BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The electoral college provides a disincentive for candidates to focus on appealing to all parts of s...

The electoral college provides a disincentive for candidates to focus on appealing to all parts of society. Parties know that certain states will always vote one way eg Alaska always votes Republican, Massachusetts usually votes Democrat. Both parties generally spend less resources on campaigning in these ‘safe’ states, and pay more attention to the needs of electors in ‘swing’ states, such as Michigan and Florida, which determine the outcome of elections. This can mean that elections become less competitive as resources are concentrated on a smaller geographical area and smaller section of society.
Zero tolerance policing is extremely effective at reducing small-scale drug use and dealing by patro...

Zero tolerance policing is extremely effective at reducing small-scale drug use and dealing by patrolling and arresting. By cutting off the dealer on the ground we can best target the businesses of big suppliers. Big busts have a minimal effect. Drug use is a huge cause of further crime. Pushing creates no go areas where criminal acts flourish. Addiction creates a need for money that can usually only be solved by theft.
Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role. A custodial sentence, particularly for j...

Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role. A custodial sentence, particularly for juveniles, takes them out of the atmosphere (often surrounded by drug use and living in poverty and or abusive homes) that encourage criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central tenet of all penal codes. Education and discipline are both vital to our prisons. The large number of police on the ground also allows for a supervisory role in the community after the prisoner is released to reduce reoffending.
Zero Tolerance improves the standard of policing. It reduces corruption and racist treatment because...

Zero Tolerance improves the standard of policing. It reduces corruption and racist treatment because the individual officers are not given the scope to decide their actions on a case by case basis. Their response is set and therefore cannot be changed by a personal whim. It also reduces the kind of gung-ho policing that is increasingly common. It takes officers out of their cars and places them back into the community where they have contact with individuals. Chases and shootouts actually become less common under zero tolerance.
Zero Tolerance is vital to regenerate urban environments. There is no point building in inner cities...

Zero Tolerance is vital to regenerate urban environments. There is no point building in inner cities if we don’t protect these resources from graffiti and vandalism. Zero tolerance reduces the amount of dead ground used for drug dealing and so returns parks and open spaces to the community. Unless businesses are protected from vandalism and petty crime it is usually uneconomic for them to return to the worst areas and they are vital to raising the standard of living. Zero tolerance policing is often seen to lead to the return of public transport to deprived areas because it can be protected.
We can afford zero tolerance. Protecting businesses and creating a reputation for low crime and soun...

We can afford zero tolerance. Protecting businesses and creating a reputation for low crime and sound policing attracts inward investment and immigration both to a country as a whole and to individual areas. The cost to a country of theft and vandalism per year is a significant chunk of GDP. Deterrence reduces the number of crimes that police are forced to investigate and although prisons are expensive the reduction in recidivism should start to empty them in time. The most important question is whether we believe it is worth spending a percentage of our tax dollars to guarantee our safety. Most electors in most countries say this is not just worthwhile but their spending priority.
Zero Tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals. i) It creates a far greater awar...

Minor offenders, gang members, and the poor are extremely unlikely to be aware of the punishments for the crimes which they commit so deterrence doesn’t have much effect there. Many crimes are a product of necessity (through poverty and drugs) and therefore can be reduced only by structural changes to the society, not by threatening punishment. The idea of a ‘short sharp shock’ is unconvincing. Labelling people as criminals at an early age actually causes them to perceive themselves as such and gives them fewer other options by placing them outside mainstream society. This leads to ‘deviance amplification’ where convicts increasingly commit more serious crimes as a result of their contact with law enforcement.
Zero tolerance policing is extremely effective at reducing small-scale drug use and dealing by patro...

Arresting small-scale pushers (many of them addicts) and users is targeting the victims to stop the crime. As well as being unfair it is ineffective. As long as there is a demand there will be drug dealing and demand can only be stopped by rehabilitation. This does not occur in prison. It is in big drug syndicates (which we won’t have the resources to combat if everyone is patrolling) that drug dealing is associated with violence.
Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role. A custodial sentence, particularly for j...

Prison sentences contribute to a far higher tendency to re-offend. It would be nice if they had a rehabilitative role but we have to look at the reality. Juveniles sent to prison are less employable afterwards so more likely to resort to crime. They meet established criminals in prison who both encourage the lifestyle and teach necessary skills for criminal behaviour. Prison often fosters resentment of the police and the courts and anyway the harassment of juveniles associated with zero tolerance already creates an extremely antagonistic relationship with the police.
Zero Tolerance improves the standard of policing. It reduces corruption and racist treatment because...

In reality Zero Tolerance gives the police almost limitless power in poor communities. They are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero tolerance and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers.
Zero Tolerance is vital to regenerate urban environments. There is no point building in inner cities...

Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime and it occurs entirely independently of zero tolerance. For every city where the two have both been associated with a falling crime rate (New York) there is an area where regeneration has worked on its own to solve a crime problem (Hong Kong, Brixton in London). The most important element of urban regeneration is the way individuals come to take pride in their area. This is far more likely when it is not associated with police persecution, antagonism with the government and constant fear of arrest. No police presence is sufficient to properly defend a business which has not fostered good relations with the local community.
We can afford zero tolerance. Protecting businesses and creating a reputation for low crime and soun...

The enormous expense of zero tolerance in money and manpower and prisons actually makes policing worse. Either we have to throw limitless money at doubling the number of officers (it is almost impossible to recruit and train so many even if we could afford it). Or we have to divert officers away from investigations and serious crime prevention in order to put them back on the pavement. This reduces detection of important crimes in return for catching graffiti artists. Even when reported crime rates drop this does not prove that zero tolerance achieves anything because it is corporate crime, large scale drug dealing that is ignored and these are rarely reported. A patrolling officer might pass a burglary every 18 years and probably wouldn't notice it.
Zero Tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals. i) It creates a far greater awar...

Zero Tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals. i) It creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground. Research shows a direct link between this perceived chance of detection and crime rates. ii) Strict punishments provide another firm deterrent because they make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a minor irritant. iii) Convicts are less likely to re-offend because zero tolerance catches them early on in the escalating cycle of crimes and provides the ‘short, sharp shock.’ There is a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. If a law is to exist at all then it ought to be enforced. Otherwise they will be held in contempt.
It's Not the Schools Job

Yes,it is correct to say a school is meant to educate people, but education can come in all forms,therefore it is a school's job to educate pupils about the dangers of drug abuse and how to avoid it.Some schools claim to do this,but from my own experience it is a topic that is only lightly touched since it is considered almost too shameful.However,the truth of the matter is drugs ARE out there,wherever you are,and schools should do the best they can to warn pupils that it is a life destroying industry. I am a high school student, and do not think enough awareness is made of illegal substanmce abuse. I have so many friends that use drugs, most of them with low self esteem, and not aware of the effects of drugs. Schools arn't responsible for us 24 hrs a day, but they are responsible for us 7-8 hrs in a day. Drugs are avalible throughout the school, and are easily accessible. This is a problem. If drugs weren't so accessible then maybe there wouldn't be such an issue. One of my best friends, an ex heroine addict, recently he found out he had hepatitis C. his life is ruined. And said that if he knew that this could happen, he would've never used needles. Teens need help with thuis growing issue. Drugs are altering young minds, and killing our friends, family, and classmates. Something needs to be done.
It's Not the Schools Job

First off, saying that all teens use drugs is not only unfair but it is also a logical fallacy (Hasty Generalization). Sure. A school is suppose to educate students, but when it comes to drugs, sex, and alcohol, the parents should be the one in charge of preventing illegal drug abuse by teens around the clock (during school hours is a different story). Although, it is not the schools' job to prevent illegal drug abuse, schools do teach the dangers of drug abuse. In many West Coast schools, students are taught the dangers of drugs prior to the 4th grade. The middle school and high school then continue to inform students about the danger. It is the schools' job to educate students. The school is not responsible for teens that break laws outside of schools. Teenagers will always manage to get drugs the same problem is about with alcohol, the more you make something forbidden the more it becomes desirable
Too much health education at once

Essentially, schools are already criticised for not educating children and teenagers enough on a number of issues, including smoking, drinking, binge drinking, sex, pregnancy, STIs, peer pressure, bullying, suicide, mental health, knife crime, gun crime and gangs. How is it possible for schools to be fulfilling all of these demands? I remember at school many lessons on why smoking, binge drinking and unprotected sex were bad for you. Smoking in particular has come into education because of the push in the last ten years to bring down the numbers of smokers and smoking-related illnesses in the UK. However, I do not remember similar time dedicated to illegal drugs. It is not the schools' fault, but if they are being demanded to teach all of these issues by a mixture of the government, the school governors, pressure groups and parents who cannot (for whatever reasons, good or bad) teach it themselves, then of course they aren't doing all they could be to prevent illegal drug abuse.
Children have reasons to want to stay indoors.

The reason children didn't used to stay indoors is that there was nothing to do indoors and at least something they can do outdoors. Indoors, children can watch TV, read books, play computer games and chat with friends on the phone. Work hours are generally less so parents spend more time with their children at home instead of ignoring them. They are also sheltered from the elements, have a steady supply of food and water and won't be attacked by bullies. More people live in the inner city now than in the country so it isn't as safe for them because of traffic and crime and there is less to do that doesn't involve spending money.
Children need to be exposed to germs

It is not of coincidence that the rate of diagnosis for allergies is increasing along with the number of children who do not play outside, this includes hay fever [[http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=888]]. The fact is that the human immune system learns how to cope with germs and different materials in our early years. It is for this reason that breast feeding is encouraged [[https://debatewise.org/debates/2203-it-should-be-compulsory-for-all-mothers-to-breastfeed-for-the-first-six-months-of-their-babies-lives]]. Not only does the mother’s natural immunity pass to the child, but s does any germs she is harbouring. That way the child taken in germs in small doses and the body learn how to deal with these germs. If we do not allow our children out to play, they will not come into contact with as much pollen and therefore their body will not learn how to cope with that pollen hence an allergy to pollen in later life.
Children need to socialise with other children

If a child is not outdoors,. What are they doing? They are sitting in with the family, or watching TV or playing some social skill killing computer game. Children need to learn not only how to have a relationship with their family, but also how to have a relationship outside of that unit. Children need to play with friends. They need to learn to communicate with people who are different to them. They need to meet different people. At school they will typically meet similar children from the same area, outside of school; they have the opportunity to learn how to socialise with children from different backgrounds. It is a shame that this opportunity has been wasted, as it would lead to a a more cohesive society in the future.
Children need to have fun

Parents who surround their child with cotton wool and do not let them play outside are impeding a child’s fun. Childhood should not be merely about school work, family and chores. They need to be allowed the time to play outside, away from the watchful eye of adults. They need their break too. We are preventing children from doing what they naturally want to do if we prevent them from playing outside. Children long to be silly in open fields and to swing on swings and run around parks, this is the release they need. Without this measure of fun, they will be mundane children who turn into mundane adults.
Children need to use their imagination

The outdoors is a window of opportunity for children to use their imagination. The tree they are climbing could be a boat troubled at sea, the stones they are throwing could be keeping the pirates out, the leaves could be their treasure. Children are naturally creative in this manner and we should not impede that. We will impede it if we only allow our children to view objects as functional rather than playful. What then happens is we buy them a computer game and all imagination disappears. In a computer game all the aspects, even the violence, is put before the child’s eyes, and no longer do they creatively think about their surroundings. But without this creativity, where is the child being stimulated intellectually and playfully?
The outdoors will supplement a child’s education

It is all very well learning in the classroom about photosynthesis and the life cycle of a bug, but how interesting is that when you do not have any first hand experience with bugs? How can we engage the students in any educational topic when they have no experience first hand as to what life is all about? Outside play puts study into perspective. It makes study more interesting and it gives children a more rounded knowledge. We not only need students who can absorb academic information, we also need students who can apply that information to the outside world.
It will encourage the study of science

Science as a subject is all about the outside world. How creatures interact, how forces interact, how chemical interact. In the outside world, children can observe animals and insects imitating their behaviour. Playing with such things they will begin to develop an interest in it. This is nothing but the study of biology in its early form. Physics; the realm of the forces and the unseen in the world. Newton discovered the realm of forces and gravity for the first time by sitting under a tree. He experienced the force first hand. If we do not allow our children to do the same, how will they ever develop an interest in physics? And is not chemistry the mixing of mud and water? Science is all about the world and how it works, how will our children ever be interested in these subjects if they have never been in the outside world alone to ponder? They will not. This has lead to the decrease in students studying sciences at higher levels beyond the National Curriculum. [[http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2006/ceer-physics-2.html]] [[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/257/25705.htm]]
Children need to exercise to improve health

Whilst exercise is essential, this argument fails to state why outside unsupervised play should be promoted. Children exercise whilst at school. They not only have compulsory physical education, they also have play times whereby they run around and play with the other children. Why should we then have to place our child in danger when they get home in order for them to exercise? Why can parents and children not do something together? This way both adults and children are getting the benefit of the exercise.
Nature encourages mental wellbeing

The University of Essex conducted a study that revealed that just 5 minutes of out door play a day can dramatically improve a child’s mental well being and their self esteem [[http://www.essex.ac.uk/ces/esu/occasionalpapers/GreenExercise.pdf]]. Given the increase in mental disorders that are being diagnosed, perhaps this is the solution; outdoor play. Biologist E.O. Wilson [[Wilson, 1984; Kellert and Wilson, 1993]] stated that as humans have co-existed with nature for many years, we feel an innate relationship to it. When deprived of that innate relationship, our mental stability decreases.
Children need to learn to look after own safety in the outdoors

There is no statistical basis for this argument. In fact, quite to the contrary, child related road accidents have decreased. Reported child casualties fell by 8 per cent. The number of children killed or seriously injured in 2008 was 2,807 (down 9 per cent on 2007). Of those, 1,784 were pedestrians, 6 per cent down on 2007. 124 children died on the roads, 2 per cent higher than in the previous year, when the lowest ever child fatality figure of 121 was recorded.[[ http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2008%5D%5D With the figures falling year on year, it shows that not allowing our children out to play is actually reducing the number of child/traffic accidents. But they are unhealthy and will die young due to being unfit and overweight.
Of the stranger danger

As parents, the natural instinct is to protect your offspring; especially against the hunting hands of others. But when we allow children outside to play, supervised or not, other people may take advantage of the situation. S a society, we no longer know all our neighbours, we are no longer tight knit. Therefore, people go past undetected and harm is more likely to occur. We have all too many cases of children being harmed by strangers and by allowing our children out to play we are exposing them to that kind of danger. Look at the abuse Kate and Gerry McCann got for leaving their children. Society is outraged when a parent’s laxing of the rules results in a child’s harm and yet it is all too willing to encourage us to do so ‘for the benefit of our child’. This is a clear paradox that parents cannot win.
Children need to be exposed to germs

Actually, scientifically, allergies are hereditary. At birth, the immune system switches to be either allergy prone (TH2) or non-allergy prone (TH1), depending on genetics and environment. TH1 immunity is good for fighting bacteria and viruses, and protecting against allergies. TH2 immunity is good at fighting parasite infections, but makes us more vulnerable to develop allergies. Some families are genetically more likely to develop the TH2 immunity. [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/in_depth/allergies/aboutallergies_what.shtml]] Therefore it is not the environment that is causing the allergy but our genes. The increase in allergies can be put down to increased awareness or environmental change.
Children need to socialise with other children

This is rather presumptuous. Who is to say that a child is sitting at home alone or with parents if they are at home? Parents could agree to allow children into their home if they disagree with their child being on the streets after school or during the holidays. Socialising and the outdoors are not two related concepts. Adults spend most of their socialising times inside, so why are we trying to say that children only socialise when outside? Computer games do not kill social skills. Many games are multi-player, online or at the very least a talking point among friends. Children will also use their mobile phones, Facebook and Skype to talk to friends as well, and probably have friends outside school through the Internet.
Children need to use their imagination

One could argue that computer games can take the imagination of a child far and beyond that to where a tree could take a child. Of course, let us not forget that household objects can also be used imaginatively should the child wish. A hoover could be an alien, the bunk bed could be that boat (teddy bears could be the passengers). It is simply not fair to say that children who are not outside are not using their imagination. Computer games can't actually encompass an entire world, even the ones with good enough graphics that objects realistically look like what they are supposed to be (most human characters just don't look or behave like humans). That is why people think about the world more thoroughly and 'fill in the gaps'. Games for children have very simple narratives and so there are a lot of questions unanswered.
The outdoors will supplement a child’s education

Let us be honest, where do you think most people like? Idyllic suburbia? Afraid not, most of us are cramped into city living. We have a high density of population and the available amount of green space is limited. What will children do if allowed out to play in these conditions? The will not walk miles for the nearest nature reserve or nearest flower-some parks to search for caterpillars. They will smoke. Hang around on street corners. Graffiti over walls. Generally they will be a nuisance to society. This is the reality of the situation so is it any wonder that most parents decide to keep their child indoors?