Datasets:

---

seongil-dn

/

mteb_arguana_perc

like 0

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02b", "score": 0.8113634586334229, "text": "You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production. British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.” He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2] [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010 [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03a", "score": 0.6675716638565063, "text": "Vegetarianism is healthier There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron. [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03b", "score": 0.6482827663421631, "text": "The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04b", "score": 0.6439501643180847, "text": "Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01b", "score": 0.6432884931564331, "text": "We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con01b", "score": 0.6409905552864075, "text": "These possible harms can be outweighed by the gains we make as humanity from protecting these species. It is important to note that the way we benefit from protecting endangered species extends benefits not just to the current generation but to future generations in terms of the preservation of biodiversity for scientific and aesthetic reasons. By contrast, allowing farmers to hunt to extinction species which are a threat to their livestock is only a short-term gain which applies almost exclusively to the farmers themselves and not to humanity as a whole.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01b", "score": 0.6363674402236938, "text": "Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-pro03b", "score": 0.6347723007202148, "text": "Whilst rail systems can be environmentally friendly, the higher the speed of a system the more fuel said system consumes. Whilst high speed rail might be useful as a transport system, owing to its high speed nature it does not reduce carbon emissions to a significant extent. Further, high speed rail is of limited popularity and as such it will not get enough drivers off the road to have any significant contribution to the environment. [1] [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-international-sepiahbaaw-pro02a", "score": 0.634545087814331, "text": "Environmental Damage Both licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] . [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ [2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b", "score": 0.6306242942810059, "text": "There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "validation-economy-ecegthwspc-pro04a", "score": 0.6298215389251709, "text": "Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009).", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro02a", "score": 0.626494288444519, "text": "Blood sports cannot be justified by reference to their role in pest control or conservation All sorts of hunting, shooting, and fishing boil down to slaughtering other animals for pleasure. If the prey is a pest (e.g. foxes), or needs culling (e.g. hares, deer), there are always more humane ways to kill it than hunting it to the point of terror and exhaustion with a pack of hounds- e.g. killing it with a rifle shot. If the prey is being killed for food it is entirely gratuitous. In modern society people do not need to kill food for themselves but can buy it from a source where animals have been killed humanely; indeed no-one needs to eat meat at all and for moral, health, and environmental reasons they should not (see vegetarianism debate). As for fishing, again there is absolutely no need to catch or eat fish; even when anglers throw their catch back in they have first put a hook through its palate.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-pro05b", "score": 0.6254118084907532, "text": "Not having children is not a good way to combat environmental problems. The real answer to environmental issues is developing clean technology and promoting ecological awareness. If we start to produce energy from renewable resources, switch to electrical transportation, recycle waste etc. we won’t need to reduce population in order to sustain the environment. Furthermore, a higher population living in a more eco-friendly manner would be less harmful than the current level of population with its lifestyles.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-economy-epegiahsc-con03a", "score": 0.6222705245018005, "text": "FTAA is bad for the environment. Free trade creates a \"race to the bottom\", whereby developing countries lower their labor and environmental standards in an effort to attract foreign investment. Developed countries, which may have higher standards, are then forced to lower them as well in order to make sure companies don’t relocate or outsource their jobs abroad [1] . [1] Hassoun, Nicole. “Free Trade and the Environment”. Environmental Ethics, Vol. 31.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con02b", "score": 0.6190026998519897, "text": "Hydroelectric power is clean so would be beneficial in the fight against global warming. Providing such power would reduce the need to other forms of electricity and would help end the problem of cooking fires which not only damage the environment but cause 1.9million lives to be lost globally every year as a result of smoke inhalation. [1] Because the dam will be ‘run of the river’ there won’t be many of the usual problems associated with dams; fish will still be able to move up and down the river and much of the sediment will still be transported over the rapids. [1] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘How Hillary Clinton’s clean stoves will help African women’, theguardian.com, 21 September 2010,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-opecewiahw-con02a", "score": 0.6186721324920654, "text": "A dam would damage the environment Dams due to their generation of renewable electricity are usually seen as environmentally friendly but such mega projects are rarely without consequences. The Grand Inga would lower the oxygen content of the lower course of the river which would mean a loss of species. This would not only affect the river as the Congo’s delta is a submerged area of 300,000km2 far out into the Atlantic. This system is not yet understood but the plume transmits sediment and organic matter into the Atlantic ocean encouraging plankton offshore contributing to the Atlantic’s ability to be a carbon sink. [1] [1] Showers, Kate, ‘Will Africa’s Mega Dam Have Mega Impacts?’, International Rivers, 5 March 2012,", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02a", "score": 0.6159852147102356, "text": "There are problems with being vegetarian A vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment. [1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro01b", "score": 0.6153146028518677, "text": "First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow. People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals. Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration. In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-science-sghwbdgmo-pro02a", "score": 0.6120877861976624, "text": "Genetically modified food is a danger to eco-systems. GM foods also present a danger to the environment. The use of these crops is causing fewer strains to be planted. In a traditional ecosystem based on 100 varieties of rice, a disease wiping out one strain is not too much of a problem. However, if just two strains are planted (as now occurs) and one is wiped out the result is catastrophic. In addition, removing certain varieties of crops causes organisms, which feed on these crops, to be wiped out as well, such as the butterfly population decimated by a recent Monsanto field trial. [1] This supports the concerns that GM plants or transgenes can escape into the environment and that the impacts of broad-spectrum herbicides used with the herbicide tolerant GM crops on the countryside ecosystems have consequences. One of the impacts was that the Bacillus Thuringiensis toxin was produced by Bt crops (GMOs) on no-target species (butterflies), which lead to them dying. [2] Another concern is also that pollen produced from GM crops can be blown into neighboring fields where it fertilizes unmodified crops. This process (cross-pollination) pollutes the natural gene pool. [3] This in turn makes labeling impossible which reduces consumer choice. This can be prevented with the terminator gene. However, use of this is immoral for reasons outlined below. Furthermore, not all companies have access to the terminator technology. [1] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000, , accessed 09/02/2011 [2] WWF Switzerland, Genetically modified Organisms (GMOs): A danger to sustainable development of agriculture, published May 2005, www.panda.org/downloads/trash/gmosadangertosustainableagriculture.pdf , p.4 , accessed 09/02/2011 [3] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000, , accessed 09/02/2011", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01a", "score": 0.6104221940040588, "text": "Humans can choose their own nutrition plan Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-pro05a", "score": 0.6093275547027588, "text": "Not having children is environmentally friendly The more people consume in the world, the greater the environmental damage. An average American produces 52 tons of garbage by the age of 75.* However, producing extra litter and pollution is not the only hazard that every child poses to the planet. Increasing world’s population also places incredible stress on Earth’s resources. It is estimated, for instance, that by 2025 three billion people will live in water-scarce countries. By reducing the number of human beings we will manage to avoid numerous overpopulation crises and reverse the damage done to the environment. * Tufts Climate Initiative., 2006,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b", "score": 0.7644092440605164, "text": "There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat." } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro04a", "score": 0.7258751392364502, "text": "Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights. We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights. First of all, animals have an equal capacity to experience pain. While we are unable to know exactly what other humans or animals are experiencing, we can make inference from what we observe. According to Peter Singer: “Nearly all the signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...The behavioural signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on”. [1] In addition we know that animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in a circumstance in which we would feel pain—an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than basic impulses, emotions, and feelings. These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds.” Animals therefore have the capacity for physical and emotional suffering, and so should be granted rights. [1] Singer, Peter. \"All Animals are Equal.\" Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro03a", "score": 0.7237138748168945, "text": "Humanity bears a moral responsibility to other species Human moral responsibility to other species: Humans are unique and unprecedented in life on earth in that their intelligence and sentience far surpasses that of any other species ever known to have existed. Humans are not simply forced to kill or ignore other species by instinct alone, as other species are, but rather can make a variety of choices based not only on information but on moral grounds. Thus with our greater power comes a greater responsibility to act in a moral fashion, and not simply to prioritize our own human good over that of other species. The ability of animal species, for example, to feel pain and suffering is something we should consider and try to avoid, as we recognise that pain is bad for ourselves, and thus must be bad for animals as well. Similarly if we believe our own survival is a good thing, we should recognise that the survival of other species is also a moral good, and act accordingly to protect endangered species.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01a", "score": 0.7220361232757568, "text": "Animals don’t have human rights Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con04b", "score": 0.7187771201133728, "text": "This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro01b", "score": 0.7175405025482178, "text": "This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them? We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’. Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1] [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro02a", "score": 0.7162405848503113, "text": "We should treat animals well It is important to treat animals as kindly as we can. Not causing harm to others is among the basic human rights. Although these rights cannot be said to apply directly to animals, we should extend them a certain respect as living, sentient beings, and as a minimum we should avoid causing them unnecessary harm. [1] Moreover, taking animal welfare seriously will accustom us to considering the effects of our actions in other contexts, and help us be generally sensitive to cruelty. Inflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad thing. Many governments already have many policies aimed at preventing this. For example, in 2004 the UK passed a law banning hunting with dogs on the grounds that it is cruel. [2] The Council of Europe and through it the European Union already requires stunning, with an exception for religious practices. [3] Removing this exception is the best course for animal welfare. Killing animals for food may not be philosophically wrong – after all, many species do the same. But if we are going to do so, we should cause as little harm as possible in the process, and this requires using humane slaughter methods. [1] ‘Why Animal Rights?’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2013, [2] ‘Hunting and the law’, Gov.uk, 4 April 2013, [3] The Member States of the Council of Europe, ‘European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter’, Strasbourg, 10.V.1979,", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro03b", "score": 0.7080206274986267, "text": "Superior human intellect and sentience only means that we should make sure we consider the moral ramifications of our actions, not that we should take any particular action as a result. It is entirely in keeping with this for us to conclude that human life and enjoyment are more important than animal life and species survival, and so for us to decide not to protect endangered species when this (as it by definition always will) infringes upon human benefits and enjoyment.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro03b", "score": 0.7061485648155212, "text": "Equality requires that two beings are actually equal on some fundamental level. Human beings have certain essential similarities that make them equal. These do not stretch to animals. Human beings are able to distinguish right from wrong while animals have no notion of ethics. We are thus able to consider what kind of a society we want to live in and we are affected when we feel that there is social degradation. Animals, however, do not have this sense. We have fundamental dignity which animals do not. This is clear in the fact that animals do not experience shame or embarrassment, desire respect, or have a notion of self. Furthermore, human beings can consider their future and have particular desires about how they want their life to play out. These are different for every individual. This is why we are concerned with choice and protecting individualism and religion. Animals on the other hand are concerned only with immediate survival. They have only instincts, not individual desires and wants. For these reasons, we can't consider animals to be equally morally considerable. As for the propositions standard of relevance for the criteria which distinguish animals from humans in any given case, we would argue that the fundamental individuality and humanity of our species is relevant in every case because it makes animal life fundamentally less valuable.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro05b", "score": 0.7040324211120605, "text": "We do not have to justify cock fighting and other acts of animal cruelty as morally permissible. These are different acts to animal research in an important respect. It is not the intention of the researchers to harm the animals, but rather to produce high quality research for the betterment of human lives. Whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible, with pain killers, anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. There are many exceptions in law which maintain moral consistency due to the intention behind the act. For example, killing someone for money would be murder and illegal, whilst an exception might be made if you were killing in war, or self-defence, as the intention behind the act is held to be both different and morally just.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con01b", "score": 0.7006340622901917, "text": "To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate. [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro02b", "score": 0.700609028339386, "text": "To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01b", "score": 0.6997551918029785, "text": "Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con02b", "score": 0.6992668509483337, "text": "There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro05a", "score": 0.6987518668174744, "text": "Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01a", "score": 0.6972351670265198, "text": "We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species. We have always been superior to animals. Just as a lion can kill antelope and a frog can kill insects, so too human beings have struggled their way to the top of the food chain. Why then can we not exercise the power we have earned? Animals exercise their power and we should do the same. It is our natural obligation to do so. The reason we have always killed animals is because we need them. We need meat to be healthy and we need to test medicines on animals to protect our own race. We use animals to further our own race. This too is surely a natural obligation.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con05a", "score": 0.6970201730728149, "text": "Animals involved in animal research are mostly well treated. The vast majority of animals used in research are not subjected to suffering. Where there may be pain, they are given painkillers, and when they are euthanized it is done humanely. [1] They are looked after well, as the health of the animals is usually not only required by law and good practice, but beneficial for the experimental results. Many of these animals live better lives than they might have done had they been born into the wild. Many animals, and indeed humans, die untimely deaths that are due to reasons other than old age, animal experimentation may increase these numbers slightly but so long as the animals are treated well there should be no moral objection to animal research. If the foundation of the argument for banning animal experimentation is therefore based upon the cruel treatment and pain suffered by animals then this is a reason for regulation to make sure there is very little suffering rather than an outright ban. [1] Herzog, H., “Dealing With the Animal Research Controversy”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 1.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro04a", "score": 0.6928379535675049, "text": "Most animals can suffer more than some people It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities. We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-con02b", "score": 0.6921568512916565, "text": "If animal suffering is equal to human suffering then the benefits of exploiting animals in this way are only appropriate if it would also be appropriate to use a mentally disabled human in the same way.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro02b", "score": 0.690241813659668, "text": "We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro03a", "score": 0.6900180578231812, "text": "Animals are equal to human beings. It is true that animals and human beings are different. It is also true that men are different from women and children from adults. Equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are unable to have an abortion. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe all human beings have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support animal rights. Equality does not mean that beings all deserve the exact same treatment. It means rather that we consider equally the equal interests of animals and humans. If we deem amount A to be the maximum amount of suffering a person be allowed to endure, then that should apply equally to an animal, though humans and animals may suffer different amounts under different circumstances. The principle of equality advocates equal consideration, so it still allows for different treatment and different rights. Equality is a prescriptive rather than a descriptive concept. What’s important is that beings should ONLY be treated differently where there is a morally relevant difference between them. For example, we can justifiably deny dogs the right to vote because there is a relevant difference in intelligence between dogs and humans. However, there is no justification for battery-farming chickens who have a capacity to suffer. There is evidence that they experience fear, pain and discomfort. Although chickens may be less intelligent and unable to speak , these differences are not morally relevant to whether or not they should be placed in these conditions. We ought to consider animals equally to the way we consider humans. If we were to do so we would give animals rights. We ought therefore to give animals rights.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03b", "score": 0.7685800194740295, "text": "The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02a", "score": 0.706070065498352, "text": "There are problems with being vegetarian A vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment. [1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro05b", "score": 0.6702918410301208, "text": "Smokers may have a higher chance of harm from surgery due to complications arising from their habit, but this is not a phenomenon specific to them. Cardiovascular disease, or heart disease to most people, is the number one killer of men and women in the United States1. It is caused by the build-up of fatty deposits that clog the vessels - those at risk are often smokers, but can just as often be those who are overweight, have diabetes or simply high blood pressure. As such, it is not justified to single out smokers when those with unhealthy diets can just as easily cause complications in their surgeries. 1. Daily News, 13 Jul 11, Cardiovascular disease: Defend yourself by lowering the risks.Accessed 14 Jul 11.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04b", "score": 0.6684930920600891, "text": "Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02a", "score": 0.6669861674308777, "text": "Being vegetarian helps the environment Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1] The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2] As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6] With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat. [1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center [2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 . [3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009. [4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997. [5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003 [6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02b", "score": 0.6648673415184021, "text": "The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that \"There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores\". [2] [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010. [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01a", "score": 0.6630691885948181, "text": "Humans can choose their own nutrition plan Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-pro02b", "score": 0.6613370180130005, "text": "Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever. While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-con01b", "score": 0.6473816633224487, "text": "Health experts agree that banning trans fats would save thousands of lives specifically because the substance is dangerous even when consumed in very low quantities. They are simply a dangerous additive, which adds no extra value to food. 'Taste' considerations are simply a red herring, as switching to other fats would produce no meaningful change in taste, as has been demonstrated by several large food corporations who have made the shift without disappointing their customer base. The fact that other foodstuffs may be dangerous is an argument for better education or regulation regarding them, or -if merited -their own bans, but is not a case against banning trans fats. Trans-fats are significantly different to all the other unhealthy foods listed by side opposition, as trans fats are easily replaceable by less unhealthy substitutes, which things like sugar are not.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02b", "score": 0.6460861563682556, "text": "You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production. British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.” He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2] [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010 [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-pro01b", "score": 0.6441364288330078, "text": "The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-pro01b", "score": 0.6379543542861938, "text": "An important source of extravagant medical spending around the world, especially in the US, can be traced to inherent inefficiencies of current medical care systems. [1] And the current trends show the situation to be worsening. It is thus impossible for anyone to really say whether the rising cost of the medical care system can really be attributed to obesity related diseases, especially since those are some of the most common ailments of the modern age. It is also unfair to single out obesity as the single cause that should get such intense scrutiny and attention. What about the connection between consumption of meat and colorectal cancer? [2] Should we introduce an additional levy in that case as well? [1] Connolly, C., U.S. ‘Not Getting What We Pay For’, published 11/30/2008, , accessed 9/12/2011 [2] The HMS Family health guide, Red meat and colon cancer, published in March 2008, , accessed 9/12/2011", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-pro03b", "score": 0.6375442147254944, "text": "The American FDA considers the use of trans fats to be 'generally safe'.(1) The British Food Standards Agency says the UK's low average consumption of trans fats makes a complete ban unnecessary.(6) These organisations are already supposed to regulate foodstuffs and monitor trans fats, if they agreed that they needed to act surely they would. For individuals considered especially vulnerable to the effects of trans-fat consumption, such as the old or the poor, the government should consider education, not a ban. Moreover, the real issue here isn't about health, but about the right of a citizen of a free country to choose to eat whatever foods he wishes. The role of government is not to restrict the freedoms of its citizens but to protect individuals and to defend their right to act freely. Informed, adult individuals have every right to eat whatever fattening, caloric or artery-clogging meals they please. Government health boards have no right to restrict the foods law-abiding citizens choose to put into their own bodies.(10)", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04a", "score": 0.6358434557914734, "text": "Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1] Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows. [1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-con01a", "score": 0.6324048042297363, "text": "Trans fats are not uniquely unhealthy The issue with trans-fat is that there is no better substitute. The fact is that the substitutes are also as bad, if not worse, than trans-fat itself. By banning trans-fat, restaurants will have to adopt these substitute substances, thus undermining the work of the government. This process is a waste of our resources as the government will have to spend huge amount of money to bring about a ban on trans-fat without getting any positive outcome. The trans-fat ban would only have clear benefits if it were to cause a general reduction in the overconsumption of high-fat foods, but a restaurant ban on one ingredient will not achieve this. This will mean that money will be wasted as increased costs will be passed on to the consumer while there is no benefit.(8) Trans fats are not uniquely and excessively unhealthy. Sugar is unhealthy. Salt is unhealthy. Runny eggs, rare meat, processed flour, nearly anything consumed too frequently or excessively is potentially dangerous. We would not ban these foods because they are unhealthy so the same should apply to trans fats. The current obesity crisis within the US is not the result of regulatory failure and will not be solved by a ban on trans fats. Better choices, better parenting, exercise and personal restraint are the keys. None of these behavioural traits can be mandated by government.(9) Even if trans fats were eliminated from food products, overall a ban would do nothing to help individuals develop healthy lifestyles. While the ban would curtail consumption of onion rings (if they were cooked in trans fats), for example, it would remain perfectly legal to gorge oneself on Häagen-Dazs or chocolate, both unhealthy foods that contain no trans-fat.(10) The main alternatives to trans-fat is not even that much healthier. In most cases, food makers will move to saturated fat, which carries all of the same health risks, for example it has been linked to diabetes and cancer.(9) The ban is therefore unlikely to have a perceptible effect on public health. Trans-fats actually serve two useful purposes. Firstly, trans fats serve an important function of extending the shelf life of products.(1) This is necessary for both producers and consumers as it makes producing these foods cheaper and reduces waste. It also means that consumers are less likely to consume spoiled food and become sick as a result. Secondly, trans fats are tasty and offer enjoyment to consumers. Trans fats keep foods from turning rancid on store shelves; give croissants their flakiness, keep muffins moist and satisfy the sweet tooth. The enjoyment of such tasty foods has a qualitative value to one's emotions and happiness.(3) Therefore trans fats are not uniquely unhealthy and a ban would not improve general public health -it would simply remove a useful and tasty substance from the market. Thus a ban is unjustified.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-law-thgglcplgphw-con03b", "score": 0.6280940771102905, "text": "The burden of evidence lies on the side trying to prove its harm, not on the side asserting that it is not harmful, and so the lack of categorical proof of its harm is in itself an argument for legalizing its cultivation and chewing. If proof of health risks arise then they can be addressed, but until then the ban is inappropriate and should be lifted.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-science-cpecshmpj-con03b", "score": 0.6240758299827576, "text": "No research has shown health risks. The advice is only because we do not yet know the long term results. As studies continue for longer this final worry will also be ended.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-con02b", "score": 0.621167004108429, "text": "Calling for an \"education campaign\" to inform consumers of what they are eating may sound sufficient, but this is very often just not enough. No matter what the government does, people will simply miss the \"instructional\" information provided by the government and will continue to consume trans fats without full information regarding its negative effects. In such circumstances, it is the government's job to step in a take action through a ban or other measures. Moreover, when a harmful trend such as the use of trans-fats becomes endemic and entrenched, it becomes increasingly difficult for citizens to always be aware of the fact that a food has trans fats in them and make the \"choice\" to eat or not to eat them.(15) Producers include trans fats into foods without adjusting labelling, further affecting consumers’ ability to purchase foods that do not include trans-fats. The trans fats hidden in many processed foods are worse for a person's health than saturated fats. In 2005, CHOICE, an Australian watchdog tested more than 50 processed foods and found many contained trans fats at unacceptably high levels. After re-tests it was still clear that, while the fast-food chains had reduced their levels of trans fats, and some of the foods tested previously had eliminated trans fats altogether, others now contained even more than before. Foods such as pies, cakes and doughnuts may contain trans fats without the consumer even knowing about it.(16)", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b", "score": 0.6210489273071289, "text": "There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-pro02b", "score": 0.6160181760787964, "text": "Choosing to introduce a new policy based on experience with a different, seemingly similar case, is not a good idea. Tobacco and fatty food are vastly different things for a couple of reasons. An obvious one is the fact that fat is in fact necessary nourishment, even the trans-fat kind. Cigarettes on the other hand have absolutely no value to a persons’ health – their detrimental impact is quite infamous. A different one is the importance of dosage. While smoking is harmful in all doses, indulging in larger amounts of fatty food isn’t. Consuming what we consider “junk food” in moderation has no ill effect on health. [1] This results in legislating for any kind of fat tax much more difficult as the tax needs to allow consuming fat in moderation while preventing excess. [1] Roberts A., Let Them Eat Cake (Why Junk Food Is OK For Kids, In Moderation), published 5/9/2011, , accessed 9/12/2011", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-economy-beghwprsci-con03b", "score": 0.6150960326194763, "text": "It is not the government's place to force lifestyles on people. There is plenty of information around on what constitutes a balanced and healthy diet; people should be left to make up their own minds about what they buy with their own money. In any case, loss leaders make very little difference to the overall price comparison between processed and fresh food. Fresh food like fruit, vegetables and raw meat is expensive because it will soon rot and so it incurs higher transport and storage costs than processed food with a long shelf life. If governments want to change the balance in costs, they would be better off putting a tax on the unhealthiest foods rather than interfering arbitrarily in the realm of the marketing.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04b", "score": 0.7799713611602783, "text": "Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009." } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-ahwcb-pro01b", "score": 0.6477129459381104, "text": "Some of the costs are largely illusionary. Yes we stop food that is tested positive from bovine TB from getting into the food chain but this ignores that the tests are not accurate so there is likely meat that is infected getting into the foodchain anyway. Bovine TB is mostly in parts of cattle that are not eaten and cooking kills the TB bacterium. At the same time almost all milk is pasteurised so again the bacterium is killed posing no risk to human health. [1] The main difficulty with the argument that a cull will prevent TB is that we do not know which way infections run. Do badgers infect cattle or the other way around. Currently the evidence suggests that it is cattle that infect badgers this is why there are areas with high badger populations without bovine TB problems such as the north of England. It is all but certain that any large jumps in infection over large distances are the result of cattle to cattle transmission. [2] Looking at the chart presented it is clear that the biggest jump from under 2000 to over 5000 infected herds occurs immediately after foot and mouth suggesting the increase was a result of cattle movements. [1] ‘expert reaction to TB test-positive cattle entering the food chain’, Science Media Centre, 1 July 2013, [2] Dawson, D.G., ‘Badgers and TB, where is the science?’, University of Birkbeck, March 2013, (6, 10, 11)", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03b", "score": 0.6448660492897034, "text": "The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03a", "score": 0.6356861591339111, "text": "Vegetarianism is healthier There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron. [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro04a", "score": 0.6252719163894653, "text": "Since this meat is often sold unlabeled, this affects everyone Meat from animals slaughtered without stunning can turn up anywhere. Some parts of each animal are not used in kosher food, and they are generally sold on the normal market. This means any supermarket product could turn out to have such meat in it. Halal food is even more common, and many places serve halal meat as standard. [1] So we cannot just consider the religious community: this meat reaches everyone. People with concerns about the way their food is produced would be distressed if they knew they were eating meat which had been inhumanely slaughtered. The fact that they don’t actually know is neither here nor there – we should bear in mind their ethical positions. Everyone is eating the meat, so everyone has a say. Banning the production of this meat would remove it from the food chain and help make sure people know what they’re eating. [1] Fagge, Nick, ‘Halal Britain: Schools and institutions serving up ritually slaughtered meat’, Daily Mail, 25 January 2011,", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02a", "score": 0.6170334219932556, "text": "There are problems with being vegetarian A vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment. [1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02b", "score": 0.6041297912597656, "text": "The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that \"There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores\". [2] [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010. [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02a", "score": 0.6000751256942749, "text": "Being vegetarian helps the environment Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1] The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2] As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6] With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat. [1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center [2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 . [3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009. [4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997. [5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003 [6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01a", "score": 0.600060224533081, "text": "Humans can choose their own nutrition plan Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-pro01b", "score": 0.5976580381393433, "text": "Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] . States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur. [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con03b", "score": 0.5902509093284607, "text": "This again highlights some of the problems with animal research. In the UK example cited, animal testing had been done, and the dose given to the human volunteers was a tiny fraction of the dose shown to be safe in primates. Animal research is an unreliable indicator of how drugs will react in the human body, and as such alternatives should be sought and improved upon.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b", "score": 0.5899083614349365, "text": "There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-con03b", "score": 0.5871063470840454, "text": "Stunning is only unreliable when done badly. All of the objections listed represent cases where best practice was not being followed. It is important to implement stunning properly, but there are plenty of stunning methods which, when carried out properly and carefully, have been shown to be fully effective. Religious slaughterhouses are not immune to failures either, with the most common reported problem being an insufficiently sharp knife. The same report cited by opposition condemns the religious slaughter of animals and says “when shechita is performed on chickens in Britain, only about half the birds have both their carotid arteries completely severed by the cut” allowing brain activity to continue for up to 349 seconds. [1] Requiring stunning will improve the base line of welfare we are working towards, and we can then start to worry about ensuring compliance [1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001, , p.19, 21", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-con02b", "score": 0.5859643816947937, "text": "Without accepting the premise that the two types of killing cause equal pain and it is only if the slaughter is done badly that there is a problem the slaughter is more likely to be done badly with religious slaughter. Training people to do religious slaughter well is harder than training them to do other kinds of slaughter. In particular, the latter is more mechanized, so as long as the equipment is properly maintained many problems can be avoided. Religious slaughter is much more prone to human error. It will be much easier to teach people best practice and improve animal welfare if we require them to use the simpler methods, where less training is required. This is a more efficient way of improving animal welfare than studying a myriad of different types of knife etc.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-pro01a", "score": 0.5850781202316284, "text": "These products are dangerous Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] . States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur. [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01b", "score": 0.5816823840141296, "text": "We are morally responsible creatures and we can survive perfectly well without being cruel to animals. Animals are different because they need to hunt to survive and are not morally responsible. The interests they satisfy by being cruel to other animals (namely the need to eat) are momentous whereas the human need to wear a fur coat or have a tasty burger instead of a vegetarian pasta dish is trivial. We even use animals for entertainment, something that by definition is unnecessary.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b", "score": 0.5807481408119202, "text": "Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-con03a", "score": 0.5802986025810242, "text": "Most stunning methods are not reliable The stunning methods in general use can and do go wrong. Electrical stunning requires the right size of charge, applied to the right place for the right amount of time. If done badly, the stun itself can cause pain, and can even fail completely. In one survey of Bristol abattoirs, not a single one was fully compliant with best-practice. Captive bolt stunning must also be done at a specific point on the animal’s head. A 1990 study found that in as many as 6.6% of cases, cattle had been insufficiently stunned, and 2.6% actually had to be shot again (one reported worst-case involved a cow being shot six times). Poultry slaughter often takes place on a mechanized production line, which causes serious concerns. Birds are dragged through an electrically charged water bath to stun them, but a 1993 study showed that 13.5% of birds were receiving shocks prior to being stunned – again, causing needless pain. Some birds lift their heads out of the bath, avoiding the stun completely. [1] Other, similar problems are associated with other stunning methods. Religious slaughter methods ensure that each animal is handled individually, so that it is kept calm, killed quickly and is properly dead. Because of the need to comply with religious law, the overseeing bodies put a large amount of effort into ensuring compliance with best-practice. Requiring them to stun animals actually causes more harm than good. [1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001,", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-health-ahghhwdsas-pro05b", "score": 0.5790161490440369, "text": "Smokers may have a higher chance of harm from surgery due to complications arising from their habit, but this is not a phenomenon specific to them. Cardiovascular disease, or heart disease to most people, is the number one killer of men and women in the United States1. It is caused by the build-up of fatty deposits that clog the vessels - those at risk are often smokers, but can just as often be those who are overweight, have diabetes or simply high blood pressure. As such, it is not justified to single out smokers when those with unhealthy diets can just as easily cause complications in their surgeries. 1. Daily News, 13 Jul 11, Cardiovascular disease: Defend yourself by lowering the risks.Accessed 14 Jul 11.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-science-sghwbdgmo-pro02b", "score": 0.5787760615348816, "text": "The fears about GM food have been nothing more than a media spin. The media have created a story about nothing due to headlines such as 'Frankenfood'. Simply because people are scared they assert that there are not enough testing of the benefits of GM foods. The proposition is mainly falling into a media trap because at the moment all reasonable precautions are being taken for ensured safety. There is no reason why many different strains of GM crops cannot be produced and planted - where this is not happening at present, it should be. However, the need for many different strains is not an argument against some or all of those being GM. Adding or removing genes from natural varieties does not make the rest of their DNA identical. Furthermore, there is no concrete scientific evidence of what harm is done by the spreading of GM pollen. [1] All these effects are considered when a genetically modified crop is to be approved for agricultural use, if a product would cause any of the above mentioned effects, it would not be approved. [2] [1] Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa, Biotechnology FAQ, Would the spread of GMO traits into traditional maize be a serious problem ?, , accessed 09/07/2011 [2] Bionetonline.org, Is it safe to grow genetically modified foods ?, , accessed 09/02/2011", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro04b", "score": 0.5763064622879028, "text": "To successfully remove such meat from the food chain, any ban would have to extend to importing such meat. Under this model, Jews and Muslims would literally be forced to become vegetarian – a radical and discriminatory suggestion which significantly breaches their rights. Consumers may very well want to be better informed about their meat. But labeling systems have been proposed which would address this concern without a ban. It also needs to be said that many non-religious abattoirs are also inhumane. To be fully ethical, any such labeling system would have to label all the animals where the stun didn’t work, and should also take account of the way the animals were raised and transported. Banning just religious slaughter is not a consistent moral position, and shouldn’t be government policy.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02b", "score": 0.845258891582489, "text": "The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that \"There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores\". [2] [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010. [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03b", "score": 0.7338833212852478, "text": "The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03a", "score": 0.7058544158935547, "text": "Vegetarianism is healthier There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron. [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04b", "score": 0.6628873348236084, "text": "Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwilfepe-pro03b", "score": 0.6429818272590637, "text": "For every company that actually makes an effort to create a program of healthy products, there ten that use labels to promote a “functional food” gimmick. More and more products are being labeled with the “health food” and “functional food” labels. One strong example of that is the “contains added vitamins and minerals” label in the U.S., with foods being fortified with vitamins – so seemingly improved for the better. Yet the U.S. population’s vitamin deficiencies are at an all time low. An epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania also notes that these fortifications and the labels that come with them are mostly a tactic used to distract consumers from actual nutritional problems – those of excess. [1] [1] Narayan, A., Figuring Out Food Labels, published 5/2/2010, , accessed 9/17/2011", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b", "score": 0.6375761032104492, "text": "Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "validation-health-dhwiftj-pro01b", "score": 0.6338754892349243, "text": "The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01a", "score": 0.6332625150680542, "text": "Humans can choose their own nutrition plan Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02b", "score": 0.6331310868263245, "text": "You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production. British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.” He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2] [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010 [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-culture-mmciahbans-pro01b", "score": 0.6325608491897583, "text": "Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] . States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur. [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro03a", "score": 0.6268715262413025, "text": "Better nutrition leads to better students. There is a growing body of evidence linking a healthy lifestyle, comprising of both adequate nutrition and physical exercise, with improved memory, concentration and general academic performance. [1] A study has shown that when primary school students consume three or more junk food meals a week literacy and numeracy scores dropped by up to 16% compared to the average. [2] This is a clear incentive for governments to push forward for healthier meals in schools for two reasons. The first obvious benefit is to the student, whose better grades award her improved upward mobility – especially important for ethnic groups stuck worst by the obesity epidemic and a lower average socioeconomic status. The second benefit is to the schools, who benefit on standardized testing scores and reduced absenteeism, as well as reduced staff time and attention devoted to students with low academic performance or behavior problems and other hidden costs of low concentration and performance of students. [3] [1] CDC, 'Student Health and Academic Achievement', 19 October 2010, , accessed 9/11/2011 [2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Too much fast food ‘harms children’s test scores’’, The Telegraph, 22 May 2009, accessed 20 September 2011 [3] Society for the Advancement of Education, 'Overweight students cost schools plenty', December 2004, , 9/11/2011", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro02b", "score": 0.6233174204826355, "text": "Given all the responsibilities our society has transferred from parents onto schools and educators in the 21st century, is it really sensible to include caring for nutritional choices to this already bloated and unmanageable list? We need to ask ourselves, is it actually right that kids turn to schools and peers about lifestyle advice, when this is so clearly a domain of parents and families and so obviously a burden on an already taxed public school system.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-con04b", "score": 0.6230358481407166, "text": "If the school is providing unhealthy meals then guidelines can be tightened to ensure they improve. If the students are throwing away food then there can be greater supervision by teachers. A study by Harvard University has also shown that food waste, and the amount of healthy food eaten can be increased by having more time allocated to eating. [1] [1] Wanjek, Christopher, ‘Are Healthy School Lunch Programs a Waste?’, Livescience, 7 October 2015,", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04a", "score": 0.6175417900085449, "text": "Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1] Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows. [1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01b", "score": 0.616191565990448, "text": "Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02a", "score": 0.6156136989593506, "text": "Being vegetarian helps the environment Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1] The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2] As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6] With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat. [1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center [2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 . [3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009. [4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997. [5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003 [6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-health-mchdhgwhwff-con03a", "score": 0.6155157089233398, "text": "Force feeding strategies may cause physical harm Force-feeding has negative consequences. If the patient is dangerously thin and is then force-fed, it can led to Hypophosphataemia (reduction of phosphates in the blood) which causes heart failure. Anorexics are characterised by self-denial and often do not come forward voluntarily. Indeed it according to Dr Sacker anorexia is often not even about food rather \"By stopping food from going into the body, what they really feel is they can be in control of their body.” [1] This desire is actively harmed by force feeding as a result they are even less likely to come forward voluntarily if they are faced with the possibility of force- feeding. [1] CBS, ‘A very thin line’, 02/11/2009, , accessed 07/22/2011", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01b", "score": 0.6135179996490479, "text": "We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body. We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough. When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition. What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-economy-thhghwhwift-pro01b", "score": 0.6121907830238342, "text": "An important source of extravagant medical spending around the world, especially in the US, can be traced to inherent inefficiencies of current medical care systems. [1] And the current trends show the situation to be worsening. It is thus impossible for anyone to really say whether the rising cost of the medical care system can really be attributed to obesity related diseases, especially since those are some of the most common ailments of the modern age. It is also unfair to single out obesity as the single cause that should get such intense scrutiny and attention. What about the connection between consumption of meat and colorectal cancer? [2] Should we introduce an additional levy in that case as well? [1] Connolly, C., U.S. ‘Not Getting What We Pay For’, published 11/30/2008, , accessed 9/12/2011 [2] The HMS Family health guide, Red meat and colon cancer, published in March 2008, , accessed 9/12/2011", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-health-hgwhwbutffs-pro03b", "score": 0.6087136268615723, "text": "The American FDA considers the use of trans fats to be 'generally safe'.(1) The British Food Standards Agency says the UK's low average consumption of trans fats makes a complete ban unnecessary.(6) These organisations are already supposed to regulate foodstuffs and monitor trans fats, if they agreed that they needed to act surely they would. For individuals considered especially vulnerable to the effects of trans-fat consumption, such as the old or the poor, the government should consider education, not a ban. Moreover, the real issue here isn't about health, but about the right of a citizen of a free country to choose to eat whatever foods he wishes. The role of government is not to restrict the freedoms of its citizens but to protect individuals and to defend their right to act freely. Informed, adult individuals have every right to eat whatever fattening, caloric or artery-clogging meals they please. Government health boards have no right to restrict the foods law-abiding citizens choose to put into their own bodies.(10)", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-education-pshhghwpba0-pro01b", "score": 0.6085347533226013, "text": "This will not be true equality. Some people naturally wake up earlier, yet many will still be feeling sleepy at 10:00. A school breakfast may have forced these students to be up even longer before their natural wake up time than would otherwise be the case.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con03b", "score": 0.7018886208534241, "text": "To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?" } ]

[ { "id": "training-environment-ahwcb-con01b", "score": 0.6664212942123413, "text": "In this instance the question is one of balancing suffering. Yes culling will result in a certain amount of suffering from badgers but not culling and letting TB run rampant causes suffering in cattle. To humans cattle are much more valuable than badgers as we have several uses for their produce. It is clear that if there has to be suffering it should be badgers, not cattle that do so.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-iilepphbf-pro01a", "score": 0.6660162210464478, "text": "Universal human nature Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro01a", "score": 0.6647419929504395, "text": "The use of animals in sport demeans humans Other animals may not have the same level of sapience as humans, but they feel fear, stress, exhaustion and pain just as we do. It is immoral to derive pleasure either from the suffering or forced performance of another living being, especially when that being is under one’s power and control. It would of course be absurd to suggest that animals should have equality with humans on the level of having the right to vote or of criminal responsibility, but they should have equality with us on terms of equal consideration of interests, that is, pain and suffering should be equally significant whether it is a human or an animal that feels it. [1] [1] For further reading see any work by Peter Singer.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro02b", "score": 0.6625891923904419, "text": "In the case of foxes, most of the alternative ways of killing them are crueler - e.g. trapping, snaring, or shooting, which often have the end result of maiming the fox and leaving it to die slowly of starvation and infection. A fox killed by hounds dies very quickly. In the case of killing animals to eat - such as fish, or game birds such as pheasants and grouse - the justification is even more straightforward; it is the most natural activity in the world to hunt and eat. And given the controversy surrounding the welfare of animals in modern farms, it would seem preferable to eat an animal that had had a free and happy life in the wild than one that had been reared in a factory farm, as many examples of secret filming (Warning: may find disturbing) in abattoirs show far more cruelty than you see on your standard deer or rabbit hunt. In the case of fishing, many anglers who fish for sport throw their catches back in, so the fish come to no lasting harm.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro02b", "score": 0.6616967916488647, "text": "We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01a", "score": 0.6600768566131592, "text": "It is immoral to kill animals As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food. Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself. [1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008 [2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "training-religion-mhwkosm-pro03b", "score": 0.659406840801239, "text": "Behind the veil of ignorance, human beings may not in fact side with what gives them the statistical greatest chance of survival. As Rawls himself notes, people are naturally risk-averse, and thus will select the rules that protect them from the worst possible situations, even if that sacrifice would help many others. Most people find the prospect of being actively killed by the conscious action of another human being worse than simply dying in an accident, and would seek to protect themselves against that worse outcome.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01b", "score": 0.6584055423736572, "text": "Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.6547274589538574, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.6547274589538574, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro04b", "score": 0.654384970664978, "text": "By this argument, no human generation could ever decide that protecting a species is more trouble than its worth and so let it become extinct, as there would always be the theoretical possibility of a future generation that might regret this choice. Every choice we make as a generation constrains and widens the choices available to future generations. If we protect endangered species and therefore limit agricultural and housing land (to protect their environments) we deny future generations more plentiful food supplies and better housing. We may even deny the existence of more humans in the future by not having enough food to feed a population which could grow faster if the food supply was greater. We cannot allow the remote possibility of future regret to cause us to take actions which a great many people will 'regret' in the present.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01a", "score": 0.649389386177063, "text": "Animals don’t have human rights Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro01a", "score": 0.649164617061615, "text": "As humans we try to save as many people as possible There exists a basic right to life which, as humans, we try to follow. Killing others is outlawed because we generally believe that every person has the right to live their life and no one else has the right to take that life away. In the situation with the train there are two possible outcomes which both lead to life being cut short. Due to the fact that we place such value on life we have a duty to reduce the number of people who die. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and this is to kill the one and save the five.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con04b", "score": 0.6477601528167725, "text": "Side proposition are not suggesting that natural selection would not still occur, but that seriously debilitating genetic diseases would no longer lead to the death of many infants, or the poor quality of life. In 1973, we did not have the technology to prevent malaria which we have now. With the technology we have today we can manage and treat many more illnesses than previously thought possible.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro04a", "score": 0.6476919651031494, "text": "Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights. We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights. First of all, animals have an equal capacity to experience pain. While we are unable to know exactly what other humans or animals are experiencing, we can make inference from what we observe. According to Peter Singer: “Nearly all the signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species...The behavioural signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on”. [1] In addition we know that animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in a circumstance in which we would feel pain—an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than basic impulses, emotions, and feelings. These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds.” Animals therefore have the capacity for physical and emotional suffering, and so should be granted rights. [1] Singer, Peter. \"All Animals are Equal.\" Ethics for Everyday. (Benatar, D Ed.) McGraw Hill: New York. 2002", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-con02b", "score": 0.6471632719039917, "text": "There is a lot more in humans’ lives than having children. There are numerous differences between humans and other animals. While it may be true that the purpose of animals’ lives is to produce offspring, it is not the case when we talk about humans. People, being much more complex creatures, can contribute to society in many other ways than by having kids (for instance by artistic or scientific activities). So, although our physiology and behaviour may point to reproduction as the main purpose of our lives, these indicators are simply misleading.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-con02a", "score": 0.6465630531311035, "text": "Animals can be used to enhance the quality of human life Activities involving the hunting or performance of animals are often large scale social activities. The Grand National for example has an audience of 153,000 paying spectators at the event [1] and a further 600 million in 140 countries watch it on television. [2] They can invoke themes of struggle and competition that serve to bring communities together in a shared experience. [1] Pwc, ‘Attendances rise at UK’s biggest annual sporting events’, 4 August 2011. [2] Aintree, ‘Broadcasting the Grand National’.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "training-science-euhwcface-pro03a", "score": 0.645388126373291, "text": "Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and the search for alien life is part of mankind's exploration of the Universe: Human history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known1. Mankind's place is among the stars, and what lies beyond the Earth will also fascinate the human imagination. Nothing is so exciting as the pursuit of other life, other beings with whom to share the knowledge of mankind and the wisdom of the cosmos. Governments should not try to slow Man's progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human. Truly, the quest to discover and contact life amongst the stars is a pursuit of truth and understanding. To not pursue such knowledge is to deny truth itself. 1 Dick, Steven. 2009. \"Why We Explore\". NASA. Available Why_We_/Why_We_05.html", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-assghbansb-pro01b", "score": 0.6448397636413574, "text": "Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8) It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con01b", "score": 0.6433247923851013, "text": "To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate. [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01b", "score": 0.7847356200218201, "text": "Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian." } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03b", "score": 0.7191022634506226, "text": "The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition & Well-Being’", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro01b", "score": 0.7099766731262207, "text": "First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow. People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals. Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration. In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con03b", "score": 0.7076213955879211, "text": "To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro02a", "score": 0.6907722353935242, "text": "Blood sports cannot be justified by reference to their role in pest control or conservation All sorts of hunting, shooting, and fishing boil down to slaughtering other animals for pleasure. If the prey is a pest (e.g. foxes), or needs culling (e.g. hares, deer), there are always more humane ways to kill it than hunting it to the point of terror and exhaustion with a pack of hounds- e.g. killing it with a rifle shot. If the prey is being killed for food it is entirely gratuitous. In modern society people do not need to kill food for themselves but can buy it from a source where animals have been killed humanely; indeed no-one needs to eat meat at all and for moral, health, and environmental reasons they should not (see vegetarianism debate). As for fishing, again there is absolutely no need to catch or eat fish; even when anglers throw their catch back in they have first put a hook through its palate.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-con01a", "score": 0.6842722296714783, "text": "We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species. We have always been superior to animals. Just as a lion can kill antelope and a frog can kill insects, so too human beings have struggled their way to the top of the food chain. Why then can we not exercise the power we have earned? Animals exercise their power and we should do the same. It is our natural obligation to do so. The reason we have always killed animals is because we need them. We need meat to be healthy and we need to test medicines on animals to protect our own race. We use animals to further our own race. This too is surely a natural obligation.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "validation-environment-rahwbuaosae-pro01b", "score": 0.6783660054206848, "text": "This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them? We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’. Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1] [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con02b", "score": 0.6749181151390076, "text": "The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that \"There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores\". [2] [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010. [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "training-religion-chwccaogalp-pro01b", "score": 0.6739931702613831, "text": "Infanticide is a part of nature, as is cannibalism. What separates humanity from the rest of the natural world is our ability to appreciate morality beyond ‘what is natural’. One of the moral rules that God has imparted to us is that the only moral sexual behaviour is between man and wife. Other moral systems obviously take a different view of sexual ethics, but they aren’t relevant how a Christian Church should organise itself.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con03a", "score": 0.6709582209587097, "text": "Survival of the fittest It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence as is shown by Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. [1] The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. The concept of survival of the fittest may seem outdated but it is still the defining order of nature. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. [1] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life., Literature.org", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro02b", "score": 0.6706963777542114, "text": "You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production. British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.” He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2] [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010 [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01a", "score": 0.669098973274231, "text": "Animals don’t have human rights Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro04b", "score": 0.668582022190094, "text": "Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro03b", "score": 0.6665412187576294, "text": "Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro03a", "score": 0.662970781326294, "text": "Vegetarianism is healthier There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron. [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.6621791124343872, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.6621791124343872, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-con04b", "score": 0.6614277362823486, "text": "This argument fails to note that states restrict human behaviour towards animals with the aim of protecting animals in many situations, not just that of 'endangered species'. For example the aforementioned fox hunting ban, which outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as it was deemed excessively 'cruel' to the animal, even though many people enjoyed the practice. [1] This is done not only because humans are able to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than animals but also because animal suffering tends to produce a negative emotional response in many humans (such as amongst those who disliked the suffering of foxes in hunts and pushed for the ban), and thus we prevent human suffering by preventing animal suffering. [1] BBC News “'More foxes dead' since hunt ban”. BBC News. 17 February 2006.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01b", "score": 0.6548410058021545, "text": "Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "training-environment-achbessbp-pro03b", "score": 0.6519877910614014, "text": "Superior human intellect and sentience only means that we should make sure we consider the moral ramifications of our actions, not that we should take any particular action as a result. It is entirely in keeping with this for us to conclude that human life and enjoyment are more important than animal life and species survival, and so for us to decide not to protect endangered species when this (as it by definition always will) infringes upon human benefits and enjoyment.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "test-international-apwhbaucmip-con01b", "score": 0.6518060564994812, "text": "While we know that so long as there has been recorded history there has been war, we do not know that war is a part of human nature. Indeed there is some evidence that it is not. Research by Abo Academy University has found that primitive societies – tribes that don’t rely on agriculture or domesticated animals – don’t have group conflicts; violence is almost exclusively between individuals. As these societies are a good analogue for society before what we term civilisation arose it is likely that war is a result of civilisation not human nature. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Primitive human society ‘not driven by war’’, 18 July 2013,", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro02b", "score": 0.7469596862792969, "text": "What then is the interest of the animal? If releasing these animals into the wild would kill them then surely it is humane to put them down after the experiment. It must also be remembered that the interest of the animal is not the main and is outweighed by the benefits to humans. [5]" } ]

[ { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.7062827348709106, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro01b", "score": 0.7062827348709106, "text": "The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7052720785140991, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro05b", "score": 0.7052720785140991, "text": "There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con05b", "score": 0.7052447199821472, "text": "This logic assumes that one positive moral action can cancel out a negative moral action. That an animal is well treated before being involved in animal testing and its suffering during testing is kept to a minimum does not balance the very real suffering the animal experiences during the experiments themselves. Regulation would not be helpful in addressing this contradiction as the suffering during the experiments could never be eliminated as if we knew the effects the experiment will have on the animal the experiment would not be necessary in the first place.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.7047507762908936, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con04b", "score": 0.7047507762908936, "text": "Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.7045934200286865, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-con01b", "score": 0.7045934200286865, "text": "To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con04a", "score": 0.7036477327346802, "text": "Animal research is only used when it’s needed EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.703438401222229, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "test-science-eassgbatj-pro03b", "score": 0.703438401222229, "text": "The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed. Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03b", "score": 0.7018964290618896, "text": "Most developed countries, including the United States and the member-states of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods would be just as effective. Further, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research; obtaining the training and expert advice required to comply with these laws is costly. As a result, academic institutions and medical or pharmaceutical businesses function under constant pressure to find viable alternatives to using animals in research. Researchers have a strong motive to use alternatives to animal models wherever possible. If we ban animal research even if research advances continue we will never know how much further and faster that research could have gone with the aid of experiments on animals. Animal research conducted today produces higher quality results than alternative research methodologies, and is thus it is likely necessary for it to remain in order for us to enjoy the rate of scientific advancement we have become used to in recent years. [1] Precisely because we never know where the next big breakthrough is going to come, we do not want to be narrowing research options. Instead, all options - computer models, tissue cultures, microdosing and animal experiments - should be explored, making it more likely that there will be a breakthrough. [1] Ator, N. A., “Conducting Behavioural Research”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 3.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con04b", "score": 0.6942593455314636, "text": "The opposition's conclusions can be attacked in three ways. First, countries that are less economically developed than wealthy North American and European states are not likely to support rules or laws similar to the 3Rs doctrine or Directive 2010/63/EU. In these countries, low animal welfare standards often mean that animal research is cheaper relative to the cost of non-animal methods such as computer models or cell cultures. Second, across the world, researchers tend to specialise in certain fields. Animal researchers tend to involve animal work in most of their projects, meaning that they may be less aware of alternative methods that could be used. Essentially, an individual who has spent their entire career as an animal researcher is likely to see all scientific problems in their field of research as solvable through animal experiments. Finally, toxicology work on new drugs (and sometimes other products) still legally requires animal testing in most countries of the world. The length of time it took to introduce the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetic testing shows the difficulties faced by governments in adopting new methods of regulating animal research.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-con02b", "score": 0.6919116377830505, "text": "Firstly the vast majority of drugs released today (around 75%) are so called “me too” drugs that add little, if any genuine innovation to the existing body of pharmaceuticals in production. Rather, they represent only a slight molecular tweak on an existing drug line. Such drugs rarely save lives or even relieve much suffering upon their release, as they are only very slightly better, for only some patients, than the drugs available prior to its release. [1] None the less, the development of only technically novel compounds is used as a justification for research on animals, even when the benefit from such research is marginal at best. Secondly, even if there was a small increase in future human suffering, relative to a future where such a policy was not adopted, it would be worth it due to the saving of so much animal suffering, and the moral impermissibility of inflicting that for our own gains. All this is notwithstanding the proposition point that much of the research does not necessitate animal testing. [1] Stanford Medical Magazine. 2005. Me-too drugs: Sometimes They’re Just The Same Old, Same Old.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "training-environment-ahwbsawhnbsf-pro01b", "score": 0.6896635890007019, "text": "The evidence as to the amount of pain an animal feels is by no means clear. Many of the studies showing the animals suffer have been criticized for not carrying out the slaughter in the way prescribed by religious law. Moreover, other studies claim that cutting the throat in this way stops blood flow to the brain so rapidly that it has the same effect as a stun. Despite all the evidence that religious slaughter does cause pain, the opposition to this remains scientifically credible, and so we can’t base a government policy on one or the other.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-con02a", "score": 0.6886152029037476, "text": "People will die if we don’t do animal testing Every year, 23 new drugs are introduced in the UK alone.[13] Almost all will be tested on animals. A new drug will be used for a long time. Think of all the people saved by the use of penicillin. If drugs cost more to test, that means drug companies will develop less. This means more people suffering and dying", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "test-environment-assgbatj-pro04a", "score": 0.6869881749153137, "text": "Most animals can suffer more than some people It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities. We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03a", "score": 0.6827241778373718, "text": "Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1] [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro05a", "score": 0.6737915873527527, "text": "Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[{"id":"test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b","score":0.7409588098526001,"text":"There is a moral differ(...TRUNCATED)

[{"id":"test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03b","score":0.7030364871025085,"text":"Most developed countri(...TRUNCATED)

[{"id":"test-environment-assgbatj-pro01b","score":0.7693054676055908,"text":"The right of a human no(...TRUNCATED)

[{"id":"test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01b","score":0.7279964685440063,"text":"There is a great moral(...TRUNCATED)