BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Our plan does not jeopardize the collection of intelligence

Another issue we want to address is a possible reduction in efficiency in agencies’ ability to gather information. In particular, we consider two problems. First, disclosure of evidence in courts might lead to disclosure of information gathering methodology. Second, sensitive information might be disclosed. Presenting evidence in courts indirectly reveals how the agency collected that information. For example, if the evidence is a transcription of a telephone conversation, then it tells that phone conversations were intercepted. We here can make a reasonable assumption that members of organized crime (and especially terrorists) already know that their cell phones might be tracked, that their internet chats recorded, and virtually all information they exchange can in principle be investigated by an intelligence agency. Knowing that, criminals use increasingly sophisticated means of communication and coordination, but motivation to upgrade their means of communication has little in connection with intelligence info being disclosed in courts. Even if keeping the intelligence gathering methods in secrecy has any value, there is a number of other ways how to learn about these methods. A lot of countries already use most of the evidence in courts of law (for instance, intercept evidence is admissible in the US, Canada). Besides, Discovery Science, Google, and criminal friends are also quite good resources of information about possible methods of interception. The second issue is that sensitive information might be disclosed. As we have outlined in the plan, in order to preserve public interest immunity, information that could harm chances of successful investigation of the question at hand or would have broader implications for the public would not be revealed by the discretion of the responsible authority. For instance, in drug trafficking cases evidence against a middle-man would not be used if it would potentially reveal existence of undercover agents - prevention of nation-wide drug distribution is a far more important. We simply keep this common practice unchanged. Our plan does not really endanger the ability of intelligence agencies to gather intelligence, nor it discloses all sensitive information. On the contrary, our plan is more flexible than the status quo. Under the status quo, certain types of evidence are explicitly inadmissible in the statutes of a country. We say that this is rather rigid. We believe that once we deal with threats as big as terrorism, it is rather myopic to apply one-size-fits-all approach. We think that a judge or another relevant authority can best decide whether it is worth to risk disclosing the methods of gathering intelligence or not, because they can take into account the circumstances which were not thought about when making the law. In the very end, this leads to better outcomes.
We Have Forgotten What We are Observing

The word, “Halloween” is a contraction of “All Hallows Eve,” or the evening before All Hallows Day. All Hallows Day is usually referred to as All Saints Day, a Christian holy day. Many people in the United States observe secular festivities on Halloween, but do not make the connection to All Saints Day. Observance of these festivals requires the purchase of candy and costumes. In its article on All Saints Day, catholic.org observes that “The holiday has lost much of its connection to its religious origins,” and that it “…is not widely practiced or acknowledged by most Americans unless they are Catholic.”
Commerce Was Here First

No one knows the exact date of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Andrew McGowan, in his article “How December 25 Became Christmas” tells us that the observance of December 25th as the date of The Nativity was not decided upon by the church until 300 years after the death of Jesus. He offers several theories as to how early church leaders decided upon that date. The United Church of God acknowledges that many customs associated with Christmas – including exchanging gifts - derive from year-end customs that predate Christianity. The article also mentions that an early church leader by the name of Origen considered the celebration of the birth of Christ to be idolatrous. Commercialization, then, is returning the winter holiday to its original significance. Exchanging gifts at Yuletide or the solstice is itself a form of commerce. Other traditions, such as drinking mulled wine or burning a Yule log, would have required some form of commerce. To fully return the observance of the late December holiday to its original significance, we may need to simply rename it, or refrain from calling it “Christmas.” The organizers of the Christmas market would be entirely correct in their claim that Jesus has nothing to do with their Christmas market if they labeled it as a Yule market or Festivus market.
basic aim of festival forgotten

i think the basic aim of any festival is to show our love for god and when one commercializes festivals, that basic aim is forgotten and everyone involved is thinking, "What am I going to get on this festival." In fact, in some instances; the festivals have been commercialized so much, that kids do not even know the significance of the festival and consider it just another holiday or just another chance to increase their material possessions. Commercial establishments have a field day in these instances.
We Have Forgotten What We are Observing

Mental Floss reports that many of the festivities that we observe on Halloween have their roots in the pre-Christian Celtic observance of Samhain. All Saints Day was invented by a pope during the seventh century CE to turn people away from pagan rituals. Some of these rituals involved providing treats to individuals disguised as supernatural beings. In 2015, the Pew Research Center reported that the percentage of Americans that identify themselves as Christian continues to drop. Even those who call themselves Christian are becoming less observant. The only thing required to return Halloween to its original significance is to give it back its original name of Samhain.
Commercialization Ruins Holidays and Festivals Worldwide

Traditionalists in China have complained about increased superficiality in the observance of festivals and holidays since China opened to Western commerce in the late 20th century. Making dumplings together as a family has traditionally been part of the festivities for some holidays. Now, some people in China purchase frozen dumplings. In 2006, China Daily quoted Professor Gao Youpeng, of Henan University: "The Chinese are discarding the cultural meaning, spiritual values and psychological effects of many festivals to air grievances and relieve stress." Professor Gao, a folklore scholar, also said that "Globalization, urbanization and commercialization have been erasing traditional Chinese rituals and celebrations." He posted his Declaration to Safeguard the Spring Festival that same year.
Commerce is Necessary for Holidays and Festivals

Jews no longer perform animal sacrifices at Passover. We may see matzo ball soup mixes and other kosher products on sale at the supermarket prior to Passover, but we do not see the onslaught of advertising for these products that we see for products related to Christmas, Easter and Halloween. If the observation of a holiday or festival calls for material, then commerce must take place. If Chinese families are to make dumplings together, then someone must bring the ingredients of the dumplings to market. The Jews celebrating the Passover at the time that Jesus chased out the money changers from the Temple at Jerusalem were following the Law of Moses. Not everyone could provide a lamb for a sacrifice, so they had to find another way to observe the rituals proscribed in the book of Leviticus. The money changers filled a need. One of the theses offered by Fr. van Wieringen, in the paper mentioned above, is that “Neither secularization nor commercialization is the problem, but idolatry (or for those who prefer a different word: greed).” Perhaps it was greed to which Jesus objected when he chased the money changers from the Temple at Jerusalem, and not commerce. In his preaching, Jesus of Nazareth encouraged us to see the spirit of The Law, rather than blindly following the letter of The Law. A BBC article on Passover reminds us that the purpose of the holiday is to celebrate the liberation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. Perhaps Chinese traditionalists object to frozen dumplings because that misses the point. The purpose of having dumplings at the Spring Festival is so that families can spend time together making the dumplings. Commerce is necessary for nearly all aspects of human life. Idolatry and greed erode the significance of holidays and festivals.
basic aim of festival forgotten

This depends on what is considered to be the basic aim of a festival. Is it simply to praise god (or as they are often from before Christ gods) or is it to have a good time? Festivals in the middle of winter were as much to banish the long nights with merryment as to praise the god(s) for the day beginning to get longer again. If it is simply about having a good time then commercialisation makes little difference. Commercialisation can even make having a good time easier as there will be more veriety and the festival is likely to get more spectacular.
Jesus is Becoming Irrelevant to Christmas

A 2013 Rasmussen public opinion survey asked respondents whether Christmas should be more about Jesus or Santa Claus, 67 percent said Jesus. In a 2014 Rasmussen survey with the same question, 60 percent said Christmas should be more about Jesus. A Jew who resisted commercialization of Passover is becoming less important to Christmas than a man in a red suit and false beard hired by retailers to sell toys. The Rasmussen polls were conducted in the United States. The trend toward the irrelevance of Jesus to Christmas may be more pronounced in Europe. In his paper, “Commercialization & Religious Festivals: A view from a biblical-theological perspective”, Fr. Archibald van Wieringen provides an anecdote in which the organizers of a Christmas market in Dordrecht, the Netherlands, would not rent space to a group of evangelists. The organizers believed that Jesus is not relevant to Christmas. At the Christmas market in Dordrecht, commercialization has not simply eroded the significance of Christmas, but eliminated it altogether.
There is a pressing need for reform of the way the UN raises military missions. The present system ...

A UN standing army is unnecessary; in many cases UN missions are very successful; when there are problems these are more to do with lengthy and difficult Security Council deliberations, inadequate mandates, etc. rather than how long it took to gather a force together.Once a standing army exists, it provides the UN with an easy way out in any crisis, so force may be more likely to be used, often inappropriately. A very rapid response time may also worsen problems - currently the time it takes to gather and insert a UN force may provide a period in which the warring groups feel compelled to negotiate before outside intervention becomes a reality.
A UN standing army would be independent of the great powers and so more likely to be respected as a ...

Essentially only governments have standing armies, so this plan would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where a totalitarian state has veto power over key decision-making. This means a standing army may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s selfless neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements.
A UN standing army would be more effective than the troops staffing many missions under the current ...

Differences in language, culture, etc. will seriously mar operational effectiveness, especially in combat situations. In addition, in a truly multinational force there will always be a great many individual soldiers who could be suspected of taking sides in a particular conflict (e.g. Muslims or Orthodox Christians in the Balkan conflicts); are such soldiers to be pulled out from particular mission, thereby perhaps weakening the whole force?A UN army might also end up being very poorly equipped, for if the advanced military powers start to see the UN as a potential rival or adversary, they will refuse to sell it their best arms and armour.
A UN standing army would bring benefits to the world economy through avoiding the costs of refugee c...

The cost of such an army would be very high, especially if it were to include purchase of air and sea transport to reach theatres of operation, added to the high costs of permanent establishment and training, and equipping the force for every possible type of terrain. At present the UN can draw upon different kind of troops for different kinds of missions from whatever member states feel best equipped to deal with a particular situation.
Although other reforms of the UN may be desirable in their own right, without involving the creation...

If it is granted that the UN currently reacts too slowly to crises, alternatives for an improved response could be implemented without resorting to a standing army. A Rapid Reaction Force made up of fast-response units from member states with elite military capability, pledged in advance for UN operations, would build upon the best features of the current system. Security Council reform to remove the veto powers from the Permanent 5 members would allow deadlocks in decision-making to be rapidly broken and avoid the compromises which produce weak mission mandates. An improved prediction capability through better intelligence and analysis, and central logistical planning at UN headquarters would allow forces to be assembled and mandates drafted before problems became full-blown crises. Security Council rules could be changed so that resolutions requiring force could not be passed until troops have been pledged in advance.
There is a pressing need for reform of the way the UN raises military missions. The present system ...

There is a pressing need for reform of the way the UN raises military missions. The present system takes months to put forces in the field, and these are often inadequate to the task in hand as member states have pledged fewer troops than were requested. This has meant the UN has often acted too late, with too little force, and has thereby failed to avert humanitarian disasters in such places as Central Africa, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. A UN standing army would be permanently available and able to react rapidly to contain crises before they turn into full-scale wars and humanitarian disasters.
A UN standing army would be independent of the great powers and so more likely to be respected as a ...

A UN standing army would be independent of the great powers and so more likely to be respected as a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper; contrast this to the perceived differences in attitude between troops from Britain, the US, Russia and France to warring sides in the Balkans. It would also be free of accusations of meddling and self-interest that accompany the participation of troops from neighbouring states in UN interventions (for example, Nigeria in West African missions).
A UN standing army would be more effective than the troops staffing many missions under the current ...

A UN standing army would be more effective than the troops staffing many missions under the current system. At present most UN operations are supplied by developing nations who hope to make a profit from the payments they receive for their services, but who are under-equipped and badly trained. A UN standing army would be better prepared in both respects and its soldiers would have greater motivation as they would have made a choice to enlist, rather than being conscripts. A single UN force would also have better command and control than in current situation, when different national forces and their commanders often fail to work effectively together in the field. Successful forces such as the French Foreign Legion, the Indian army and the Roman army show that issues of language and culture need not be problems in combat situations.
A UN standing army would bring benefits to the world economy through avoiding the costs of refugee c...

A UN standing army would bring benefits to the world economy through avoiding the costs of refugee crises and other humanitarian disasters. These costs are both direct (through aid) and indirect (as developed nations often become the destination of illegal immigrants fleeing conflicts at home, e.g. Sri Lankans and Kurds). War also disrupts trade and thus damages the global economy, while a greater confidence that war can be avoided in future will encourage more long-term investment and thus greater prosperity. Member states providing troops for current UN missions are paid for their services, so a UN standing army would not be much more expensive that the present system.
Although other reforms of the UN may be desirable in their own right, without involving the creation...

Although other reforms of the UN may be desirable in their own right, without involving the creation of a standing army they will not address the central problems of peacekeeping. Proposals for a rapid reaction force may speed up the arrival of troops a little, but it will still make the UN dependent upon the goodwill of member states; if they choose not to participate in a particular mission, then the usual long delays and inadequate forces will result.
Finally

Europe is a very large continent. The culture and values of those in Eastern Europe are very different from those in Western Europe. While some Countries are conservatively Christian or Muslim, spangled with overt, ostentatious and common displays of religious totems, others like Sweden, are mostly atheist.Official languages are different, lifestyles, family structures and savoir faire all differ.There is no singular law, English law is squarely different from that practiced in Spain, for example. Since laws,cultures,ideals,dominant religions and languages vary, so should immigration policies.
To protect western values

[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7314300.stm]] Europe has to toughen up and be united against people-smugglers who traffic illegal immigrants and sex-workers in and out of Europe. 'Freedom of speech/expression' is held very high in this Zeitgeist's understanding of western values. Europe has to make sure that intolerance,hatred and violence/aggression in answer to free speech, is curtailed then snuffed.[[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/]]
Britain does bear the brunt of immigration

The fact that Britain is targeted by immigrants surely would mean that it is better if Britain adopted its own immigration policy. In every country the problem of immigration is different. Some countries need immigrants, others are over populated. Rather than a common policy trying to cover all cases across the European Economic Community, surely it would be better for each individual member state to adopt their own policy based on the needs of that particular country. This would be alot easier to draft per country than it would be for the European Council to decide among themselves how best to operate across the whole of Europe.
Britain does bear the brunt of immigration

Just because Britain is not near the borders of Europe, it does not mean that as a country it has less immigration issues. On the contrary, due to it's generous welfare structure Britain is targeted by Eastern immigrants. In order for Britain to maintain the high level of benefits available to it's citizens whilst keeping immigration down, a common European policy of immigration should be adopted so that Britain is protected from influxes of immigrants. No not immigrants, their progeny 'British' Born and Bred, You can not call people born and bred in the U.K immigrants, maybe ghetto-dwellers, racial-minorities but not immigrants. The parents of certain British terrorists 'were' immigrants and suffice to say the parents were never involved in any terrorist activity. Spain, however WAS attacked by immigrants or F.O.B s if you like.Restricting immigration in Spain could curtail terrorism, since their terrorists weren't home-grown. However, since having a British passport, means easy access to all of Europe,it makes sense therefore,for all of Europe to have a common immigration policy.
He has beaten the best of his generation

This riposte is two-fold. The style or manner of Joe's wins and the overall framing or perspective of his career against an appreciation of his class (weight) and his generation. There is no doubt that Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Jnr. are fighters that can be considered in the very top bracket as far as their reputation goes. Kessler too was an undefeated world champion before going toe-to-toe with Joe. Lacey held the IBF title until he was totally outclassed by the Welshman. But to be held as one of the best all-time boxers and a stand-out of his generation a boxer must go beyond merely beating his opponents. Calzaghe's defeat of these key men, though professional and fluid, did not convey the mesmeric qualities which Ali used to overcome his greatest adversaries. Calzaghe's wins were by and large convincing, but unexplosive, points decisions. It is in this respect more than any other that he falls short of being uttered in the same breath as an Ali or a Sugar-Ray. With both men it is arguable that they are remembered as much for the manner of their major victories as for the victories themselves. The second element to this discussion which also departs Calzaghe from inclusion among the all-time greats of the sport is what must be described almost as the 'tale of the tape'. Though he deserves great credit for moving divisions in order to find the next challenge, none of his key opponents were able to offer the audience the kind of saga which elevates a man to greatness. I would contend that Ali's status is directly related to the fantastic support cast during his era which provided for rematches with most of his top adversaries. The fights made for a classic era, Ali's supremacy within this era made for his legendary status. Calzaghe's crowing glories (i.e. his major victories) do not have names like the Rumble in the Jungle or Thriller in Manilla which lend their own theatrical touch to the drama. The same criteria can also be applied to Sugar Ray Leonard who fought several times against major rivals like Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler. Unfortunately, and this is in no way Calzaghe's fault, his era and his main rivals have not contributed to a perception of the last decade as a golden era for middleweights. He has beaten them all once and his never really thrashed anybody with the kind of imagination or genius required to make him an all-time great. I suppose in essence both of these points could be understood as looking at boxing as the pure form of entertainment that it is and concluding that Calzaghe, his foes, and his fights just don't carry the drama which makes a great boxer a legendary one.