BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Newspapers wont die, they’ll adapt

The adaption is however likely to involve moving online. Many papers already have large amounts of content avaliable online either for their subscribers or free for everyone. there is the ability to incorperate social media and opinions from everyone, newspapers could even have debatewise on their sites. However if a newspaper is entirely online is it really a newspaper? it no longer has a paper element to it requiring some kind of new name. While blogs and forums may not have dozens of reporters around the world they are not necessarily needed. They can use 'citizen journalists' who will often be on the scene faster than any traditional media's reporters who may well be based many hundreds of miles away from the story. There is no particular reason to trust traditional newspapers. Their trustworthyness comes not from any particular qualifications but their ability to be on the spot, if the citizen journalists are more on the spot than them they should be as trustable.
People want their news faster

The Daily Show sent one of their correspondents to the New York Times recently to ask them the very question this motion proposes. It was, as you’d expect, a largely light-hearted interview but Jason Jones made one key point. “Tell me”, he said “what news in your newspaper happened today?” Years ago news would take weeks to weave its way around the globe. Today it takes seconds. A newspaper can’t respond as quickly as the internet or television can and since old news is not much more than chip wrapper newspapers are going the way of the dodo. Today, most people get their news via TV networks, mobile phones, computers, kindles, nooks, etc. The newspaper is obsolete. The newspaper used to be the place you could read more about a topic you heard about briefly. Now the internet allows you to read the story more in depth, view comments about it, and read the same story from many different perspectives on other sites. Once the baby boomer generation dies off, newspapers will not circulate. Online it's easier, quicker, cleaner, free, and more in-depth.
People want news adapted to their tastes

The success of sites such as Reddit and Digg show that people want tailored news. They don’t want a big home and garden section if they’re living in a rented flat. They want the news that suits their preferences and only the internet can provide this. The internet can pull in only the stories you want to read. What’s more it can learn your tastes too. The more you tell it what you like the more you’ll get what you like. How on earth could a newspaper possibly compete?
Newspapers wont die, they’ll adapt

It’s nonsense to suggest newspapers will die. The form they are delivered in might change but people will always want to read news and they’ll want it delivered by a trusted source. The paper form might eventually end (though there’s a lot of life in that old dog just yet), but news is a long way from shuffling off this mortal coil. Blogs and forums, for all their great points, do not have the weight of a well-established newspaper. They doesn’t have the columnists or the credibility, they can’t put correspondents in all four corners of the globe, can’t allow reporters to spend weeks researching a story and don’t have the ability to pay photographers for that photograph worth a thousand words.
Investigative journalism

One area where traditional media is still needed is as for their ability to fund investigative journalism, to hold governments to account etc. Many of the areas investigated may well not have people who are willing to be 'citizen journalists' meaning that someone else needs to step in. That has to be the newspapers, or the big news networks. They can still gain the big scoops even if not the imediate news such as air crashes where there are likely to be others there first.
People want news adapted to their tastes

What a tragedy this would be if that actually happened. One of the joys of a newspaper is coming across stories you never knew you wanted to read but are gripped by. This opens up a whole new world of interest whereas if we simply give people what they like their channels will just get more and more narrow. If we’re learning anything from the glut of choice the internet provides it’s that we need good editors to sort the wheat from the chaff, not to include only those things we like but the things we may like, or the things we should like because they are important.
Legal issues for bookshops.

Once the content warnings are in place, there would end up being cases where people try and sue bookshops for not correctly advising them of book content - because advice labels are lost or obscured, or because customers disagree with bookshops and what should and should not be rated. Second hand books can't have content advice added to them without risk of damaging the pages and it would cost a lot more than a small bookshop can afford, so the second hand book industry may suffer as a result.
Online fiction sites already have content warnings.

Internet fiction archives such as fanfiction.net and fictionpress.com include age ratings and specific content warnings. Some of them also advise that a person should be over 18 to log in if content on the site in general is likely to be adult material. This is a reaction to the wishes of users who want to know in more detail what they are about to read and they are only likely to click on content they know in advance will interest them, as well as the fact that children will be likely to visit the website. This attitude exists towards books too - more so, because books cost money - so we should have the same warnings on books.
becasue everybody wants to enjoy thier time.

This argument is books should have content warnings. Because Parents worry that they don't know if a book is appropriate for their children. My response is book should have content warnings. Because sometimes some book has inappropriate content for example, violence, death or sexual contents. It makes us uncomfortable. These are bad for children. It can be difficult to know the content of the book because I think back cover just tell the main point of the book and usually does not tell bad points. However, Sometimes, children do not know or cannot decide a book is appropriate or not for them. Sometimes, a person become criminal because of the content of the books, some people will mix the real world and fiction and do same thing as book talked about. Therefore, censorship is good way to protect children or even adult people from inappropriate contents. Already some movie or TV show gets censorships therefore, we also need this system for books. Because, everybody wants to enjoy or feel relaxing while they reading books that the reason books should have content warnings.
People want to know what they're buying.

The fact that books are expensive is an argument for spending more time before you buy a book finding out more about it, looking at reviews, asking for the advice of friends and book store employees. If you can't find the time to do that, you might not take the time to appreciate the book either. Alternatively, if you're not sure that the book is worth full price, buy it second hand. If you're not in the mood for it, keep it to read later, sell it or give it to a friend.
Parents need advice when buying for children.

A parent should actually read a book before buying it for a child - otherwise, they can't discuss it with them. When buying for themselves, a child is unlikely to follow the advice of a content advisory warning and a bookshop can't refuse to sell books without creating an unfriendly atmosphere in the shop. It is up to the parent to decide for themselves what is appropriate; summaries of the book's content are readily available online. If a parent does not want to take the time to seek out this information and read over it before deciding whether to buy the book for their child, they would not read content warnings, either.
age descrimination, teenagers should be allowed to choose their reading content, could restrict flow of information

To leave sex education down to books is to evade personal responsibility to educate our young about such matters. We should not rely on books to teach our young matters which have explicit content. Therefore, we should have content warnings on books so that adults feel more of a need to educate their young. Young adults don't need absolute control over their lives at teen ages. Hormones, mood swings, etc. have well seen to a clouded pathway.
Written works should be subject to the same types of ratings systems as other entertainment media

1) Books should have content warnings in order to regulate exposure to certain themes and ideas in children and adults alike. 2) Implementing in this policy would not affect any changes to the industry or the ways books are marketed and sold besides requiring them to be submitted for rating by a professionally appointed organization. 3) Rating the books will prevent people, especially conservative people, from being exposed to content they find disagreeable and will help parents and booksellers regulate exposure to the same content by young and impressionable readers without parental consent. 4) It is important (and standard practice) to label violent and sexually explicit works. We already do this for videos and images, why not books? 5) If we don't implement this policy, children will continue to be exposed to content they're not capable of understanding and such exposures will continue to negatively influence their behavior and psychological development.
less opportunities to read books

The argument is Books should or should not have content warnings, and there are many opinions of both sides. My response is books should not have content warnings because if books do this them there will be suppression of our freedom or freedom of expression. Therefore, it will only few books are available to read. Many books are will disappears because many author will get too much stress if there is restrict of the content. Some books are created by true story and if there is inappropriate language or content then we cannot hear real voices. Including inappropriate content is okay because parents or other adults need to teach their children what is a bad, bad actions or languages or common sense. Sometimes these contents are necessary for educations. I think many young teens have curiosity about sexual content, it is okay it just normal behaviors. These are the reasons books should not have content warnings because of our freedom. There is no way to take our freedom.
Danger of censorship.

People are likely to disagree with what does and does not need a content warning, just as they do for films. We censor films for violence, sex and strong language but it is debated whether we should censor specifically for homosexual relationships, political or religious controversy, scenes of racism and other discrimination. Content advisory warnings could turn into age ratings, restrictions on books being sold in environments where children will browse books, then outright banning these themes in books.
Pressure on authors to write certain kinds of books.

One of two things will happen: authors will find that the books with certain content advisory warnings will look more controversial and exciting and so they'll sell well, or they will worry about legal backlash from selling these books to children. Either way, they will end up adjusting their content to fit the trend. Nobody wants to read such a book - it won't be what the author really wants to write, it will be uninspired, feel artificial where content has been edited or removed, is likely to be poorly written.
People want to know what they're buying.

It matters to readers whether their book contains content such as violence, explicit sex and strong language because it affects the whole mood of the book and makes it an entirely different read. A reader might find it interesting to read something especially controversial, they might be after a sensationalist read or they might want something non-stressful so they can wind down. With some books it is obvious from their genre, layout, title etc. but it isn't always the case. Recently I bought a book which was advertised as humorous and light-hearted - there was a detailed rape scene a third of the way through the book. It is a waste of someone's money to buy something they don't really want and a full price book is expensive.
Parents need advice when buying for children.

Some books written for older children and young adults can talk about topics that a parent might not think their child is ready for yet, or might want to explain to them first. For instance, some parents worry that the Twilight series gives the wrong message about what a healthy relationship is like. Parents won't want their children to just read children's books either but will want to introduce them to books of adult reading level so that their reading skills improve. It would be easier for them if books came with advice on whether they are suitable for children.
age descrimination, teenagers should be allowed to choose their reading content, could restrict flow of information

Young adults are becoming more and more involved in the world, especially in risky or embarassing behaviors. The problem with this is no one really wants to tell their parents about having sex or doing drugs and ask for their advice. But this is important information for teenagers to gain because they cannot assess their risky behavior if they do not understand all the risks and options open to them. For example, a young girl may become pregnant or contract a sexual disease if she does not learn proper birth control usage. This is why having availablility of more mature literature that touches on these subjects is important. By puting warnings on the books there is a chance of age restrictions being into place like with rated R movies. And if that occurs then more young adults will be ignorant of the risks they are taking.
Legal issues for bookshops.

This is only if the content rating is not transparently devised. Music and movie stores are never sued for giving vague content warnings. Even though a lot of what is R rated today would have been rated PG-13 in 1984 and vice versa. Case in point, the film 'The Woman in red' features complete nudity but was rated PG-13 back in the day . [[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088414/]] [[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088414/board/nest/54676356?d=75125796&p=1#75125796]]
Adult novels and children's books are already put in different sections of book stores. Adding labels would be redundant

Some adult novels look like fantasy novels or Children's books and can be mistaken for them. A label would make it easier for store keepers to arrange books and for no confusion to be created. Different people have different ideas of what is explicit content. Labels such as 'murder' 'sex' 'nudity' 'suicide' 'abusive language' 'violence' etc will let parents be the judge of whether the content is appropriate for their children.
Number of people who read a book will accelerate decrease

This argument is books should have content warnings. Because Parents worry that they don't know if a book is appropriate for their children. My response is book should not have content warnings because right now many people do not read books therefore if book have content warning then there will be less opportunities to read books. Number of people who read a book will accelerate decrease. If parents worry that their children will read inappropriate content then the parents can warn to their children ot tell them it is appropirate or not. The books have many good points. For example, when I was a kid I read many books. Books are very good opportunities to learn words, idiom or sometimes world situations. There are more important things in the books. The book of Harry Potter series had censorship problem a long time ago. But many young children read this book series. Sometimes it is also good way to develop their culture literacy by this book series. Therefore, books should not have content warning it will be increases people who do not read books because books are one of our knowledge teacher.
some books have bad influnce for children

This argument is books should have content warnings. Because Parents worry that they don't know if a book is appropriate for their children. My response is book should have content warnings. Because sometimes some book has inappropriate content. For example, violence, death or sexual contents. It makes us uncomfortable. These are bad for children. It can be difficult to know the content of the book because I think back cover just tell the main point of the book and usually does not tell bad points. However, Sometimes, children do not know or cannot decide a book is appropriate or not for them. Sometimes, a person become criminal because of the content of the books, some people will mix real word and fiction and do same thing as book talked about and also bad influence for mental. Therefore, books should have content warning to protect children from inappropriate content. Because, everybody wants to enjoy or feel relaxing while they reading books that the reason books should have content warnings.
Assassination of a dictator may be the only way to effect change in a country where a repressive pol...

Assassination of a dictator may be the only way to effect change in a country where a repressive police state prevents any possibility of internal opposition. Cowed populaces need a signal in order to find the courage to campaign for change. If there is no way to bring tyrants guilty of terrorising their own people to justice, then assassination can be justified. And the example elsewhere of assassinated dictators will act as a warning to would be tyrants in future.
The alternatives to assassination would all leave a dictator in power for many years. In that time ...

The alternatives to assassination would all leave a dictator in power for many years. In that time not only will many more people suffer under a repressive system, but the policies pursued by an out-of-touch and unrepresentative regime are likely to do serious (if unintentional) harm to the whole nation and its economy, making eventual rebuilding much more costly in both human and economic terms.
Tyranny and oppression are obvious wherever they take place. It isn’t just how democratic a regime ...

Tyranny and oppression are obvious wherever they take place. It isn’t just how democratic a regime is, it is whether it uses its power to inflict great suffering upon its people or others, against all human rights standards. If leaders guilty of genocide or other crimes against humanity can be brought to account through the normal democratic process or the courts, then fine. But if they cannot, then their people have the moral right to take up arms against them. Sometimes this will mean assassination.
Utilitarian argument: many deaths and much suffering could be prevented if one man is killed. The g...

Moral absolutes argument: murder can never be justified. If we assume the role of executioner without the backing of law we are sinking down to the level of the dictators. Any new government founded upon such an arbitrary act will lack moral legitimacy, undermining its popular support and making its failure likely. Consider the long civil war in Rome after the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C, or the failure of the British Commonwealth after the execution of Charles I in 1649.
Assassination of a dictator may be the only way to effect change in a country where a repressive pol...

Assassination is likely to be counter-productive, rallying popular feeling around a repressive regime as external enemies or internal minorities are blamed, rightly or wrongly, for the act. This is even more likely to result from an unsuccessful assassination. Furthermore an alternative now exists for bringing dictators to justice. Regime change has been shown to be possible in a number of countries and former dictators are being held to account for their actions. The Special UN Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has been able to put Slobodan Milosevic on trial, and Saddam Hussein is facing justice in Iraq. The International Criminal Court now provides a permanent forum for such action to be taken, and is itself a deterrent to would-be tyrants in the future.
Dictators are a threat to international peace, not just their own people. Their tendency to attack ...

Sometimes dictatorship is preferable to the alternatives, especially for those outside the country itself. It has often been in the interests of the great powers to support autocrats who would promote their geopolitical interests in a way that a democratic regime would not, especially in the cold war period. Sometimes dictators have successfully held countries together which otherwise might have descended into civil war and ethnic strife. Events in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was deposed have shown that even worse violence and suffering can be unleashed if a strong hand is suddenly removed.
If scruples over the morality of our actions prevent us pursuing a greater good, it will never be po...

By assuming the power to take life arbitrarily, even in an apparently good cause, we cheapen the value of life itself. Many terrorists, criminals, or indeed dictators could and have claimed similar legitimacy for their violent actions. Only if we ourselves respect human rights absolutely, will our promotion of these values seem valid to others. States that use assassination as a political weapon will soon find that others seek to turn it against them.
The alternatives to assassination would all leave a dictator in power for many years. In that time ...

Alternatives such as constructive engagement or economic sanctions are preferable and much more likely to result in eventual liberalisation of the regime, albeit slowly. The examples of Eastern Europe in 1989 and Yugoslavia in 2000 show that even in apparently hopeless cases, change can come through popular action, often quickly and without great violence. Cambodia in 1979, Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003 all saw dictatorships quickly overthrown by external forces.
Tyranny and oppression are obvious wherever they take place. It isn’t just how democratic a regime ...

Who decides who deserves to be assassinated? Politics is not a black-and-white affair and states regarded by some as dictatorships are seen quite differently by others. For example, Slobodan Milosevic could claim a popular mandate for many of his actions in the former Yugoslavia. General Pinochet in Chile seized power by force but later gave it up, allowing a democratic state to emerge. Many authoritarian rulers around the world today pay at least lip service to democracy, even if elections are “managed” and the possibility of real change is strictly limited. Even if we had the right to make judgements as to which leaders deserve to die, our decisions would be arbitrary and without widespread support.
Semi-automatic weapons do not serve a sporting purpose

. Semi-automatic weapons original purpose are for shooting and killing humans, not game animals. In addition, is there any legitimate reason to want to involve assault weapons in the sport of hunting. First, the mass killing of game could be considered a violation of animal rights. At a minimum, this kind of activity does not seem to be much of a challenging sport. Rather, it would appear to make the maximization of the killing of game the primary objective, over the art of making a skillful kill.
Since the ban, there have been fewer gun fatalities.

"Deaths caused by guns dropped from 38,505 in 1994 to 29,573 in 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While crime experts say the drop resulted from several factors, such as fewer gang shootings involving crack cocaine, they cite the assault weapons ban and other gun controls passed in 1993 and 1994 as among the causes"[2]