BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Many don’t ‘use’ their degree after graduating, yet still end up in huge debt

When filling in their UCAS form, the average 17 year old will inevitably deliberate over which University to go to; which course is going to be the most interesting and where they going to have the most fun (not necessarily in that order). In general, very little time will be spent thinking about exactly what job they will be qualified to do at the end of the three years and whether any jobs will in fact be available. Universities are more and more frequently departing from traditional career orientated subjects such as accountancy, medicine and law. Instead they are focusing their marketing efforts on attracting new students with unusual subjects such as ‘American Studies’ or a degree combining two subjects of your choice; for example the interesting combination of ‘Dance and Journalism’. These options may well be appealing at first sight but after three years of studying these in depth, students can often find themselves saddled with a large amount of debt and few transferable skills. Having personally known two individuals who actually undertook the above courses, I can tell you that the first person is now living in America, as this is the only place where American Studies is any advantage. The other is in the business of repossessing homes, having found it extremely difficult to secure a job as a singing/dancing journalist! The experience of University is invaluable and there is undoubtedly much more to be gained beyond the piece of paper handed over upon graduation. However, it should be borne in mind that the main objective of a degree is to provide an individual with the skills and specialist knowledge to financially support themselves and build a career in the future. It should not be possible for an individual to invest three years or more of their time and money into a University education and remain unable to secure a job they desire at the end of it.
Selective education leads to an unfair bias towards the rich and the middle classes

If more selective higher education were to happen, we would revert back to 50 years ago where hardly anyone from a working class background had the chance to go to university because of social prejudice and a lower income than the middle classes. This would lead in turn to those from middle class backgrounds being favoured by employers as they would be more likely to have a university education, and the lower classes would be stuck with the unwanted, lower paid, manual labour. We should do all we can to strive for a meritocratic society and not move backwards away from one. You say that it will not be based on the basis of social or financial background. But how can you regulate this? In countries where the government doesn't make significant contributions towards an individual's tertiary education, personal finances are the only way to attend university, and that must be balanced by a person's other daily costs etc. In that way, without strong financial backing attending university and surviving concurrently would become rather difficult! Furthermore, whether we like it or not, the fact is that in our society higher income does mean better education. If your parents rich you will have attended the best schools, have had access to the best resources etc. Someone who grows up in a single-parents household on the minimum wage obviously would not, and therefore, regardless of their true potential, their academic results and educational outcomes would reflect their financial circumstances. Therefore, even if it is correct to say that entry would not be directly affected by a person's financial background, it almost definitely would be indirectly. It is a curious fact that people actually believe educational outcomes are a result of 'talent', rather than circumstance. Most children who end up in the few grammar schools left come from middle class or well-off families. if we took 10% less people in Universities like Oxford or Cambridge many people of whom have worked all their life of a chance to get in to a red brick University. Since 100's of people worke to get these grades get let down just because the other child had a better schooling from his partents money. Many students strive of a education at Oxford but most let down, because of these caps. Our hard work for nothing!
Wide university education produces a literate, multi-skilled and widely knowledgeable nation

The more people who attend university, the more widely read the nation becomes, and the more culturally diverse. It is important for young people to be widely read and educated in order to enhance their artistic and cultural appreciation. Where else can one get this if not university? Those who end up ruling the country are the ones that went to university. The democratic process does not work. It would be foolish for poorer people to not pursue a path that allows them at least a chance of being part of the power system. Being a plumber, while useful, is no way to do that. For an able youngster, it would be unwise to forgo a likelihood of a good future simply to avoid debt.
With so many new universities and colleges, employers can't tell the difference between the good and bad.

Employers don't just consider an applicant's educational background, but increasingly look at vocational experience and extra-curricular activities (admittedly this may be largely to do with the fact that there are simply so many applicants with very similar degrees and educational backgrounds) Those who have prior work experience in their chosen field or who can demonstrate relevant work-place skills in other ways will often have the edge over someone with a degree. Employers are not too busy to be au fait with university rankings, such as the Times' list, or to remember that the Russell group tends to be the best universities, especially when they have dedicated HR departments as the larger employers do. The argument that more universities dilute the quality signal sent by holding a degree is premised on static, unsophisticated employers that do not engage in ranking the quality of an education. This is a short term cost because any firm that seeks to gain a competitive advantage over its peers would invest the resources into differentiating the quality of education; further, the argument that small employers cannot afford to do this is also limited to the very short term: as more firms adopt this practice, the cost of acquiring this information decreases significantly (not to mention the many surveys and academic studies that keep track of this for profitable reasons).
It can take pressure off doctors’ resources

To go to a doctor to gain information that could be gained at home seems like a pointless venture. By testing at home for genetic susceptibility to medical conditions, this will better stretch doctors’ valuable time and resources to patients who are ill or who have already contracted such diseases. Furthermore, many people find a trip to the doctor a daunting experience, which they then try to avoid. Thus, medical conditions or potential to contract such conditions may go undetected. By offering home testing kits, this problem can be avoided as patients do not have to directly confront a doctor, learning about their health in the emotional comforts of their home.
Progression in medical science can only be a benefit

The new provision of ‘DIY’ tests may be an appealing concept but the reality is that the tests provided are simply not developed enough to be worth the money. The preliminary long-term studies necessary to gauge the predictive value of these tests have not been carried out prior to putting these tests on the market. This means that there is little evidence to suggest that these tests are effective or reliable. In addition, the tests only analyse a minute fraction of the 25,000 plus genes that make up human DNA, which severely restricts the amount of information that can be extracted from the sample required. It also has to be borne in mind that the average recipient of such results will be left to interpret what exactly the results mean without the benefit of any training in the study of genetics. The risk of misinterpreting such complex and detailed information is high and the likelihood is that the individual will be left mystified by the result.
Progression in medical science can only be a benefit

Home testing is not a new science. We are already able to test for pregnancy, diabetes and (although to a lesser extent) skin and colon cancer. If we expect home genetic testing not to be used because it is only in the primitive stages of development, progression will never happen. The cost of such technologies is a necessary condition of such progress. In a report for the Guardian, it was stated that evolution in DNA mapping has massively increased in recent years, as a result of technological advancement. Whilst the process is currently very costly, it is expected that this will fall dramatically as the process gains prominence. The Social benefit of progress in medical technology far outweighs the cost of each individual kit.
The companies offering DIY DNA tests are unregulated and overstating their powers.

A report by 5live report found six British companies all selling different types of DIY DNA tests. This obviously does not include the many other companies that are now springing up all over the globe. Mark Jobling, a Professor of Genetics at the University of Leicester describes them as ‘fly by night’ companies who are basically ‘piggy backing’ on the financial success of other profitable companies. For the average member of the public looking to buy one of these tests it is impossible to know which company they can put their trust in to provide an effective test. Even the companies that are well established are inevitably restricted by the amount of scientifically proven information available. This means that the public can only be provided with general information as opposed to any specific information relating to them as an individual. The prices of the tests studied by 5live ranged from £100 up to a whopping £1,000 and in light of the generality of the result this is plainly an unworthy investment.
Bad results can have a negative impact on an individual’s physical and psychological health.

Many DIY DNA tests available to buy are aimed at people wishing to trace their ancestryor determine their immediate parents if this is unknown or in dispute.For those tracing their ancestors, the danger is that if you have a firm belief in where you originated and you receive results that overturn that view it can lead to confusion, upset and a loss of identity. The same argument applies to those individuals who seek paternity tests, especially those who may have been adopted as the results can cause huge disruption to the individual concerned and their adoptive family.
These tests can have a negative impact on society as a whole.

The implications of DNA results showing each individual’s susceptibility to certain diseases could potentially increase prejudice within society. Steve Fuller, a renowned Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick suggests that due to the high number of differentiated populations it is possible that the results of DNA testing could lead to certain diseases being associated with specific racial groups. In turn he believes that this could lead to prejudice against such groups to the extent of excluding them entrance into other countries. He expands on the dangers of DNA testing to state that it could lead to an intensified view of different races; a process he refers to as ‘re-racialisation’. The example given is that the tests could identify the ‘y’ chromosome that shows a lineage dating back to the gypsy line. Fuller states that if the Nazis had had the power to do this then they could have utilised the information to target certain groups. It begs the question whether we really want to spend money on such tests and encourage the provision of inaccurate evidence that could then be abused.
Increased personal awareness and shock results can help prevention of diseases

Shock results could equally be a very negative thing. Great potential for psychological upset comes from bad results relating to an individual’s susceptibility to illnesses later in life. Dr Paul Martin, from the University of Nottingham's Institute for Science and Society, is worried about testing for illnesses like Alzheimer's, for which there is currently no available treatment. The individual receiving such information is going to be subjected to a great amount of fear, anxiety and stress, which can clearly have a negative impact on their health.
Increased personal awareness and shock results can help prevention of diseases

Whilst information is constantly provided to the public about the health implications of lifestyle choices such as drinking, smoking, dietary choices and other factors which come with our environmental situation, this objective advice is something that we are all aware of but often adopt the much clichéd “it won’t happen to me” attitude. By providing subjective details based on genetic makeup, surely this is a sensible approach to raising patients’ individual awareness of how they could change their lifestyle to reduce the risk of getting the illnesses to which they are particularly susceptible. Dr Paul Jenkins, medical director of Genetic health points out that whilst the tests are not diagnostic; patients have a right to know whether their genes put them at increased risk of certain diseases. In the same way that knowing you have high blood pressure increases your risk of heart attack, this is an advancement of such medical awareness which will allow patients to take precautions which may reduce the risk of specific diseases. Often, such shock tactics work better than being repeatedly told by others of general risks. The personalised nature of these tests will make people realise the immediacy of maintaining their health
Analogies with other sports are false

When has the GLT not worked? the GLT measures line decisions in all sports and scientifically it works and is more accurate than the human eye. The GLT system has allowed for a much more efficient and consistent system of sport, it has changed games and it has improved the players awareness of the system. You argued that football is continuous because it is possible that it can be, a tennis rally could last 100 years , a football game could be out of play each second for it is logically possible for this to happen. Therefore your argument against other sports is wrong.
Goals in soccer are too infrequent to to get wrong. Whether a goal cross the line has to be confirmed.

Others will argue the same things leading up to the play and the consequences of going down this slippery slope. It is a fair argument. However, 1. Let us get one thing right. We can have a debate about the other stuff later. 2. Other sports have done the same thing and its not a problem. The NBA is a good example. A last touch ball at the end of a game is critical. But the refs dont look at a missed foul preceding the play. Hey, one thing at a time. Set priorities. Goals in soccer, like no other sports, can completely change the complexion of a game.
This is the first nail in the coffin of flowing football

Your argument basically concludes this hypothesis : The flowing of football is good, therefore things which disrupt the flow of football are bad. Therefore GLT disrupts the flow of football and should be banned. However, fouls disrupt the flow of football... by your reasoning this should be banned. Allowing goals to then trigger another kick-off disrupts the flow of football therefore this should be banned. This is foolish and your argument should hence be thrown out. The GLT provides a fair accurate system of measurement and this outweighs the need to keep the football flowing.
Football is an art not a science.

Football - the beautiful game - has a natural ebb and flow, the speed and end to end nature of the game should be interrupted as little as possible. Do we want to stop the game for every debatable decision. Was it a handball, did the defender play the ball or take out the man, which way should the throw in be awarded, should it be a corner or a goal kick, was the forward marginally offside or not etc... Where would it end? Referees and linesmen are human and therefore cannot be perfect but if there is consent that we accept their decisions, right or wrong then we can preserve the essence of the game. Its not all about winning otherwise fans would not support those teams that have not enjoyed success for decades.
The deliberation of linesmen, particularly Azerbaijani linesmen, is an important part of the game.

If we allow computers to referee our football matches, then we might as well allow robots to play the games for us! Subjectivity is what makes the game exciting! I don't want to watch a game where the ball actually has to cross the line in order for a goal to have been scored. How dull would that be? Besides, any Manchester United fan will tell you that many of the so-called "rules" governing the game are necessarily flexible. 4 minutes of injury time at Old Trafford may seem more like 6 minutes if Alex Ferguson doesn't have a lead.
The costs and changes for a relatively rare scenario are unjustified

A ball regularly hits the cross bar in football matches, maybe once every few games. However, occasions when the ball hits the cross bar and bounces down onto the line or thereabouts are considerably fewer, as for occasions when the ball bounces down and moves COMPLETELY over the line and a goal is not given.....then this is very rare indeed. Also when the ball is directly cleared off the line by a defender and was clearly a goal, such cases are very rare. How many clear occasions when the ball DEFINITELY crossed the line...and yet no goal was given can you remember? We are talking about changing the whole of the tradition, rules and nature of football for this one event which hardly ever happens. One problem here is that alot of people do not no the rule concerning ball in play. They think if the ball protrudes over the line it is a goal, this is not the case, the ball must completely crosses over the line...so that not even 1mm would hang over the edge of white line. A situation much more common than this is when linesman continuously say the ball is out of play, when it protrudes over the line, again the ball is in play because it did not completely cross (and ofetn not even the majority of it has crossed).
Technology for the human judgement

Due to the fact that football is a continuous game, where the human judgement is the main principal in the arbitrage of the game, the technology implemented should keep this line of work. First, the goal line technology, after quite a few incidents in the last World Cup, needs to be implemented but not as automatic as we normally think this would work. GLT should be used when a team doubts about the referee's decision on a goal score, like the challenges used in tennis where each player has a limited number of challenges they can use through the whole game, this way opens the possibility for a team to appeal the referee's decision, that through all football history has been quite off during all types of matches either a World Cup final or league game. Second, about using instant replay. Instant replay goes entirely against FIFA's ethics we could say. The only way a referee could use the TV viewer's point of view, is to create a new secondary referee that is watching the game from a TV broadcast that doesn't display replays but gives a birds view of the field allowing a better judgement on offside plays for example, or fights between players. It is time for FIFA to reconsider the use of technology in the game given the number of disagreements on referees decision that teams and fans have constantly every season. Of course this technology can't be used in all the globe, for all the reasons we know, but professional football clubs and national federations have the resources to install the equipment and never again complain about how the game could have resulted if the referee had not failed in his decision.
Analogies with other sports are false

People keep saying 'Tennis, Cricket and Rugby have GLT' Firstly, that doesn't mean they have made their game more just....as indeed it is not applied at all levels of the game, and it is only applied for some issues, also, it is just a case of changing the rules for the elite when they had the same standard before. When two teams no the rules, i9t doesn't matter what the standard and criteria is as long as its the same for both, so it does not bring in any change in such a status of justice applied to the game. However, the more important point, is that football is a flowing game, where in theory, the ball could stay in play for 45mins without any stoppage at all. As for Tennis and Cricket then by necessity they must continuously stop, scoring in them is also continuous. They are games of stops and starts. Rugby, relatively is also a game of continuous stops and starts, due to the nature of tackling in rugby and how it is dealt with. Tennis is all about whether the ball is 'in' or 'out'. This is not the case with football, a goal can be rare, and the main factor in football is not whether the ball was over the line, rather in most cases a goal is known to clearly cross the line, it will usually remain in the net or obviously cross it. The main factor in goals being score is the play that leads to them and not the actual final stage of the ball crossing the line.
The technology is used in other sports

Tennis, rugby, cricket, etc. The controversy and continuity in these sports is less important than the clarity the technology provides, and it can be controlled by limited use of challenges, etc. Referees and their assistants do make mistakes, why do we put up with their imperfections when we can help them? Sorry dude to left, but the number of viewers watching soccer has nothing to do with this issue. judging plays in soccer can be just as difficult. Speed of play isnt the only aspect. Vantage point, positioning, white soccer ball on white socks, shoes, jersey can all contribute to imperfections in judgement.