BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Television is not an adequate substitute for widely accessible museums. At a museum a visitor can c...

Today television plays a much greater role in transmitting our cultural heritage and a sense of national identity. Usually free to the viewer, it reaches into almost every home, both rich and poor. Most countries recognise television’s power by giving broadcasters a duty to include cultural and educational programming. It is a far more effective way of reaching a mass public than expensively subsidising every museum on the off-chance that people will enthusiastically flock to them. Often, inspirational television programmes will increase the popularity of relevant museum exhibits – for example, Britain’s Natural History museum saw greatly increased attendances after the BBC’s Walking with Dinosaurs series.
Education is not just in schools, parents also have an important role in broadening their children’s...

Clearly this is a question of balance, as the government cannot afford to fund every activity of possible value, especially given the social and economic costs of increased taxation. It is reasonable for governments to focus their attention upon schools and higher education in an attempt to provide more equality of opportunity. In any case, there are alternatives to state funding in the private sector – today many companies or private patrons sponsor museum exhibitions, acquisitions and new building work. This philanthropy is linked to a desire to make a difference, so it is unlikely to be strong when the government is seen as the source of all funding – it is most advanced in the USA for example, where government funding is very limited compared to other developed countries.
In the UK, Labour government policy resulted in some of the leading national museums ending admissio...

Entry figures did increase when the UK scrapped admissions charges at some museums, but studies have found that this was not because more people actually visited the museums. Instead similar numbers of people as before chose to make more individual visits to the same museums, pushing up admissions numbers. In this way subsidising free admissions acts as a giveaway of public money to the privileged middle classes, who would in any case pay to attend the same institutions.
Harsh interrogation is not necessarily an effective tool for extracting valuable information.

The interrogation of a terrorist is qualitatively different to that of a soldier, due to the nature of terrorist attacks and the importance of information in their prevention. Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, argues that there is no other way for the CIA to have acquired information from them, ‘given their character and given their commitment to what it is they do’ (Martinez, 2009). The effectiveness of harsh interrogation may vary, but an absolute prohibition based on the few exceptions would be too high a price to pay. Protecting civilian lives must come before maintaining any moral high ground.
Terrorists are not lawful combatants, therefore they not do not acquire prisoner of war status.

The re-definition of terrorists as unlawful combatants threatens to encourage the use of the evolution of war as an excuse for human rights abuses. The refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions allows states to use tactics such as indefinite detention without trial and enhanced interrogation techniques such as water-boarding, which are seen by many as a form of torture (UN General Assembly, 1984). These practices are cruel and significantly harm the physical and psychological wellbeing of detainees. Even if these techniques were effective in the war on terror, they should not be practiced because they are a violation of both the laws of war and international human rights law (ICRC, 1948).
With no hope of reciprocity, adherence to the Geneva Conventions would undermine the fight against terrorism.

Treating terrorists with respect for their human rights allows those fighting the war on terror to take the moral high ground. By failing to comply with the Geneva Conventions, countries such as the USA are no better than the terrorist groups that they are fighting. The objects of war have changed, states no longer seek territory but popular support, ‘hearts and minds’ (Kilcullen, 2009). The values that the West stands for are exactly what terrorists are attacking and the West needs to show that it can win the war on terror while still respecting fundamental values such as the rule of law and human rights. Applying the Geneva Conventions is therefore a vital part of winning the war on terror, regardless of whether the terrorists choose to apply them.
Special interrogation methods are necessary in order to combat the terrorist threat.

There are always extra lengths states can go in order to protect their soldiers or civilians, the ambition of the Geneva Conventions in the wake of World War II was to established limits. The ‘unlawful combatant’ legal loophole created by the United States threatens to erode the restraint on warfare built up over half a century. The high-profile case of waterboarding involving Al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah cast serious doubt on any claim that such methods are effective, and by extension, necessary in combating the terrorist threat. Water-boarded 83 times in one month, Zubaydah’s treatment demonstrates that the absence of the constraints of the Geneva Conventions is a slippery slope to the use of wanton, sadistic violence with no justifiable end (Shane, 2009).
There are other means by which to protect the rights of terrorists without needing to apply the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions provide a strong mechanism for protecting the human rights of detainees in the war on terror. Applying the Geneva Conventions would allow the Red Cross to inspect prisons where detainees are held (Anonymous, 2002). Breaches of the Geneva Conventions also give rise to State Responsibility, as seen in the USA and Israeli courts’ supervision of the treatment of terrorists and terror suspects. Individuals can also be held criminally responsible for breaches of the Geneva Conventions, for example the Charles Taylor trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the trial of Karadzic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Dworkin, 2003). The Geneva Conventions are therefore a useful way of ensuring that states respect human rights, rather than simply promising to treat detainees well as a matter of policy.
1) Terrorists are engaged in war, which is subject to the Geneva Conventions.

Terrorists are engaged in a war like any other: they unite as a political actor to undertake military action in favour of a specific cause. The fact that they do not represent one individual nation and that they are not at war with a specific list of states does not undermine this: Al Qaeda, for example, has clear goals including eliminating American influence within Muslim nations, destroying Israel and re-establishing the Caliphate (Blanchard, 2007). The fact that we may not view these causes as worthy or legitimate is irrelevant: we do not assess the merits or legitimacy of a conflict between states before deciding whether to apply the Geneva Convention. It should therefore apply equally to soldiers and terrorists.
There is a moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity.

Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we have a moral duty to respect a basic level of humanity. There are certain acts, such as torture, to which no individual should be subjected, regardless of their own behaviour. The Geneva Convention is about universal respect for human dignity (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1949). Civilised nations can and should be expected to act in a humane manner, regardless of the barbarity of one’s adversaries. Respecting them as a human being is a simple moral obligation that has brought us to where we are today. The idea of torturing them is primitive and brings us down to their level. You have to understand that they plan on either killing or being killed when they are in the terrorist mindset, and that by completing their task for them is just granting their wish. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Its relative and all depends on perspective.
Poor treatment of terrorists affirm terrorist ideology and provides a recruitment tool.

Poor treatment affirms terrorist ideology: regardless of what is morally right, it would be beneficial to treat terrorists in the ways prescribed by the Convention. Terrorist ideology is often predicated on the behaviour of those countries against which it is targeted. Treating captured terrorists or terror suspects in a way that ignores their human dignity only reinforces perceptions of the West and encourages the radicalization of the youth (McCarthy, 2007). In addition, such behaviour can be used to justify terrorist actions to less radicalised members of certain communities.
Terrorists are not lawful combatants, therefore they not do not acquire prisoner of war status.

Those who wish to seek the protection of the Geneva Conventions, the laws of war, have a duty to distinguish themselves from the civilian population (Detter, 2007). Terrorists who absolve themselves of this responsibility in the pursuit of wanton violence, who flagrantly ignore the laws of war, cannot thereafter appeal to its protection once captured. Such a norm is required in order to preserve the immunity of civilians and prevent the encouragement of using civilians as means to ends.
With no hope of reciprocity, adherence to the Geneva Conventions would undermine the fight against terrorism.

There is no moral duty to respect the dignity of terrorists. States should do whatever possible to protect their own citizens. The Geneva Convention is about reciprocity: it is in the interest of our own citizens to treat enemy combatants is a humane manner so that if our soldiers are caught they will receive similar treatment. There can be no guarantee of reciprocity from ‘terrorists’ as a whole, or even specific terrorist groups given the cellular nature of the organisations and the disparate nature of the command structures. Furthermore, terrorists specifically use poor treatment of hostages as a tool in their campaign. Given this, it is in the interests of our own citizens to use whatever means possible to fight terrorism; compliance with the Geneva Convention undermines this.
Special interrogation methods are necessary in order to combat the terrorist threat.

The war on terror is unlike any other war and so different tactics are necessary in order to win. There is no point maintaining a moral high ground where this leads to more civilian deaths. The Geneva Conventions put barriers in the way of winning the war on terror because tactics such as indefinite detention are necessary. For example, Israel’s practice of targeted killing of terrorists was restricted by the Israeli Supreme Court on the grounds that it did not comply with the Geneva Conventions (The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. The Government of Israel, 2006). Often there is no other way to combat terrorists and the Geneva Conventions restrict tactics that save hundreds of lives. Governments would also not be able to gain as much intelligence if they had to adhere to the Geneva Conventions when interrogating terrorists. It is dangerous to put the west at an operational disadvantage in the war on terror just to maintain a moral high ground.
There are other means by which to protect the rights of terrorists without needing to apply the Geneva Conventions.

Under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war can be detained for the duration of hostilities, and are only entitled to return home at the end of the war (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1949). Given the open-ended nature of the war on terror, it is very likely that treating terrorist detainees as POWs will mean they are never released. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the Geneva Conventions protect human rights any better than existing domestic law or policy. In democracies, the accountability of elected politicians and judicial review by independent judges can instead be trusted to ensure that detainees are not abused or mistreated.
1) Terrorists are engaged in war, which is subject to the Geneva Conventions.

Terrorists are not engaged in a war. Their actions are aimed at destruction of civil society and of nations across the globe. The Geneva Conventions exist to control wars between nations in a way which respects human dignity and minimises long-term harm. Wars between nations have a foreseeable end, and the Convention is an important means of aiding reconciliation and cooperation in the future: it is harder to build a relationship with a state which has brutally tortured your soldiers upon capture. However, a war against terrorists will often have no end: it is inconceivable, for example, either that Al Qaeda will successfully achieve the reestablishment of the Caliphate or that the West will quash all terrorist activity. Reconciliation and future cooperation are meaningless here.
Poor treatment of terrorists affirm terrorist ideology and provides a recruitment tool.

Poor treatment is not a significant recruitment tool: whilst some people may be encouraged to join terrorist groups as a result of such behaviour, those who are outraged by human rights abuses in this context should be equally concerned about the violation of human rights which occurs when a terrorist detonates a bomb, or flies into a building, killing large numbers of innocent civilians. The ideology invoked exists independently of the way in which suspects are treated and indoctrination with such beliefs is the real tool in the recruitment process.
Punishment isn’t just about jail. Most cases of truanting never get to court in the first place but...

Punishment isn’t just about jail. Most cases of truanting never get to court in the first place but are sorted out by letters, phone calls and visits. Only if these don’t work does the case go to court. And if the courts are involved, most parents are punished with fines, community service or maybe the loss of welfare benefits. Jail only gets used for repeated offences, where the lesser punishments have not worked. Even then prison sentences are usually only for a few days or weeks. They are needed as an ultimate penalty, usually only for cases where a child is missing three-quarters of school days over a long period.
This policy isn’t about punishment and nothing else. Schools and the state should offer support to ...

This policy isn’t about punishment and nothing else. Schools and the state should offer support to students with needs, and to troubled families. For example, Britain has invested millions in improving schools, supporting individual children, mentoring, running breakfast clubs, offering parenting classes, etc. But there are still some families that won’t take the help on offer, so the policy has to include sticks as well as carrots. After all, schools cannot support children with special needs if they are not in the classroom in the first place.
The cost of truancy to society is very high, so it is right that the state acts strongly to deal wit...

The cost of truancy to society is very high, so it is right that the state acts strongly to deal with it. Children who skip school miss out on an education and cannot reach their potential as productive members of society. They are more likely to end up unemployed and on benefits, and will end up costing the state a lot of money. Crime, drug-taking and teen pregnancy are all strongly linked to truancy – if truancy rates go down, so do these other social problems.
Punishments like jail are only used in very unusual cases. Parents who are really making an effort ...

Punishments like jail are only used in very unusual cases. Parents who are really making an effort to work with their kids’ school, and trying to get their child into the classroom are not being picked on. Courts are not at all keen on sending people to prison, and use other punishments if at all possible. This means that the policy is applied sensitively – jail is only used for hardened offenders who do not care.
All children have a right to education and the state should make sure that their parents keep them i...

If a child chooses to miss school, it is the child, not the parent who is at fault. Usually the parents want them to go to school, so it is wrong to punish the person who hasn’t done anything. If anyone should be punished, it should be the truant. After all, they are thinking, independent human beings, not just the property of their parents. In any case, most truancy involves 12-16 year olds, who are clearly able to make their own decisions. In the UK and USA these children are treated as adults by the courts if they commit a crime, why do we apply a different standard for school attendance?
Parents will work much harder to keep their children in school if they know they could be punished i...

Many mums and dads are at their wit’s end about how to control their kids. Children who truant often also stay out all night, join gangs, and drink, smoke and try drugs – none of which parents want. So these parents need help, not threats. After all, how do you control a 14 year old who doesn’t want to do what you say? There is a danger that this policy will lead to violence and other domestic abuse. More children may end up running away from home. And both kids and parents will see school as something nasty that wants to punish them, not a positive place offering them opportunities.
The threat that mum or dad could go to jail because of them will shock a truant into seeing the seri...

Many of these children don’t care what happens to their parents so the threat won’t work. What about parents who deliver their child to school in the morning expecting them to put in a full day in the classroom, only to discover they left again a few minutes later? What more could the parent reasonably do? Schools are also at fault here – teachers and administrators are paid to keep these children in the classroom. And perhaps if their school was better run, and lesson were more interesting, then there would be less truancy anyway.
Punishment isn’t just about jail. Most cases of truanting never get to court in the first place but...

Our prisons are crowded and it is very expensive to keep someone in jail. Parents of truants are not violent or a threat to others. They are usually very sad people who need help rather than punishment. Jail should be kept for real crimes and dangerous offenders. This policy is a waste of time and money for the police, courts, and prisons. All three should focus on their real job of keeping society safer.
This policy isn’t about punishment and nothing else. Schools and the state should offer support to ...

Truancy cannot be treated on its own - it is often a warning sign of other problems. Many children truant because they know they will be bullied and are scared to go to school. Others have learning or behavioural difficulties that the school is failing to tackle. Some are very bright and don’t see any point of turning up for lessons that do not stretch them, or where discipline is so bad learning is not possible. Until the reasons children play truant are dealt with, no amount of punishment will work.
The cost of truancy to society is very high, so it is right that the state acts strongly to deal wit...

Punishing parents for their children’s truancy has very bad effects. If parents are fined or have benefits cut, then the whole family loses out, not just the one child who has missed school. And if the family is poor then other children may also go hungry. Sending a parent to prison, even for a few days, is even worse, as they will almost always lose their job and not be able to get another one. And often these are single-parent families, so if the mother is put in jail then all her children will have to be taken into care. This is upsetting at best, may lead to abuse in some cases, and usually results in poor education anyway.
All children have a right to education and the state should make sure that their parents keep them i...

All children have a right to education and the state should make sure that their parents keep them in school. Even if the child does not want to go to school, he or she is not mature enough to make that decision. After all, we do not allow under-16s to smoke, buy alcohol, drive, vote or marry – so why should we allow them to mess up their whole future by skipping school? Because parents are responsible for children’s wellbeing, it is right to take them to court and punish them if they are failing in their duties.
Parents will work much harder to keep their children in school if they know they could be punished i...

Parents will work much harder to keep their children in school if they know they could be punished if the child truants. Many parents don’t take their responsibilities seriously enough and ignore the law. By putting punishments in place the state sends them a clear message about the importance of education. Only a few hard-core offenders actually need to be punished before millions of others get the message. Over time, parents of pre-school children will be more aware of how importantly society views education, and will do more to support their child as they go through school
The threat that mum or dad could go to jail because of them will shock a truant into seeing the seri...

The threat that mum or dad could go to jail because of them will shock a truant into seeing the seriousness of their behaviour. It will bring home to them how what they do has an effect on others, so they will stop truanting. Again, having the threat of punishment doesn’t mean it will get used in every case. But knowing what could happen will make children listen more seriously to school authorities when they first start to raise problems.
The electoral college makes it more difficult for third parties to grow. As a candidate only becomes...

The electoral college makes it more difficult for third parties to grow. As a candidate only becomes important if he can amass enough votes in a particular state to threaten to win it, attention is only focused on those parties which have a big enough organisation to become truly competitive in a given state. This punishes parties like the Green Party, who have a less well-funded party organisation, and whose support is thinly spread across the whole country. For this reason, there is no third party in America comparable to the Liberal Democrats in Britain.
The electoral college is an undemocratic system. In any proper democracy, the winner of any election...

America is not a centralised state but a federation of states. The current system provides for the protection of the rights of all 50 states, because it forces candidates to appeal to the voters in all parts of America. A nationwide vote tally could provide an incentive for a candidate to focus only on the most populous areas of the country, such as California, New York, or Texas, and ignore other areas such as Alaska, Rhode Island, or Maine. The electoral college is a natural consequence of the devolved, state-based government that Americans have always supported.
The electoral college provides a disincentive for candidates to focus on appealing to all parts of s...

All parties tend to focus campaigning on the undecided portion of the electorate, this occurs in every democracy and is not a direct consequence of the electoral college system. As America is a large, diverse country, any system which encourages and rewards parties who appeal to a broad geographical range of areas is more likely to lead to a government which is in tune with the needs and values of most of society, as opposed to the UK, where very often the concerns of London and South-east England dominate parliament. The current system has encouraged administrations to ensure that representatives from many different states are included in the government. In any case, the shift of southern voters from the Democratic to the Republican Party in the past thirty years, and the movement of Californians in the opposite direction, shows that the system is not static and that states cannot be taken for granted.