BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The man who revived the Olympics at the end of the 19th century, Baron de Coubertin, insisted that e...

The man who revived the Olympics at the end of the 19th century, Baron de Coubertin, insisted that education of the public in the spirit of fair play, and in the importance of taking part rather than winning, were just as important as the Games themselves. Today, the Games are played by a 'Dream Team' of finely-trained athletes, the exclusivity of which can be conducive only to watching in awe, rather than copying.
The massive commercialisation of the Games erodes the idea of taking part for its own sake: with so ...

The massive commercialisation of the Games erodes the idea of taking part for its own sake: with so much prize money at stake, winning at all costs is the inevitable aim. The rule of the sponsors seems more important than the sport: interrupting television coverage of events is symptomatic of this. Corporate sponsorship concentrates on the richest countries’ athletes. The United States, for example, benefits from huge funding for its team and can thus train them to far higher levels than developing countries can. This prevents competition on an equal footing, one feature of the Olympic Dream.
Tourism vastly increases income to a particular area or country, not only via direct spending but al...

International tourism in particular may increase short-term returns, but at the cost of a dependence on the vagaries of fashions. A single climatic disaster, such as a hurricane, or a crime wave (as in South Africa), or terrorist attack (such as that at Luxor in 1997, where 58 tourists were attacked) will mean the market quickly collapses. Even without this, changing trends will mean tourist tastes shift every few years.
The recent trend of ‘ecotourism’ can provide benefits to serious research, such as in Belize where t...

So-called ‘ecotourism’ is as unsustainable as other forms, given the lack (apart from in Australia) of an accepted system of accreditation. ‘Ecotourism’ can entail anything from a sincere attempt to maintain the ecosystem to a packaged imitation of ‘real wildlife/culture’. Ironically, the attractions of unspoilt countryside are ruined by ever more visitors: tourism is a good example of classic market failure, where the social costs are paid by those receiving few, if any, of the benefits.
Carried out in the right way, tourism may not conflict with conservation. In York, maintaining geog...

It is not purely ecosystems which are damaged by the pressure of consumption (e.g. by sewage output or pressure on water resources), but also ancient monuments or heritage sites. Millions of feet have eroded paths in the Peak District and the Great Wall of China. Cheaply constructed concrete hotels are unsympathetic to the architectural vernacular. Furthermore, noise pollution derives from clubs and bars provided for tourists.
The recent trend of ‘ecotourism’ can provide benefits to serious research, such as in Belize where t...

The recent trend of ‘ecotourism’ can provide benefits to serious research, such as in Belize where tourist divers collect information for scientists (with a similar project regarding Australian whale sharks). Governments not otherwise inclined to protect such species will have a financial incentive as well as a moral imperative to do so if tourists encourage it.
Carried out in the right way, tourism may not conflict with conservation. In York, maintaining geog...

Carried out in the right way, tourism may not conflict with conservation. In York, maintaining geographical separation between old and new buildings and refusing planning permission for certain heights of offices prevents architectural vandalism. Similar care has been taken on parts of the Sinai coast. In fact, artificial imitations in Las Vegas or Disneyworld serve to ease the pressure on original areas.
Water is a resource subject to supply and demand, and so should be treated as an economic good. It ...

Water is a natural resource, God-given and free as it falls from the sky. It is also essential to all life, including humanity. Lack of good water is the biggest single factor in disease and ill health in the developing world, and without it people cannot grow crops to support themselves. Pollution of water sources or over-extraction has a very damaging environmental impact. For all these reasons water is special and should be seen as a common good, part of the responsibility of governments to their people. Access to clean water is a human right, not something to be traded away or withheld on grounds of cost.
When water is not treated as an economic good, it is wasted. On a domestic level, unmetered access ...

Demand for water increases with population growth, so it does not respond to market signals in the way other resources do. Rich consumers in the developed world also waste water through extravagant use of luxuries such as garden sprinklers, swimming pools, lush golf courses, etc. - a problem which will get worse as income inequality increases, both between and within countries. Demand management is needed to prevent waste and to ensure access for all, including the poor, something which pricing water in a purely economic way will not achieve. This is a job for governments, accountable to their people, not for private companies.
Problems of water supply need to be addressed with huge investment, particularly in the developing w...

Large sums are needed to meet global water targets, but the private sector will only provide these in return for a large commercial return, meaning that the true cost of the investment will eventually be much higher than if it were publicly funded. Investment from governments and donors is preferable to privatisation as they can target investment at the most needy, rather than focusing upon the most profitable opportunities. Water supply is also a natural monopoly, so private companies have no competitive pressures to drive up quality and drive down prices. Even in the developed world, the experience of water privatisation is not encouraging: in England shareholders cashed in and much of the industry ended up in foreign hands while prices went up, yet droughts in the 1990s still led to widespread rationing. Recent electricity supply crises in California have also shown how badly regulation of private utilities can fail. Meanwhile Australia has successfully reformed its water supply system while retaining it in public hands.
Treating water as an economic good will be better for the poor. Current regimes in developing count...

Treating water as a purely economic good will be bad for the poor. The rich may take advantage of badly targeted subsidies in some developing countries, but that does not mean that these subsidies are not essential to the poor. How would farmers in much of India cope without state-funded irrigation water? South African experience shows that when their village water supply was charged at even a low price, many women chose to fetch dirty river water from a long distance rather than pay the new cost. The Bolivian disaster of privatising water supply in Cochabamba shows the dangers: the American firm Bechtel doubled water tariffs so that some families paid a third of their whole income in water rates, mass protests led to army repression and even death before the scheme collapsed completely.
Failing to price water economically is bad for the environment. Proper pricing of water would refle...

Private companies are unlikely to care for the environment. Their duties are to their shareholders, not to society at large and nature in general. They will seek to reduce costs and maximise profits, most likely at the expense of high environmental standards. Attempting to use market mechanisms such as water exchanges to protect the environment is also a bad idea. The value of healthy ecosystems and biodiversity is impossible to calculate. Trying to do so makes the environment just another resource to be exploited, rather than protected for its own sake.
When water is not treated as an economic good, it is wasted. On a domestic level, unmetered access ...

When water is not treated as an economic good, it is wasted. On a domestic level, unmetered access to water means that consumers do not pay according to the quantity they use and so they will use it wastefully. At a national level, subsidised water for farmers and industry encourages wasteful methods and inappropriate crops (e.g. growing water-hungry cotton in California or Central Asia, both naturally areas of semi-desert), often with a damaging impact upon the environment. Pricing water according to its true cost would promote more efficient and environmentally-friendly practices, e.g. the use of drip-irrigation or dry farming in agriculture.
Problems of water supply need to be addressed with huge investment, particularly in the developing w...

Problems of water supply need to be addressed with huge investment, particularly in the developing world where many people have no access to decent fresh water. Even in the developed world, much water (up to 50% in Canada) is wasted through leaks in pipes and ageing infrastructure. The public sector has failed to provide the money for this investment so private involvement is essential. For this investment to be attractive to the private sector, water companies must be allowed to make a profit through realistic water charges that reflect the costs of supply. Issues of quality, equity and environmental standards can be handled through effective regulation.
Treating water as an economic good will be better for the poor. Current regimes in developing count...

Treating water as an economic good will be better for the poor. Current regimes in developing countries often provide a state subsidy to the rich, with water provided to middle-class areas and wealthy farmers at a fraction of its true cost, while poorer areas have no supply at all. It is misleading to argue that privatising the water supply is bad because it will force the poor to pay for their water. The poor are already paying for their water, either directly to entrepreneurs who carry it in tubs and cans up to the shanty towns, or with their time as they spend a large proportion of the family's labour fetching poor quality water from miles away. The poor also pay through ill health caused by poor quality water and bad sanitation; this hits their ability to work and study, and so often keeps them in poverty.
Failing to price water economically is bad for the environment. Proper pricing of water would refle...

Failing to price water economically is bad for the environment. Proper pricing of water would reflect all the costs of providing it, including the environmental ones. Water exchanges (such as Australia's one for the Murray-Darling basin) can start by taking account of the needs of the environment and then trading the remaining water efficiently through the actions of the market. Pricing water according to consumption, e.g. through domestic metering, also discourages wasteful use and so reduces the demands on natural water systems such as rivers and underground aquifers.
However, surrogacy arrangements could easily be made non-financial by allowing a friend of the famil...

This arrangement would in fact create more problems than it solved, as such an unofficial arrangement would be a legal nightmare if the surrogate decided ( as has often happened ) to keep the baby, as she would of course be the child’s legal mother. Important links are formed between mother and baby in the first nine months, and to forcibly sever these links would be devastating for all concerned. Also, it would be far more confusing and damaging for the child if their biological mother was someone who from an early age they had known as a friend of their ‘parents’.
On a practical note, no law against surrogacy could be enforced properly, but would merely lead to t...

Even if there would be problems in enforcing a ban, we should still lay down the law; such an argument used against, say, growing cannabis at home would not invalidate a ban on drugs. Surrogacy is bad for both the mother and the child, and is beset by emotional problems for all concerned. Parents should not put their own interests above their child’s.
There is no need for money payments to ever enter the equation. Even if commercialisation does occur...

Surrogacy will eventually and inevitably become commercialised, with mothers ‘hiring out’ their wombs to the highest bidder. Even if charges are standardised, the high level of such a fee will still ena that the rich are more likely to benefit than the poor, as they are more likely to be able to afford the cost. No case of parenthood should simply be decided by financial factors.
There are too many pacts against such a war.

There is no pact between the blocks that matter and that could possibly start a world war. Europe is at odds with Russia over resources and the political fate of the states between the EU and Russia. The US is at odds with Iran, North Korea, and possibly China. There are more examples of oposing blocks without any pacts. Pacts like this were created to try and stop war 100 years ago and look where we ended up. WW1
That's one good thing about Globalisation

All globalization has done is to shift the view of the "other" into larger bodies. Instead of an Englishman seeing a German is the "other", we now have a Muslim seeing a European as the "other", and vice versa. The reason for that is that people always feel closer to people they have meaningful contact with, not to people they once saw on a trip. Besides, the people's support for war is mostly an issue in the democratic world. Of the large political blocks today, we have China, Russia, the Muslim world and large parts of Africa who are ruled by people who could care less about the will of the people - but would have to be dead in order to achieve that. Additionally, the people in most of these blocks are much poorer than in the West, therefore travel less and even interact less through the Internet. So even if the West won't be starting the war, it may still happen.
That's one good thing about Globalisation

I believe that as the World continues to become a smaller place, the risk of a third World war becomes less and less likely. In the first two World wars, travel was rare at best and it was easy to see the enemy not as equal people, but as an evil other. As people begin to travel more and more and make friends all around the World, it will become harder and harder for governments to justify an attack on another country to them. There's still a long way to go - I believe that even in Afghanistan today, people of the West see Afghan people as 'others' and don't really credit them with humanity. As more and more people start to move around the World and socialise with people from other nations, religions and cultures, we will begin to see a more peaceful World Muslims don't see Europeans as others, Turkey(a Muslim country) is in Europe , there are many Eastern European Muslim Countries, Spain is filled with Moorish descendants. And there are Muslim immigrants from all over world in Every single European Country. Post 9/11, the face of a bearded man in traditional clothing, with aquiline features and olive skin has been converted by the media,into a symbol of hate/Violence, that even Muslims fear/loathe.
Perceived power disparities decide on war outbreak

None of these blocs are united, Countries have enough problems of their own. War is not the answer(as history has shown and I think/hope our leaders have learned). Now, is the time to join hands, share ideas and work together against the global depletion of resources. Capitalism has to go,it has led to too much mistrust, theft and unnecessary competition. We need a global system that helps every one cooperate and help other 'no strings attached'. And I hope it's not too optimistic to say 'I think, we're getting there'. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenichi_Ohmae]] Ohmae is a hyper Globalist who believes in a world/globe without borders. Most owners of T.N.Cs (Trans-national-Corporations) feel that way. So, perhaps capitalism can be be used to unite the world under the umbrella of consumerism.
Perceived power disparities decide on war outbreak

A world war is created when large political powers fight for control of resources, territory or influence. The fighting state is triggered by lack of willingness to compromise, and the willingness to compromise is a function of the relative power of the adversaries. The "cold war" did not deteriorate into a real war because the US and the USSR felt matched in power, but several small wars-by-proxy were waged when one side felt achievement through force is possible: in Afghanistan, for example, the Soviets invaded expecting low opposition, resulting in the US funding of the Mujahadin/Taliban. A war in Europe between NATO and the USSR didn't break because it was deemed un-win-able. The second and first world wars were a result of one block expecting an easy win. The commanders of the Imperial German army in WW 1 expected to be in Paris within few weeks. In today's world, the strengthening of new blocks along with their armies, such as the Chinese army, the resurgent Russian army, and so forth, is accompanied with a dwindling and overstretched US army, with reduced NATO support and no European army whatsoever. It is therefore to be expected that the rising blocks will consider military success to be more likely, resulting in applying military power on other powers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming that the world is ready to work together and utilize our resources. I wish that were true, but only a blind man could see that in today society! There is so much terrorism and disagreement among countries. Arguments between dictatorship, democracy, communism, and even if the country leaders got along, would the civilians of each group accept it, or would their be revolutions? We are not ready to "join hands, share ideas and work together". As much as we all know it'd be the ideal state for the world, we're not there, which means your theory as to why it won't happen also is not there. So it doesnt exist. We're still at a large threat for WWIII
Large defence pacts result in world wars

Mutual defence pacts may deter one country from attacking the other, but if large blocks of pacts are facing each-other, the result is the opposite: the deterrence is non-existent due to the equality in block sizes, while any hostility between two members of different blocks will pull the other members in, by the pull of their mutual defence obligation. WW II started in this way exactly: the invasion of Germany into Poland triggered the mutual defence pact of Poland, Britain and France, which entered the war and forced Germany's allys (Italy and Japan) to also declare war. In WW I pacts also played a role in the deterioration to a world war.
imperfect information

It is often a lack of information (or else too much information that cant be processed) that causes wars. If one nation is ignorant of another nation there is much more likely to be diplomatic misunderstandings, a power may misjudge its or its opponents strength, the intention of other leaders etc. Any of these things can cause events to spin out of the control of leaders and lead towards conflict. As even relatively minor events such the assassination of Franz Joseph can change the situation rapidly, or be taken up by a nationalistic public it is relatively easy to get into a war that was not intended by either side due to lack of information. As we can never ensure prefect knowledge there is always the possibility that there will be another world war. The cold war was relatively stable after the Cuban missile crisis because there was a phone line between the two leaders and there were only two nations that could spark off a global war meaning that both sides had good knowledge of who they were dealing with, both in terms of the opposing country, and its leaders. With the world moving in a more multipolar direction this is no longer possible. As the question asks is a third world war inevitable and does not set a time limit I would have to say yes, at some point there will be a information or communication breakdown that will cause a war that will become a third world war... no saying how long before this happens though.
Mistakes made in the English language do not change meaning

Unlike in French or German, mistakes that people make in English are easily understood by native speakers. The English language is a simple one with simple sounds. These sounds separate words nicely. It is for this reason that the English find it very easy to understand people from other countries even if their level of language is low. The English language is from Anglo-Saxon origin instead of Latin. Whilst Latin was a beautiful language, it is also a very complex one with elongated words and sentence structures. The Anglo-Saxon language however is one that can be used with very few and very short words. This makes the global spread of English as opposed to other languages a good thing.
English has no genders and therefore less redundancy

English does not apply random genders to nouns. Greek has three genders (male, female and neutral), depending on what (pointless) gender is assigned, several words in the sentence have to be changed just to fit in with that nonsense. What a waste of time and brainspace. English also uses shorter words than many other languages, without any loss of clarity or eloquence. It also uses a simple, common, alphabet.
It makes us lazy

Why would we want to sacrifice easy communication and globalization/globalisation on the off chance it may make children more interested in learning a foreign language? And why would we purposely want to make it difficult for people to understand each other, surely understanding each other is more important than learning about their culture but not being able to converse whatsoever. One-third of the people living in the city of London are from the subcontinent and are at least bilingual(This doesn't take into account the number Chinese,Polish,German,French,etc Londoners). As for the rest of the U.K : Norse languages prevail in rural areas and outside England. There are a huge number of immigrants(second/third-generation included) in Scotland. Relatively fewer but still plenty of immigrants reside in the rest of the Isles. The global spread of English also has the opposite effect on non-native speakers of English - it encourages them to learn a second language. Without English, a second language would only slightly increase the number of people you could communicate with. With English (or, if it ever takes off, Esperanto!) there is a stronger incentive to learn the single language that will dramatically improve your ability to communicate. Far more people are not native English speakers than are, so you could argue that the point falls apart in a wider context than the UK.
It makes us lazy

In a country like the UK, we are lazy. Foreign languages are not an important part of education because there is the general consensus that everyone in the world speaks English. The number of students studying languages at school has dropped significantly, and this is a real shame. The study of other languages not only offers up possibilities of work opportunities abroad, but it helps you understand more about another culture, another way of life. Studies have also shown wider benefits of bilingualism, such reducing ageing of the brain.[[http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainbriefings_thebilingualbrain]] We are lazy. We don't feel the need to learn about others, their language, their culture. Even if native English speakers do try to learn a new language, people often wish to practice their English, so there are limited opportunities to develop your skills. This spread also leads to elitism - some elitist schools put stress on teaching Latin/Spanish/French/Urdu/Persian/German/Mandarin apart from English. Knowing a second or third language has perks, giving the impression of being cultured,international,cosmopolitan, sophisticated and civilized.