BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The people targeted by extraordinary rendition are citizens, not combatants, and more importantly, h...

What people also should not forget, is that the people the U.S.A. targets for extraordinary renditions should be considered “unlawful combatants” in the war against terror. This term is important, because it identifies the U.S. Government as partaking in a war, and terrorists as combatants in that war. The people targeted for extraordinary rendition are “unlawful combatants” since their aim is to kill and terrorize U.S. civilians, not U.S. soldiers. Under international law, that is a very severe warcrime, requiring very severe measures on the side of the U.S.A. Moreover, since the U.S. is at war with terrorism, it has the obligation to protect its citizens first – and the obligation to dirty its hands in the process. Mistakes will be made, we can be sure of that. But in a time of war, the United States cannot afford to risk the lives of its own citizens.
no because

I would like to start this counter-debate by saying you see more drunk driving deaths than smoker deaths because news reporters report car accidents, not cancer victims. Secondly, Please, do some research: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/ I would like to quote: "More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined" Third, id like to inform you that your debate being typed in random caps is making me feel you don't really understand much of what you're talking about. Debating in a naive way only makes me feel as if your information is built on opinion alone. Well, maybe it's also your lack of periods and questions marks. You dont have any end to sentence and its difficult to follow. None-the-less smoking is killing people, like it or not. Your free canada is the cleaner air. In regards to buses, cars, trucks and the sort, what has a better purpose? Cigarettes for cancer of vehicles for transportation? Not only that, but arguing the way you are could only result in the loss of something else thats great.
ITS OUR HEALTH!

although people say that smoking is the smokers choice .. its not.. it is in some ways but not in all.. it is their choice whether they want to pay to die, but our choice whether we want them to able to smoke around us, it is not just harming them when they smoke it is also harming us. By smoking in public places all the people that go to those places have got to inhale their smoke although they have a made a choice to not smoke, they dont have a say in whether smoking will be a part in our life or not. BUT if it was banned smokers could smoke in their home and cars, and harm themselves and not others. P.S. Sorry if it didnt make sense, but i think u will get the points that i was trying to make. : )
smoking should be banned in public places

In my opinion, smoking should be banned in public places. That is because non-smokers should not be forced to secondhand smoke against their will. Even though it is an obvious etiquette not to smoke when surrounded by many people, a large number of smokers don't seem to care so much about it. For example, it's not that hard to find a person smoking at a bus stop even if there are little girls around him/her. There should be rules restricting people who have little regard for the well-being of others. Another reason why smoking should be banned in public places is because of the garbage problem. Not many smokers throw away their cigarette butts into the trash cans. Most of them just toss it on the streets. The streets will be much cleaner if smoking is banned. However, smokers should not be treated unfairly. There should be more places where only smokers can smoke freely. Therefore smoking should be banned in public places but more smoking areas should be built as well.
people have the right to smoke

What kills the most is Drinking you have Heart problems, Liver, Cancer, Drunk Drivers,Talk about health, put the no smokers sign up so smokers can have rights too, Keep them out , We are old enough to make what life we want put a baned on them or build a bubble to put all the none smokers in or build places only for smokers keep signs up to keep none smokers out . see how they like it, THEY SAY WE HAVE A FREE CANADA ? WHERE thank you joanne bc
yes or corse

Yes, it is a real problem. The smoke bothers every non-smoker. But a complete ban is not necessary. I mean, those public places can save up some money so they can build special areas for non-smokers and those areas would be vent. This way would thank both parts: the part of population that smokes and love smoking while at a restaurant and the part of population that doesn't smoke and can't stand the smoke. So if somebody wants to smoke, let him do. As long as it doesn't socialy harm anyone. And by using this special areas for smokers, everyone would be happy and the restaurants would make profit. P.S.: sorry for my bad english but it's not my native language. But i hope i proved my point.
no because

They should start off with the drinking and driving and not worrier about the smokers if the none smokers dont like well its to bad its not there life its our life its our health YOU SEE MORE PEOPLE KILLING OTHER PEOPLE BY DRINKING AND DRIVING AND JAY WALKING HOW ABOUT STARTING DRINKING IN THE PARKS AND ON THE ROAD WHERE THE SMOKERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE THERE BUT YET WE WILL GET FINED WHY DONT THEY WORRIER ABOUT CARS BUSES FIRETURCKS ITS ALL POLUTION THAT WHERE WE ALL GET SICK FROM IS THERE POLUTION ITS NOT THE SMOKERS AND DRINKING AND DRIVING CAUSE LIVER FAILER THE GOVERNMENT is total wrong about the smokers the GOVERNMENT SHOULD THINK ABOUT THE DRINKING AND DRIVING AND THEY USED TO SAY FREE CANADA WHERE BULLSHIT THE MOST NONE SMOKERS ARE VICTIMS OF ALCOHOALISIM ANYWAYS THEY SHOULD PUT THIS ON FACEBOOK AND SEE WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THE SMOKER CAUSE THERE IS MORE SMOKERS THEN NONE SMOKERS ALINE CHARBONNEAU they are buses, cars, trucks, suttles, airplanes they should put a ban on those things stand out side in the moring take a good wiff that is killing us smoking is only 1 % of what is killing us
HeLLOOOO???? IT

Um... HELLO????? It's called the second amendment!!! The second amendment means you have the right to bear arms, and a cigarette is like a gun.Even though cigs are bad, they are classified as a harmful weapon that can cause serious injury or damage. Also, right now we are both breathing in campfire, barbecues, and even marijuana smoke! I do not see a ban on those items and I do not see a ban on cars? Do you? How about we just ban cars????  Also tabacco is a legal drug and so is  marijuana, so you cannot just ban it! Also, I looked up that the smoke from smokers produces 0.00092% of carbon dioxide emissions in the world! I have tons more but I'm about to run out of battery, so my last point is that we are building our own natural disasters, like building power plants! Only two out of the 50000 power plants in the world produce more carbon dioxide than the smoke from smokers does in a year!
No - it should not be banned in places people CHOOSE to go

If by public places you mean any place where people are obligated to go, I can see banning it for the comfort of all concerned. Such places would include any publicly funded building e.g. libraries, post offices, government offices etc... But in privately owned businesses where people CHOOSE to go like restaurants, bars, cinemas, malls etc... NO! Smoking or non-smoking should be no one else's choice but the owner's. Don't like the owner's choice, don't go.
Bad for Health

You would just take away the rights of smokers (people just like you, only with different habits) because they like to smoke? Your argument seems very narrow-minded and shallow. Ignorance is not bliss, so instead of continuing on your pointless rant about how "bad" smokers are, how about you accept the fact that not everyone has the same viewpoint as you do. By the way, to wish ill upon a group of people is discrimination.
Smoking shouldnt be banned

If we should not ban smoking because smokers are well aware of the health issue, should we remove the speed limits on all the highways as well? People aren't stupid, they know that speed driving can be dangerous and they don't care or they will stop doing it... So people should be allowed to drive for as fast as they want regardless if this can lead to car accidents which can do harms to other people. And smoking should be allowed too because smokers aren't stupid and do not care about their health even if the smoke they produce can harm other people. Exact same principle here, and obviously speed limits is on, so should the ban of smoking? Tbh we are seriously not interested in how you manage your health; we don't care if you care or quit or anything, we just don't want you to harm us just as we don't want a car to hit on us.yea this is also true
Yes, it should be banned

Obviously, the cloud of smoke exactly disturbs other people; especially non-smokers feeling. Imagine sitting in a restuarant unable to enjoy the meal because of the smoke from neighbor's table. It should be banned because the percentage of non-smokers is higher than active smokers so non-smokers have right to clean air and also second hand smoke is more dangerous than actually smoking as well. >>> So are you saying pyromaniacs should be able to light fires as they please and theyre just being discriminated against because they dont occupy wall street?
WHAT HAPPEN TO A FREE CANADA. WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE TIME WERE SLAVES HAD NO RIGHT, NOW IT IS SMOKERS HAVE NO RIGHT

You are sooooo wrong. the signs don't say "no smokers" they say "no smoking". They are not saying you can't go in, they are saying you can't smoke in their. It is not saying you are any less of a person, you are personally taking it that way which shows a sign of depression, to be honest. It is not an attack against a person (or type of person) but against an action. Its almost like how you can't take a gun on an airplane. They aren't saying hunters cant go on the plane, they just can't be waving a gun around on the plane. They're not demanding you stop smoking but enforcing that you respect those around you who do not want to die of cancer. Learn something for once, please.
yes or corse

second-hand smoke is harmful, just like smoking is. i really feel that smoking in public places should be banned, because not only is it harming the health of smokers, but also the health of others around them. in my opinion, smoking in public places, especially places with a lot of people is a pretty selfish thing to do. i find that second hand smoke is very annoying, because everytime i walk past someone smoking, i always feel that i have to hold my breath. smoking seriously harms people's lungs, but so can second-hand smoke. ah sorry, i misspelled the title. i meant "yes of course" >>> The problem with designated smoking areas is not alway the public, but also the employees. What if said business doesn't have smoking employees? Say in a restaurant they have a smoking area even with ventilation. The larger the area, the larger the vent, the larger the vent the more powerful it needs to be, the more powerful it needs to be the louder it is. This would disrupt the non smokers as its just an annoying noise created to feed the poor addicts their poison. But what if we wanted to dull down the power or remove the vent all together? Keep the area away from the non smokers sounds ok but now you're asking the waiter/waitress, busboy, manager, cleaning crew, bar tender, ect. to go through these areas to serve, clean and address customers regardless of whether they smoke or not. No a manager does not NEED to go through and would then be making it their own decision, but the other staff still needs to do their job. Asking a restaurant to hire only employees that 'dont mind' inhaling the second hand smoke is, in my opinion, far fetched and out of line. It is bad enough that smokers get to go outside every 30 minutes to smoke for 5-10 minutes while non smokers have to work work work work all day without those breaks. Now we're going to suggest that smokers get jobs over them just because smoker need to inhale their cancer sticks?
HeLLOOOO???? IT

Only 25% of the stuff goes to the smoker and the rest is left for us. People who have asthma need to carry their inhaler just in case of a smoker or cigarettes. >> If you want to classify cigs as a harmful weapon and claim it "the right to bare arms" then i would have to believe everyone that ever smokes in public should be arrested for attempting homicide and for putting others in harms way. We are a county built on equality, why are you taking my right of being cancer free away? We fought for our independence and im glad we have it!
I am from the south and i smoke 4 packs a day in public places no one cares so to all u people ill puff in ur face

This is not an argument it is a statement of fact (or otherwise). In fact it is more of an argument for proposition as it shows that smokers do not care about the effect they are having on others and indeed wish to exacerbate the problem by 'puff[ing] in [yo]ur face'. If this is the case then legislation is necessary to prevent them being a public nuisance.
Bad for Health

Non-smokers should not have to suffer from the very poor choices of smokers. Non-smokers who come across smokers "Lighting up a ciggy" suffer as badly as the smokers do. I don't think it is right that ANY of the non-smokers have to suffer, smokers only think about themselves not the people around them which sickens me and I think it is about time that non-smokers got a little justice. I don't give a fuck about the smokers, all I care about are the people who don't smoke who have to suffer. All the smokers in the whole fucking world may as well dig themselves a hole and smoke themselves to death, it would be a favour to all of us =).
smoking in public should be banned

smoking is up to the individual not others if people don't like smoke aviod the people who are smoking. I would not say that smoking should be banned, but I do not think it is necessary that people should go as far to have to avoid another person purely for them being a smoker. What I think they should do is just go back to a smoking section with air vents leading upwards and away from people in the smoking section, making it less likely that if a door is opened to the smoking section, that smoke will go out. Also, businesess are not losing a little bit of money, there are bars that have been there for years all around me that are being completely shut down. All because people will not go there because they cannot smoke.
yes

it seems clear to me that most people have their opinions against smoking. nevertheless, smoking still has some positive aspect to economic sides. For example, many countries around the world, especially tropical nations, like Cuba as well as England consider cigarette as an important product to export to many other countries to get money or exchange other commodities. therefore, they can use that money to invest in some different kinds of fields. furthermore, in my country, selling cigarettes is also an easy job that everyone can do to earn more money, no matter how old they are. As a result, this can bring some jobs for people and partially solve rate of unemployment.
WHAT HAPPEN TO A FREE CANADA. WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE TIME WERE SLAVES HAD NO RIGHT, NOW IT IS SMOKERS HAVE NO RIGHT

What gives the government the right to tell us to put signs up to say smokers allowed or to tell smokers to stay out? This is similar to the white only/no blacks signs that there used to be. These are rightly considered discriminatory and these smoking signs should meet the same fate.
SHS is a fraud!

The only people that concern themselves with other peoples smoking are either those that stand to make a buck from sales of snake oil or mindless automatons that believe what they are told. SHS does not cause cancer. It does not cause heart attacks. It does not cause asthma attacks. If you believe any of those, you are simply a useful idiot. EVEN IF IT DID...Lets suppose that one tenth of one percent of the population were actually vunerable. (In truth, the real truth, you are 4 times more likely to die from a meteor impact than SHS; but I digress) Should a business owner who has taken all the risk of opening a business that caters to the 99.9% be forced to cater to the 1/10%? The world is a rough place cupcake. I didn't cause your problem, so I am not obliged to bankrupt myself to cater to you. Don't like the smoking? Leave and good riddance!
smoking should be banned in public places

Secondhand smoking is a concern, I agree. But a complete ban of smoking in public is unecessary. In fact, I believe that with a ban, more people will choose to smoke as it will be more of a rebellious / illegal act (like drugs in today's society). To your comment about "rules restricting people who have little regard for the well-being of others", I have nothing to say but shame on you. Smoking is a choice via that person. You cannot tell who is a smoker from just looking at them (unless affected greatly by smoking), just as you cannot tell who is a thief from just another customer at a store. Just because they smoke, doesn't mean that they are out to get people who do not. I have friends who smoke, who are very nice people, yet I do not smoke myself. Don't make judgements upon a group of people based on stereotypes. Overall, I think that smoking should not be banned in public, but that businesses / companies should be able to control whether or not smoking should be allowed.
smoking in public should be banned

Smoking should definatly be banned in public places. The places they do allow smoking might lose a bit of money, but it will also help with the health problems that occur. Most people beleive that someone who is not in the smoking area of the public place will not be affected by the smoke, but smoke is able to spread in a room and affect the people around. Smoking causes alot of problems not only for the smoker, but for the people around. If someone were to put together a protest for those to stop smoking in public, I bet that every non- smoker would say they should. >>>> I doubt that the bars are shutting down JUST BECAUSE smokers choose not to go. Oh and by your logic, if someone is a pyromaniac and always has the need to light fires that its ok for them to run around in public with fire, the non pyromaniacs just need to avoid the fire. No big deal right?
people have the right to smoke

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/f/lungcancerdeaths.htm ^135,000 die per year from lung cancer caused by smoking in the US http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.T5fZG7OmiRw ^ 75,000 die per year from alcohol related deaths in the US What kill the most is Smoking` you had lung cancer, as well as an increase in the likely-ness of heart disease, stroke. Besides lung cancer you're at risk of many other cancers including pancreas, stomach, esophagus, kidney, mouth, throat and vocal folds. Though smoking does not have effects like drunk driving it does kill babies in the womb if the mother is smoking. Also it release of toxic chemicals into the air that turn non-smokers into victims. Your free canada is the non poluted air, the safer environment created by the reducing of public smoking http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/ Yes, I completely agree with your argument that everyone has the right to smoke. But what they don't have the right to do is to inflict the dangers onto us who have taken the free choice not to. Passive smoking is enough to give someone COPD, Lung Cancer and Heart Disease, so why should we suffer because you want to practise a disgusting habit?
yes

Firstly, being in High School and being surrounded by smoke after school isnt even a little bit pleasent. All of the older kids smoke so the youger kids like to be influenced by the Juniors and Seniors. They will eventually start and gett into the habit of smoking. Its also very unhealthy. Secondly, being in a restaurant and having to smell that smoke while eating is not only disrepectful but also disturbing and once again not healthy. I respect those who smoke away. another reason is smoking will become a tendency, which lures a lot of young people to do so. In fact, accordintg to some reliable surveys, numbers of smokers are rapidly increasing these day. Of course, we can smoke if this will affect no one. We together make some tigh and strict regulation for smokers if we dont want to have any adverse influences on our next generations. >>> You want to solve unemployment by killing everyone with cancer? O.o
Women are Under Represented on Corporate Boards

The fundamental flaw of this statement is that it makes the mistake of conflating numbers with representation. It 's an absolute fact that there are fewer women on corporate boards and fewer C-level female executives in business, but this doesn't mean that women are underrepresented. What you really need to look at is the raw numbers of who is working and who is making it to the top of the heap. When you look at things from that perspective, it becomes much harder to say that there's a shortage of women in leadership roles or even that any action to rectify this would be necessary. Take a look at the tech industry, for example. A CNET study states that Women make up just thirty percent of the workers in that sector, yet they also hold about twenty-three percent of the leadership positions in companies like Microsoft. That might not be exact parity, but that's incredibly close. Can you imagine numbers like that fifty years ago, or even twenty years ago? Women have made incredible strides forward in fields that they might not have been able to penetrate only a few decades ago, and for that they should be applauded. It's dangerous to look at raw numbers and make assumptions about representation. If you go down that rabbit hole, you'll have to start making sure that every corporate board in American has an even number of people specifically so that raw number parity can be reached. That's not only an overreach, but a laughable goal.
Women are Under Represented on Corporate Boards

According to Stanford Business, women only represent about fifteen percent of the total board members of Fortune 500 companies. Assuming that this number holds true for other businesses, that means that women are drastically underrepresented at the highest levels of the economy. There's very little to suggest that this is getting better, either - the same article states that it will achieve nearly seventy years for women to be represented proportionally on boards if things continue to progress at current levels. It's not just that women aren't being represented well - it's that there's been relatively little progress in making sure they are represented. The poor representation would be bad enough on its own, but there are many businesses that have no women at all on their boards. Many of the giants in the tech world, for example, don't have a single female board member. These companies consistently create and market products for women and hire female employees, but women are excluded from the major decision making process. This not only makes it harder for female voices to be heard, but it also decreases the likelihood of women being able to find mentors and others to help them reach the top of the corporate ladder. When women aren't represented, there's very little chance for this situation to change.