BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Desire to stabilize Central Asia

A U.S. dovetailing of interests in Central Asia is unlikely to last. September 11th moved Central Asia from being an area of peripheral importance to being a central US interest.[1] There is nothing to say that it will not sink back to being peripheral in the future. The Taliban were both sheltering extremists such as al Qaeda and exporting disorder to surrounding states.[2] As George Bush put it “make no mistake about it, the new war is not only against the evildoers, themselves; the new war is against those who harbor them and finance them and feed them.”[3] But with al Qaeda diversifying, terrorism no longer so high up the agenda and the United States drawing down in Afghanistan US and Russian interests are set to diverge. [1] Boris Rumer, The Powers in Central Asia, Survival, vol. 44, no.3, (Autumn, 2002), pp.57-68, pp.63-64. [2] Rajan Menon, ‘The New Great Game in Central Asia’, Survival, vol.45, no.2, (Summer, 2003), pp.187-204, p.188. [3] At O'Hare, President Says "Get On Board", Office of the Press Secretary, September 27, 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010927-1.html
Economically compatible

Although the United States would like to get its hands on Russia’s vast economic resources it is not a good place to do business. Russia was accused of being a ‘virtual mafia state’ by US diplomats in a wikileaked cable.[1] According to then US Ambassador to Russia Russia needs to “support the “sanctity” of commercial contracts and agreements; create a “transparent, stable and enforceable” tax and license regime; improve and enforce intellectual property rights protection; act decisively on “pervasive bureaucratic red tape and over-regulation”; bring corruption under control; reverse the “worrying trend” in Russia towards control over the mass media”[2] before it becomes a place that the US can really do lots of business with. The economy may therefore be more of a source of conflict than cooperation as The United States tries to push Russia into being more open and less corrupt against the wishes of the Russian elites. [1] Luke Harding, WikiLeaks cables condemn Russia as ‘mafia state’, guardian.co.uk 1/12/10, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy accessed 28/4/11 [2] Alexander Vershbow, “Opportunities in U.S.-Russian Economic Relations,” United States Embassy Moscow, 22 May 2003. http://www.hoover.org/publications/monographs/27207#n32
Russian and US strategic interests conflict

The strategic interests of Russia and the west will not always conflict. In the post-Cold War, post-September 11 world, the political presumptions that require a substantial reliance on nuclear forces do not exist, and, in fact, cannot exist. 9/11 showed that national interests can change. The terrorist attacks instantly moved terrorism to the top of the US security agenda involving recognition of it as a global and military problem.[1] Russia and the United States now must jointly face a host of wider problems, from environmental degradation to the growth of ethnic violence, and the challenges to nation-states posed by globalization. Global problems are not decreasing, but, quite the opposite, there are new ones looming on the horizon; this will forge a long-term close economic, scientific and political relationship between Russia and the United States. The National Security Strategy of September 2002 recognised that closer relations are built on common national interests; They [Russian policy makers] understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas.[2] [1] Iver B. Neumann, ‘Russia as a Great Power’, in Jakob Hedenskog et al (eds.) Russia as a Great Power Dimensions of Security under Putin, (Routledge, London, 2005), pp.13-28, p.18 [2] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America September 2002,http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/nss-020920.pdf pp.26-27. Accessed 20/4/11
Desire to stabilize Central Asia

September 11th brought a change in how the United States dealt with the autocratic rulers of Central Asia, bringing policy more into line with Moscow’s interests. The US changed from promoting democracy in the region to trying to keep the region stable by supporting the incumbent regimes. For example Uzbekistan was given US political, military and economic support despite human rights violations.[1] There were also secondary US interests that were not related to terrorism such as attempting to limit the production of drugs and the corruption this causes. President Putin recognised that “Terrorism and drugs are absolutely kindred phenomena.” With Russia’s immense drug problems “We have a conspicuous growth of the share of highly concentrated drugs, and in the first place Afghan heroin”[2] The promotion of “peace and stability to Afghanistan” and the promised aid to “rebuild Afghanistan and the region economically,” were also recognised by George Bush as US interests in the region.[3] There has therefore in the aftermath of 9/11 been a dovetailing of interests in central Asia and in particular Afghanistan and on the war on drugs. [1] Lena Jonson, Vladimir Putin and Central Asia The Shaping of Russian Foreign Policy, (I.B. Tauris, London, 2004), p.64. [2] Speech by President Vladimir Putin at a Meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Moscow, September 28, 2001 [3] Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on Afghanistan, Office of the Press Secretary, November 13, 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-9.html
Economically compatible

There is a huge potential for economic cooperation between two of the biggest states in the world. Russia desperately needs investment and technology to modernize its economy. The USA can offer this and more. It has helped Russia to get into the World Trade Organization,[1] to integrate it into the global economy, put pressure on Russian companies to drop their corrupt ways and adopt modern modes of operation. Russia also has plenty of chips to bring to the table. Pumping seven million barrels a day, Russia is second only to the Saudis in oil production. The Bush team saw Russia as a source for crude oil should U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia deteriorate, this is why at the Moscow summit in May, 2002, Bush and Putin launched “an energy dialogue to strengthen the overall relationship between our countries, and to enhance global energy security, international strategic stability, and regional cooperation.”[2] The United States has invested whenever it could in Russian oil and gas despite the difficulties private companies like Yukos have faced with government tax demands. For example in October 2001, Exxon Mobil announced that the Sakhalin 1 project was profitable and outlined the company’s plans to invest $30 billion by 2030.[3] [1] Kirk, ‘Full Statement by Ambassador Kirk Regarding the Invitation to Russia to Join the WTO’, Office of the United States Trade Representative, December 2011, http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/december/u... [2] William Ratliff, ‘Russia’s Oil in America’s Future: Policy, Pipelines, and Prospects, Hoover Institution, 1/9/03, http://www.hoover.org/publications/monographs/27207 accessed 04/5/11 [3] Tamara Troyakova and Elizabeth Wishnick, ‘Integration or Disintegration: Challenges for the Russian Far East in the Asia-Pacific Region, p.18.http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no1/wishnick.pdf accessed 6/5/11
Russian and US strategic interests conflict

Contradictions between Russian and U.S. interests will always exist. The United States is not Russia's ally, and it can be confidently predicted that it never will be. While politically the two countries sometimes temporarily need each other to face global challenges, as long as it does not harm them politically or economically, militarily they will remain positioned as strategic enemies. NATO is a good example of this. While the United States believes NATO brings peace and stability Russia feels directly threatened by NATO expansion into states that were once a part of the Soviet Union such as the Baltic states or the possibility of expansion to Ukraine or Georgia.[1] There have even been suggestions that Russia’s 2008 conflict with Georgia was to prevent Georgia proceeding down the path to NATO membership with US encouragement. A view partially substantiated by President Putin himself “it has become absolutely clear that the desire of Georgian authorities to join NATO is motivated not by their ambition to form part of a global security system and contribute to the strengthening of international peace. Tbilisi's NATO bid is determined by other considerations, namely an attempt to embroil other nations in its bloody undertakings… from a legal point of view, Russia's actions in South Ossetia are totally legitimate.”[2] As a result America's relations with Russia will never resemble its relations with France or Great Britain. U.S. strategic nuclear planning will always envisage a potential Russian nuclear attack on targets on American territory. Likewise, Russian planners will not rule out an American attack on Russian targets. [1] Neuger, James G., and Alison, Sebastian, ‘Putin Says NATO Expansion Is Direct Threat to Russia (Update 2)’, Bloomberg, 4 April 2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aq34xuTFCvx0&refe... [2] President Putting quoted in ‘South Ossetia – The Stakes’, globalsecurity.org, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/south-ossetia-9.htm accessed 27/4/11
Russian and the US have many areas where they can cooperate.

Even assuming that US-Russian there are many areas where the US and Russia could cooperate this does not mean that it will happen. Cooperation between the United States and Russia would have been even more vital to the world at the end of World War two when both were superpowers and both had common interests in keeping Germany and Japan down yet this did not lay the ground for cooperation between the two. Instead there was a forty year cold war. Now whole Burns may consider the challenges in Europe, Asia and the Middle East to be common interests Russia may instead choose to cooperate with others such as China and consider US interests to be counter to its own
Shared experience of terrorism

Even if both agree that fighting terrorism is in both their interests this is not a reason for cooperation when views about how to tackle the problem divide. While both have used military force in their attempts to defeat terrorism both have criticised the other’s force as being excessive. The United States continued to be critical of the situation in Chechnya where 45000 civilians were killed and 200000 made refugees.[1] September 11th was a gift to Putin as it transformed perceptions of the situation in Chechnya.[2] Chechnya was effectively legitimised by September 11th as it was similar to what the United States would fight in Afghanistan.[3] However the western media continued to be sceptical about terrorism in Russia for example that Chechen militants were the bombers of the apartment blocks, rather than it being rogue elements of the Russian security services, or even originated from the Kremlin.[4] Moreover the two diverged over the need to invade Iraq to fight terrorism; Russia opposed the invasion in the Security Council. In short Russia and the United States cooperate in Afghanistan but this does not translate into wider cooperation against terrorism. Terrorism is also no longer the number one foreign policy priority of the United States which is ‘pivoting’ to Asia and away from the Middle East.[5] [1] Kramer, Guerrilla, pp.210, 214. [2] Claire Bigg, Five Years After 9/11: The Kremlin's War On Terror, Radio Free Europe, 2006, http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2006/09/sec-060908-r... [3] Oksana Antonenko, ‘Putin’s Gamble’, Survival, Vol.43, no.4, (Winter, 2001-02), pp.49-60, p.51 [4] World: Europe, Russia's bombs: Who is to blame? BBC News, September 30, 1999, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/449325.stm [5] Clinton, Hillary, ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century
Missile defence shows Russia is still suspicious of U.S. motives.

This is a problem with perception, not with the fundamentals on the ground. The United States can reassure Russia that missile defence and the expansion of NATO is not directed at Russia. NATO has accommodated Russia by not expanding into the Former Soviet Union (excluding the Baltic states) so there is little reason for Russia to feel encircled. On Missile defence President Obama has also listened to Russian concerns and has scaled it back. Interceptors will be on warships rather than in former Warsaw bloc countries Poland and Czech Republic this helps to show Russia that the focus of missile defence really is on defending against Iran and North Korea rather than Russia.[1] [1] Sanger, David E., and Broad, William J., ‘New Missile Shield Strategy Scales Back Reagan’s Vision’, The New York Times, 17 September 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18assess.html
Russia’s near abroad

"Kupchan: Russian Opposition to Kosovo Independence ‘Perplexing’". (Charles A. Kupchan, CFR Senior Fellow for Europe Studies). US Council on Foreign Relations. December 18, 2007 - "But on the question of Kosovo, direct Russian interests are difficult to discern, and therefore it appears that Russia’s backing of Serbia is part of a more muscular Russian policy, and a desire to stand up to the United States and the EU across the board. The problem with Russia’s position is that it has the potential to lead to bloodshed. The Russian support for Serbia’s unwillingness to sign off on Kosovo’s independence makes it more likely that Serbs still in Kosovo will not accept a declaration of independence. It makes it likely that the northern part of Kosovo might secede from an independent Kosovo. It makes it more likely that paramilitaries in Serbia might resort to violence if this process moves forward. In that sense, the Russian position is quite problematic. And it remains to be seen whether the Russians follow through on their hints that they might recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia in retaliation for Kosovo’s independence. Some even suggest that they might send troops into the southern military districts of the Russian Federation, possibly precipitating violence in Georgia."
Maths teaches a kind of logic which is useful for other things

At the very least, for this argument to be true you would have to rewrite the syllabus to focus on problem-solving rather than knowledge. But even then, there is no compelling reason for having this particular way of teaching skills, and little reason why other subjects should not be teaching the same kinds of questions. Given that it is hard, not related to the real world and generally unpopular, we should drop it. Instead, design other classes, with “being engaging” specifically in mind. This will do a better job.
Children should not be the arbiters of the education system

Children should not be given power over their education, but it doesn’t follow that their opinions are of no consequence. We should very much care what they do and don’t enjoy. Firstly, if they don’t enjoy their schooling they won’t put any effort into it and will not actually learn anything. Secondly, if they feel we are making them do things they don’t want to do we will lose the ability to give them sensible suggestions. We might think they ought to learn maths, but forcing them to do it will cause more harm than good.
Maths is not engaging for students

Maths is one of the least engaging subjects taught at school. Subjects like chemistry are full of flashes, fires and experiments which help people see what they’re being taught in front of them. History starts with telling stories, and even though that’s not what the subject is really about, it offers a window into it. By contrast, maths has almost nothing similar. Asking children to use trigonometry to find the height of a tree does not fool them – all they see is another triangle. Some people enjoy it, but many do not. Forcing people through maths classes which they find boring and irrelevant will only put them off maths; a recent study found that motivation was the most important factor for improving maths grades.[1] This in turn makes their children less likely to study maths, and causes a cycle in which a large section of the population have as little to do with maths as they can.[2] It would be much better to not make these people study maths. True, they would end up not knowing any more than the bare essentials, but this is better than making them hate it. [1] Ghose, Tia, ‘Like Math? Thank Your Motivation, Not IQ’, Scientific American, 28 December 2012, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=like-math-thank-your-moti [2] Kreutzer, Laura, ‘Our Child Hates Math. Is It Our Fault?’, The Wall Street Journal, 14 April 2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323550604578412250659406338.html
Some people find maths hard

It is a fundamental principle of education that different people think in different ways. One notable application of this is the theory of different learning styles, and it also makes people have a preference for certain subjects.[1] Many people find maths hard, 37% of teens think it is the most difficult subject, for a variety of reasons – it simply isn’t suited to all minds.[2] Another fundamental principle is that all children are equal, in the sense that we should support them equally in helping them find the right opportunities. It follows that we should teach them something useful and relevant to their personality and preferences. But whatever that may turn out to be, it will not be maths, and maths would just waste their time. It makes sense to teach arithmetic to even these people, but there is no need to make them study further. [1] Cherry, Kendra, ‘VARK Learning Styles’, About.com, http://psychology.about.com/od/educationalpsychology/a/vark-learning-styles.htm accessed 12 June 2013 [2] Saad, Lydia, ‘Math Problematic for U.S. Teens’, Gallup, 17 May 2005, http://www.gallup.com/poll/16360/Math-Problematic-US-Teens.aspx
If we don’t teach maths we can teach other things instead

Schools are constantly pressed for time, money and staff. It is simply not possible to teach everything to everyone. This means that all of education is a balancing act. We try and isolate the most important parts of a subject and teach children what they need to know, but first, we have to isolate which subjects are important. So, for example, we teach History rather than Philosophy and Physics rather than Astronomy. Everything we teach therefore comes at the expense of not teaching something else and there are already some countries that choose other priorities; France for example prioritises Philosophy.[1] Taking time away from maths has two advantages. Firstly, means we can teach other subjects instead, which will be more useful, such as dedicated classes on writing (or debating). Secondly, we can spend longer on those subjects which we already teach, making them better. As a bonus, we could even use this time to extend science lessons to include whatever maths is necessary, meaning we don’t lose out at all. [1] Schofield, Hugh, ‘Why does France insist school pupils master philosophy?’, BBC News, 3 June 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22729780
Maths is an important subject

Every single science subject relies on maths. The whole of physics consists of using maths to model the world. At a basic level, this means drawing diagrams of forces, and at an advanced level it means writing down the gauge group which describes electroweak interaction, but it’s all maths. Even subjects like psychology, which are not normally seen as mathematical, would be lost without advanced statistics to decide whether a result is significant or not. Maths is as important to science as reading is to subjects like history and politics. Making maths optional will mean some students don’t bother doing it. These children will find that science is closed to them. If we want to have a strong science sector – in both industry and research – as governments keep claiming we do[1] it is important to make sure we have people who are qualified. That means giving children the educational background required for them to pursue science should they wish to: maths. [1] Osborne, George, ‘Achieving strong and sustainable economic growth’, Gov.uk, 24 April 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/achieving-strong-and-sustainable-economic-growth Xinhua, ‘Premier Wen says science, technology key to China’s economic development’, Xinhuanet, 27 December 2009, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/27/content_12711291.htm
Maths teaches a kind of logic which is useful for other things

Most subjects are taught not just for the knowledge itself, but for the skills the subject requires. Schools don’t teach English Literature because they want children to know a few poems. They teach it to encourage children to think about how people’s perceptions have changed over time, how two authors can see the same thing differently, and the way choices of language can reveal the answers. Similarly, maths lessons show you a way of looking at a problem: what am I being asked? What information am I given? Is this similar to other problems I already know? Do those methods apply here? This is a general technique which is valuable for students to learn. Looking at education this way makes it clear that, in fact, almost no subjects are studied for themselves. We use them as vehicles to teach children certain things. That being the case, whether maths is “practical” or “interesting” makes no difference: we should teach it anyway.
Children should not be the arbiters of the education system

To avoid teaching maths to children just because they don’t like the subject would be to shape the education system around adolescent whims. But children are not best placed to put a value on their education. They don’t know what knowledge is required for life and what skills are required for a career. They are likely to choose arbitrarily, influenced perhaps by which teachers are most strict, which subject they happen to be good at and what mood they’re in. It is for this reason that we don’t recognise children as being fully capable of making decisions about their education. Consequences of this include a government-fixed curriculum. Adults know the value of maths: one poll in America found that 34% of people named it as the most valuable subject they had studied at school.[1] We think children should be learning maths, and it follows that they will have to do it, like it or not. [1] Robison, Jennifer, ‘Math Tops List of Most Valuable Subjects’, Gallup, 21 January 2003, http://www.gallup.com/poll/7633/Math-Tops-List-Most-Valuable-Subjects.aspx
Maths is not engaging for students

There are several problems with using “engagement” as a way to measure whether or not a subject should be taught. Firstly, there is no way to tell whether students are bored because the subject is boring, whether they’re bored because they are lazy, or whether it is simply how it is taught. If we always taught children what they wanted to be doing, every warm, summer afternoon would be PE. That won’t give them the best education. Secondly, we disagree with the final line. The point of the education system is not to entertain people, it’s to educate them. We do this by exposing them to different subjects enough for them to have a real idea what they’re about. Only this way will they be able to figure out whether or not they like it. Finally, maths, more than any other subject, requires you to be really good at the boring and tedious bits (like algebra) before you can even begin the more interesting bits (like Number Theory and Multivariable Analysis). Measuring maths (or indeed any other subject) for how much “fun” it is does not give a fair representation of how useful or important it is.