BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.

Society is made up of communities with their own views on politics, religion, education, etc. School boards should be able to set curriculum based on the desires of the public, not just on what the scientific elites command to be taught. Children deserve to hear that their beliefs and those of their community are respected in the classroom. This is why Creationism, a belief held to varying extents in many countries, should be taught in the classroom. This is particularly true in the United States, where in several states the majority of people does not accept evolution, but have instead adopted Creationism, considering the evidence for the latter to be more convincing.[1] In a poll in 2009 a majority (57%) said that creationism should be taught in schools either without evolution or alongside it.[2] The teaching of Creationism should not be taught exclusively, but should share time with other prevailing theories, particularly those of evolution and abiogenesis. Furthermore, evolution taught exclusively threatens religious belief, telling children they are no more than animals and lack the spark of grace given by God. It is important for social stability that schools are allowed to teach what communities believe to be true. [1]Goodstein, Laurie. 2005. “Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey”. New York Times. [2] HarrisInteractive. 2009. “No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species.” BBC World News America/The Harris Poll, 18th February, 2009.
Education should be about truth and facts, not dogma and faith.

Scientific enquiry is, at its core, a search for truth[1]. It is about shining light in dark places. Dogmatic adherence to beliefs in spite of evidence, and even trying to cover up facts that contradict those beliefs is academically dishonest and intellectually facile. Evolution is proven fact, a theory so sound that it is the cornerstone of all biology. Nothing in biology makes any sense unless considered in the context of evolution. Schools should teach this fact, not the pseudoscience of religious demagogues. It is a fundamental attack on children's rights to subject them to false information for the sake of upholding outdated and disproved beliefs. It is a right of all people to have a valuable education, because good education is required to be able to take part in the democratic process, to be able to make informed decisions. That right is compromised when the educational system gives them a worthless education in untruths, like Creationism, because informed decisions must be based on fact, and must be objective the way science is, rather than loaded with religious undertones, that skew ones view of the facts. The value of education is only as good as its applicability, either directly or through its fostering of critical thinking. So, when the political process is used to circumvent the curriculum set by teachers and experts, who actually know the subjects they are talking about, and replacing them with the curriculum set by a scientifically illiterate political body, the children suffer as the quality of their education decreases. [1] Pauling, Linus. 1983. No More War! New York: Dodd Mead.
Creationism is a religious, not a scientific, explanation of reality.

Creationism is, by definition, not science. It is not based in any empirical evidence. Rather, Creationists start with a presupposed answer and work back from it. They assume there is a designer, so they look for holes in evolutionary theory and claim only a designer can explain the gaps. When new evidence arises that gives a natural explanation of the phenomenon in question, the Creationists backpedal and start looking for new holes. No amount of evidence could convince a Creationist because his belief is not based on evidence, but rather on a usually religion-driven opposition to evolution on a political and belief level. A science proves itself through experimentation and submitting research for peer review. Creationism fears scrutiny by real scientists. Instead supporters of creationism attempt to further its agenda through politics and courts, where science is not the main goal, but popularity and where expertise is not in science but in law (Dawkins, 2006). Creationism couches itself in the language of science and does its best to look respectable in the eyes of the public. For example, in rebranding as Intelligent Design, Creationists sought to appear less overtly religious. These attempts show the illegitimacy of Creationism. The pseudoscience of Creationism must, for the sake of education, be kept out of the classroom. improve this
Scientific opinion often changes; evolution may be accepted in the scientific community now, but it could well be rejected in future.

Of course scientific opinion changes over time. It does so because the process of scientific enquiry requires the search for new data. Theories are not rigidly adhered to, but are rather accepted when there is evidence for them. When evidence mounts against a theory it is rejected. The examples cited show this very well. The idea that the world was flat was proposed as a theory without proof but by the end of the classical world Pliny was able to say "Every one agrees that it has the most perfect figure. We always speak of the ball of the earth, and we admit it to be a globe bounded by the poles."[1] as scholars had provided evidence of the earth being spherical. This process of change can harm some scientists' careers, but it can also make others. There is no monolithic scientific establishment setting policy, denying younger researchers from exploring new hypotheses and avenues of inquiry. It is clear from this that Creationism is not a science, because it does not change in light of new evidence, but rather dogmatically adheres to its claims in spite of evidence. Science adapts to new information. Creationism is stagnant and intellectual barren. [1] Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, John Bostock ed., Taylor and Francis 1855.    improve this
Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom.

Creationism is not science. It makes no predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or field. Adherents of Creationism do not accept it because of evidence, but rather they shape disparate facts to fit their beliefs. That is the opposite of scientific enquiry; Creationism begins with a conclusion and works backward. Furthermore, all evidence does indeed point to a natural origin of life and its diversity. Experiments are getting consistently closer to creating new life, and there are no evident bounds to evolution. The arguments of Creationism are based on gaps in knowledge; rather than trying to find real answers through scientific enquiry, they fill them with "the designer did it". Such answers are the refuge of the ignorant. improve this
The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides. improve this
American and NATO moral responsibility to Afghanistan

The idea that the US and NATO have a moral obligation falls flat when considering that this would put the US and NATO in a position of having a moral obligation to many other third world countries that are struggling and in conflict. Yet, such a broader obligation obviously does not exist, so why should it exist in Afghanistan? The US/NATO cannot solve Afghanistan's problems, and may actually be doing more harm than good. In so far as a state cannot have a moral obligation to do something impossible, the US and NATO should not have a moral obligation to fulfil the impossible task of stabilizing Afghanistan.
Keeping NATO troops in Afghanistan is necessary for creating a successful Afghan state

As the British learned in two wars with Afghanistan in the 1800s and the Soviets learned in their bloodbath of the 1980s, Afghanistan is no country at all. Rather, it's a diverse collection of primitive tribes occupying a harsh landscape pockmarked with tens of thousands of hiding places ideal for guerrilla warfare. The war there is a quagmire and makes Vietnam look like an easy place to conquer.[1] These tribes may consider themselves Afghani but this does not reflect any form of nationalism and does not show any more unity than that someone in Morocco and someone in Saudi Arabia may both consider themselves Arab.  Why should NATO countries continue to risk their troops in this death trap? Without the timetable for withdrawal, there is no end in sight to this war.  In recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, (retired) Lieutenant General David Barno, a former commander in Afghanistan, said the counter-insurgency campaign that he and other experts are advocating could last until at least 2025.[2] [1] Navarro, Peter. "Orange Grove: Get out of Afghanistan now". OC Register. 25 September 2009. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/afghanistan-212408-war-pakistan.html#    [2] Fenton, Anthony. "Afghanistan: A Surge Toward Disaster". Asia Times Online. 18 March 2009. http://mostlywater.org/afghanistan_surge_toward_disaster_0
The continued presence of American and NATO forces benefits the Taliban and Al Qaeda

It seems deeply illogical to argue that withdrawing NATO forces, which would essentially allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda to win, could somehow lead to these parties being in a weaker position than if NATO forces remained in the country and continued military options against them. As the necessary consequence of withdrawal by the timetable is a Taliban and Al Qaeda victory, arguments that continuing NATO operations 'help' them should be ignored, as a NATO withdrawal would help them even more by removing the one player who could compete with them on the battlefield.
History suggests the war in Afghanistan cannot be won

Peter Bergen argues that "Objections to Obama’s ramp-up in Afghanistan begin with the observation that Afghanistan has long been the "graveyard of empires"—as went the disastrous British expedition there in 1842 and the Soviet invasion in 1979, so too the current American occupation is doomed to follow. In fact, any number of empire builders, from Alexander the Great to the Mogul emperor Babur in the sixteenth century to the British in the Second Afghan War three decades after their infamous defeat, have won military victories in Afghanistan. The graveyard of empires metaphor belongs in the graveyard of clichés."[1] NATO can succeed in nation-building if it persists in empowering and protecting the Afghan state. It should be remembered that Afghanistan has been a successful, stable nation in the past, and could be so again. Afghanistan’s majestic mountains, verdant valleys, and jasmine-scented gardens may once again draw the tourists that once flocked there.[2] [1] Bergen, Peter. "Winning the good war. Why Afghanistan is not Obama's Vietnam". Washington Monthly. July/August 2009. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.bergen.html    [2] ibid
American and NATO moral responsibility to Afghanistan

The US overthrew the Taliban in the winter of 2001. It has a moral obligation to ensure that when it does leave Afghanistan it does so secure in the knowledge that the country will never again be a launching pad for the world’s deadliest terrorist groups, and that the country is on the way to a measure of stability and prosperity.[1] Withdrawal before this has been achieved would amount to a terrible betrayal of the Afghan people, some of whose troubles are the result of Western intervention. Millions of refugees have returned and millions of children have the chance to go to school. But the West has failed to protect civilian lives, to bring the development it promised, to wean the economy off its poppy-addiction and to ensure fair elections—and failed even to agree about what it is trying to do in the country. Locally, NATO forces have done fine and heroic work. But too often the best initiatives are dropped when the best commanders end their tours. The Afghan conflict, it is often said, has been not an eight-year war, but eight one-year wars. NATO comes off worse each time.[2] US and NATO forces should persist in Afghanistan because they can do much better in terms of helping Afghanistan, and because they have a moral obligation to do so. It should be remembered that, for the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people - especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.[3] The US and NATO have a moral obligation to prevent this, and to not withdraw until the future of Afghanistan is secured. [1] Bergen, Peter. "Winning the good war. Why Afghanistan is not Obama's Vietnam". Washington Monthly. July/August 2009. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.bergen.html    [2] The Economist. "Obama's war. Why the Afghanistan war deserves more resources, commitment and political will.". 15 October 2009. http://www.economist.com/node/14644385 [3] Obama, Barack. "A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan". RealClearPolitics. 27 March 2009. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/a_new_strategy_for_afghanistan.html
Keeping NATO troops in Afghanistan is necessary for creating a successful Afghan state

Due to the impotence of the Afghan state and its fledgling armed forces, withdrawing by the timetabled date would most likely mean abandoning the project of building a successful Afghan state, a project which can be successful if NATO troops continue to play their vital role in it. It is a myth that Afghanistan is unconquerable or ungovernable. The level of violence in Afghanistan is actually far lower than most Americans believe. In 2008 more than 2,000 Afghan civilians died at the hands of the Taliban or coalition forces (almost 7 per ten thousand). This was too many, but it was also less than a quarter of the deaths in 2008 in Iraq, a country that is both more sparsely populated and often assumed to be easier to govern. Not only are Afghan civilians much safer under American occupation than Iraqis, they are also statistically less likely to be killed in the war than anyone living in the United States during the early 1990s, when the U.S. murder rate peaked at more than 24,000 killings a year (about 10 per ten thousand).[1] An assertion that deserves a similarly hard look is the argument that nation building in Afghanistan is doomed because the country isn’t a nation-state, but rather a jury-rigged patchwork of competing tribal groupings. In fact, Afghanistan is a much older nation-state than, say, Italy or Germany, both of which were only unified in the late nineteenth century. Modern Afghanistan is considered to have emerged with the first Afghan empire under Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1747, and so has been a nation for decades longer than the United States. Accordingly, Afghans have a strong sense of nationhood, and building a state there is possible so long as NATO forces do not abandon the project before it is completed.[2] A successful Afghan state is in the interests of all NATO countries, for security reasons, and so a compelling reason to abandon the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan is that building a successful Afghan state is entirely possible if NATO stays the course and only withdraws once the job is done. [1] Bergen, Peter. "Winning the good war. Why Afghanistan is not Obama's Vietnam". Washington Monthly. July/August 2009. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.bergen.html    [2] ibid
The war in Afghanistan is necessary for US and NATO security

Afghanistan is only of limited value to American and other NATO countries' security, especially in the context of other areas where the resources could be used. Amdrew Bacevich argued in 2009: "What is it about Afghanistan, possessing next to nothing that the United States requires, that justifies such lavish attention? In Washington, this question goes not only unanswered but unasked. Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistan’s importance is simply assumed—much the way fifty years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam. As then, so today, the assumption does not stand up to even casual scrutiny. [...] For those who, despite all this, still hanker to have a go at nation building, why start with Afghanistan? Why not first fix, say, Mexico? In terms of its importance to the United States, our southern neighbour—a major supplier of oil and drugs among other commodities deemed vital to the American way of life—outranks Afghanistan by several orders of magnitude."[1] The sort of fear-mongering about Pakistan, nuclear war and a new 9/11 is the same sort of scare tactics which were used to justify and perpetuate the war in Vietnam. As Peter Navarro argued, "During my senior year in high school, in 1966-67, our local congressman came to speak to us soon-to-be-draftees about the necessity of the Vietnam War. His basic pitch was a frothy combination of Red menace, yellow peril, and domino theory. [...] the speech rang as hollow as a beer keg after a frat party. [...] Today, I get the same kind of hollowness in my gut every time I hear President Barack Obama and a gaggle of Democratic and Republican hawks offer eerily similar arguments for the Afghanistan war. Terrorism is the new Red menace. Yellow peril has morphed into radical Islam. Dominoes, perhaps surprisingly, are still dominoes. In fact, sober analysis of the two major arguments in support of the war leads me to the same conclusion as my gut – let's get the hell out."[2] Moreover the terrorist threat from Afghanistan is low, Zaid Hamid, head of Brass Tacks, a think-tank based in Pakistan, argues: "Their presence and capacity is greatly exaggerated. It is not possible that the so-called exaggerated threat perception by the West about another 9/11 attack being waged from Pakistan’s FATA or Afghanistan takes place."[3] [1] Bacevich, Andrew J. "The War We Can't Win". Commonweal. 14 August 2009. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/how-not-to-lose-afghanistan/ [2] Navarro, Peter. "Orange Grove: Get out of Afghanistan now". OC Register. 25 September 2009. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/afghanistan-212408-war-pakistan.html#    [3] Leghari, Faryal. "Troop Surge in Afghanistan is a Military Fallacy". Khaleej Times. Spearhead Research. 20 February 2009. http://spearheadresearch.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1343
Children are impressionable

Schools such as those in the county of Harrold, TX [1] have already introduced laws allowing teachers to carry pistols, but largely in a concealed fashion. This therefore leaves children unawares and thus not distracted by seeing teachers prominently carrying guns. Furthermore, with teachers carrying concealed arms, any would-be attackers would be thrown by not knowing who to shoot first, which would not be the case if police officers were the first on the scene. [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?_r=2
Guns in schools might be used in circumstances other than defense.

The chances of accidents would be miniscule as teacher would be trained to carry the gun and would keep it with them at all times when in the classroom so there would be no chance of the students playing with the gun. The deterrence effect of having guns in school is likely to mean that the number of shootings will go down rather than up. Finally if it was an armed teacher who perpetrated the shooting then they would have been able to commit that atrocity regardless of whether s/he was allowed to carry a gun in school.
Children would be caught in the crossfire

Teachers in places where the scheme has already been piloted have received training from private security firms. In Harrold county, teachers have also been provided with special ammunition that avoids ricocheting and therefore minimises the threat of students being caught in crossfire.[1] Other schools in more urban parts of states like Texas, particularly those suffering a high level of gang violence, already have their own police forces. Many American schools are therefore used to having an environment where arms usage is the norm. It is therefore hard to argue that introducing armed protection in a different form, aka through teachers rather than police officers, would result in an increased level of risk. [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?_r=2
Arming teachers would mean safer schools

If school teachers, as people in positions of authority over vulnerable groups, were permitted to carry arms then it would guarantee greater protection for children. Incidents in recent years such as the massacre at Columbine High School have proven that a significant risk exists of school children gaining access to guns and using them against their classmates. The carnage could have been prevented if the teachers present had been able to defend themselves and the children in their care as teachers would be able to act as a first line of defence.[1] Furthermore, having schools as arms-free environments specifically makes them a target, those looking for targets are more likely to choose schools because they are less likely to meet armed resistance. Incidents include a school in Lincoln, Nebraska where a 17-year-old shot his vice-principal before killing himself. Lawmaker Mark Christensen, who had previously been opposed to teachers carrying arms, introduced legislation in January this year after the incident.[2] It illustrates how the potential for harm could be reduced if adults in responsible positions could defend themselves and those in their care. [1] Hernandez, Selena, ‘Should Teachers Carry Guns On Campus’, CBS 11 News, 21 January 2011, http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/01/21/should-teachers-carry-guns-on-campus/ [2] Huffington Post, ‘Teachers Carrying Guns: Nebraska Senator Mark Christensen Introduces Bill To Keep Schools Safe’, 18 January 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/nebraska-teachers-guns_n_811028.html