BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Any limitation of free exercise must be balanced against the significant hazards posed by deviation ...

The strict separation of church and state ‘enshrined’ in the establishment clause must be subject to scrutiny. As Justice Douglas held in Zorach v. Clauson, a case pertaining to the constitutionality of ‘released time programs’ that allowed pupils to leave public schools to receive religious instruction, the First Amendment does not say that in every and all aspects there should be such separation. Were it to be otherwise, churches would not pay property taxes, policemen could not protect mosques, and the name of God would be banished from the courtroom, Congress and the oath of allegiance. Persecution and purges of the faithful are not a phenomena commonly associated with the modern American school system. They are unlikely to have their genesis in a non-sectarian prayer at morning assembly. In the dictum of Justice Douglas: 'The constitutional standard is the separation of Church and State, the problem is one of degree'. The rejection of a state-sponsored religion is completely coextensive with the permission of school prayer.
Neither democracy nor taxation is sufficient for the scientific management of a school. The majorit...

The prohibition of school prayer violates the democratic choice of the population local to the school. The school board that is commonly responsible for approval or direction of the practice of prayer is formally elected. The public schools are financed primarily through the payment of local property taxes. Many of the constituency of voters and taxpayers send their children to the schools or might choose so to do in the future. It is not unreasonable that those who select the management of a school and fund its operation should also be permitted some small voice in its curriculum. The election of the local board of education properly allows schools to reflect both the local conditions and the wishes of the parents or guardians whose children attend these facilities.
It widens the gap between the haves & have-nots and keeps the disadvantaged where they are - servants to those who have made it.

In the UK today - working parents have no time or energy to come home - after trying to keep their jobs - and then drive and cajole their kids into trying to study hard, practise like mental athletes in order to make it. They are too tired and too poor to afford tutions. And unlike rich parents where invariably one of the parents can afford to be at home in order to "take up their kid's studies" and pressure their kids into getting thru these heavily competetive exams - the poor ones who probably come home @ 8pm by the time they have managed to meals on the tables even though they could have talented children in their midst - invariably are forced to settle for comprehensives. Thus, the people who really really get thru are the rich kids - who really talent-wise are probably there because of the coaching classes they went to while the poorer kid lost out to a place not because he was not talented but because he did not have access to tutions. If the Labour and Conservatives were not lazy and took responsibility to raise the standards of the comprehensives and help parents to find time along with their employers - so that they can tutor their kids. The rich - poor kid gap would narrow and the purpose of comprehensive schools for equal eduacation for all would be upheld.
It's about your child, not the system.

Of course middle to upper classes will cheat the system. Like everything, it has it's flaws, but to completely disregard what could offer some children a fantastic education is unfair. Surely, the priority is the child's education. What about the bullying system in some schools? Children who complain they are being bullied are often treated with apathy by teachers until they get their parents involved, then the teachers are on the ball. But would it be fair to say to your child, "I'm not going to go to the school for you, because many other parents wouldn't do that, so I don't want to make the system unfair"? Not the best analogy, no, but the point is, who cares about the system? It's your child's future. There are creases which need to be ironed out, but at the meantime, a child with an excellent gift or who has worked hard cannot be wasted on the state funded education which operates more as a creche than a school!
Grammar schools allow disadvantaged children access to excellent education.

For disadvantaged children to access the benefits of a grammar school requires that they pass an exam in the first place, demonstrating their ability, before receiving the education they so desperately need - a catch-22. The exam entry system merely keeps out those who need to get through, because they won't come from privileged backgrounds that groom them for passing the entrance exam. The solution is to make sure all our schools are of a high standard.
Selection allows for the identification and cultivation of all levels of talent

If education is about identifying and cultivating talent, then surely an emphasis solely on the academic is reducing talent down to cognitive ability. What occurs with a bipartite system, is that value is only placed on cognitive ability. Finance is then directed to these 'fertile academic brains' who actually make up a smaller proportion of society and the rest lose out. A truly liberal education considers more areas of education as valuable, including the vocational. In having separate systems we do not allow for learners who have different talents: those that are vocationally talented and academic or vice versa. We must stop putting children in boxes: The academic box and the non-academic box. Human beings cannot be so simply graded.
It is wrong to categorise children at age 11.

I’m a grammar school alumnus and I can’t sing its praises enough, although I will in no way give a biased view. I received a grammar school education for academic years 8 to 11, whereas a friend of mine did not. Both of us are drawing close to the end of our degree courses at university, although mine is of a practical/artistic nature and my friend’s course is far more intellectually/theory based. Thus I suggest that the notion of grammar school "dictating the course of their lives" and greatly affecting a child’s future is quite unfounded. At the age of children beginning a grammar school education (usually 12) I doubt that they are inclined to discriminate against children with comprehensive school education, I have certainly never found any friction between the two, which are almost identical in nature, the only difference being in the willingness to work which is my next major point. There are children who are willing to learn and those who are not, the reasons for either are not for me to say, but the fact is that there are children of the same "intelligence" (hardly measurable) who want to learn, and those who don’t. So the grammar school system is just allowing the children who are willing to learn and work to do so in a supportive environment, with pupils with similar aspirations. The only aspect of grammar schools that I’m not sure is beneficial are the entry tests ("eleven plus"). These assess verbal, maths and non-verbal reasoning skills, and not willingness to learn or reception and retention of the seven years of education already received. The grammar school system has proved its worth since the 1940’s, why forsake this useful tool for aiding our children through their mandatory education?
Reintroduction would aggravate the rich - poor gap

The very fact that if the Conservatives would go for Grammar Schools - thereby causing Comprehensives to be second tier schools - would mean that the poorer but talented kids would continue to languish in low paid jobs. Probably, end up working for their richer sibilings. These poor kids would continue to face the same hurdles faced by their parents & the vicious cycle would continue thru the generations.
Selection allows for the identification and cultivation of all levels of talent

Education is about identifying and cultivating talent. It is not about equality; it is not about levelling down; it is not about trying to compensate for a damaging early life, which is the province of broader social policy. Not only do grammar schools enable excellent staff to focus their efforts on fertile academic brains, but the secondary moderns allow for a curriculum tailored to the needs of less gifted children. Meanwhile specialist schools cater for the educationally subnormal. Everyone benefits. Heaping every variety of child together in one purposeless pen - the comprehensive - means that there is no focus and no help for anyone. The truth of these contentions has been established by government figures: education authorities which have retained selection obtain better results from all pupils, not just those pupils who attend grammar schools. The left clings to the comprehensive with a view to pulling people down into a common mediocrity. It has no interest in making the best of them.
ddd

Prop specifically stated “What we target are regulations that may help the economy during expansionary times but prove obstacles to efficiency during recession.” Prop’s burden was to prove obstacles to efficiency of these regulations during recession, and they have failed to bring these up in any part of the debate. On the other hand, opp explained why regulations are needed especially during recession to stimulate the economy by stabilizing employment &increasing consumer spending. Prop evidently recognizes the negative impact of tax cut – lack of gov revenues – and their solution is relocation of other government expenses such as defense expenses. It is simply ridiculous that the gov has to cut down its security budget to reduce the gap created without taxes collected from corps. This is our point that tax cuts will cut down the benefits the gov is currently providing for its citizens, therefore increasing the burden on consumers. Prop conceded that welfare systems such as Medicaid will suffer from lack of financial stability, but have indefinitely argued that fundamental welfare systems will not be hurt. By stating Medicaid, a fundamental health care system for low income citizens, will be hurt, prop entirely conceded opp’s argument about government’s need for exsisting taxes. In the beginning, prop used the word ‘stimulus package’ to refer to their case. We want to remind our opponents and judges that a stimulus package is a very specific term used to describe when the gov directly sends citizens money, usually in the form of tax rebates [[http://goo.gl/Keip1]] and do NOT refer to a plan that ‘stimulates the economy’. Prop has not clarified this in their debate, but has referred later on the debate “embrace tax cuts and deregulation” as their SP despite their burden to clarify their definition in the beginning of debate to prevent any misconceptions. Plus, opp would like to ask prop to refrain from editing intros once debate starts.
South Korea Summary

Problem, Premise, Principle: 3 reasons why Prop won. The PROBLEM of this debate was that Opp did not know its stance. Opp accuses Prop of policies like loans that were never stated. Also we never changed the intro once the debate has started. So in turn we ask Opp to stop making false accusations and misrepresentations. Add to that Opp has serious contradictions. Loan and bailout, windfall and bailout, regulation & policy, principle and bailout: CHOOSE YOUR STANCE. Finally the reason we didn’t specifically “set” was so that Opp could refute our policies without challenging the definition itself and two sides having different debates. Opp takes advantage of this gesture to avoid directly rebutting Prop’s arg when the model was clearly specified through our points. The PREMISE of this debate was that the economic crisis had already happened; meaning a significant degree of URGENCY is at hand. While we recognize some Opp’s values, we can’t have everything at the same time and need to prioritize. In a recession RECOVERY comes before REFORM. In fact, reform can only occur after recovery b/c 1provision of higher education and salary can only happen when there is money to spend. W/o a healthy economy at hand, Opp is idealistic and 2ppl have a hierarchy of needs: basic needs come before ideals like self-realization. Therefore ppl will only start looking for reforms once they have enough money in their purse to not worry about everyday living. Finally urgency of the situation minimizes Opp’s concern that corps will resort to corruption. Before corruption can occur there must be enough money to filch. When your business is toppling, the first thing on your mind is to save the business, not plot out some dark scheme. The PRINCIPLE of this debate was only understood by us. Instead of recognizing widely accepted econ principles, Opp twist them into assumptions, saying we didn’t cite textbooks for ESTABLISHED FACTS. Tax cuts stimulating the market through increasing spending multiplier and liquidity is an established theory. Opp twists by saying tax cuts are used for investments and paying off debts. Are these not injection of money into the market? Of course increased spending doesn’t just mean “buying products”. Quote by Feldstein is invalid because tax cuts are not one time windfalls (bail-outs are) and even if it was, increased investment still helps the market. Opp’s response to airline case—industry wasn’t in recession and deficits were occurring in 1981—are also invalid b/c although the economy was not in recession the industry was clearly suffering from losses and deregulation happened in mid 1990s: deficit before only supports our case. After all, Opp fail to show not only why IN PRINCIPLE govt does better than business but also why imposing more regulations is better than less+tax cut—it’s ultimately doubtful whether that’s even its stance, since Opp couldn’t explain any LEGITIMATE regulations as examples.
Deregulation Fuels Corporations to Behave Unethically, Devastating Human Rights and the Environment

Deregulation has fueled self-interested corps to earn as much money as possible, with zero ethical restraints. This is evident in case studies done about major corps, such as Coca Cola and the major human rights violations they have performed. Coca Cola has intentionally moved factories to nations where workers are not allowed to unionize in order to decrease their overhead costs. Examining how corps treat undocumented workers (like illegal immigrants in the US) can effectively represent how they act without regulations. Over 40% of Latino menial labor workers have been subjected to harsh abuse without the opportunity for govt intervention. The US is currently experiencing a protest on Wall Street where a group of activists stand against corporate influence, gross social inequality on the financial district. [[http://goo.gl/QIn8H]] In a society where human rights are valued, regulation is mandatory. Further consequences of deregulation include environmental degradation. Towns in India such as Mehdiganj experienced significant amounts of water shortages due to Coca-Cola’s out-of-control bottling plants. The High Power Committee established by the state government of Kerala in India has held Coca-Cola liable for $48 million US for damages caused as a result of the company’s bottling operations in Plachimada.” [[http://goo.gl/GvZN2]] In addition to India, the whole world experiences shortage of water with a ratio of one every five people not getting access to portable water and deregulated corporations such as Coca-Cola spending 218 billion liters of water per year does nothing to help this state. [[http://goo.gl/GD33P]] At this rate, deregulated corps will get out of hand. Strict regulatory agencies such as the FDA are fully needed to monitor corps and to follow rules to keep the corruption levels at the lowest. Ultimately, economic theories thrown by both the proposition and opposition have to work within the constraints of basic human rights recognition.
Efficiency

When solving societal problems, govt must seek the least pervasive, yet the most efficient way. Govt mustn’t feign a superman but ultimately let businesses find their way out. 1. Business acts quickly. Govt is an aggregate of extensive bureaucracy. The intricate chain of command requires red tape—unnecessary reviews, approvals, paperwork, and consequent time delay. Agility is a prerequisite for business. Govt may devise different economic policies and undergo trial-and-error, but business’s fate depends on ability to adapt. With fewer burdens to jurisdiction dogfights and hierarchy, business can make swift decisions. 2. Business can be more active. Govt is by nature reactionary, always anxious of public criticism. Business explores risks and takes decisive measures fatal in escaping a swampy crisis; govt, “better safe than sorry.” 3. Business is specialized. Govt with borad burdens is inefficient to deal with the torrents of economic crisis. Business utilizes accountants, analysts, and researchers with long experience and specialized expertise, maximizing benefits at minimum cost. Some may blame businesses for the very cause of economic crisis, but a director must not knock the pitcher out of the box for a slip. That sign expresses outright mistrust to the pitcher himself, leaving an unforgettable mark of failure at the corner of his heart. Add to that, the sign is a submission to the crisis, rather than a firm resolution to overcome it; the resultant dejected atmosphere pervades both the team and the audience. A govt must entrust business with determination showing its determination to both citizens and international society. Moreover, past failures do not deprive business of any aspects stated above. Placing responsibility is one thing, but rusting a resource, another. Govt does not have superpower to solve all problems at hand; shake off the savior complex and let businesses find their way.
Governments and Corporations should focus their economies towards individuals.

The Opp continues to assert their groundless assumptions. “More corps seek chances to exploit their workers, manipulate their investments, and go against human rights.” It talks of regulation and taxation in general, without distinguishing between the types of each. They merely claim that regulation in general is good n noawhere do they prove how or how having more regulations diring crisis will help. We have argued time and again that we will only temporarily lift regulations that places hindrance on market forces, those that lead to market distortions like: extraneous certification rules, rates/routes/price setting, and certain barriers to entry. Under our policy, gov IS present to keep a close eye on promotion of social interests as a whole, as fundamental regulations on worker rights, environmental protection will be kept; businesses are NOT allowed to roam freely and trample on human rights. The example of airline industry was meant to show that deregulation and tax cuts did bring about a significant positive change in the performance of the supply sector; that its context was not a depression matters little. We have shown that in many cases selective deregulation has stimulated market forces. Another example is how state economic growth accelerated following state-level deregulation on branching. This removal of limits on bank entry and expansion allowed “state economies to grow faster & led to higher rates of new business formation after the deregulation. At the same time, macroeconomic stability improved.” The banking system formed connections across the nation, which “made local economies less sensitive to the fortunes of their local banks.”[[http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/02/0239.pdf]] Hence better efficiency and capacity to deal with economic maladies.
Stimulating businesses through tax-cuts and deregulation will be engine for economic recovery.

The second part of our proposed stimulus package involves stimulating business growth. Businesses will be one of the most positively affected by a policy in which increases deregulation and tax-cuts. By being exempt from a certain amount of tax and free from certain government regulations, businesses can gain an increase in investing power and flexibility in expansion and investment. Such policies are especially beneficial for large corporations, who are often the most bound by government mandated tax policies and regulations. Easing up on large businesses allows for more large scale capital investment. This means corporations can buy more raw materials, set up more factories, increase the amount of the jobs, and drop the prices of their products. In the scope of recovering from economic crisis where unemployment is high, prices rise, and inventory stocks pile up, the cheapest, fastest way to do so is through big businesses. The impact of average fixed costs and marginal costs on economies of scale are far lower than that of smaller ones, allowing them to make bigger and, on average, faster investments for a lower average total cost. This still accounts for larger investments, increasing money circulation throughout the economy and also (since part of such investments are also into labor costs) allowing for an increase in the number of jobs. Though big businesses would serve as the central engine in fostering in economic growth, our proposed policy would still benefit small businesses and entrepreneurs as tax-cuts and deregulation also allows for more investment power and flexibility. Though many may criticize the policy's tempory disregard of large corporations’ noblesse oblige, the burden of such large scale businesses to support society through its tax obligations, the government's priorities lie with getting the economy back to stabilized growth as effectively and efficiently as possible.