BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In Japan, where the sport has been incredibly popular for decades, the fans crave submissions more than knock outs.

If it were human cockfighting then this assumption would presume that those who watch it want to see somebody get seriously injured. However, there is a huge amount of gentlemanly conduct in the sport, with massive respect between competitors, and in Japan, which can be regarded as the birthplace of Mixed Martial Arts; the fans appreciate the ground game of the athletes probably more so than those that keep the fight standing.
MMA is Human Cock Fighting

It is a disgrace...a blood lust. Anyone who denies it is being less than truthful. The whole point is to submit the opponent in a violent manner..choke, knock out, TKO, etc, and lots of blood is spilled in the process. Boxing is the same really. Sports that display skill and toughness, such as amateur wrestling, would not bring in the big dollars because they don't result in a bloodied and humiliated opponent. Hence, society demands more brutality. C'mon folks...be truthful... MMA is just another reflection of the decline of society.
This sport is not just about punching somebody in the head. The ground game and submission game is just as important, if not more, and furthermore is extremely difficult to master.

To become a black belt in Brazilian Jiu Jit Su takes many years of study and hard work. This is not the sport of somebody who just likes to get into fights for the hell of it. Mixed Martial Arts includes many skilled practitioners of Brazilian Jiu Jit Su, and many champions form the world renowned Abu Dhabi grappling competitions. The image of human cockfighting comes from the early 90s image of the sport when it was no holds barred, and was made up mostly of 30 year old white males who were not actually versed in any particular form of martial arts, excepting a few exceptions, most notably Royce Gracie who turned early UFC events into an advert for Gracie Jiu Jit Su. Although mixed martial arts is for all intent and purpose is allowing to grown men to 'kick ten bells out of each other', there is alot of skill involved. As mentioned above, martial art forms such as Jiu Jit Su are a perfect example of how to defend oneself appropriatly.It is a graceful from which takes years to master,aswell as promoting self-control and obedience. The men that fight in the UFC are all athletes who do what they do because they love using their skills and put them to good use in an 'octagon' rather than out on the streets.
Moderm MMA has rules as opposed to the former no-holds-barred style of fighting

Modern MMA has over 30 rules and is sanctioned by state athletic commissions all over the USA and Canada. It is no longer the brutal blood-sport that it once was when it was first intruduced in the USA. MMa is also considered safer than boxing because of the implementation of the new rules.Gone are the days of hair pulling, groin punching and head stomping. Brute force is no longer a factor as it was,hence, strategy and knowlege of anatomy and kinetics is a determining factor. These new rules not only protect the fighters, but they also protect the sport. 1. Butting with the head. 2. Eye gouging of any kind. 3. Biting. 4. Hair pulling. 5. Fish hooking. 6. Groin attacks of any kind. 7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. 8. Small joint manipulation. 9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head. 10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow. 11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea. 12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh. 13. Grabbing the clavicle. 14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent. 15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent. 16. Stomping a grounded opponent. 17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel. 18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck. 19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area. 20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent. 21. Spitting at an opponent. 22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent. 23. Holding the ropes or the fence. 24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area. 25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break. 26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee. 27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat. 28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee. 29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury. 30. Interference by the corner. (UFC web)
Kimbo Slice became an internet sensation all because people liked to watch him fight at Barbeques.

Kimbo Slice recently tried out on the Ultimate Fighter. He is a street fighter without any real talent for Mixed Martial Arts. He is the epitome of "human cockfighter," however the individuals in the UFC are professionals who understand the science of the sport. Kimbo Slice was eliminated from the Ultimate Fighter because he could not fight at the level of the others.
Sanctions are in place and the referee stoppages are much quicker than boxing.

Rebuttals to the contention that Mixed Martial Arts is safer. It has been proven that kicking, grounding, pounding and many more brutal action done in Mixed Martial Arts is not a safe scenario done a guy receiving punches only which could not actually knock down a boxer directly. Even though fighters are allowed to go on, it is still up to the discretion of boxers if they are fit to continue, they stand up and beat the count of 10. They tell referees that Ok I'm alright I can still fight. We also do not forget that there are ring physicians assigned to each bout and the cornermen of a boxer may also throw in the towel. Even though there is only one recorded death in MMA, still it does not answer that MMA is not human cockfighting.
UFC is less traumatizing than boxing

The UFC protects its investments, it's fighters. The UFC has had one death since it's existence in 1993. Boxing has had over 2,000 deaths, not to mention the severe defects that fighters like Ali, Fraiser and Tyson are left with. In the UFC fighters are allowed to tap out or call the fight. In boxing fighters are not allowed to call a fight, their med staff has to do it for them. UFC gloves are 4-6 ounces. Boxing gloves are 10-12 ounces. In the UFC you're hit approximately 40 times in 3 or 5 rounds. In boxing you're hit hundreds of times in 10 rounds. In the UFC a fight is determined by submission, judges decision, but rarely by knock out. Boxing is typically won by knockout and sometimes judges decision. UFC is fought in a tall octagon cage so that fighters can not fall out, be thrown out or be cornered in. Boxers have fallen out of rings, been tossed out of rings and get cornered so it's harder to defend themselves and get out of the corners. In the UFC once a fighter is knocked out the fight is immediately over. In boxing a fight can continue after a fighter is knocked out as long as they're back up within 10 seconds. Typically, they're knocked out for a few seconds and the fight resumes. The UFC DOES NOT ALLOW the following: 1.Butting with the head 2.Eye gouging of any kind 3.Biting 4.Hair pulling 5.Fish hooking 6.Groin attacks of any kind 7.Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent (see Fish-hooking) 8.Small joint manipulation 9.Striking to the spine or the back of the head (see Rabbit punch) 10.Striking downward using the point of the elbow (see Elbow (strike)) 11.Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea 12.Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh (see Purple Nurple) 13.Grabbing the clavicle 14.Kicking the head of a grounded opponent 15.Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent 16.Stomping a grounded opponent 17.Kicking to the kidney with the heel 18.Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck (see Piledriver) 19.Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area 20.Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent 21.Spitting at an opponent 22.Engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent 23.Holding the ropes or the fence 24.Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area 25.Attacking an opponent on or during the break 26.Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee 27.Attacking an opponent after the bell (horn) has sounded the end of a round 28.Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee 29.Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury 30.Interference by the corner 31.Throwing in the towel during competition Therefore, I say boxing is more dangerous than the UFC and it's been an accepted sport for thousands of years. The UFC is young and still learning,but by no means is it anymore dangerous than any other sport.
Kimbo Slice became an internet sensation all because people liked to watch him fight at Barbeques.

Kimbo Slice has pushed the sport back in terms of progress, and if anything has given rebirth to the image of human cockfighting. Despite the best efforts of Dana White, UFC President, to promote the athletic side of the sport, Kimbo Slice was able to come in and undo all his good work in one fowl spell and confirm that there is indeed a human cockfighting element to it, whereby all people want to see is somebody get knocked unconscious.
This sport draws together all aspects of martial arts

To name but a few of the mixed martial arts that have been witnessed in the UFC (which has become synonymous with mixed martial arts) one should mention san sho, muay thai, Brazilian jiu jit su, tae kwon do, judo, wing shun, not to mention the grappling techniques of college wrestlers and the less refined boxing that is also showcased. These art forms are not labelled as barbaric (granted boxing does come under criticism), and to label ancient art forms upon which countries pride themselves (Brazil, Japan, the Philippines, and China) would be to degrade their history and culture.
Sanctions are in place and the referee stoppages are much quicker than boxing.

Mixed Martial Arts is actually safer than boxing despite its outward appearance. Any TKO's are called immediately. In Boxing a competitor can fight on after being knocked down, or, so long as they keep the fight standing, can be continuously punched in the head for 12 rounds. Mixed Martial Arts has only had one recorded death since rules have been sanctioned, and there has never been a fatal injury in the UFC, Mixed Martial Art's big top in the U.S.
There is pressure on you to fail New Year's Resolutions.

Depending on personality, some people thrive on adversity – they will take up the challenge of someone trying to pressure them to fail by fighting all the harder to succeed. Which is more inspiring, an easy victory or a victory against great odds? On the opposite side of the coin, there will be more friends and family who also want to make resolutions and if they are good friends, you will be able to support each other in keeping your resolutions.
There is pressure on you to fail New Year's Resolutions.

In the media, New Year's Resolutions are seen as something people will quickly give up on. It is expected, almost a trope. This may be because of the pessimist/defeatist attitude of the British or the media's attempt to get people to fail so that they can feel bad about themselves and buy more products to cheer themselves up/affirm their lives, or to realise that it is in their nature to want to enjoy life's pleasures and indulge themselves and, again, buy more products. Either way, there is pressure on you to fail. Why not wait until there isn't any pressure or, in fact, anyone bothering you one way or the other?
The psychological effect of NewYyear.

If you rely on the idea of a fresh start in order to get things done, unless you have good willpower, you will lose all motivation to keep your resolutions once this initial rush is over. This mentality is what causes people to say 'I'll start tomorrow/next week' but never really get around to doing anything because it is always too late or too early to start now or there is always plenty of time to spare before they need to start.
A goal for a whole year is unrealistic.

If you make more realistic New Year's Resolutions - 'I will set my alarm half an hour earlier this week, then make another sleep goal next week depending on how well it works' instead of 'I will stop waking up late' – you will succeed. It doesn't mean New Year's Resolutions are doomed to failure, just that they need to be thought out better. The point of a New Year's Resolution is that you're deciding for certain what your goal is and that you're not going to stop working towards it, no matter how hard it gets.
A goal for a whole year is unrealistic.

A New Year's Resolution is generally something we promise to do for the whole year. In fact, a year is a long time in advance to plan. It isn't realistic to say that you are going to do something every day without fail for a whole year. We can't know in advance whether we will be able to keep that promise – there are so many things that can crop up in a year's time that we can't plan for - it is a difficult length of time to remember things for, it is an enormous weight on your morale to know that you have to do something that you find difficult again and again for the entire year.
We shouldn't just do something because it is New Year.

This is plainly incorrect. The time when people will have the most motivation is when they are in competition with other people or are comparing themselves against other people. Therefore, you are more likely to succeed if you make a resolution when everyone else is making them. If there wasn't a set time when people made resolutions then people would not make these life changes, they would go on as they were. The New Year is a motivation that ordinarily you would not have.
We shouldn't just do something because it is New Year.

The fact that it is a new year and it is a traditional time to make promises isn't a good enough reason to make a lifestyle change. You should decide to make the change because you want to improve yourself, you want to iron out your flaws, you want to stop doing something that damages yourself and your relationship with people you care about, you want to succeed at a particular goal in life. To just copy what other people are doing isn't sincere. If you wait until the time that's right for you, you will have more enthusiasm to start or you might find that you don't really want that goal for yourself. Comparing yourself with other people and competing isn't the point of improving yourself. Why is the way someone else is living their life anything to do with you?
More honest/accurate.

If you are not a Christian and your celebrations are not related to an actual belief in Christ, you are not celebrating Christmas and you are not technically wishing someone a happy Christmas. Something like 'Season's Greetings' is a good way for people to express what they really mean when they wish people well and invite them to celebrate at a certain time each year. People already often prefer religion-neutral Christmas cards or blank messages where they can write what they really mean.
'Merry Christmas' has come to represent tradition just as much as religion

There’s no denying that Christianity’s role in Christmas has become less important as the years have gone on. Despite this, a recent survey has revealed that as many as 80% of Brits still consider the celebration of Christ’s birth to be an integral part to the holiday . Sure, many do not practise the faith on a regular basis, but it seems the traditional aspect of Christmas still holds it in high regards. Arguably, it has become more about what you buy, how much you spend and who gets the best gifts, but underneath the vast shroud of consumerism, there lies a core that preaches of spending time with loved ones, a time for bonding and a time for making amends. Although this may not specifically relate to the religious aspect of the holiday, it comes close. For us to take away ‘Merry Christmas’, and replace it with ‘Season’s Greetings’ would mean removing what is considered by many to be the heart and soul of the festive season. After all, Season’s Greetings could be used at any time of year and what would be special about that? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23378647-brits-reject-secularising-christmas.do Why should it be known as something else? The thing i find wrong with the world, especially the UK is that it is substantially sensitive to other ethnic minorities. I was told that, in a town in the north of england, it was forbidden to put up christmas decorations in the centre and around the area. Now come on? You must agree, for a country that's been celebrating christmas and all that comes with it for hundreds of years, it would be non-sense for the saying "Merry Christmas" to be known as something else. Religiously, the UK is a christian country. It's only recently that this country has grown, a little ashamed of it.
No practical use and will cost money.

The amount of money that is spent on Christmas each year, it would cost far too much to change the words 'Merry Christmas' to 'Season's Greetings' on all cards, public displays, shop signs etc. We cannot afford to make impractical changes in the middle of a recession. It will not make that much of a difference to the UK, it will not lessen racial intolerance or promote multiculturalism, it will take much more serious changes to do that.
Discovery vs invention

"A second objection to patenting genes is that DNA is a product of nature, not human ingenuity. The Council for Responsible Genetics, a Cambridge, Mass.-based organization of scientists, public health advocates, and consumers, takes this view. They have an online petition that states: "The plants, animals, and microorganisms comprising life on Earth are part of the natural world into which we are all born. The conversion of these species, their molecules, or parts into corporate property through patent monopolies is counter to the interests of the peoples of this country and of the world. No individual, institution, or corporation ... should be able to hold patents on organs, cells, genes, or proteins, whether naturally occurring, genetically altered, or otherwise modified."" -[[http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.1/lewis.html]] Genes are not invented but found, patenting a discovery is the legal equivalent to 'finders keepers, losers weepers' finding something is not the same as having the right to exploit it and sell it freely. Point of information: Actually the answer the question is "No you cannot", even when land ownership is disputed. The story of the man who inadvertently caused the California gold rush exemplifies this point: " Sutter attempted to keep the discovery a secret and ordered his men not to breathe a word of it until he could obtain official title to the mineral rights in Coloma. This land belonged to the Culluma Indians and had not been included in the 48,000-acre grant he received from Mexican Governor Alvarado a decade earlier. But who was going to complain if he used it for his mill? After all, the entire California territory was in the process of being ceded to the United States, so ownership was, well, unsettled at best. Unfortunately for Sutter, he was not able to keep the hoards of miners off the land around the mill, nor did he become its lawful owner, and the discovery of gold turned out to be his ruin. His valley settlement was all but deserted with the onslaught of the Gold Rush, except for squatters on his land. There was no one left to tend the Fort's businesses, livestock, or crops. The last years of Sutter's life were spent at the nation's capitol trying in vain to convince Congress to compensate him for his losses brought on by the California Gold Rush. He died a poor man in Pennsylvania."-[[http://www.comspark.com/chronicles/golddisc.htm]] Firstly a patient (the owner of the land being dug up for genes) should give consent before having genes extracted from his/her body. (The current U.S legislation does not require this) Secondly the patient should be informed of the monies to be obtained for the sale, study and development of what is extracted from his/her body. Patenting genes removes a patient's right to know, to not be owned in part or whole and the right to object to being exploited.
Cruelty to animals 90% death rate cloning project

"In 2003, Ian Wilmut, who pioneered the technology abandoned it for cloning animals [3] (Death Sentence on Cloning, SiS 19), stating that he would use NT only for creating human cells for tissue repair and for studying human diseases. However, the discovery that ordinary human cells could be induced to become stem cells had made NT completely redundant [4]. In NT cloning of normal non-GM animals, at most 10 per cent of cloned embryos selected for implantation survive the trials [1]. (In terms of total embryos made by NT, it would be about 1 percent.) The main problems were spontaneous abortions and hydrops, where the surrogate mother’s uterus fills up with water, and the animal has to be put down" [[http://www.i-sis.org.uk/death_rates_end_cloning.php]] [[http://goo.gl/VjFrM]]
Unethical equivocal to patenting the sun

A part of a human being can not and should not be patented. Patenting discoveries as opposed to inventions is problematic and detrimental to the human race because while invention is usually done by a few people, anyone can 'discover' or find things. And gene patenting is not simply a matter of finding a gene sequence never seen before but of barring anyone else from making positive use of that discovery. The right to invent anything around that genetic sequence is thus harnessed. This unethical on the grounds that people have certain rights over their bodies and what is inside our bodies. We have the right to tattoo, cut or paint ourselves. We have the right to eat junk food or poison or anything of the like. We have the right to 'our' cells, hormones and genes. For scientists to take our genes simply because they saw them under a mechanical probe is equivocal to a midwife claiming ownership of a baby's back because s/he saw it first. Or Galileo patenting the sun for he saw more of it through his telescope than anyone else. [[http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96feb/galileo.html]] ""The ACLU and the patent foundation say Myriad's refusal to license the patents broadly has meant that women who fear they may be at risk of breast or ovarian cancer are prevented from having anyone but Myriad look at the genes in question. During a lengthy hearing in a packed courtroom, U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet was asked by lawyers for the plaintiffs to strike down the validity of the patents, while a lawyer for the defendants called for the lawsuit to be tossed toss out. The judge did not immediately rule. Christopher Hansen, an ACLU lawyer, told Sweet that researchers deserved praise but not patents for winning the race to isolate an important part of the body. He said important medical research was being hampered because the patents for "BRCA1" and "BRCA2" genes prohibit the study of the genes by others. "New forms and testing and new ways of using the gene have been inhibited," Hansen said. "That's not good for womens' health." Hansen argued that the patents were awarded for the discovery of an "ancient secret of nature." He added: "A patent is not a reward for effort.""