BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The academic tradition of the West

The growth of universities as beacons of free speech has been a fundamental part of their history in the West; notably during the renaissance, reformation and enlightenment. The democratisation of that process with the expansion of the university sector in recent decades is merely the latest stage in an ongoing process. However, that entire process has been driven (along with the artistic, cultural and scientific changes they have inculcated) on the basis that universities allow for the free exchange of ideas and flourish in environments where that approach is standardised throughout society[i]. Marxist scholars have gone further in calling for a critical pedagogy in which perspectives other than academic orthodoxy are normalised within universities. Such institutions produce the best graduates because they have the best academics and the best academics will stay where they are free to publish whatever their research is and express their own views. For example in the 1990s 55.7% of those who had immigrated to the USA from the USSR described themselves as academics, scientists, professional or technical workers.[ii] Those academics in turn respect the intellectual tradition of dissent and critical scrutiny of which they are the inheritors. To take something else and slap the name ‘Yale’– or for that matter Oxford, Harvard or ETH Zurich – on it and pretend that nothing has changed devalues the qualification. Without the intellectual dissent and freedom of academic inquiry it is intellectually dishonest to call the degree the same thing. [i] The Nebraskan. Doug Anderson. Learning depends on the free exchange of ideas, Nebraskan says. [ii] Harvard, ‘Russians and East Europeans in America’
A bargaining chip

In much the same way that material investment in countries can be used as a bargaining chip to secure improvements in areas of legislation, so cultural investment can be used to secure rights associated with related fields of endeavour. Free speech is merely the most obvious. It is reasonable for a western university to insist that its graduates will need to have access to the fruits of a free press and democratic speculation of experts and the wider public[i]. The cases of the lecturer, Chia Thye Poh who is arguably the world’s longest serving prisoner of conscience or the political opposition leader, Vincent Cheng who was barred from addressing a talk organised the History Society of NUS at the national library[ii] both give examples of how Singaporean government actions impact directly on university life and academic freedoms. In the light of this, it seems the height of reasonableness for Western universities to say that they will only operate in areas that offer the same academic freedoms they would expect in their home country. If the Singaporean government wants that benefits that Yale graduates can bring, they should be prepared to accept such a change. [i] Stateuniversity.Com. western Europe – Educational roots, reform in the twentieth century, contemporary reform trends, future challenges. [ii] Ex-detainee Vincent Cheng barred from speaking in history seminar, The Online Citizen, 28 May 2010
Maintaining the value of the degree

Employers and others expect certain degrees to mean certain things; they are more than just an expensive badge. In the case of elite western universities part of what that means is a critical approach to the world and the willingness to challenge ideas, regardless of the authority that holds them. Part of their exclusivity derives from their admission standards, partly from the academic rigour of their scholars and partly from the simple fact that there are only a relatively small number of graduates. In other areas universities are all too aware of selling their reputation – impartiality, avoiding plagiarism and so forth – the same should be true here. If a degree from a western university does not mean that it recognises issues such as creativity and free thinking then it devalues the degree itself. As a result the very governments that are so keen to acquire the creative, critical skills offered by graduates of western-style education will end up undermining the very thing that they seek. This impacts not only the graduates from Asian campuses of western universities but also their peers at the home institution[i]. [i] US-China Today. Jasmine Ako. Unraveling Plagiarism in China. 28 March 2011.
Argument One: Contact leads to the dissemination of values

There is certainly some evidence to suggest the view that trade with a country can benefit human rights as increased wealth provides many with more choice and better standards of living.[i] Certainly that argument has been made by governments and multi-nationals based in the West. It is not unreasonable to suspect that this may relate to academic cooperation as well, as Richard Levin suggests in the introduction. However it seems likely that in this latter case, as in the former, that a gradualist approach is the sensible one to take. We build on existing strengths while agreeing to differ in certain areas. To extend the trade example, China, the US and the EU all manage to trade with each other despite differing approaches to the death penalty. They trust that through cooperation over time, changes can be achieved. This will happen slowly in some instances – as with the ‘drip, drip’ affect in China - or quickly in others as has been the case in Burma[ii]. On key difference to note with the shift towards establishing elite universities around the world rather than shipping the world’s elite in to attend them in the UK and the US is that it opens opportunities to a much wider social group. For decades a small handful – children of the wealthy and political elite - have had the opportunity to have a Western education before returning home as well-educated tyrants and sycophants. Expanding the learning opportunities to the rest of the nation seems both just and reasonable. [i] Sirico, Robert A., ‘Free Trade and Human Rights: The Moral Case for Engagement’, CATO Institute, Trade Briefing Paper no.2, 17 July 1998 [ii] Education has long been seen as a critical starting point for the development of human rights in any country as is examined in this UNESCO report.
‘Separation of town and gown’

There are two parties involved in this interaction, the state and the university. To pretend that is an entirely one way process is to ignore reality. Contrary to the belief of many Senior Common Rooms, states do not exist for the convenience of universities. Indeed universities quite happily accept the political and economic stability provided by states at exactly the same time as criticising the methods they need to use to maintain it. However, ultimately universities are service providers from the point of view of the state, training and skilling the workforce. The university provides its expertise in exchange for funding and student fees. Where, exactly, the opinions of the faculty enter into such an equation is not clear and appears to have been assumed by proposition. Of course individual academics and students have the right to their own political views but the idea that a university as an institution has rights distinct from, say, a supermarket chain is impossible to justify. If a supermarket announced that it should be free to ignore local laws and adopt those of its base state instead, that would clearly be rejected. Just as when a food chain invests in a country for, say, beef, the arrangement is predicated on the understanding that both parties benefit and each has a little room for negotiation.[i] The same should apply here. If prop were to argue that Asian nations should relax there approach to cannabis so that it students could enjoy a more genuine ‘Western student experience’ the statement would be the subject of ridicule, so should this be. [i] Smith, David, ‘Tesco should give us some of these billions’, guardian.co.uk, 15 May 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/15/tesco-south-africa-living-wage?intcmp=239
Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour

Each of the three approaches to proving a correlation between violent video games and criminal behaviour has its flaws. Studies that look for correlations between exposure to violent video games and real-world aggression can never prove that the games cause physical aggression1. Randomized tests, which assign subjects to play violent or nonviolent games and then compare levels of aggression, depend on lab-based measures of aggression that are difficult to compare with real-life aggression. Finally, longitudinal tests, which assess behaviour over time within a group, are a middle ground between the other two but similarly cannot prove it was the video games specifically that leads to increased aggression. In contrast to the claim that the effects of violent video games are worse than those of TV, a Potter study in 1999 found that 'children are more likely to be affected and more likely to imitate aggressive acts if the violence is depicted more realistically.'2 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: 2 Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from improve this
Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances

Violent video games, far from causing psychological disturbances, are beneficial to the mental health of children. Experiments show visual, tracking benefits from video games, particularly shoot-em-ups: US scientists Shawn Green and Daphne Bavelier, were commissioned to perform a study in 2003 by the National Institute of Health. According to the BBC, "they found that regular players of shoot-em-ups, such as Half-Life and Medal of Honour, have much better visual skills than most of the population1. The researchers have shown that gamers were particularly good at spotting details in busy, confusing scenes1. Experimental tests show positive focus effects of video games: US scientists Green and Bavelier found focus benefits from shoot-em-up games, even to the extent that they could be used as a beneficial tool to treat Attention Deficit Disorder2. 1 BBC News. (2003, May 28). Video games 'good for you'. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from BBC News: 2 Olsen, S. (2005, November 8). Attention deficit disorder? Try video games. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from CNet: improve this
The government has a right to restrict the sale of violent video games, in order to protect law and order.

The government has no such right to restrict the right of free speech inherent in all video games. In a 2011 judgement, the American Supreme Court ruled "while states have legitimate power to protect children from harm, 'that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.'"1 This is in part due to the fear that to restrict violent video games would be a step towards the banning or restriction of books considered antithetical to the views of the government. A state could ban all books or films that paint a negative image of society or encourage revolution, however that is clearly the action of a dictatorial or authoritarian state. Stan Lee, the creator of comic book characters like The Hulk and Spiderman, sees a comparison to the attempt in the 1950s to restrict the sales of comic books. "Comic books, it was said, contributed to 'juvenile delinquency'. A Senate subcommittee investigated and decided the U.S. could not 'afford the calculated risk involved in feeding its children, through comic books, a concentrated diet of crime, horror and violence.'"2 As Lee notes, in hindsight this appears comical2. The same mistake cannot be made with violent video games. 1 Holland, J. J. (2011, June 27). Can't ban violent video sales to kids, court says. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from the Associated Press 2 Lee, S. (2010, September). Defend video games with Stan Lee. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from Video Game Voters Network: improve this
There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour

The fact there are many other contributing factors to aggressive behaviour should not lead to a blind eye being turned to the effects of violent video games. As Dill & Dill found in 1998, 'if violent video game play indeed depicts victims as deserving attacks, and if these video games tend to portray other humans as targets, then reduced empathy is likely to be the consequence…thus putting the player at risk for becoming a more violent individual’1. An Anderson and Dill study in 2000 also found that ‘students who had previously played the violent video game delivered longer noise blasts to their opponents’2. Whilst it is a truism to say that the banning of violent video games will not prevent youth aggression, it will no longer be able to act as the catalyst for it in certain cases. 1Goldstein, 2001. 2Walsh, 2001.
Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression

Video games are not useful outlets for childhood aggression. Modern video games cannot be fairly compared to traditional childhood play. Computer gaming is a largely solo experience, with none of the team play involved in games of war, cowboys, etc. Playing alone also makes it easier for the boundaries between fantasy and reality to become blurred, especially with the highly realistic graphics possible with modern technology. In any case, civilisation is about taming our base instincts, not celebrating the worst parts of human nature. Furthermore, and unique to video games, aggressive behaviour or its imitation at least is rewarded and repeated during gameplay1. Video games thereafter are not merely an outlet for aggression, but the fostering and feeding of that aggressive urge. 1 Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from
Restrictions would be ineffective

If restrictions on the sale of alcohol can be effective, there is no reason to believe restrictions on violent video games cannot also be similarly effective. The primary role of a government is, ultimately, to protect its citizens from damaging themselves and society as a whole. It is considered acceptable and beneficial for governments to restrict the sale of dangerous things such as alcohol and tobacco to minors or even to enforce movie ratings or the use of seatbelts. Though illegal downloading programmes would permit the download of old, violent action games, video game creators would nevertheless be forced to turn their creative capacities and technology towards better, less violent games that would, over a short space of time, saturate the market.
Violent video games desensitise users

Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. A Bruce Bartholow study in 2011 proved for the first time the causal association between desensitisation to violence and increased human aggression1. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society. A study conducted by psychologists in 2007 found that of 430 primary school children, 'the kids who played more violent video games changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more physically aggressive and less helpful to others.'2 1 University of Missouri-Columbia. (2011, May 26). Violent video games reduce brain response to violence and increase aggressive behaviour. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from ScienceDaily: 2 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: improve this
Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour

Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a 'scary world', especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. An Australian Senate Committee established to look at this issue in 1993 concluded 'there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a linkage…that the community cannot fail to act to control a situation which has the very real potential…to affect young people’1. 1Senate Committee, 1993.
Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances

Multiple groups contend that the interactive nature of computer games considerably blurs the line that separates fantasy from reality1. As a result, game players are likely to become psychologically disturbed by the violence contained within these products. It is conceivable that many young gamers will view the new age of video games as fair depictions or representations of reality, real-world themes, real-world personalities, real-world violence. Because violent video games frequently develop and an exaggerated level of violence and destructiveness, they may arouse a belief that in a "scary world". If this is true, a greater level of fear and paranoia can be expected from such gamers in the real world than is justified. This may have the potential to lead to many adverse social effects from these gamers, such as social disengagement. 1 Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Jounral of Adolescence
The government has a right to restrict the sale of violent video games, in order to protect law and order.

The government has the right, and indeed the obligation, to impose restrictions that increase the security of citizens and encourage peaceful relations between them. The foundation of the social contract is the state providing security for all participating citizens. If the state believes that violent video games increase the propensity of users to commit violent acts, it is obligated to impose restrictions that will prevent such effects. The rights of individual citizens to do as they wish, and play the video games they like most, however violent, is subordinate to the government's right to increase security through the enforcement of restrictions. For example, one accepts the government's right to restrict what we carry onto aircrafts in order to prevent violent attacks. That is not to say there aren't limits to what we can carry on, just as violent video games are still available to adults we can still carry laptops and mobile phones onto aircrafts. Ultimately however, it must be accepted that the government's right to protect society includes a right to restrict the sale of violent games.
There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour

Many researchers 1/2/3 conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who already are habitually violent. 1 Scott, D. (1995). The Effect of Video Games on Feelings of Aggression. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from The Journal of Psychology: 2 Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluation of the impact of violent video games. Clinical Pediatrics, 86-90. 3 Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of Nintendo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. improve this
Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression

Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. As psychologist Cheryl Olson writes, kids 'use games to vent anger or distract themselves from problems.'1 Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and "enlightened" parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young. 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:
Restrictions would be ineffective

Not only is it wrong for the government to take censorship-like steps against violent video games but it is also impossible to do so effectively. Violent video games will still be available on the internet and, in fact, by restricting the sale of violent video games the government will push would-be users to illegal downloading programmes (through file-sharing systems such as Limewire) and therefore to an increasingly prevalent black market. Furthermore, most games are bought by parents or with their consent. According to industry statistics, 9 out of every 10 video games are sold to adults. Moreover, there is little evidence to say that parents don't know what they are buying because a very descriptive labelling system exists for violent video games since the establishment of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) in 1994.
Violent video games desensitise users

Desensitisation is not altogether a bad development. 'For patients suffering from arachnophobia, fear of flying, or post-traumatic stress disorder, therapists are beginning to use virtual realities as a desensitization tool.'1Furthermore, society has decided to embrace violent video games, which as a result are very profitable. These games are written for adults, rather than children, and the ratings system warns of any violent content. In a modern world, the role of protecting young people should lie with responsible parents who know their kids best and take an active interest in their leisure time, discouraging or barring them from unsuitable activities. In this case, there is not enough justification for governments to intervene in people's leisure time. 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: improve this
It is just to redistribute migrants

While the burden of migrants should be shared the burden is not just monetary. Developed countries should not be able to dodge their responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants simply because they can pay poorer countries to take migrants in their place. Being burdened due to geography may be unfair but so is being burdened because you are poor and can be bribed. A truly just system would redistribute migrants within the developed world rather than shifting the burden to those who are still developing.