BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Junk Food Can Cause Obesity

The rate of obesity in the United States has risen dramatically. According to the CDC, more than one third of the population is considered obese. The rate of obesity is similar among children to the rate of obesity in the general population. Many more people are not obese but overweight. According to USAToday, around two thirds of the population is overweight. According to ScienceDaily, even moderate obesity can substantially shorten life expectancy. Over consumption of junk foods is a major contributing factor in the obesity epidemic. Many junk foods are extremely high in calories, and it's easy for a person to exceed the recommended number of calories when they eat junk foods. Banning junk food in schools would reduce the amount of junk food that kids eat. Furthermore, some schools have already taken this step.
Banning Junk Food In Schools Could Decrease The Frequency Of Heart Disease

Heart disease is a common cause of death in the United States, and it has been known to develop in children younger than age 18, according to WebMD. Poor diet is a major contributing factor to the development of heart disease. Therefore, an improved diet from a junk food ban in school could help to reduce one's risk of developing heart disease. The reduction in obesity rates that could result from banning junk food in schools could have a particularly significant effect in terms of reducing the frequency of heart disease.
Bans On Junk Food Have Been Successful

Some schools in California have changed their policies on junk food. Instead of serving it in the school vending machines, they have switched over to serving carrots and other healthy foods. At these schools, it's been estimated that students consumed an average of 160 calories less over the course of the school day. This is a significant decrease, and there was no evidence that these students over consumed junk food to any greater degree at home. This would be a significant enough reduction in caloric intake to significantly reduce one's risk of becoming obese. If food that is served in vending machines at schools has health benefits, it would help to ensure that students get proper nutrition. If students are given the opportunity to buy healthy foods or junk foods from the vending machines, it's likely that many students would choose the junk foods over healthier foods. Given the success of these bans, it's likely that more and more schools will begin to follow suit in banning junk food. At least, it's likely that more schools will stop selling junk food in their vending machines.
When new technologies emerge, they enable prosecutors to go back to solve closed cases. Statutes of...

Accuracy in the justice system is incredibly important. For an innocent person to be convicted and imprisoned is an unacceptable outcome. Over time, evidence deteriorates, and might be subject to contamination or clerical error. The memories of witnesses can become confused and unreliable through the passage of time. Either way, prosecuting crimes from long ago risks sending an innocent to jail.
There is a principle in the justice system of equality before the law – that no person should be tre...

Prosecutions are often politically motivated rather than motivated by justice, and repealing statutes of limitations just worsens this problem. Prosecutors would be able to put huge resources into digging up charges against celebrities or political enemies, and use court cases to sink those careers and advance the prosecutor’s career. This is also a violation of equality before the law – someone might be treated differently merely because he or she is more famous.
There is a principle in the justice system of equality before the law – that no person should be tre...

There is a principle in the justice system of equality before the law – that no person should be treated differently by the law just by virtue of who he or she is or other random factors. Indeed, in an ideal legal system, all offenders who committed the same crime should receive the same punishment. With a statute of limitation, one person who commits the same type of crime as another escapes punishment merely because of some arbitrary factor – in this case, the passage of time. This is an unjust outcome.
When a crime is committed, both the victim and the society as a whole deserve retribution – seeing a...

People change. They make mistakes at one point in their life, learn from these mistakes, and become a better person. Once a person has changed, retribution seems unwarranted – to punish the law-abiding 40 year old for the crime he committed when he was a rebellious teenager does not satisfy anyone’s need for retribution. Furthermore, the indeterminate, unsentenced punishment of fear and uncertainty that hangs over one’s head without statues of limitations seems especially harsh for a changed person.
When a crime is committed, both the victim and the society as a whole deserve retribution – seeing a...

When a crime is committed, both the victim and the society as a whole deserve retribution – seeing a criminal punished as the just response to his crime. It is a right due to victims, who often face great anguish from a crime. It does not matter how long ago the crime was committed – criminals still should be punished, and so we should not excuse criminals from retribution by such a limitation.
When the victim of a crime is a minor or a family member, they can often be pressured into staying q...

When the victim of a crime is a minor or a family member, they can often be pressured into staying quiet until the statute of limitations expires. This has often been the case when child abuse was committed by religious ministers in a trusted position of authority. These especially harmful crimes – crimes committed against the most vulnerable – deserve prosecution, but evading prosecution is too easy with a statute of limitation.
Iceland belongs in the European Union. Although a long way from continental Europe, it is clearly a...

Iceland belongs in the European Union. Although a long way from continental Europe, it is clearly a European country, with a Scandinavian Christian heritage, a stable liberal democracy and a developed economy. For the EU, Icelandic membership would be a natural extension of the existing union, balancing its expansion eastwards. Icelandic entry would pose very few problems of assimilation compared to the much larger and poorer former-communist-states that joined in 2004. For Iceland, EU membership would provide it with a welcoming home and a source of economic stability. As a member of one of the most powerful international blocs, Iceland would also be in a stronger position to participate in future global efforts on climate change, financial and trade reform, and international security and development initiatives.
Iceland needs to join the EU because of the economic crisis (“kreppa”) in which it finds itself, cre...

Iceland needs to join the EU because of the economic crisis (“kreppa”) in which it finds itself, creating an emergency situation. Although Iceland appeared to benefit hugely from globalisation, with its biggest banks and companies expanding aggressively abroad, the global recession has shown that small, open economies are unable to survive outside strong economic blocs such as the EU. While Iceland’s economy has been devastated, with GDP set to shrink by 10% in 2009, similar small states such as Belgium and Ireland have weathered the storm much better within the shelter of the EU. Part of this has to do with the confidence of international markets in the EU, as well as the greater economic integration they have within the enormous single market. But it is also due to the strong regulatory framework provided by EU institutions that prevented their economic excesses reaching the same proportions as those of Iceland.
Icelandic sovereignty is already something of a myth – the economic crisis shows how little freedom ...

Icelandic sovereignty is already something of a myth – the economic crisis shows how little freedom of action a small nation really has today. The country does participate in the European Economic Area (EEA), giving it open access to the EU market. This already requires it to share sovereignty by accepting three-quarters of the EU’s regulations, even though it plays no part at Brussels in shaping these (Norwegians call this “government by fax”). Iceland even contributes financially to the EU’s social and cohesion funds. So it is only a very small step for Iceland to become a member state and participate fully in the European Union. Far from giving up its autonomy, membership of the EU would give it influence in Brussels over the rules and policies it must already follow.
The issue of fishing should not prevent Iceland joining the EU. Today it is a smaller part of Icela...

The issue of fishing should not prevent Iceland joining the EU. Today it is a smaller part of Iceland’s economy, only employing a fraction of its workforce, so it would be wrong for the fishing lobby to hold the country’s future hostage to its own interests. In any case, the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy is changing, allowing more decision-making at a local level and providing more protection for endangered stocks. Iceland’s entry would actually help to accelerate this trend, as existing members such as the UK and Ireland are already sympathetic to revision of the Common Fisheries Policy.\ Nor is whaling not a deal-breaker. The last hunt was in 2006 so it clearly has little or no economic significance. The rise of environmental tourism has made whale-watching trips more lucrative anyway, so it is already in Iceland’s interest to join the rest of the EU (and almost all the other countries in the world) in abandoning whaling.
Iceland needs to adopt the Euro in order to bring stability to its economy. The financial crisis ha...

Iceland needs to adopt the Euro in order to bring stability to its economy. The financial crisis has caused the value of the Icelandic krona to collapse and led to high interest rates, ruining all of Iceland’s banks and most of its businesses. And in the good times many of Iceland’s citizens took out loans in foreign currencies like the Euro which they cannot now afford to repay. Savings and pensions have likewise become worthless. Swapping the krona for the Euro would provide shelter from the economic storm, allowing normal trade and investment decisions to resume and bringing interest rates down to ease pressure on ordinary citizens. As adopting the Euro is only possible for EU member states, Iceland should seek membership as quickly as possible.
Allowing an EU member to adopt the Euro is as much a political decision as a strictly economic one, ...

Allowing an EU member to adopt the Euro is as much a political decision as a strictly economic one, and apparently rigid criteria have previously been bent. This means Iceland could seek assurances on rapid Euro-entry as part of its entry negotiations. And even if Iceland cannot ditch the krona for the Euro immediately upon entry, but has to wait a couple of years in order to meet the ECB’s formal criteria, the prospect of eurozone membership will still reassure the markets and contribute hugely to an easing of the economic pressures upon Iceland.
Iceland belongs in the European Union. Although a long way from continental Europe, it is clearly a...

Iceland is a proudly independent country and should remain so. Founded by Viking settlers over a thousand years ago, it has a unique heritage that makes it very different from European countries such as France and Germany. Traditionally it has looked both East and West, refusing to limit itself by a narrow definition of its interests. Instead Iceland has a national myth of splendid isolation that is incompatible with the merging of sovereignty required by EU membership. Its traditions of local democratic accountability also contrast starkly with the corruption and distant bureaucratic systems of Brussels. Nor is Iceland alone in resisting the EU’s embrace: Norway and Switzerland both continue to prosper outside the EU, while Greenland actually chose to leave the Union. Even long-standing members states such as the UK harbour grave doubts about the costs to them of EU membership, and may well choose to break with Brussels one day.
Iceland needs to join the EU because of the economic crisis (“kreppa”) in which it finds itself, cre...

Joining the EU will do nothing to resolve Iceland’s huge problems. EU membership is not a magic wand that will reduce the island’s huge debts or correct its economic imbalances. Instead it is a smothering embrace that will wrap the dynamic Icelandic economy in the red tape of Brussels regulations, making future economic growth slower by stifling the entrepreneurial talents of the Icelandic people. Given that Iceland already enjoys free trade with EU states through its membership of the European Economic Area, and its citizens have freedom of movement through the Schengen agreement, EU membership offers no further economic benefits worth the price of giving up Icelandic sovereignty.
Icelandic sovereignty is already something of a myth – the economic crisis shows how little freedom ...

It is a big step to move from membership of the EEA to full EU membership. Crucially, the EEA does not involve states signing up to the agriculture and fisheries aspects of the EU’s internal market – both of which would have huge implications for Iceland. And under the forthcoming Lisbon Treaty reforms foreign policy would also have to be shared while small states are no longer guaranteed a Commissioner to protect their interests. Granted, Iceland does pay a nominal amount into EU funds at present, but it can expect to become a major net contributor if it joins, once its present financial crisis has been contained.
The issue of fishing should not prevent Iceland joining the EU. Today it is a smaller part of Icela...

As an island nation, it is crucial for Iceland to retain control of its territorial waters and not to bargain away its economic sovereignty for EU membership. Iceland still has an active whaling fleet, which would have to be scrapped as the price for EU membership due to the squeamishness of European citizens ignorant about this vital part of Iceland’s maritime traditions. Even more importantly, fishing continues to be a major part of the Icelandic economy, based upon careful exploitation of its exclusive economic zone in the North Atlantic. As a result, Iceland has very successfully managed its fish stocks, whereas the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy is a disaster that has allowed such over-fishing that key commercial species are nearly extinct in EU waters. Joining the EU not only means that Iceland would have to adopt demonstrably worse fisheries policies, it would also have to allow the state-subsidised fleets of countries such as Spain free access to its waters. And countries such as Spain and Portugal will never allow Iceland into the EU unless it is prepared to accept the same fisheries rules that apply to current members.
Iceland needs to adopt the Euro in order to bring stability to its economy. The financial crisis ha...

Iceland is suffering economic pain now, but Euro membership does not offer an easy way out of the financial crisis. Indeed, entering the Euro would mean that Iceland would lose the normal economic advantages of a cheaper currency. In any case, Euro zone members have suffered heavily from the global recession and the one-size-fits-all interest rate imposed by the European Central Bank contributed a great deal to credit booms in Spain and Ireland. For debt-laden countries and uncompetitive economies such as Italy and Greece, being within the Euro has prevented currency devaluation, but it has not saved them from economic stagnation and an increased cost of government borrowing.
Allowing an EU member to adopt the Euro is as much a political decision as a strictly economic one, ...

Brussels is unlikely to allow Iceland to join the Euro immediately – this would require the European Central Bank to suspend the usual rules about levels of government debt and currency stability. Given that the ECB has recently rejected lobbying from newer EU countries outside the Eurozone such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to allow them to join the Euro quickly and on easy terms as a way out of their own financial and currency difficulties, it is hard to believe Iceland would get an easier ride. So by the time Iceland was allowed into the Euro, it would already have had to solve its financial problems itself, and so wouldn’t need to join anyway.
It is a double standard to impose requirements of balance on one form of media and not others. News...

There is a difference between the reporting of events, which is the primary aim of TV news, and commentary on these events, which is more important to newspapers and blogs etc. Individuals can only make a meaningful choice regarding their preferred commentary on events when they are clear about the situations under discussion. If the news itself is biased then the individual is not choosing between the political discussions regarding the events, but the very version of events itself. Subjectivity regarding opinions should be welcome, but subjectivity regarding the facts of an event impedes rather than supports a healthy deliberative democracy.
The media is a private industry, not a body of the state, and so its mandate is not to inform or edu...

There may be an inherent right to trade, but there is no right at all to trade free from regulation. It has long since been recognised that the airwaves of a nation are public property, and thus governments have good reason to licence and regulate those who trade in them. In fact every industry must prove a public good before being allowed access to public property. The arguments for deregulation of such industries thus hinge on their offering this benefit to society and not on any innate right to do business. Therefore if governments believe the public good is best served by a balanced media, they are more than justified in legislating for this.
Private news coverage does offer this public good. A free media market would be responsive to the w...

4. It is very questionable as to whether a really broad range of perspectives would be available. Whilst networks do differ in their output this is rarely representative of the entire spectrum of opinion. Also, given the cost of news provision, media markets frequently become concentrated in the hands of a few major players, such as Rupert Murdoch, or Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. This not only reduces the breadth of perspectives, but also means that they are those of commercial bodies, with particular and similar interests. Why for example would major media providers report impartially on questions of media ownership? Would there really be the same appetite to criticise a media friendly government? Impartial reporting is better served through regulation, than creating a market of similarly self-interested 'competitors'.
Adult voters do not need to be treated like children. They are more than able to deliberate, weigh ...

If we are treating citizens as rational decision making agents then it would be best to provide them with full information rather than slanted coverage. Research also shows that anything up to a quarter of newspaper readers are unable to identify any bias they may have. If people are seeking news from a source which they do not realise is biased, then how are they expected to make mature decisions based upon this information? It is better to start with news that is balanced, rather than risk this confusion.
It is highly questionable that this balance can be achieved through a regulated system. There are a...

The very fact that groups on both sides of disputes frequently claim that 'balanced' news reporting is biased against them proves that this is not true. It firstly shows that a middle ground is being found, and secondly that there are systems in place by which the claims of regulated media can be challenged if any bias were to creep in. Broadcasters are under an even greater pressure to respond to such complaints when they are required to be impartial than if they were allowed to present unbalanced coverage.
A free media should be just that, without a requirement for balance. The reporting of news is a vit...

A free media should be just that, without a requirement for balance. The reporting of news is a vital form of free speech and the expression of opinion. Individuals and groups do not all see issues in the same way, and they should not be required to report and commentate on them as if they did. Forcing reporters, media owners and employees to portray sides of a story that they do not agree with is an infringement on their public expression of political conviction. For a state to maintain or use such rights of content regulation is unjust and arguably dangerous.
It is a double standard to impose requirements of balance on one form of media and not others. News...

It is a double standard to impose requirements of balance on one form of media and not others. Newspapers, magazines and Internet commentary are all permitted to report news from an ideological perspective provided they do not misrepresent the truth. There is no evidence that this is harmful, and the huge volumes of sales that these media enjoy show that people are supportive of this kind of reporting.
The media is a private industry, not a body of the state, and so its mandate is not to inform or edu...

The media is a private industry, not a body of the state, and so its mandate is not to inform or educate the public, but merely to provide a service that people are willing to buy. No other private industry is charged with 'contributing to democracy' - their responsibilities run no further than maximising profitability. Constraining the media in this way is a blatant and unjustified restriction on the right to trade.
Private news coverage does offer this public good. A free media market would be responsive to the w...

Private news coverage does offer this public good. A free media market would be responsive to the wide range of political convictions individuals have. There would thus be a broad and representative range of political opinions catered for, which can compete in 'the marketplace of ideas'. Also, people who may now be apathetic and disengaged from current affairs could be presented with news coverage which is more accessible for them. This would make it more likely that they will take an interest in news stories of which they might otherwise have remained ignorant.
Adult voters do not need to be treated like children. They are more than able to deliberate, weigh ...

Adult voters do not need to be treated like children. They are more than able to deliberate, weigh up issues and form opinions. Their ability to do this is the absolute basic assumption of the liberal democratic model. If news reporting is biased, outlandish or exaggerated then people will be capable of judging this. For the differing perspectives in between the state has no right whatsoever to say any are wrong or right. Voters can and should decide upon their own perspective in news coverage.
It is highly questionable that this balance can be achieved through a regulated system. There are a...

It is highly questionable that this balance can be achieved through a regulated system. There are always inherent biases within an institutionalised media that skew reporting and keep some issues off the agenda altogether. This is all the more dangerous given that it is done in the name of balance and impartiality. At least with a free media market viewers would know that what they were seeing was an opinion and viewpoint, and be able to treat it as such.