BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Private schools encourage elitism

Abolishing private schools will not bring to an end to inequality between pupils as this is illustrated every day in state schools. For example, bullying is extremely common in all schools whether they be state or private. Bullying represents inequality between pupils as often it is the result of one pupil being different to another. Additionally, teachers may treat their students differently depending on their intellectual ability or their behaviour. In the US racism between students and teachers is still a big issue, as minority groups are consistently placed on slower academic tack and in 38 states “black students are twice as likely as whites to be labelled as mentally retarded” (University of Washington2003).  Thus Private schools are not the only means of inequality between students and so the abolition of these would not completely diminish student inequality. On the disparity between private and state schools, the correct way to improve the education for children in state schools is to spend more money on state schools, devote more time, energy and enthusiasm to them rather than punishing those schools that do just that. Preventing a minority from having a certain type of education is not the way to help improve the majority’s education. By and large, the complaint is that private schools are doing well and providing a good education, whilst state schools lag behind. It is in all our interests to set the standard of education as high as we can – you do this by raising state schools to the standard of private schools, not by depriving children of a private education.
Private schools lack diversity

Similarly the counterargument to this has two distinct principles. 1) That some state schools lack social diversity as much as private schools, particularly in small, rural areas. Therefore we cannot simply criticize private schools, and must recognise that all schools have different levels of diversity. MacKinnon recognises that segregation in the United States schooling system is often defended on the grounds that it ‘represents the community’. Yet this is only the case because housing itself is segregated (Scrapbook). Therefore if we are banning private schools on the grounds of diversity, we should enforce a policy whereby neighbourhoods are forced to be diverse in order to ensure the same thing happens in state schools. 2) That rather than shut down private schools we should encourage the creation of funded places or bursaries. This way people who can afford private school do not have their choices limited, but that there is a greater diversity as people from poorer backgrounds would still be able to attend the schools.
Schools should be free from bias

This is what is already happening. It is the government that sets a curriculum for state schools (such as in Great Britain, Singapore, Japan, China, New Zealand and France) and the government want us to vote for them. So in many ways the education system may already be indoctrinating children in state school in the way this argument fears private schools do. Yet there are also private interests in many state schools already. For example in Britain academies are partially funded privately and in return are outside of local authority control so they do not have to follow the national curriculum.(BBC News, 2010)
People should have free choice about how they spend their money

People should be allowed to spend their money as they wish. If parents choose to spend money on their children’s advancement over something else they could buy then it is there decision to make. The core of this is the idea of ownership over our income, and that the state should not be able to restrict our spending this income by banning products such as private education. Education in Germany can be used as an example of allowing parents the free will to decide where their child goes to school, article 7 paragraphs 4 of the Grundgesetz enshrines the right to create private schools. (The Grundgesetz). There are many other similar cases where the state provides a service but there are also private options, healthcare being the most obvious. While most people in Britain use a National Health Service (NHS) hospital there are other options provided privately by companies such as BUPA, no one proposes that people should not be able to buy better healthcare, quite the opposite - the NHS may be moving towards privatization.(McCabe and Kirkpatrick, 2011)
Private schools are financially beneficial for state schools

The state funds the education system through taxation. Parents who do not send their children to state schools still pay those same taxes. Therefore, these taxes are spent on a smaller number of schools and there is more money per child in the state sector than there would be if we banned private education. In 2008 there were 569,080 students in independent schools in England,(BBC 2009)  - this would be a very large extra burden for state schools to bear. These students’ parents are therefore not only paying for their own children but also for students to study at state schools as well.
Private schools provide a better education than state schools

In 2007, Time the US magazine discovered that private schools in the US received much higher SAT scores that the state counterparts. Research suggests that private education puts a greater emphasis on critical thinking, while state schools emphasise memory and learning by rote (time.com). These types of critical skills mean that students from private schools have a better start at university education as they are more used to what will be required of them. Furthermore, students from private schools are more likely to get into a university in the first place (Time, 2007/ BBC, 2010). In the US students are twice as likely to get the grades allowing them to go to university if they have had a private education, and for minority groups in America it is more than double (Capenet.org, 2001). This is likely to be replicated across the world. Private schools in Brazil also provide better education, as there is one teacher per 10 students in comparison to the 45-50 students per class in a government funded school. (Cabra; and Throssell 2010). Therefore by denying private education the effect may be disastrous for these minority groups.
Private schools encourage elitism

Private education suggests that a higher level of schooling is a privilege of those who can afford it, rather than a right. This encourages a cycle, whereby those who get a good, private education are more likely to get higher paid jobs as private education increases access to higher education (in the UK twice the percentage of students from private school went to university than those from state school), certain sectors of employment, (in the UK only 7% of students go to private schools, yet these people hold 86% top media jobs and 70% of barrister positions, 33% of MPs) (Gibson, 2006) and employer networking. Thus their children are more likely to go to private school and get a better job. This means that by allowing private education we create a society where the rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor, with the gulf between the two areas ever increasing. If we were to remove private education the field would be open for people from all walks of life to achieve a range of different things.
Private schools lack diversity

A private school is an institutionalised, artificial environment where the child will be exposed almost completely to children of their own socioeconomic background. This has two very interlinked problems. 1) One of the most important factors of a child’s education is to be exposed to a variety of races, religions, economies and abilities. This allows children to grow up to be more aware of these differences between people and more accepting of diversity as they get older. Yet private schools admission costs alone mean that students are from wealthy backgrounds, and this means they are largely exposed to other people from wealthy backgrounds. As we know, the majority of the people in the world are not wealthy and therefore these students have an extremely blinkered view of their country. Pakistan can be used as a prime example, where half of its children cannot read a full sentence at primary level and government spending on education has been cut from 2.5% to 1.5%. For those in private education and who usually go to university aboard they will never see or understand the situation of the majority in Pakistan and thus has a dysfunctional view of their country. (Landzettel 2011) 2) It is an inevitable feature of democracies that the rich have particular access to politicians and policy-makers. Furthermore, students from private education are much more likely to go into government or political roles. As mentioned above 66% of British politicians went to private school, and 44% of American politicians (against an 11% national average). While the rich don't have a need for state education because they can pursue education for their children from other sources, they have no motivation to lobby politicians on behalf of the education system and a perverse incentive to remove education from political agendas in favour of their preferred issues and legislation. Only by forcing the rich into the same situation as the poor can we expect to gain meaningful ground in terms of education reform, especially in terms of increased funding relative to national and municipal budgets. We cannot expect education will be a national priority until the entire nation has a vested interest in the good order of the system.
Schools should be free from bias

Private education needs funding, be it from a business, individual funders or organisations and private schools rely on this money to run. It seems unlikely then, in this context, that these funders that the school is so reliant on may have an influence (even if unintentional) on various factors of the school life such as curriculum, food or teaching style. In many countries, such as the US, the curriculum in private schools does not need to be standardised (as State education does) and therefore teachers are free to teach what they desire and this might not give an open and full account of certain topics. The bias could be political, charitable or even commercial. We could have a political group like GreenPeace wanting to run a school and heavily emphasising environmental issues, or a company like Shell emphasising our desperate need for oil. Neither of these would present a balanced education which is what our children need. An example of this is that about 50 independent Christian schools in the UK teach creationism as part of biology.(Walker, 2006) In countries such as the Netherlands, South Africa and the republic of Ireland, private schools are set up and run by religious groups, and therefore will have a degree of influence over the curriculum. Education is a powerful tool, especially to impressionable children.  And ultimately it appears that private education is at a much higher risk of being biased in its teaching than state education.
Controlling domestic violence

By including men in family planning the ideas, and misconceptions, of what happens when women use family planning can be changed.  Gender-based violence is a key concern that can be reduced by involving men in family planning decisions. If they buy into having fewer children then they are less likely to object to using contraception and condoms – something that has other potential benefits such as preventing STDs. The United Nations Development Fund for Women has found that one in four women is abused during pregnancy, teaching men about reproductive health and family planning can prevent this from happening.(International Women’s Health Program) Although evidence is limited the MAP (Men As Partners) program in South Africa showcases the positive effect of including men. The intervention is changing men’s attitude and behaviors[1]. [1] See further readings: Peacock and Levack, 2007; Engender Health, 2014.
Involving men is the best way to ensure family planning works

By including men fast action can be taken to control the size, and growth, of families. The patriarchal power structures mean men have a key voice in household decisions. Therefore the involvement of men in family planning is enabling perceptions of what the family should be to change. The cost of raising a family is realized, and intervening methods are being used to have fewer children. Family planning means planning how one can cope with having a child – mentally, emotionally, financially, and physically, and sensitizing couples as to what kind of life standard they want. With the young generation of Ugandans a new culture of a smaller family can emerge[1]. Men often have limited knowledge about family planning so it is necessary that they are included in learning and the transfer of knowledge (Kaida et al, 2005). When both partners are knowledgeable and involved family planning is far more likely to become a reality. [1] Wasswa, 2012.
The need to include the wider family

Decisions on how big, or small, a family should be; and how it should be structured are not solely the decisions of husband and wife, or man and woman. Extended family members play a key role. For example, research carried out in Nigeria by Smith (2004) indicates decisions remain influenced by cultural norms and pressures.  The pressure for a high fertility, amongst Igbo-speaking Nigerians, is shown to be a paradoxical factor of patron-clientalism and the culture of ‘people power’. High fertility and subsequent kinship networks enable state legibility, resource access, and the continuation of ‘tradition’. Elder family members aim to maintain traditions. A crucial distinction therefore emerges, as it is not simply a rational choice when it comes to family planning but rather influenced by political-economy factors and wider family demands. Therefore including men in Uganda does not necessarily allow an understanding of what role the wider family plays. Decisions on family planning are not simple, or always open for discussion.
Alternative essentials

We should not be focusing on including men, but rather alternative essentials such as funding, resource distribution, and awareness. For example President’s Museveni’s recent commitment to raise government funding for family planning from 3.3 million to 5 million is vital[1]. Further, by improving the supply and distribution of contraception, into the health service sector, President Museveni has drawn attention to the financial constraints in family planning. [1] Advance Family Planning, 2014.
Gender equality in family planning

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal? Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.
Involving men is the best way to ensure family planning works

The idea of family planning is wrong; and it reflects the unequal power structures operating in society. Within African cultures families are polygamous, extended, and far from the ‘normal’ neutral family structure. Therefore by enforcing family planning we are failing to understand what the family is across Africa. Family planning is simply seeking to limit choice about the structure of the family. Just including man and wife rather than any more extended family is itself encouraging a certain structure that not all Africans agree with or desire for their family.
The need to include the wider family

When it comes to family planning the extended family has little power over intra-household decisions. Extended family members will not be attending clinic meetings, collecting contraception, or engaging in intimate action. The power in family planning returns to man and wife. Additionally, the inclusion of men into family planning will change ideas of reproduction for all. If men are included at all levels ideas will change, and overtime pressures will change. As all men and women learn about family planning they will become much more sympathetic to it within their extended family.
Alternative essentials

Reducing the cost of family planning; making more contraceptive resources and materials available around the clock; and distributing commodities to hospitals does not ensure access. There is no point increasing funding for programs that will not get used due to a lack of popularity or continued ideas of family planning and management. Improving the ‘alternative essentials’ can only work if those using reproductive resources are supported and in a patriarchal society this means needing the involvement of both men and women.
Gender equality in family planning

By including men in family planning programs and the decisions made concerning family structures equality is enabled. The decisions made, and responsibilities, concerning the ‘family’ are no longer solely the burden of the woman. Men are provided with a voice, and therefore responsibility and obligation to act upon caring for the family.  By introducing men into family planning a platform is provided enabling negotiations on the family to be discussed between man and woman. Men are key actors in decisions made; therefore their inclusion is fundamental. This also means that the man is also much more likely to take on other responsibilities in terms of caring for the family or doing things the woman would have done in the past like collecting medicine (Wasswa, 2012).
If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives chooses the president, with each state receiving one vote.

This provision allows the 7 smallest states with a population of about 4.9 million to outvote the 6 largest states with a population of 119 million.[1] This is blatently unfair. [1] Congress, XII - Manner of Choosing a President and Vice-President, 27 July 1804, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#12
The electoral college weakens incentives for voting and party building.

There is no incentive for candidates to mobilize voters in states they are sure to win – or sure to lose, and voters have little incentive to vote in noncompetitive states where their vote is likely not to matter. Some states like Texas just have a fairly predictable voting record- they have voted republican 9 out of the last 10 presidential elections. Democratic presidential candidates do not spend much time in Texas for that reason.[1] [1] “Texas” 270 to Win. http://www.270towin.com/states/Texas
The electoral college is an essential bulwark of federalism.

The electoral college emphasizing the role of states, and abolishing it would weaken federalism. This system reinforces the division and sharing of powers between the states and the national government. Without it the national government would have much greater power over the state governments, and the voice of the people would be quieter.  The electoral college is essential to preserving the power of individuals through their state. Additionally, the Electoral College helps reinforce stable institutions that are essential for maintaining a political regime and preserving a free society.[1] [1] England, Trent. “What is ‘National Popular Vote’?” Save Our States. http://www.saveourstates.com/2010/what-is-national-popular-vote/
Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign.

The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents. A presidential candidate is of course going to focus on a more national level interest, but in order to visit and campaign across the country, the candidate must be at least aware of the issues that of particular interest to the local area.
The electoral college violates the democratic principle that the winner should be the candidate receiving the most votes.

The distribution of the vote is more important than the percentages for each candidate. The entire point of having the electoral college is to that it can act as a check on the majority vote is to ensure that the candidate who is best suited and had the broadest amount of support wins the presidency. If it was simply determined by popular vote than certain regions of the country would have a greater influence on the outcome of who won. The electoral college acts as a counterbalance to that.
The electoral college allows small third parties to tip the balance in a state and distort the preferences of the voters.

The propositions argument is not only a logical fallacy, but also discourages democracy. It is illogical to argue that because Ralph Nader got a few votes in New Hampshire and Florida that if he was not on ballot they would have voted for Al Gore instead. Furthermore, the American electoral framework is comprised almost exclusively of a two party system, and any candidate who runs on a third party ballot needs to be given extra support just to have any chance at all of even securing just a few votes.
The electoral college violates the democratic principle that the winner should be the candidate receiving the most votes.

In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and probably 1960, the candidate receiving the most votes for president lost the election[1]. This occurs because all but two states award all their electoral votes to the candidate winning a plurality in the state; because all states receive two electoral votes corresponding to their two US senators; because the number of House seats (which serve as the basis of the remaining electoral votes) often poorly match the population of the state; because states cast electoral votes no matter how many people actually vote; and because the size of the House is arbitrary. [1] Factcheck.org, ‘Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote’, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 24 March 2008, http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/
The electoral college allows small third parties to tip the balance in a state and distort the preferences of the voters.

In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned a few votes from Al Gore in New Hampshire and Florida, costing Gore victories and thus the election.   Nevertheless, Gore was the preferred choice of voters in a match up with George W. Bush.[1] [1] Archives.gov, ‘Historical Election Results’, ‘Electoral College Box Scores 1789-1996’, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html
The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority.

The interests of states, especially small states, would be lost in a majoritarian national campaign.  The electoral college forces candidates to be attentive to state interests. When the founding fathers created the electoral college it was with the many purposes in mind, but the tyranny of the masses is the most appropriate in mind here. It is important to remember the timeframe that the US was created in, there was not a very high literacy rate, and it would become very easy without a check on majority rule for someone to manipulate the population when entering power[1]. [1] United States of America, 1787. The Constitution of the United States. [Online] Available at: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html [Accessed 27 April 2012].