BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
only corporate firms benefit from this line of thought

Why are we ever expected to move out from our parents house? It is a societal norm in Britain, but why? Who serves to benefit? Corparate firms and the Government benefit. Without young people moving out of thir parents house, the property market would grow stagnant and sales of home goods would fall. So the only reason why we are being told that graduates should move out is so that the government can claim their VAT on these items and so that corporate firms can continue to make profits on home goods. For this reason, we should rebel against the commercial sector influencing our thoughts on how we live our lives and stay with our parents.
Less strain on the parents.

Parents need to support themselves as well. Not all graduates come from backgrounds where their parents can financially support their child living with them indefinitely. This is going to become less likely as the financial situation gets worse. If the parent gets to relieve themselves of the financial burden and the young person lives in cheap accommodation that they can still afford, both people are in a position where they can support themselves. This will relieve stress and enable them to think more clearly when solving the problem of the young person's unemployment.
Living independently teaches you vital employability skills.

There are certain social skills that young people develop through living alone or with their peers that they lose when they live at home for long periods of time, or never leave home at all. These social skills, understanding how to interact with colleagues as equals, tolerate their company in stressful situations where there will be conflict, negotiate and make compromises, are vital in a workplace. There are also problem solving skills that are necessary for cooking, cleaning, handling your own finances and generally looking after yourself that are necessary in any workplace.
Decreases the chance of graduates ending up in inappropriate family jobs or local work.

There is a chance if graduates live at home that they start just paying the parents back by doing menial jobs around the house or around the local area for cash in hand, or going into the family business or other local work arranged for them by the parents that is inappropriate for a graduate. Graduate placements doesn't happen locally, they happen in the head branches of major corporations and institutions, in London and other larger towns, where the management jobs are. A young person stuck in their parent's house isn't free to go where the work is, especially a young person who can't afford a car.
An attitude that undermines higher education.

We should not just accept that graduating will not lead to a graduate job and that graduates will have to get a menial job. HIGHER education is just that – it shows that you have proved yourself to be a cut above the average person, you should have higher standards and expect a good job. To foist a menial job on a graduate is an insult. While this is not directly related to whether a graduate lives with their parents or not, the 'kick them out' attitude treats graduates as useless scroungers, not accomplished, skilled, intelligent people who should be rewarded for their achievements, not punished. The problem is that living with your parents also puts you in a socially lower position than you deserve – but this is not your fault and again you should not be punished for it! To constantly punish and undermine young people for their achievements will teach them not to bother achieving anything, it certainly won't encourage them to get a job!
Sometimes young people need to live with their parents or vice versa.

The argument is not about whether elderly or sick people should be supported, of course they should, but the exception is not the rule. Besides, wouldn't a qualified carer be better than a young graduate who a) doesn't know how to look after sick people and b) has a bright future ahead of them? How can individualism be psychologically damaging? People are supposed to have individual identities, it is a psychological problem to have your personality subsumed by a group or another person.
fall-back option in a bad economy.

joblessness is very common in Britain , living in the same house as your parents means overall lower expenditure. Young Adults feel useful running errands(getting groceries, helping around the house etc) and secure/safe talking/eating with their parents/family. There is still ample motivation to look for work(unless you want your father/dad/pa/aba to taunt you about being jobless all the time) but no unnecessary pressure coming from the fear of ending up homeless or penniless or with no one around. We all need support once in a while and if parents are robbed of the luxury of providing/obtaining it to/from loved ones then it won't be good.
Less strain on the parents.

a child "living in the house" does not equate to "being supported." if the child is doing nothing but sitting around in the house then yes, but even if they can find a PT job for a couple days a week (even that's an accomplishment in this recession) they would be able to help out with utility bills, pay for their own general expenses (besides the rent), and do physically demanding chores around the house that their old parents may find increasingly straining. this way living together may actually be less strain. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My parents never really had money. They've always struggled to get by, but i still live with my parents, but i do not depend on them. I pay rent, I pay for my cell phone, i pay for my car and its gas and insurance, i pay for my groceries, i do my own laundry, cooking, cleaning ect. ect. Whats so bad about that? In fact, it helps my parents because I'm paying them to stay there. Theyd struggle more without me.
Living independently teaches you vital employability skills.

Kids should have learned basic social skills (conflict resolving, respectfulness) in high school and college. If a college grad still has problems in this area (s)he will most likely never learn. As for qualities that specificlaly appeal to employers (communicating clearly, positive outlook, interview skills), that is something they learn with conscious practice. You can't force a person to suddenly start giving out the aura of a killer job candidate. basically if a kid wants to succeed and is smart enough to realize what employers are looking for they will make necessary adjustments to their personality and behavior. if they dont want to change or are too dumb to realize what is going on, what can you do. where they live makes little difference. domestic skills: shouldn't they have learned that before going off to college? at least how to make an omelette and boil spaghetti?
Decreases the chance of graduates ending up in inappropriate family jobs or local work.

While expressing sympathy for college grads who have their dreams taken away by getting stuck in uninteresting local jobs where they can't utilize their education, the assumption that all local jobs are "inappropriate" is definitely biased. there is no reason to think that a college grad can't contribute to his/her local community through their education, by getting a managerial position at a local business, starting a new business, addressing local community issues, etc. granted it would depend on the student's chosen field; an astronomy or fashion design student may find it hard to contribute anything to a small farm town. ultimately it is up to what the student wants to do with their life. if they want to stay in their local community and find ways to give back something, that is a fine thing; if they find this frustrating and want to move to the city they will have to set specific goals themselves to achieve that (such as saving up, buying a car, etc). incidentally, it is easier to save up when you are living with your parents.
Makes it more difficult for parents to provide useful support.

A young person graduating is going to find it easier to find a place to live in the same town they graduated, where they have already been finding cheap accommodation. This might be nowhere near where their parents live. If their parents want to give them useful practical support and morale-boosting, or to find them local contacts for jobs as Mandelson recommends, it is going to be very difficult if they aren't within a practical travel distance.
Invasive species spread quickly, damage habitats and can drive other species to extinction.

According to Daniel Simberloff's article 'Introduced Species: The Threat to Biodiversity & What Can Be Done': ' - Compared to other threats to biodiversity, invasive introduced species rank second only to habitat destruction, such as forest clearing. - Of all 1,880 imperiled species in the United States, 49% are endangered because of introduced species alone or because of their impact combined with other forces. - In fact, introduced species are a greater threat to native biodiversity than pollution, harvest, and disease combined. - Further, through damage to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and other human enterprises, introduced species inflict an enormous economic cost, estimated at $137 billion per year to the U.S. economy alone.' (http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html) Using the example of the American Mink: (the Mink) '...have had a devastating impact on local river wildlife, affecting birds such as moorhens, coots, widgeon and teal, fish and most markedly water voles, which have declined by more than 95% over the last 50 years.' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12323300 - 'Alien invaders: American mink removed from Scotland' ) According to conservation ranger Eimear Magee in the BBC article 'Escaped mink could be "disaster" for Donegal' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11435659) the Mink 'breed prolificly', 'have no natural predators here' and 'don't just take enough to feed themselves, they destroy the whole colony'. If we can avoid the destruction of habitats and the deaths of local wildlife that depend on them just by humanely culling one species that does more harm than good, we should do so.. dont humans do this already? When someone steps on our property we go to war. What about the Africanized Bee? This is a bee that was made by a scientist to live in the jungle, but is instead a very irritable bee that flys in massive swarms (10 hives worth) and will chase anyone for over a mile just for being "near" their hive. They dont give you much time to get away either, they just attack and kill. Yes, these bees do, in fact, kill people. Their swarms are so massive itd be rare to escape such a chase. These bees should be eliminated from existance, they are not doing us any good.
We caused the problem, it is our responsibility to fix it.

Invasive species are normally brought over into environments other than their natural habitat by humans, either deliberately for farming or accidentally, having escaped or not been detected or not recognised as a danger. It is up to humans to see that the threat is removed and the habitats restored to their original state. If we aren't comfortable with killing the animals, we should be thinking about the needless deaths of other animals that at least should have been there in the first place.
Population is a major problem today – the world population of 6 billion is expected to reach 10.7 bi...

Population is a major problem today – the world population of 6 billion is expected to reach 10.7 billion by 2050. Given the strain on global resources and the environment today, it is clear that an environmental disaster is waiting to happen, as the population time bomb ticks away. While reproduction, as part of family life, is a fundamental human right, we must also consider that rights come with responsibilities. We have a responsibility to future generations, and population control is one method of ensuring that there will still be some natural resources left for our descendants.
Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps...

Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps restore opportunities for education, employment, and social and political advancement. Birth control can therefore be a long-term investment towards political reform and greater protection for women’s rights – as more women enter the workforce and political system, their voices are far more likely to be heard, and their concerns far more likely to be addressed.
Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced ...

Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced obstetric care, and the prevalence of disease and malnutrition, there is a high rate of mortality among pregnant mothers and their new-born children. This risk can be over 100 times that of mothers in developed countries. Birth control allows women to avoid the risks of pregnancy if they so wish.
Population is a major problem today – the world population of 6 billion is expected to reach 10.7 bi...

Many of these forecasts are exaggerated and do not take into account the different phases of population growth. A nation’s population may grow rapidly in the early stages of development, but with industrialisation and rising levels of education, the population tends to stabilise at the replacement rate, after an initial boom period. Even if the quoted figure of 10.7 billion by 2050 is true, this is likely to remain steady thereafter, as the developing nations of today achieve maturity. Developed, industrialised nations can use alternative methods to solve the environmental and social problems arising from overpopulation. For example, one could explore options like better redistribution of economic wealth and food, and the creation of a global market which does not disenfranchise the poor (e.g. the EU’s protectionist Common Agricultural Policy deprives developing agricultural economies of a level playing field). All available options should be exhausted before taking the drastic decision to curb reproductive rights.
Contraception is an easy and direct method of reducing population growth. The popularity and success...

There are often technical difficulties associated with implementing widespread contraception. The cost can be prohibitive, especially when considered on a national scale. Large numbers of trained workers will be required to educate the public on the correct use of contraceptives. Even with an investment in training, there is no guarantee that birth control methods will be used correctly, especially by the illiterate and uneducated – numerous anecdotal reports exist, where, for example, villagers, having seen a banana used as a prop for teaching condom use, proceeded to place their state-sponsored condoms on bananas.
Contraception can reduce family sizes. This will allow a greater proportion of resources to be alloc...

In many agrarian communities, it is actually in the interests of the family to have as many children as possible. Children can be deployed to work on the farm, as a source of income. In an undeveloped nation without a good social welfare system, children can provide security in old age. Furthermore, a large number of children can be an insurance policy against child mortality, which is, sadly, very high in the developing world. Until the child mortality rate is reduced through improvements in public health and sanitation, families will lack the will to use contraception.
Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps...

Women may not have a choice, even if contraception allows them the option of reproductive control. In many developing nations, there can be a cultural preference for sons over daughters, religious pressure to have as many children as possible, and a traditional male dominance in sexual relationships and family planning decisions. Birth control may not even be socially acceptable. Even if contraception allowed a woman the potential for biological control over childbearing, these factors can prevent her from exercising this new-found choice. It is also unclear if women’s rights are advanced by contraception. In reality, contraception typically forms part of a wider population control policy by national government. Such policies (e.g. China’s one-child policy), when considered as a whole, often violate the women’s rights that advocates of contraception claim to value so highly.
Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced ...

While birth control should be a priority in many developing nations, there are often other more pressing issues to be addressed. Improving basic healthcare and providing proper sanitation can improve the health of an entire family, in addition to reducing childhood mortality – often a major reason for parents wanting to hedge their bets by having plenty of children. Spending money on such infrastructure and services is a far better long-term investment compared to the ongoing cost of providing contraception.
Compulsory breast feeding will result in fewer cases of post natal depression

This is far from the case. Making the most natural and beautiful experience compulsory will only take away the magic involved in it. Mothers will no longer feel that breast feeding is an act of maternal love, an act of bonding, they will begin to see it as a mere duty; something which they must do. Post-natally depressed or not they will feel no beauty in breast feeding. As a result, we may actually find that there are more women that suffer from post natal depression.
It is wrong (and illiberal) to legislate how anyone should raise their child.

Governments should not legislate on how people should act. This is social engineering and historically has not had much in the way of success. Furthermore, it poses serious civil liberties questions. Do women not have a right to use their own bodies as they see fit? Karl Popper, in "The Open Society and its Enemies" put forward the idea that all large scale idealistic social engineering only led to repression (are the police going to strap women who dont want to breastfeed down and hold the baby in place?). He said the only acceptable method known is for peicemeal negative legislation, e.g., legislate to stop people hurting their children if it is neccesary, but dont legislate to make them behave in the way you would like. People arent slaves to the government. The last point to this is: where does this kind of legislation stop? If you decided that people should be thin, athletic, with good teeth and well spoken, are you going to make it illegal to not excercise, eat sugary snacks and talk with a non-standard accent? (aka, being born in the North)
All children are entitled to a healthy start in life

The World Health Organisation, a collection of internationally qualified doctors state that breast milk naturally contains all the nutrients that a child could need for the first 6 months of its life [[http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/exclusive_breastfeeding/en/index.html]]. From iron to zinc, calcium to protein; everything that is vital for a healthy young life can be found in these natural given milk ducts. The Government should make it compulsory for mothers to breast feed to ensure that every child is allowed to benefit from this. Not one child should ever be disadvantaged due to their mother’s selfish choice or lack of effort. To make breast feeding compulsory is the only way to ensure this fairness. If we want equality, this is what we must do.
Compulsory breast feeding will reduce NHS costs

In the wake of a recession and a Government that are insistent on reducing spending, one thing that has become important is cutting costs. What better way of cutting costs that making something free compulsory, that will in the end result in less visits to our already over burdened NHS system? By making it compulsory to pass on immunity to your own children, children will get ill less, not only as children but also as adults. This will result in life long savings on the NHS[[Kramer M et al Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial (PROBIT): A randomized trial in the Republic of Belarus. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2001, 285 (4): 413-420]].
Compulsory breast feeding will result in fewer cases of post natal depression

Postnatal depression describes the situation where a mother feels that she has not bonded with her child. Given that this is a natural course for maternal instincts, women then get depressed over the matter and cannot seem to overcome the lack of a bond with their own child. By making breast feeding compulsory, we can reduce the levels of this occurring. Breast feeding is a bond making exercise between a child and a mother. By taking away the choice, by ensuring mothers put every effort into making sure that their child suckles, we can ensure that there are less cases of mothers feeling that they have not bonded with their child.
Compulsory breast feeding will improve pain relief availability for mothers during breast feeding.

Most women do want to breast feed. It is natural and there is a social stigma attached to women who do not breast feed. However, one of the reasons that the Infant Survey [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10851615]] found that women decide not to breast feed for the whole 6 months is due to pain. As breast feeding passes on what is in the mother’s body to the child, normal methods of pain relief are not appropriate. However, not enough research has been done by pharmaceutical companies into pain relief for breast feeding mothers. If breast feeding were made compulsory, suddenly the pharmaceutical companies would see an opportunity to sell drugs to the NHS and would start to research and develop appropriate pain relief methods for these women. This will result in many women having a more comfortable experience with breast feeding.
Compulsory breast feeding will reduce the level of child pain.

Does the prop have peer reviewed evidence of this? As far as my knowledge goes, anything eaten or drunk goes through the stomach, wherein it is broken down by acid and enzymes. Except for a small number of specially adapted parasites, living things cannot survive in the Stomach. The childs blood may also be incompatible with the mothers immune system. For example, the mother may have A type blood and the child O. In this case the mother's immune system would act against the child, which makes it hard to believe the props claim is actually true.
Compulsory breast feeding will cut benefit levels needed

Firstly, breastfeeding is not a source of free milk. A woman must eat food in order to produce milk. This process is cannot be 100% efficient,( third law of thermodynamics) and will produce a relatively small amount of milk from the food she eats. Even if breastfeeding was a source of free milk, forcing scrounging mums to breastfeed, then cutting their benefits by the amount the milk cost, will leave them with the same amount of money after their children are fed. So there would be no disincentive against having more children.
Convention on the Rights of Children

Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of a Child makes specific mention to breast feeding. It makes specific mention of what the appropriate level of action is. Article 24 (2)(e) states that the State should ‘ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents; [[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm]]. Therefore, the appropriate and proportionate measure to attain child health is not through making breast feeding obligatory but by disseminating information based on the benefits of breast feeding. We should encourage breastfeeding and not make it compulsory.