BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Malthusian Theories.

Inaction was not absolute even in nineteenth century India, famines hit certain areas and so an emigration policy was favoured. This failed because even if some subsidies with transport costs were offered, Indians were hardly happy to move, being very attachched to an extended family. [[Ambirjan p.12-13]] The Famine releif on 1936 relied heavily on three factors. An availible surplus in Burma, cheap grain prices, and the ease of transportation by rail or boat. In 1943 none of these applied and only in the last case had the lack anything to do with British errors. Burma was a partially occupied warzone. This in itself and the war in general raised food prices and war traffic clogged the communications. [[Brennan p.542]]
Repetitive history

That others, the USA, France, Italy, all now equally thought of as nice modern liberal(ish) countries did it too cannot excuse Britian entirely. It does not mean that these events are not crimes or that they should be considered to be good. The main problem is that the British Empire as a whole is often considered to be a good thing. In many ways it may well have been but this obscures that there are bits of Britain's imperial history that is every bit as squalid as anyone else's, even if it did not quite fall to the lows of either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. It simply means that these other countries crimes sould be remembered as well. Italy's part in WWII and the Holocaust, its invasion of Abyssinia. France's role in Africa (that even now continues[[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/la_vie_en]]) and the war in Vietnam. And the USA's march across the continent forcing out and killing the native americans as they went, and then on the the philippines and a bloody campaign to suppress rebellions there. All of these things are often glossed over as each country tries to portray itself as having been reasonably moral and better than the rest. Indeed one of the worst would be little Belgium's actions in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo, perhaps 10 million deaths between 1885 and 1908.[[http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=4851]] Now it was interesting to read that British empire did more good to india than bad!!!! Well i completely agree if somehow anybody can make me understand how the killings of hundreds of innocents at Jalliwalan Bagh can be justified. For a european, to understand and accept that socio-cultural fabric of india was tolerant, much prior to the advent of East India Co is impossible to say the least.It is evident from the fact that religions(both Hinduism & Islam) not only coexisted but prospered under the reign of great kings and emperrors such as Akbar The Great. It was only after the British came with their hideous plans and policies such as "Divide And Rule", the cracks started showing up.Not only did they rob and exploit India for more than two centuries, the damage they did to the social and cultural heritage is evident in day to day life as of today. And they say that nazi rule was bad, how about enslaving whole villages to send them off as bonded labours to work in colonies in Africa and West Indies.I am pretty sure at this point british must have felt pity on filthy indians, so they decided to absolve them of their misery, how magnificient?????
Repetitive history

I think this just a generalized topic of attacking britain's history mainly coming from americans who still don't understand a great detail of britain's history. the 1943 bengal famine was unfortunate but the holocaust is still considered to be the worst in human history...and rightly so. it's very easy to attack britain's traits where as if you look at other countries they had similiar traits too during the same period (the 19th century). America has been responsible for atrocities too and they as well had colonies. Other countries too like france or japan had been responsible for atrocities. Yes absent mindness was up in the air back then but that didnt just apply to the british only, it applied to everybody else. Including today with the usa and the war in iraq and afghanistan, nobody really knows who the real enemy is and the situation hasn't really improved dramatically. The british empire has probably done more good to india than bad as they did manage to keep law & order between rival religions. And india was full of religious groups believing in all kinds of gods. We must remember that it was britain that formed the country pakistan in order to seperate the muslims from the hindu's. We should also remember that not all the states in india were administered by the british but rather administered through suzerains and princes who probably didnt know how to sort the problem out as soon as famine hits. it is wrong or potently illogical to consider the atrocities that the british had done during the 19th century by today standards, as you can see now with the war in iraq and afghanistan the USA is stepping into the same boots that britain had worn once before. And again the absent mindness cycle is re acurring again.
Physically fit people have better mental health and do better at academia

Exercise(the prime requirement for good physical health) stimulates the release of neurotransmitters called endorphins; this release makes people happy and helps people to be alert and mentally active. [[http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/happiness/exercise-happiness2.htm]] Tall people are not stupid! [[http://www.conanstevens.com/tall-actors-giant-life/conan-stevens-life/big-tall-people-are-not-stupid---and-my-mensa-membership-genius.html]] There is a significant positive correlation between height and intelligence.-[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence]] The fitter you are as a growing child the taller and smarter you are, in comparison to students of the same age.
pretty people(great skin,great health resulting from physical prowess) have a one-up on everything

[[http://www.careerbuilder.com/Article/CB-312-The-Workplace-Do-Pretty-People-Earn-More/]] "Studies show attractive students get more attention and higher evaluations from their teachers, good-looking patients get more personalized care from their doctors, and handsome criminals receive lighter sentences than less attractive convicts...The ugly truth, according to economics professors Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas and Jeff Biddle of Michigan State University, is that plain people earn 5 to 10 percent less than people of average looks, who in turn earn 3 to 8 percent less than those deemed good-looking" Yes the world is highly look-ist and studying all night for an exam will probably not help you score as well as getting a good night's beauty sleep before the big day and looking prim for the exam will. [[http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_body/take_care/how_much_sleep.html]] [[http://www.ehow.com/how_2263964_sleep-before-test.html]] [[http://www.ehow.com/how_2154911_sleep-before-final-exams.html]] Healthy sleep habits, healthy eating habits and good health as a whole contributes more than intelligence to success and joy. Counterargument: Good-looking convicts are all physically fit.
Fit people are happy people

The connection between fitness and Endorphin has already been highlighted in the first point. Fit people are also happy because they are more likely to dance all night at parties or nightclubs; since some clubs do not permit overweight people to come in. In our zeitgeist facial features and skin colour no longer dictate what/who is attractive and all criteria for good looks boils down to friendly facial expressions,good posture, fit bodies, good skin, clothes and hair. Anyone who is physically fit qualifies. [[http://www.beauty-fitness-guide.com/]]
Mental health can impact on physical health

It is better to be mentally healthy as your mental health can impact on your physical fitness. People who suffer from Bi-polar or schizophrenia often suffer more from the following conditions with the following ratios Rethink.org 2-4 x the rate of cardiovascular diseases 2-4 x the rate of respiratory diseases 5 x the rate of diabetes 8 x the rate of Hepatitis C 15 x the rate of HIV.
Depends on your goals in life.

Someone who has a job that requires concentration, mental endurance, raw knowledge and problem-solving skills but isn't physically demanding, like a researcher or programmer, should develop their mental health, they probably won't use their physical health much and they won't have time to do both if it is a demanding job. Do you want to be happy for happiness' sake, or satisfied at a job well done? Someone who really wants to succeed is willing to sacrifice their mental and physical health to do so - for instance, a political campaigner who risks torture or goes on hunger strike in prison. This person will need exceptional physical and mental endurance, but only their raw willpower and faith will keep them going ultimately.
Physically fit people have better mental health and do better at academia

The relation between height and intelligence for grownups is pretty obscure. [[http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/2/272.short]] Most male geniuses have been found to be of middle height (5 foot eight in most instances); which in a large number of cultures can be thought of as being short. [[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F13F73F5913738DDDA80B94DF405B8785F0D3]] Happy people or at least those who claim to be happy really, are not very sharp/smart. There is largely negative correlation between the two. [[http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfhss/3468171157/]] is it the fact that they are physically fit that helps them have a better mental health or the fact that they have better mental health to focus on staying more phsyically fit?
pretty people(great skin,great health resulting from physical prowess) have a one-up on everything

Lady Diana was Bulimic. Being pretty does not equate to being healthy; certainly not in the cases where good-looking persons get superior hospital care or where psychopathic killers with bullet wounds or leg injuries get off on loftier sentences. [[http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article/MSN-1668-Career-Growth-and-Change-Do-Pretty-People-Earn-More/]] your problem is you said "handsome criminals receive lighter sentences than less attractive convicts". If someone had great mental health and was thinking in the right state of mind, wouldn't you say they wouldn't hve done the crime to begin with?
Fit people are happy people

There are exclusive clubs for fat people, the butterfly for example. Clubbing cannot really make people happy. Drinking,dancing and sleepless nights are bad for the liver,brain and looks. People who are very good looking also face social stigma; they are assumed to be conceited or rude and it is very difficult for them to interact with normal people; because of all the prejudice against them. [[http://www.thethinkingblog.com/2007/11/caligynephobia-fear-of-beautiful-women.html]] as stated above your saying that "phsically fit" is equivelent to "good looking people". That is not always the case. Some peple look pretty good but can't be too physically fit if they are restlesss alcoholics.
Mental health can impact on physical health

Often these conditions do not cause the physical unfitness, but instead are caused by the same factors that caused the mental disorder. For example, people who do not feel empowered often have mental health disorders. People who feel like they lack empowerment also do not visit the doctors. They do not feel that going to the doctors will help. There are other factors that we need to assess rather than just linking the mental disorder to the physical disorder. For instance, the medication that people take often has a large impact on physical health[[http://www.rethink.org/how_we_can_help/news_and_media/briefing_notes/briefing_5.html]]. We therefore should not just assume that it is the mental illness itself that causes the physical unhealthiness.
Depends on your goals in life.

But in order to achieve your mental goals, using your example for research or programming, you need your physical health in order to conduct the research as effectively as you can and for as long as you can. A researcher crouched over his desk and not exercising or seeing sunlight will not be physically healthy and therefore he will die sooner [[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1309650/Mens-health-No-exercise-long-hours-double-fatal-heart-risk.html]]. If they only spent the recommended half an hour a day doing moderate exercise they could have achieved far more.
Classroom education often fails the bright and the slow

Classroom education often fails the bright and the slow, by going too slowly for the former and too fast for the latter. Necessarily, a teacher of many has the interests of the group as a whole in mind in pitching a lesson at a particular level. This leaves some unchallenged and others humiliated. Home education avoids the pitfalls of both. This point is especially true with regard to students with special needs; the state either fails to identify such needs and lets the student lose years of education instead spent unproductively, or drops then into the vastly underfunded and stigmatised bins we call ‘special schools.’There is yet another group that is failed - individuals with identifiable problems that damage their capacity to learn in a normal school environment, but are not severe enough to merit a place at a special school - those with mild to medium severity dyslexia and attention-deficiency suffers fall into this category with many others. Home schooling can help such students, often with the help of tutors specially trained for such needs (and sometimes the state helps parents with funding for these tutors, so the burden does not fall solely onto them). Indeed, parents willing to take on the enormous task of educating their child at home, or paying for them to be educated at home, are relieving the state of the burden of doing so in the state system - but continue to pay their taxes to benefit others.
Homeschooling Is Economically Beneficial

First, the idea that homeschooling is cheaper for parents is not logically sound since homeschooling requires a parent to stay at home resulting in a loss of income. If someone finds it difficult to pay for public schools they are unlikely to be able to take the time off to homeschool their children. It is more likely that they will simply take subsidies that the opposition itself concedes the government gives. This is evident in homeschooling already as “Parents who home-school children increasingly are… wealthy” [[http://tinyurl.com/np2qog]] and thus would be able to afford public or private schools if homeschooling were banned. If a parent were to balance a job with homeschooling then we question how effectively they would teach when compared to a trained, committed school teacher. Secondly, the opposition argues that it would be too expensive for the government to fund public schools if homeschooling was banned. Even if we accepted the opposition’s dubious figure of $37.5 billion, using their logic we can point out that this is only 2% of America’s GDP [[http://tinyurl.com/2l9rcv]] and so a negligible amount. This only shows how misleading statistics are. Instead we believe that on principle the benefits of banning homeschooling are so great that the government must financially support it. Schools instill skills and values into the next generation. They teach children to be cooperative and productive; give them a myriad of lifelong memories and a diverse group of people to learn from. Ask yourself how many adults you know who would have preferred to study at home with their parents rather than attend a school. The American government already more than doubled the Department of Education’s budget this year [[http://tinyurl.com/d75s6y]] thanks to the Recovery Act, we see no reason why more cannot be used to fund these opportunities.
Unschooling

USA falsely equates "unschooling" with "refusal or inability to carry on the education". Using their own source, we see that "unschooling" is actually "unorthodox approach to homeschooling that does not focus on formal classes, set curriculum or tests", which is basically equal to the widely accepted[[http://tinyurl.com/3admh7u]] Montessori educational program. Regarding impact on children's future after unschooling, suffice it to say that Montessori achieves better results than standard classroom[[http://tinyurl.com/38ufkrv]] - and that founders of Google and Amazon cite it as source of their success[[http://tinyurl.com/3xcbx2a]]. Even if unschooling harmed, this would call for regulation rather than ban. Perpetually, Proposition picks extreme cases like "homeschooling as religious indoctrination", or minority methods like unschooling, and argues that we need to ban homeschooling to ban these extremes. Our consistent answer: one, ban will make parents enroll the child in a school which supports their views on education, Montessori in this case; two, regular progress checks are a better way to protect the children's right to education. Additionally, the Proposition is contradicting itself. Here, they argue homeschooling will "severely affect chances of unemployment and hopes of financial success", but in refutation of our third argument, they concede that "average homeschooled child performs better on standardised tests and is more involved in civic society". This does not go together: if a child is able to pass a standardised test with flying colors, then it can easily fulfill public education standards (substandard by Proposition's own admission). In the face of evidence that 96 % colleges enroll homeschooled students[[http://tinyurl.com/323dqwn]], it is hard not to say that formal education plays little to no role in social achievement; on the contrary, Opposition has shown that homeschooling has better results than a formulaic, one-size-fits-all policy.
It’s ridiculous to say that home schooling necessarily will be of poor quality.

It’s a pretty good bet that parents won’t be as good as a teacher, unless they are one - in which case their home schooling of their own children deprives the state (and a whole class) of their services. The same applies to private tutors. Furthermore, even if a parent or tutor excels in one area, will they cover all the things a school does? The point of the curriculum is that these are things we have decided as a society that children need to learn. Even if strong in one or two fields, it seems tremendously unlikely that home schooling can cover all the required ground.These support groups can’t make a parent into a teacher, any more than a book on engineering makes one an engineer - the vocation of teaching is a much more challenging one than the proposition suggests.
Homeschooling Increases Quality of Education

Public schools face a crisis of confidence worldwide, especially in the US[[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338]]. Underpaid teachers teach huge classes of unmotivated students, which include everyone: exceptionally bright children, ADHD-suffering kids and mentally deficient teenagers. This detracts from quality quite clearly: one size simply cannot fit all, and teachers struggling to maintain at least a modicum of order in their class know that all too well. At the same time, lack of educational quality is a massive detriment. Mankiw, N. Gregory, David Romer, and David Weil. 1992. “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (2): 407–37. [E]ducation is primary predictor of economic and social success of an individual and of the society. If Proposition policy does anything, it is only to exacerbate the problem: it seems to want to channel all homeschooled students to public schools, where they can hear from "the mouthpiece of the government". Homeschooling, however, is beneficial to all stakeholders, both homeschooled students and public school students. Firstly, home-schooled students receive concentrated attention of an adult who understands them. Their course of study can be individualized with understanding of their unique strengths and weaknesses. As a result, home-schooled children can achieve significantly better academic results than kids schooled otherwise, and they statistically do (Basham, Merrifield, Hepburn: "Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream"). Secondly, homeschooling reduces the strain on public education. Fewer students in a classroom enable teachers to select a more individual approach. Moreover, homeschooling is more likely to remove extreme cases of students - both the fast and the slow - which will make that education more effective.
Why Home Schooling Harms Society

Schools are communities that not only emphasize collective learning but also encourage sports and creativity in the form of extra curricular activities; such activities serve as a utility to instill societal values into the next generation. These values include public health - required immunizations not only have concrete benefits but also teach children that their actions have consequences on the greater whole. We believe that parents that teach their own children have less of incentive to immunize children and statistically do not[[http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-10-21-home-school-vaccinate_N.htm ]]. Public schooling gives a voice to the government that speaks of the societal values that have been agreed on by the general public. We believe that both society and the government have a right to influence the child's development, not only because the government plays a part in protecting the child, but because of the important role the future adult will play as a citizen of society. We believe that public schooling is the mouthpiece for the interests of both the government and society as a whole. Naturally, parents will have the right to influence the development of the child, but homeschooling allows parents to become sole dictators of the child's progress, which is harmful. While some parents' 'curriculum' may be aligned with that of the public, there are no safeguards against parents that may indoctrinate their kids with beliefs that will raise them to become harmful citizens. These beliefs can include gross intolerance for particular minority groups supported by false information. These ideas can still reach the child outside of school, but the government has a duty to protect children from a regressive upbringing by at least offering a more constructive perspective. The cost of not ensuring that the next generation has the foundation of accepted principals and values of the society in them outweighs the potential benefits of homeschooling.
Try as it might, the state constantly fails those with greatest faith needs in its schools.

Those that wish their children to be educated in a religious environment have the chance to send them to a religious school, the quality of which can be monitored by the state. However, that ‘exclusivity’ of belief is remarkably unhealthy - we believe that the adherents of all religions shouldn’t shut themselves away, but rather engage in society as a whole, and understand other people’s beliefs and points of view. Meanwhile, it is the duty of the state to teach the thinking of all religions, and the dispassionate conclusions of science. It should indeed be pointed out when theories are theories - but that should never stop schools teaching our best understanding of how we came to be, and how we developed. If that jars with theology, that’s a pity - but it shouldn’t stop teachers teaching.