BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sharia courts are cheaper and more accessible than the the civil courts of the secular state. This ...

Sharia courts are cheaper and more accessible than the the civil courts of the secular state. This is especially true for minorities who may be poorer, alienated from majority power-structures, lacking in fluency in the language of the state legal system. For these reasons for many Muslims the alternative to a Sharia court is not going to the state judicial system, but not having any access to justice at all.
evolving towards peace

[[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/weapon_that_can_strike_anywhere_Auv6ww5sNb4q0mCtLtIO4H]] There are countries,authorities and people who claim peace is the answer and then go ahead and make war. The most prominent current example would be the the U.K. Just as we are being told that colonisation/colonization is a thing of the past measures are being taken under the hood to strike as at our most vulnerable. There are two U.S military space planes orbiting the Earth. One wonders why? counter: Satellites have already been used by the U.S to spy on people all over the world violating the national sovereignty of other nations. What reason is there for us to not see these planes as another us military tool against humans rather than aliens who haven't yet been discovered?
Space Debris

There is one major reason against the militarisation of space and that is it will end up in a form of mutually assured destruction. Donald J Kessler identified two major problems with regard to existing debris. Firstly there is the problem of the Kessler Syndrome which is commonly used to refer to a situation that where a small object collides with a larger object in space it creates a large amount of small debris that could potentially . Whether the Kessler Syndrome term is used correctly but the point is still the same if military weapons or killer satellites are used to destroy other satellites or even space station then we could have serious problems in getting up into space at the very best.
no need

Lt Col Bruce M. DeBlois what can be done with space weapons can also be done from the air, without the political baggage of weaponizing space. [[Howard D Belote, The Weaponization of Space, Aerospace Power Journal, Spring 2000, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/spr00/belote.htm%5D%5D What can space be used for, survailence and communication? are both dual role and not weponisation. Satelites shooting down other satelites? why do that when you can do it will missiles from the ground. Orbital bombardment? Our current nucelar weapons are as effective as space weapons would be and much smaller scale attacks can be done as well by drones and airpower. This leaves the only thing that weaponisation is useful for being balistic missile defence. There is little point in weaponising space with our current levels of technology.
Space is already used for military purposes

Sure but those observation satellites are actually performing a function which is useful to world peace. By being able to observe movements or potential rocket or missile launches uncertainty of other states intentions is reduced. Also having intelligence on other countries can avoid the risk of arms races because of more accurate The weaponisation of space would be bad because it could create more uncertainty of other states intentions and would move the military's role in space from being a benign one to being a hostile one.
If not us someone else will.

The way that countries keep trying to get nuclear weapons even when a party to the NPT or when there are agreements in place that states should not do so shows that space is bound to be weponised. It is only a matter of time. Essentially in warfare taking the high ground has always been important, and space is the ultimate high ground at the moment. Even if all the current major states were to agree that they would not persue the weaponisation of space that would not stop it happening. Smaller nations would see it as an opportunity to get ahead of the estabilshed powers and potentially gain some leverage over them. Is the US less likely to attack a country if it knows it can knock out all its satelites? probably as the dammage would be immense, even if almost no lives would be lost in the process. Our modern world is so dependent on satellite communications it is pretty inconcievable that no one would ever wish to use it against someone else. At the same time it is very difficult to have an agreement that will have global reach and would have the relevent inspections to prevent such weaponisation.
Language is a type of cultural heritage. We already recognise the right of groups to preserve parts...

Language is a type of cultural heritage. We already recognise the right of groups to preserve parts of their history by granting money for museums and the restoration of buildings of historic value. There is considerable cultural capital stored in languages. Understanding a language is often the key to appreciating the full meanings and allusions of a group’s heritage; for example, Aboriginal history is predominantly oral. Allowing a language like this to die out would cut off a people from their past.
Only the government of a state is capable of sustaining such a project. Keeping a language alive re...

Only the government of a state is capable of sustaining such a project. Keeping a language alive requires thousands of speakers, rather than simply a few and thus is unlikely to succeed without active intervention. Only a governing body can legislate to enforce media quotas and language teaching on a wide scale. Similarly, it is unlikely many NGOs could afford projects of the necessary size and timescale.
Language is a central component of cultural identity. It acts as a binding force and marker of grou...

Language is a central component of cultural identity. It acts as a binding force and marker of group identities. For example, the definition of “Basque” is “those who speak in the Basque tongue”. Likewise, the Roma, who have no land and no clear defining characteristics, rely on their Romany language to maintain a cultural identity. The same is true of the Orang Asli in Malaysia. By helping to forge these communities language contributes to social stability. A shared language aids social cohesion by providing speakers with a ready-made support network. This in turn has been linked with reducing feelings of social dislocation and related problems, such as crime.
Once governments take steps to preserve a language the programme should become self-sustaining and t...

Once governments take steps to preserve a language the programme should become self-sustaining and therefore less expensive. The development of a native media industry is a positive by-product of introducing media quotas. Media quotas will ensure a native language reaches all aspects of society. The existence of a native media will then provide an incentive to learn the language. For example, English as a second language is strongest in Holland, where cartoons are broadcast in English.
There is a value to language that cannot be reduced to the utilitarian ability to communicate with t...

The purpose of language is communication. You can quantify how good a language is by how many people it enables you to communicate with. We should not artificially maintain the life of a language when it is not profitable but instead should allow the market to decide whether a language survives. This case applies to a number of developing countries. Their scarce resources are better spent on the numeracy and literacy necessary for general economic development, rather than on promoting bilingualism.
Language is a type of cultural heritage. We already recognise the right of groups to preserve parts...

We preserve objects and buildings to enable people to explore their heritage should they chose to do so. Whilst governments should continue to offer this support, they should not be responsible for communities who cannot be bothered to sustain their language, yet maintain it is an essential means of making sense of their past. It is unfair that a community that is unwilling to continue to use its indigenous language receives state help when communities who choose to speak their language do not. Government organised preservation of a threatened language may actually harm minority groups. Firstly, linguistic minority groups who do not speak the majority language are likely to become detached from the dominant social and political discussions, continuing their marginalisation. Secondly, a government campaign will provoke resentment about the distribution of resources.
Governments have a duty to preserve endangered languages. As a government is sovereign and the bear...

True multiculturalism relies on giving rights to individuals not to groups. Using funding and legislation on behalf of a particular group rather than to protect individuals establishes an in-group and out groups within a society. Promoting particular communities in this way undermines a sense of community at the correct level, the nation. When national unity is undermined, so too is individual social justice. Moreover, the risk of ethnic conflict is increased as people come to see their linguistic community rather than their nation as the bearer of their rights.
Only the government of a state is capable of sustaining such a project. Keeping a language alive re...

Government involvement is unnecessary. Many minority immigrant communities preserve their native languages without state support. The Urdu speaking community in Scotland is a good example of this. It is not the role of a Government to decide which languages live and which die. Limited resources would make it impossible to fund preservation programmes for all threatened languages. Local communities are the best people to decide whether or not their language should survive. Furthermore, a government should not be involved in a scheme that is likely to undermine a national identity.
Language is a central component of cultural identity. It acts as a binding force and marker of grou...

Language is not necessarily essential to a cultural identity. Judaism illustrates this: followers have spoken many languages throughout its history, yet a distinctive culture has endured. Social factors are the true promoters of cultural identity. South East Asia is a patchwork of different languages yet there are recognised shared values. The Basques share a number of traditions, as do the Roma. In fact, just 4 million of the World’s 10 million Gypsies speak Romany. The Roma rely on their ethnic distinctiveness, god Del and a shared tradition of horsetrading, basket weaving and potmending to unite them across national boundaries.
There is a value to language that cannot be reduced to the utilitarian ability to communicate with t...

There is a value to language that cannot be reduced to the utilitarian ability to communicate with those around you. The diversity of languages is endlessly fascinating, but also contains a whole set of allusions and definitions which are bearers of knowledge. The languages of the Amazon allow the explanation of natural phenomena that are unknown and incomprehensible outside that language. Language determines the way people express themselves and, arguably, the way they think. For example, Chinese and Japanese have no past, present or future tenses. The existence of a variety of languages results in varying modes of expression and is consequently a stimulus to creativity. This is of benefit to a nation as a whole.
No. too immature.

Far too young to know what politics are about. If they want to vote let them be punished as adults when they break the law. They also don't understand the implication of certain political actions and do not possess the maturity to wait it out or think a policy through when voting. Most of them also do not understand the ideologies of parties in detail. You can go around asking other teenagers about left-wing parties or Marxist parties. The most common answer you would get is 'I don't know'
Such skills are lacking.

According to Demos, an independent think-tank, the need for teaching such skills is demonstrated in the number of school leavers not going into further education or employment. School pupils are 'switching off' from education because they are unable to cope with everyday relationships and family situations. They need to be taught to manage their everyday life before they can do well in education. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5345199/Empathy-and-self-control-as-important-as-the-three-Rs-in-education.html)
Can't learn it in artificial situations.

The best way to help children to learn about social situations is to let them interact naturally with other children and adults, not to make them participate in formal, artificial classes on how to interact with others. Empathy is something that should develop naturally in people when they are exposed to a wide range of different people and self-control is supposed to happen naturally as emotions mature. If the child actually has impaired social development, they should be helped by the learning support department anyway.
Such skills are lacking.

Empathy is probably better taught in "real life" situations in the home, at play with peers or in the community. Children spend most of their waking hours not in the formal school classroom. It may be that social skills could be a topic in extended schools provision, so that children who lack opportunties to learn and practise them for whatever reason are not disadvantaged. However in the classroom proper, basic 'technical' skills like the 3 Rs should be the order of the day. In any case, experience suggests that a number of teachers themselves lack empathy towards pupils who are non-conformist, disabled or 'too clever' and may not be best placed to model this virtue.
The sun drives the global climate

Others however disagree with Solanski et al. on whether sunspot activity correlates with temperature changes and on whether we are in the most active period for several thousand years. Muscheler et al. The link between the visually based sunspot numbers and solar-modulation parameter is neither straightforward nor yet understood, and also that solar modulation must have reached or exceeded today’s magnitudes three times during the past millennium... The reconstruction by Solanki et al. implies generally less solar forcing during the past millennium than in the second part of the twentieth century, whereas our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. Both Muscheler and Solanski agree that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun."[[Raimund Muscheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Müller, Ian Snowball, 'How unusual is today’s solar activity?', Nature, 431, 1084–1087 (2004), http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf%5D%5D In other words even if the sun is having some effect the majority of climate change is still being caused by other factors of which the most likely is humans. Influence of the Sun does not seem to be so great on global warming trends. Surprisingly, even though average temperatures are still rising(the 2000s are on track to be nearly 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s. And that temperature jump is especially worrisome since the 1990s were only 0.14°C warmer than the 1980s[[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/]].), solar activity is at a minimum, as reported by NASA in April 2009: NASA, April 1, 2009 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%). It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. [[http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm]]
It occurs

Scientists(apart from the ones justifying their jobs with this subject) and even the lowly rambler knows that for some reason that this has occured many times before. There is proof all around that it is a natural cycle.Too much money and time is wasted on it, and recycling across the board is counter productive when it comes to emmisions, it creates more, but creates jobs at the taxpayers expense. We can not stop what is happening,it happens and always has.
Science is self correcting

Climategate isn't the first nor will it be the last fraud by scientists to be revealed; another recent huge one was the human therapeutic cloning scandal revolving a South Korean team that falsified data in its papers. While such scandals do undermine the hard work and progress achieved by dedicated scientists it doesn't hurt science because most people do realize that while frauds may be there, most scientists produce real and reliable results, which are then confirmed (or perhaps even rejected) by further research by other scientists. So overall scientific work is reliable and shall remain so. If global warming was not in any way man made then it would have been shown by now, it has not, so the chances are man is having some impact, even if it is not as much as some proponents say. Science is continually self-corrective, and has mechanisms (eg. peer review, repeatability) that deal as well with fraud, in the long run, as earnest scientific effort. Any real inconsistency in the data will eventually show as an anomaly, which will in turn result in more attention being paid to the work in question. The problem here is with the public's perception of science. J. S. Mill thought we should not fear criticism of scientific (or other) beliefs. God forbid we should start believing in climate change in the same way as others believe in religions.
Artificial consensus

The emails have not shown that information generated from the UEA's CRU were tampered with. The entire scandal was created by taking a few emails out of context, and the conclusions reached were not conclusive as the few emails by themselves are ambiguous. Since the emails were definitely not meant to be something like a press release, they contain thoughts and unscientific sentences that can be easily viewed in a way not meant by the writer [[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html]]. Besides, the UEA climatic research unit is by no means the only reputable scientific or academic institution to be arguing that climate change exists. There is immense amounts of evidence to back up that climate change is happening and is getting faster not slowing down. One piece of evidence supposedly being tampered with makes no difference. While there is no complete consensus on whether climate change is man made those who believe that man made climate change is a myth are a very small minority. Probably a majority have not yet made up their minds and are waiting for more evidence while a reasonable number argue forcefully that climate change is man made and this includes major groups such as UNIPCC.
UNIPCC inflated evidence

The UNIPCC inflated the evidence on the melting of glaciers in the Himalaya's. "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate" [[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html]]. This claim of the likelihood being ‘very high’ means in the IPCC’s terms that there is a 90% chance that it will happen. This shows that at least some of the time in their report they were approaching the subject in an unscientific way and creating results to suit their political aim. It is especially worrying that the panel would increase a claim if they knew that the initial claim was not verified, and even more surprising that they would do so if they did not know where the initial claim came from or without any further research to back the increase in the claim.
The sun drives the global climate

It is the sun that is the driving force of our climate and so it makes sense that it has the biggest impact on our climate rather than anything that humans might be doing. The sun is therefore the most likely cause of global warming. Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen argues that climate change is caused by solar activity.[[Louise Gray, 'Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'', The Telegraph, 8/12/09, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html%5D%5D Solar activity, as determined by sunspot activity, is historically high being at its highest over the last 60-70 years for over 8000 years. Solar activity could affect climate by variation in the Sun's output or potentially through having an effect on cloud formation. Solanski et al. Sunspot numbers and cosmic ray fluxes... show correlations and anti-correlations with a number of reconstructions of the terrestrial Northern Hemisphere temperature, which cover a time span of up to 1800 years. This indicates that periods of higher solar activity and lower cosmic ray flux tend to be associated with warmer climate, and vice versa... This suggests that effects induced by cosmic rays may affect the long-term terrestrial climate. The positive correlation between the geomagnetic dipole moment and the temperature reconstructions provides further evidence favoring the cosmic ray influence on the terrestrial climate. [[I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanski, M. Schussler, K. Mursula, Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth’s temperature: A millennium-scale comparison, 1/10/05 http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf%5D%5D
The science is open

Much of the evidence that there is man made climate change is in the open. In the wake of climate gate and the other scandals there have been, scientists are likely to be even more open with how they compiled their results and how they came to their conclusions. Databases of temperature recordings etc will be open to access so that anyone can check the results a climate scientist gets. Transparency will prevent more far-fetched ideas, such as the too rapid melting of the Himalayan glaciers, being considered scientific so preventing these from undermining the credibility of rest of the body of science and reducing the ability of deniers to nitpick and find holes. Even if individuals don’t go and check the scientists’ work themselves simply having the evidence open to do so will help show that global warming is man made as scientists would not be making everything public if they knew they were likely to be shown to be lying about their results. The most important thing is that with their findings being questioned and under ever more scrutiny scientists will go and recheck their work or have others review it. This peer review process should help persuade the public that the scientists are not deliberately falsifying information and are producing results that are as accurate as possible