BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biofuels are the best way of reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases res...

In theory biofuels appear to reduce overall carbon emissions, but in practice they are much less environmentally friendly than their boosters claim. Although growing plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere, the whole process of turning a seed into fuel is very energy-intensive. Modern farming uses large inputs of fertilisers, as well as fuel for running machinery and transport. Turning a crop into biofuel that can be used in an engine also requires a lot of energy. All of this produces additional carbon emissions and means that biofuels are often not much better for the atmosphere than the fossil fuels they seek to replace, especially as more fuel needs to be burned to travel the same distance (because they are less efficient than fossil fuels). Some biofuel crops (e.g. sugar cane) do produce much more energy than is needed to grow them, but making ethanol from maize may actually take 30% more energy than it generates as a fuel – and it is maize-based ethanol that US policy is backing so heavily.
Unlike oil, biofuels are renewable and sustainable. At present mankind is using up fossil fuel reso...

The increased production of biofuels presents a growing environmental threat. If biofuels are to meet a significant part of our energy needs, vast areas will need to be devoted to crops such as oilseed rape, maize, sugar cane and oil palms. These monocultures are very bad for biodiversity, denying wildlife and native plants places to live. And as the crops will not be grown for human consumption, it is likely that there will be greater use of pesticides, herbicides and genetically-modified crops – all very bad for the natural environment. The greatest environmental threat will be in the developing world, where profits from biofuel production provide strong incentives to cut down the remaining rainforest areas to create sugar cane or palm oil plantations – a process which can already be seen in Brazil and Indonesia.
The reliance of America and its western allies on conventional fossil fuels, chiefly oil, is a major...

Attempting complete independence from other countries is impossible and undesirable – the world is now too interconnected and interdependent. Our prosperity rests upon being able to trade goods and services widely with people in other countries and attempts to retreat from this free market will impoverish us as well as them. Nor are the USA and its western allies scarily dependent upon just one source for their fossil fuel needs – new countries like Angola, Nigeria and Canada have all become major energy suppliers in the past decade. In any case, America’s demand for energy is so great that there is no possibility of achieving energy independence through biofuels. Trying to produce enough ethanol domestically would mean replacing food farming with biofuel crops – meaning the USA could no longer feed itself, and so would become heavily dependent upon food imports instead.
There is plenty of scope to produce much greater quantities of biofuels without squeezing food produ...

Using agricultural land to grow biofuel crops means that less crops are grown for human consumption (or for feeding livestock). This pushes up the price of food for everyone but especially affects the poor, both in developed countries and in the developing world. Already Mexicans have found the price of their staple tortillas has risen sharply, as American maize is diverted to subsidised biofuel plants in the Mid West. The prices of sugar and palm oil have also experienced steep increases recently. If biofuel production is promoted even more this trend will continue, contributing to increased poverty, malnutrition and suffering. Given that our energy needs can be met by fossil fuels, it seems immoral to divert our agricultural resources unnecessarily.
The growth of biofuels will be good for farmers, both in the west and in the developed world. In re...

Biofuels will not guarantee a glorious future for farmers, either in the west or in the developing world. Oil prices have swung very widely over the past twenty years, and may well collapse again in the future, especially as investment in new production has been encouraged by recent high prices and so more oil is likely to come on stream in the next few years. Changes in the international situation could also reduce the “security premium” paid for fossil fuels since 2001. If oil prices sink back even to the (historically high) level of $50 a barrel, then biofuels will look much less economic and farmers will go bust as a result. \ And agriculture in the developing world is held back by the web of tariffs and subsidies the rich world uses to support its own farmers, not by market failure. Truly freeing the market in commodities such as cotton, grain and sugar would do much more to bring prosperity to many desperately poor countries than any promise biofuels may seem to offer. After all, if the USA or the EU really wanted to promote biofuels they would reduce their high tariffs on imports of cheap Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol rather than pay their own farmers to produce biofuel from much less efficient maize or rapeseed.\
Biofuels are now an economic alternative to fossil fuels and with advances in technology and the sca...

Biofuels are only competitive with fossil fuels because they are heavily subsidised, especially in the USA where the farming lobby has promoted ethanol out of pure self-interest. Subsidies on biofuels at federal or state level cost American taxpayers something like $5.5 to $7.5 billion each year. More costs will come if auto makers are forced by governments to build engines which can run on higher proportions of biofuel, as these will be passed on to the consumer in the form of more expensive vehicles. Overall, all this subsidy and investment will be useless if the price of oil returns to its long-term average over the past 30 years, which will make biofuels uneconomic and ruin many farmers and industrial investors.
Biofuels already have a great deal to offer today, but prospects for the future are even more exciti...

Biofuel technology may improve, but this is not guaranteed and it may require more use of genetic engineering than the public is willing to tolerate. Even if the industry does live up to its boosters’ optimistic promises, biofuels are still not the right focus of our energy policy. They may be a little better than fossil fuels, but they will never realistically replace them entirely, and their promotion takes attention away from more worthwhile approaches. Not only do biofuels let the auto industry continue with business much as usual, they also provide a cover for the fossil-fuel industry by prolonging the life of the oil economy. A much better approach would be to concentrate on reducing our use of energy more radically. This could be achieved through conservation measures, improved fuel efficiency standards, new types of engine, replacing much private vehicle use with public transport provision, better town planning, etc.
Biofuels are the best way of reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases res...

Biofuels are the best way of reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases responsible for global climate change. As with fossil fuels, burning biodiesel or ethanol to drive an engine or generate electricity releases carbon into the atmosphere. Unlike with fossil fuels, however, growing the plants from which biofuels are made takes carbon from the air, so overall the process is carbon neutral. This means policies to increase the use of biofuels could greatly reduce overall levels of carbon emissions, and so be a major part of tackling global climate change. They can also help improve local air quality as mixing ethanol with fossil fuels helps meet clean air standards.
Unlike oil, biofuels are renewable and sustainable. At present mankind is using up fossil fuel reso...

Unlike oil, biofuels are renewable and sustainable. At present mankind is using up fossil fuel resources at an alarming rate, and often damaging the environment in order to extract them. If we go on relying on fossil fuels they will one day run out, and not only will our descendants no longer have viable energy reserves, but they will also have to cope with the ecological damage coal, oil and gas extraction have inflicted on the earth. Making fuel from crops provides a perfect, sustainable solution.
Recruitment officers often make highly misleading pitches about life in the military.

Recruitment officers often make highly misleading pitches about life in the military. They play up the excitement and chances to travel, as well as the pay and benefits such as college fees and training in special skills. They don’t talk about the dangers of military life, the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the thousands of young soldiers who have lost limbs in recent years. And they don’t mention the impact of war on soldiers’ mental health, or the lack of support when they leave the military. If we must have the military in our schools, then they should be made to give a much more realistic view of military life.
All the military is interested in schools for is the chance to recruit students.

However it is dressed up, all the military is interested in schools for is the chance to recruit students. The various educational materials (not always clearly marked as coming from the military) and courses on offer are all intended to interest students in a military career. Such methods are dishonest and should not be allowed in schools. If students are genuinely interested in joining the military, they can go along to a recruitment centre outside school.
Recruitment in schools is against parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Recruitment in schools is against parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A set of rules that the USA signed up to in 2002 forbids the recruitment of children under the age of 18. Despite this, the American Civil Liberties Union has found that US military recruiters target children as young as 11, visiting their classrooms and making unfair promises to them. In order to live up to its pledge in 2002, the USA should stop trying to recruit in schools.
Children are too young to decide for themselves

Why should the army be allowed to market themselves to children who are too young to buy alcohol, cigarettes or drive when joining the army is more dangerous than these three things? If we protect our children from the harmful effects of drugs, we should be protecting them from getting shot as well. Allowing one and not the other is hypocrisy - and since letting 16 year olds drink legally would be a less-than-sensible idea, we should ban the armed forces from recruiting in schools.
Allowing members of the military into schools is a form of propaganda.

Our military is an all-volunteer force and must recruit openly to keep up its numbers. The army, navy and air force need well-educated and motivated recruits so that they can defend our country from its enemies. Visits to schools are not about forcing militaristic propaganda on children, but about making sure that 16-18 year olds know about the military as a possible career choice. After all, college representatives and local employers are allowed to make presentations to students, so it would be unfair to keep just the military out. If you accept that we need armed forces, then you must allow them to recruit openly.
There is evidence from both the UK and the USA that military recruiters target disadvantaged areas.

All young people should have the chance to think about whether joining the military is right for them. For that reason recruiters should not visit some types of schools and not others. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with recruiters making extra visits to schools from which many students have joined up in the past. And students from poorer areas may be particularly keen to hear about some of the benefits a military career can offer, such as free college tuition and good opportunities for promotion. The military can provide an important role in disadvantaged communities, providing positive role models and encouraging students to finish school (the US army now requires recruits to have at least a high school diploma). And many soldiers from tough areas say that if they hadn’t joined the military they would have been sucked into criminal gangs instead.
The Armed Forces need recruits

Recruitment is already shrinking as a result of negative media attention over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is bad news for our country. Banning recruitment in schools would exacerbate this problem. We need an army to maintain our role in the world as exporter of peace and democracy, as one of the few countries that seek actively to make the world a better place. Without brave young men and women to help this aid, millions of people across the world would find themselves living under repressive regimes, and without access to clean food and water. Our armed forces are a benevolent force in the world. Banning recruitment in schools would damage their legitimate mission, and be a victory for our enemies.
US military recruitment in schools has a very sinister side.

There is nothing wrong with collecting information about students. As no one thinks that students should be signed up at their classroom desks, recruiters need to record contact details so that they can follow up students who have shown an interest in the military. The new law was necessary as some schools tried to deny recruiters a chance to contact students. If parents don’t want their son or daughter to be included in the database, they can opt out by writing to the district superintendent.
The Armed Forces are less than honest

As already noted, there is a wealth of information about how dangerous the armed forces are. Just because they don’t tell children themselves about how many soldiers have been killed or wounded in the past x years, doesn’t mean those children don’t know about it. Any recruiter will naturally present the best side of their organisation, but at least in the armed forces’ case, the darker side is right there in the national press every day. In any case, arguing that children are unaware of the possibility of being injured in the armed forces is unreasonable. By the time they are eligible to join (currently 15 years 9 months at the very earliest) they will undoubtedly have had an adequate chance to consider all aspects of the career. No one should choose a career on a whim, so assuming they have thought about it at all, they will surely be aware of the fact that as a soldier you may very well be shot at and in the worst case killed or horrifically injured. I don’t think recruiters are inherently more dishonest than most other professions. What about fire fighters and police officers? Are those recruiters dishonest for not showing examples of where members of the profession have been injured?
Allowing members of the military into schools is a form of propaganda.

Allowing members of the military into schools is a form of propaganda. They promote the military and make war seem glamorous. Soldiers in smart uniforms come into classes with specially-made videos and powerful weapons, making violence and state-organised murder seem cool. This encourages young people to support aggressive action abroad. It also promotes an unthinking loyalty to the state, whether its actions are right or wrong. By allowing the military in, schools are signalling to their students that these things are OK.
The Armed Forces are a legitimate career option

It is exactly this vulnerable group of people we should be protecting. Actively targeting them is to take advantage of their socio-economic situation, patronising them because of where they live or how much money their parents earn. By suggesting that the army is one of the few career options that is open to them society runs the risk of losing out on potentially talented individuals who are sheperded into a vocation that does not actively improve society or their community. We should instead focus on raising their aspirations and increasing their opportunities by working with the communities in which they live to break the entire community out from a cycle of poverty.
There is evidence from both the UK and the USA that military recruiters target disadvantaged areas.

There is evidence from both the UK and the USA that military recruiters target disadvantaged areas. They seem to think that poorer students will have few other career options, so they will be more likely to join up. It isn’t right that young people from poor backgrounds can be exploited in this way. Why should they be expected to risk their lives much more than students from better-off areas? Instead schools and governments should make sure all students get equal chances in life.
US military recruitment in schools has a very sinister side.

US military recruitment in schools has a very sinister side. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, military recruiters collect data on 30 million students. A huge database contains their personal details, including social security numbers, email addresses and academic records. The purpose of this is to allow recruiters to pester young people with messages, phone calls and home visits. This itself is bad enough, but many people think the government should not be trusted with so much personal information. Isn’t it police states that want to keep files on all their citizens?
The army is short of manpower due to high casualty rates and the unwillingness of current soldiers to reenlist.

Young people are not stupid – they know that there are risks involved in joining the military. In fact the media usually focuses on the bad news coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring the good work of our military there. A career in the military also offers young people a lot of benefits, and it is only right that they should get to hear about those as well. And no one is signed up on the spot in the classroom; they always get the chance to think about it over a few months or more, and to discuss the decision carefully with parents.
The Armed Forces are less than honest

When giving presentations, the armed forces do not give the full picture, focusing more on humanitarian aid work than the incredibly dangerous job they do in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. When the danger is death or losing limbs in road-side bomb attacks, but this is being kept from potential recruits, the armed forces are trying to manipulate them. Who would join if they knew the full picture? For abusing the trust they are given when allowed to present to children, they should be banned.
Recruitment officers often make highly misleading pitches about life in the military.

Recruiters should not minimise the risks of a military career, but the armed forces do have a good story to tell and they should not be prevented from doing so. There really are great opportunities for keen, talented young people in the military, and almost all soldiers, etc. find it a very satisfying life. And compared with the past, soldiers today are much better looked after in terms of physical, medical and psychological wellbeing.
The Armed Forces are a legitimate career option

The young men and women who join the army when leaving school at 16 are those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Without the army to instil discipline and responsibility into these young people, there would be little else for them to do. They do not have many qualifications, and there is a statistical link between education and crime; without the army taking people off our streets and employing them for good - patrolling dangerous places, helping people across the world - they would be worse off. Banning the army from schools would see a drop in recruitment in precisely the groups it helps, to the detriment of the army and young men and women.
All the military is interested in schools for is the chance to recruit students.

In the UK the army does not directly recruit in schools but does visit many each year “with the aim of raising the general awareness of the armed forces in society”. And they always visit by invitation of the Headteacher. Compared to the USA fewer young people have local or family connections with the military, so it is important for them to learn about the role the armed forces play in our country. And in both the UK and the USA the military offers other services to schools, from educational materials to leadership courses and team-building exercises. Banning the military from visiting schools would deny students all these opportunities.
Recruitment in schools is against parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The USA has not signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, although it has signed the UN’s Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. But the US military does not recruit under-18s anyway, so it is keeping to it agreement. In any case, neither of these agreements stops recruiters visiting schools in order to make students aware of military career options once they turn 18.
The army is short of manpower due to high casualty rates and the unwillingness of current soldiers to reenlist.

The army is short of manpower due to high casualty rates and the unwillingness of current soldiers to reenlist. This means that they are very keen to get into schools to sign up young people. But it is not right to let them get at students who are too young to vote, or even drive. 16 and 17 year olds are not grown-up enough to make life and death decisions, like joining the army. They may not be able to see through exciting presentations or resist a persuasive and experienced recruitment officer. Schools should be safe places to grow and learn, not somewhere to sign your life away before it has even properly begun.
Children are not stupid

Negative publicity can always be countered and manipulated. The way presentations are given makes people forget the bad press and focuses instead on all the benefits. Recruits always go in thinking that ‘it’ll never happen to me’, regardless of what they know about casualty figures. Teenagers/Young adults also get killed in car crashes which are also broadcast in the media. Yet they still believe that it won’t happen to them. One main thing I noticed that an army recruitment officer neglected to mention (as well as some from other areas) is the psychological damage they could potentially suffer.
Reality TV higlights taboos in our society

Reality TV does highlight subjects that is not only very sensitive but also considered a taboo in our society. The subject of an ITV programme (1) aired eight years ago was a film following a brilliant pianist and lecturer who developed Alzheimer’s and watched his slow, painful battle. The show did highlight the illness that has for so long remained behind closed doors and did not show the actual death of Malcolm. (1) http://www.internurse.com/cgi-bin/go.pl/library/article.cgi?uid=24524;article=BJN_16_15_961
Reality TV is watched by millions of viewers

Reality TV is absolutely refusing to die. ITV proved it still had the X Factor by pulling in 10.4 million viewers when Leona Lewis was crowned the winner. It peaked at 11.9 viewers who tuned in for the last fifteen minutes (1). Shows such as the X Factor and Strictly Come Dancing are still recording viewer ratings at 10 million plus when aired on prime-time television on Saturday nights. If reality TV really was going too far, how is it that the British public are continuously glued to their screens? (1) http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/a40873/x-factor-ratings-top-previous-final.html