degree after graduating, yet still end up in huge debt

Because the government's drive to see 50% of the young population through university over the next 10 years (Tony Blair, 2003) many young people take the step of higher education to please their parents, keep up with their peers, or simply because they don't want to start thinking about a career and full time employment. The result of this is that more students drop out of university before completing their qualification than ever before because they took it for the wrong reasons, and yet still end up in debt.