BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Individual Rights Take Precedence Over Government's Monopoly on Education

Throughout the debate, Team USA has been hinting at "societal values" "we" need to "instill into the next generation". They made the term mean different things at different times: "public health", "tolerance of diversity", or "psychological advancement". We have dealt with all of these points when needed; the variation thereof, though, shows another thing. When entrusted to the government, education becomes a political means to a political end, rather than a good in itself. We believe that rights and freedoms of children and their parents, such as freedom of choice and religion, or right to education of one's choice, are basic tenets of democratic societies for a reason. When individuals disagree with the approach of their local state school - which, say, bans evolution from classrooms[[http://tinyurl.com/3y7jkg4]] - they must have the right to take their child's education out of state's hands and into their own, or to use some parts of the state curriculum and disregard others. Regular progress checks, that we alluded to, sufficiently guarantee right to education. No completely correct curriculum exists - but only having a single one almost guarantees it will be a wrong one. Banning homeschooling would eliminate yet another alternative to state schools, and thus enable the government to further skew the educational process to the direction that is currently beneficial for it. Recent curricular changes in Texas, for example, "ignored historians and teachers, allowing ideological activists to push the culture war further into our classrooms"[[http://tinyurl.com/32meea5]]. The rights of children and parents lie forgotten by the sidelines: politicization of schools takes priority. This grants the government too large a power, misused in both democratic and undemocratic societies. In the former, it can serve to transform them into the latter; in the latter, it perpetuates totalitarianism even further, like it did in Hitler's Germany[[http://tinyurl.com/32narne]].
Breeds Separatism

A good question to consider in this debate is why parents choose to home school their children in the first place. The overwhelming motive is to provide religious or moral instruction. From 2003 to 2007, the percentage of students in the United States whose parents reported religion or morality as the reason they chose to home school increased from 72 percent to 83 percent [[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf]]. This usually means that these children are taught with only a single world view in mind that has the potential to go completely unchallenged throughout the child's development. We have already explained how the probability that this will create a citizen that has not been taught the sufficient ability to become an active and actualized member of society is far too great to be ignored. Beyond that, just the practice of home schooling alone shapes the child in a negative fashion. We believe that homeschooling a child dramatically and adversely alters the way in which the child relates to the rest of his/her fellow citizens. To home school is not only to physically separate children from the public but to also mentally separate them as well. We believe the ability of a home schooled child to empathize with others in society is severely retarded by homeschooling because the child has been raised to believe that there is something that is so dramatically worse about the rest of society that it necessitated removal from whatever was going on on the other side. If citizens do not have any sort of investment in their fellow citizens, how can decisions come about that benefit the majority and the community?
Parents are entitled to make judgements about the quality of state provided teaching.

Parents are entitled to make judgements about the quality of state provided teaching. If that quality is sufficiently low in their eyes, why shouldn’t they be allowed to make the considerable sacrifice that becoming a ‘home teacher’ constitutes? A generation was failed by the British state educational system after the 1970’s philosophy of ‘children learning at their own pace’ permeated the teaching profession: it’s thoroughly reasonable for a parent to reject such methods; if sufficiently able to pass tests the state wishes to impose regarding their capacity to fulfil the teaching role themselves, why should they be denied that chance?
Homeschooling Increases Quality of Education

The Opposition seems to be contradicting itself here - in an earlier rebuttal, they mentioned that the average American public high school class size is at 23 or 24 (not much higher than the OECD average, which is between 21 and 23)[[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/class-size-around-the-world/]] - these numbers do not indicate the 'huge classes of unmotivated students' implied that are causing a 'crisis of faith' in public schooling. In addition, there is more and more evidence that says that class size has little to do with performance in schools; countries like Japan and Korea have some of the world's highest achieving student bodies, yet they also have the biggest class sizes. This goes to show that classrooms teach students skills that they will not be able to pick up while learning on their own - discussion, collaboration, debate, and interactive learning. The 'concentrated attention of an adult who understands them' is a moot point in this debate. We are not shutting the child in school without access to his/her parents - parents will still encourage the child, motivate the child, recognize strengths and weaknesses, help with work, and even introduce college level literature if they think their child is capable of it. We just do not consider this a replacement for school, with its ethnic and socioeconomic diversity as well as taught life skills. Parents nurture children, but school is an altogether different educational experience that no child should miss out on. -------Continue/Edit here!!!!!!!!!!-----------------
Why Home Schooling Harms Society

This odd mixture of arguments fails on three levels. Firstly, Proposition asserts that homeschooling deprives children of extra-curricular activities, when the opposite is true. Prof. Linda Montgomery in Home Schooling: From Extreme to Mainstream Homeschooled students are as involved in out-of-school and extracurricular activities that predict leadership in adulthood as are those in the comparison private school (who are more involved than those in public schools). The entire logic of extracurriculars - say, basketball - somehow passing on universal societal values is also quite unclear; Opposition would say thorough upbringing does that much better. Secondly, Proposition gets its values messed up. Team USA stresses public health. (That, by the way, is not helped by US proposal anyhow, unless it institutes obligatory vaccination - and they need not ban homeschooling to do that.) However, if there really are universal societal values, freedoms of choice and religion are surely among them, and rank far above the utilitarian "public health". In effect, Proposition fails to provide for its minor spin-off benefit, while attacking basic social tenets without substantiation. Thirdly, Proposition claims that there are no safeguards against harmful upbringing. One, ban won't change this: several hours in school will not suddenly reverse pre-school education and out-of-school familial lessons. Two, if parents are bent on indoctrination, they can still send their kid to a private school which shares their views. Three, safeguards can be implemented, as they are in France[[http://www.freetohomeschool.org/hs/international/France/200211250.asp]] and most of Europe: that does not mean we need to ban the entire system. Overall, we believe that the Proposition argues for a general ban on the grounds of few far-fetched cases while failing to provide evidence even for them. As evident in our case, majority of homeschooled kids benefit the society.
Broadcasting is increasingly diverse, with state-funded, commercial and subscription channels all av...

Broadcasting is increasingly diverse, with state-funded, commercial and subscription channels all available in most countries. Restricting advertising a little will not make much difference to revenues of commercial broadcasters, and they can be regulated to ensure that they continue to offer a good standard of children’s programming. Programme quality is likely to improve as much children’s television these days involves considerable product-placement and advertising tie-ins, which result in poor programmes and unimaginative formats.
Advertising specifically to children is unethical because they have little or no money of their own ...

Advertising has no magical power to create unnatural desires for material possessions. Children who nag are simply badly brought up. Poor parenting and undisciplined children cannot be solved by banning advertising, as children have many influences upon them which can stimulate their desires for toys, etc., particularly their friends. It is also untrue that children have no spending power of their own; many children under 12 receive pocket money and teenagers are often able to earn a little themselves. Learning to manage money is part of growing up, and advertisements help them to choose what they would like to save up for.
Advertising aimed at children brings negative social consequences, as much of it is for food and dri...

Children naturally like foods that are rich in fats, proteins and sugar; they give them the energy they need to play energetically and grow healthily. It is true that eating only such foods is bad for people, but this is again a problem of bad parenting rather than the fault of advertising. And of course, if advertising to children were banned, then governments would not be able to use this means of promoting healthy eating, road safety, hygiene, and other socially useful messages.
This measure stands alone but has a good precedent in the restrictions placed in most countries upon...

This measure sets a bad precedent which is likely to result in ever more restrictions upon the freedom of expression. Children watch many programmes that adults also enjoy, and some adults are also particularly suggestible; should we then extend this ban to all television advertising. And why stop at television when children are also exposed to radio, cinema, the internet and billboards in the street as well? Perhaps companies should also be banned from sponsoring entertainment and sporting events for children, and prevented from providing free branded resources for schools. On the other hand, any restrictions will be impossible to enforce as television is increasingly broadcast by satellite across national borders and cannot easily be controlled - nor can the internet.
Exploitative advertising brainwashes children into becoming eager consumers and capitalists. Multin...

Banning advertisements is a severe restriction upon freedom of speech. Companies should be able to tell the public about any legal products, or innovation will be restricted and new companies will find it hard to market their products successfully in the face of established rivals. Children also have a human right to receive information from a wide range of sources and make up their own minds about it. They are far from being brainwashed by advertisements, which form only a small part of their experiences; family, friends, school and other television programmes are much more important and all give them alternative views of the world.
Broadcasting is increasingly diverse, with state-funded, commercial and subscription channels all av...

Advertisements are the means by which most television stations are funded. If advertising to children is banned, then broadcasters will stop showing children’s programmes, or greatly reduce their quality and quantity, which is clearly not in the public interest. State broadcasters funded by a license fee, such as the UK’s BBC, and specialist subscription channels that are also not dependent upon advertising revenue would both welcome restrictions upon the ability of commercial broadcasters to compete with them in children’s programming. As competition is the best means of improving choice, diversity and quality, their lobbying on this issue should be disregarded. Nor does advertising only benefit commercial broadcasters, consumers also benefit. Greece has banned advertising of toys, and this has led to a more limited selection of toys being sold in Greece. Children’s magazines rely upon advertising to be affordable - logically under this proposal they should be prevented from doing so, and so effectively shut down.
Advertising specifically to children is unethical because they have little or no money of their own ...

Advertising specifically to children is unethical because they have little or no money of their own and have to persuade their parents to buy the products for them. Rather than advertising directly to parents, companies use a 'nag and whine' campaign that leads to bad feeling between parents and children. They rely on pester power to make adults spend money they don’t have on things they don’t want to buy, and which their children may well only play with for a few hours. Advertising which presents products to children as 'must-have' is also socially divisive, making children whose parents cannot afford them appear inferior, and creating feelings of frustration and inadequacy, as well as leading families into debt.
Advertising aimed at children brings negative social consequences, as much of it is for food and dri...

Advertising aimed at children brings negative social consequences, as much of it is for food and drinks that are very unhealthy. Encouraging gullible children to consume so much fatty, sugary and salty food is unethical because it creates obese, unhealthy youngsters, with bad eating habits that will be with them for life. Society also has to pay a high price in terms of the extra medical care such children will eventually require, so the government has a direct interest in preventing advertisements which contribute to this problem.
This measure stands alone but has a good precedent in the restrictions placed in most countries upon...

This measure stands alone but has a good precedent in the restrictions placed in most countries upon advertising tobacco and alcohol. It also takes a stand against increasingly exploitative marketing campaigns that ruthlessly target children. In the USA marketing companies are already offering schools free televisions in exchange for their students being forced to watch a certain amount of programming and advertisements each day, and selling marketing data on those children. It is time that childhood was protected from such commercialisation.
Exploitative advertising brainwashes children into becoming eager consumers and capitalists. Multin...

Exploitative advertising brainwashes children into becoming eager consumers and capitalists. Multinational companies deliberately encourage them to be materialistic so that they associate happiness with purchasing power and the possession of particular goods. A study recently found that children in Sweden, where marketing campaigns to the under-12s are banned, wanted significantly fewer toys than children in Britain, where there are no restrictions.
this is a personal belief

A person’s personal belief and personal choices should not be banned if they do not impinge on anyone else’s rights. These people have the right to decide how to life their lives and we have no right to say they are doing that wrong. The church of scientology is an individual personal decision and does not harm those who are not members so why should we be scared enough to ban it. ADD-ON What the self-righteous writer to my left has ignored, is the huge disparity between drugs and Scientology. Illicit drugs harm the 'user' directly, without a doubt. And the harm to others comes from the subconscious actions of the user, independent of the actions of the 'other'. The harm from Scientology comes from the political and physical backlash to critics. This relies on the generally ignorant and violent actions of these critics. Critics who are well aware of the consequences of their actions. Meanwhile, the bigot ignores any possible gain from Scientology, dismissing scientologists by likening them drug addicts. Scientologists aren't necessarily naive and dumb, any more than the average supermarket shopper isn't. These are normal people with normal beliefs. And the sooner people put aside their own personal beliefs, and accept this as a different one, the sooner we will end calls for bans and essentially, tyranny of the majority.
It is stealing money from the weak.

In society People pay for goods/services that, although offering no tangible benefits, offer enjoyment and fulfilment, this is called capitalism. you can not ban something simply because you disagree with the way it makes people feel good, otherwise you would have to ban movies you feel aren’t smart or children’s toys that are not educational. The freedom to choose how you enjoy life and develop your mind is a personal choice and we have no right to say that somebody has done this in a wrong way. People selling their cars or houses have gone a bit far, but scientology does not force them to do this and at the end of the day that is their property to do with as they wish.
This is Tyrrany of the majority

Female Genital Mutilation is also something that is a minority practice. As is cannibalism. There are some standards that can be understood and held together on the basis of a prevailing majority belief that works or is cohesive enough, in a utilatarian way, to keep society together. Scientology causes harm and dupes people - like many other cults. Such irrational beliefs exist in all religions; but that isn't an excuse for this particular one to be acceptable. As was said by Bertrand Russell [Russell, Marriage and Morals, 1929]], that following a multitude into doing evil is bad; but stopping a multitude from doing good is worse. There is no inherent value in allowing Scientology merely because a minority follows it. And since it causes harm as argued above, it should be banned. There is no tyranny of the majority or otherwise in reasonable exercise of power in the search for wider happiness and efficiency.
Scientology has a hideous record of harrrassing critics.

There have been many documented cases of those critical of scientology being physically attacked as well as being investigated by scientology's independent detective department (known as the guardians office) with the aim of causing public embarrassment, sacking from their jobs and in some cases criminal prosecution. this is known in scientology as fair game policy, and was most famously shown when the FBI obtained documented evidence of a scientology operation known as "operation freakout" which attempted to plant evidence in government offices in order to levy a conviction against oppositions to the church, this lead to the arrest of 7 higher members of scientology including Mary Hubbard, (L Ron Hubbard’s wife)
This is Tyrrany of the majority

In society, just because the Majority don't believe, doesn’t mean it should be banned, if the majority always dictated the law black people and women wouldn’t have the vote. All religions start as small followings and its acceptability is only a cultural infringement on its right to exist. Christianity started as a small sect of Judaism and was regularly persecuted by others but over time it moved into the mainstream and was considered legitimate. Just because a belief is new and "weird" doesn’t mean we should ban it.
It neglects those in desperate need of psycological help.

Scientology’s opposition to psychiatry stems from many instances of psychiatric abuse which have been recorded and denounced by the church, this hatred of psychiatry is shared by many secular sources. Psychiatry is flawed and disagreeing with a treatment is a citizens right. In a hospital a person has the right to opt out of a procedure they disagree with and other religions have ethical objections to these procedures, such as Jehovah’s witnesses turning down blood transfers and Jewish people refusing pigs hearts. Why should it be different to inform people of your moral stance and hope they see things your way?
it is counter-productive

Scientology is not a traditional religion, its hierarchal structures and flows of capital give it the nature of a business. Banning it will result in closing of scientology centres and restriction on flows of income and information, preventing new converts and gradually reducing the numbers of "underground" supporters. On top of this using information campaigns and disillusionment would be a good strategy for unethical businesses or government policy; however scientology has a history of harassing those who initiate these campaigns against them as well as censoring arguments against them thus discouraging ongoing debate.
this is a personal belief

First and foremost, it is not a religion recognized by any conventional legal means. Lord Denning, a celebrated House of Lords justices said "No, this can't be seen as a religion under any circumstances". And this is coming from the same court that found the Moonies to be a accepted religion. It is all very well for people in the Scientology persuasion to gather, but its persistence in trying to get religion status is damaging the very fabric of the legal system. As a religion status in this country means the group can enjoy tax benefits and support from the government. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". Though people are free to believe Scientology, when it starts to burden anyone associated with it, that is when a definitive line needs to be drawn. My learned friend on the right ---> seems to think it is fine as long as "those who are not members" are not harmed, and it is a personal autonomy. But would you have the same thoughts on Drugs? Drugs are banned because it is anti social, damaging to health and can have harmful effects on the people around users. Scientologists are encourage to cut out those non believers from their lives and harrasses anyone who has a negative view towards them as a result many families have been broken. We should not condone a group that encourages this kind of behavior. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6650545.stm
It is a mockery of religion.

Who the fuck believes in this shit, anyway? It's a mockery of religion, pretty much one guy said, well I can be like mohammad and jesus, and make a following. They did it why not me? Its garbage. They cant accept that what they do is ridiculous in every aspect of what they believe in. Scientology didnt save Jet, Scientology doesn't make tom cruise look cool. Its a bogus religion and the money people give to the church should be invested in a church of starwars and startrek combined.
It neglects those in desperate need of psycological help.

Scientology has a noted hatred of psychiatry and psychological methods of solving mental problems, and regularly incites hatred towards psychology within its members (this goes as far as opening a "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death" museum). This radical opposition to psychiatry has been a main factor in a large amount of mental breakdowns and insanity within scientology and in the most extreme case a young man stabbing his mother 77 times, cited as a failure of the process of audit counselling as a way of achieving mental wellbeing.