BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Artefacts should be repatriated....including the people which were stolen and scattered world wide!

Historical artefacts should be repatriated to their origin of country....including the people which were stolen and scattered world wide! The magnitude of the stolen treasures from Ethiopia during Mussolini's massacre can only be compared to the rise of Rome's vatican't. Earth's right-full church of Emperor Selassie 1st was stolen and brought to the vatican't along with artifacts! Fooling the world to follow satan's synagogue which now reveals them selves as a church of homos! If not for this atro-city the world would have gotten true spiritual teachings! The world needs an exodus to return the stolen people to Afreeca! The riches of the world will return with them from world wide. Other wise we stay in these caucasian countries enriching them & making them world power while they down press our Afreecan family. 1. Morally it is the right thing to do 2. Artefacts enriched their place of origin 3. They are part of the area's history pre-dating 2010 years 4. These artefacts have been illegally procured - Theft, tomb raiders 6. The artefacts serve as reminders of past history B4 down-pression 7. We now have the resources to carry out such an exodus 8. The corrupt nature of a country asking to keep these stolen arts are like a thief saying he owns it! 9. Same as they say about their stolen slaves that are still in their perfected modern slavery! 10. repatriation is the fact in issue, not only for not repatriating the artefacts, also for repatriating the people!!! Rastafari H.I.M. Selah see 1st
Artefacts are enriched by being viewed in their place of origin

The artefacts' place of origin has more often than not changed dramatically; for instance, it is absurd to think that a relic of Roman Britain would be somehow illuminated by being displayed in contemporary London, where almost all traces of Roman civilisation have been erased. The Acropolis of Athens has been unusually well preserved and reconstructed as a heritage site; however, I am still not convinced that the context of modern Orthodox Greece aids visitors’ appreciation of an ancient pagan relic. The Nigerians have a few Benin bronzes that the British Museum sold back to them for £75 in total, but it is nigh impossible to view them. How would the Benin people or the rest of the world be able to appreciate them in their place of origin if they could not view them?
The artefacts serve as reminders of past oppression

There is no reason to politicise this argument; museums have no 'political' agenda but merely wish to preserve historical objects. Their reasons for keeping these items may be financial, or in the interests of keeping the artefacts safe and accessible to the public; whatever they may be, they are not political. Additionally, why would countries want to remember past oppression? Wouldn't they rather move on from the darker areas in their history and look at the more triumphant victories that they had?
These artefacts should bring revenue to the counties of origin

Most Artefacts have been Illegally obtained (stolen) and used for such extreme high money making exploitations, mainly in the line of tourism, being exhibited across countries in order to make ill gotten revenue and benefit private collectors and wealthy curators alike. if such exhibitions were to take place they should preferably generate incomes for the people in the immediate locations therefore generate tourism and benefit the countries economy on a whole. then maybe we wouldn't be in such a messed up world as we are!!
Artefacts are enriched by being viewed in their place of origin

You can only truly appreciate a historical artefact in its historical context i.e. the place it was found. If we take as our example the Elgin Marbles, currently housed in the British Museum in London, this is clear. The marbles originally formed part of the Parthenon on the Acropolis of Athens, and it is only on seeing this space that the visitor can really appreciate the intended impact of the sculptures. In the British Museum they appear as mere disconnected fragments, stripped of their meaning by the loss of their geographical and historical context.
Artefacts should be accessible to the largest amount of visitors possible

The place of origin should not have a monopoly over their own artefacts; they are part of our collective history and should be open to anyone who is interested in what they have to tell us. Therefore they ought to be exhibited in places which receive the most visitors and are most accessible to people of all nationalities. Larger institutions are the most suitable home for these artefacts, especially since some UK museums are supported by external funding and thus do not charge a fee to see the exhibits.
The artefacts serve as reminders of past oppression

The fact that many of their most important cultural artefacts remain in the hands of the old Western powers is a reminder to many developing nations of their past oppression. For instance, the British Museum is refusing to return 700 of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria despite repeated requests by the Nigerian government. The Rosetta stone has been the subject of demands by the Egyptian government but remains in London. These artefacts become almost souvenirs of Imperialism, a petty way of retaining some kind of cultural ownership long after the political power of Britain has faded.
We now have the resources to carry out such a move

Even with modern transport links and technology, transporting every artefact in a foreign museum back to its location of origin would be an impractically mammoth task. The risk of damage to artefacts would be unavoidable, not to mention the possibility of theft or sabotage en route. Important artefacts in transit would be an ideal public target for acts of terrorism. The home countries might not even have the space or resources to create a suitable place to house the returned artefacts. Then if we consider the financial and environmental impact of all these transfers, it is clear that to move so many valuable objects around the world is not a practical idea.
The majority of artefacts are 100% 'legal'.

The majority of artefacts are acquired fairly and their ownership is not disputed. Therefore to argue that all artefacts should be repatriated to their countries of origin is ridiculous; for the most part, the country of origin is perfectly happy for these objects to be held by foreign museums. Symbolic or controversial items like the Axum obelisk or the Elgin Marbles are a rare exception.
These artefacts have been illegally procured

Unesco regulations only require the return of artefacts removed from their country of origin after 1970. This international body has therefore stated that the appropriation of artefacts before this date is legal and permissible. Precious objects have been taken as the spoils of war since ancient times; many of these artefacts are probably built from materials (or even using the labour) acquired through war and conquest. Anyway, objects seized in war time are usually taken for their own protection, as the country of origin is not in a suitably stable position to care for them properly; this is the case for the Elgin Marbles. Don’t the nations who have expended resources protecting and preserving these arguments deserve in return the right to display them?
Having artefacts in different locations encourages us to think of our common origins

For example, Olduvai handaxes (from countries in Eastern Africa such as Tanzania) are held in the British Museum - but the people who made them are our ancestors just as much as they are the ancestors of local people. Holding these in London encourages us to see the common ground we hold with people everywhere in the world, whereas keeping them only in their local country highlights our differences and tribal identities; this is something which could eventually lead to racism. Similarly, having Greek displays in England (with artefacts such as the Parthenon Marbles) encourages us to realise the similarities between our own modern culture and Ancient Greece, showing us "what the Greeks did for us", so to speak.
The corrupt nature of a country asking for repatriation is not the fact in isssue, and should not even be put forward as a reason for not repatriating the artefacts, there is in truth no country that does not have a level of corruptness(pardon me), some c

What if the "corruptness" leads to destruction of the artefact? For example, look at the way that the Italian government has destroyed Pompeii - a wall collapsed in the last few months, and a restaurant has been built directly on top of one of the buildings. If we want to preserve our archaeology, we need to make sure that archaeology is looked after - it's not just a case of looking after the artefacts which are in your local area, but of the world coming together to preserve our archaeology. If remains from Pompeii would be better preserved in London than in Naples Museum, why shouldn't they be moved there?
Non-Renewable Resources

The fact that capitalists seeks to marginalise profit from non-renewable resources doesn’t make the system of capitalism hypocritical. If the existence of capitalism is dependent on non-renewable resources then it is not the flaw of the idea but the flaw of the people operating the system who misinterpret and abuse the idea. The harvesting of non-renewable energies is quite expensive and without the abundance in capital stock which capitalism creates, the facilities to harvest non-renewable energy would never have been possible. Thus, the world is simply experiencing a transitional phrase, in which "short-term" thinking investors are being taught the lessons of damage from their operations.
Non-Renewable Resources

Capitalism’s survival is dependent on the existence of renewable resources; however, the nature of the capitalist that seeks to marginalise profit is a contradiction to this principal. Profitable energy needs to be scare and comes in large quantities with high energy emission characteristics, these energies include, natural gas, coal, fossil fuel and even uranium, all of which creates conflicts over the amount of natural resources and environmental degradation. This shows that capitalism is hypocritical in its own nature, and if a system of the world order is conflicting in its own nature, how can the world expect sustainability while operating according to such ideas?
Although I believe in Social Democracy (like that of France or Denmark)...

Capitalism must be split evenly with socialism. If they are not balanced evenly, one will take control, dictatorships will seed, etc. People are, inevitably, greedy. Total Capitalism will never work, because the poor majority will be oppressed by the rich. They poor rise up and destroy the government. But in every functioning democracy there is some form of welfare (as of 3:32, Nov. 8, 2010, Central Standard time). It may be massive or minute but it exists, and therefore the government is not 100% capitalist.
It wasn't the flaws of capitalism that caused the crisis

The current crisis was created by the housing bubble, which was created by the US Federal Reserve flooding the market with cheap money by lowering interest rates. Since money on the current system is not required to be backed by any physical thing (as was once with gold-backed money) but is just a number in central banks' computers, the low interest rates resulted in over-borrowing and reliance on unsustainable debt. In a truly capitalistic system, as that enjoyed by the US until the 30's, no body was able to decide unilaterally as to the value of money - people valued it for what they valued the equivalent amount of gold; hence, the description of capitalism as the creator of the latest crisis is wrong, and the crisis should instewad be attributed to state interference with people's judgement.
Inexhaustible ingenuity

Current industrial nations use non-renewable sources because they are cheap. This does not mean that capitalism is dependent on it: indeed, free enterprise and trade have existed long before the availability of significant non-renewable sources. When those resources start to run out, therefore, capitalism is perfectly capable (and indeed, the bast way) to make the transition into renewable energy such as solar power, wind energy, geothermal energy etc. This would happen naturally when scarce resources become more expensive, thus generating demand for renewable sources of energy.
I can't find anything good that Hitler did or could have done

Maybe Google has blocked Neo Nazi blogs and other such media. [[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1180599/Neo-Nazis-attack-concentration-camp-survivors-memorial-service-345-000-dead.html]] Proponents of Hitler and whatever good he may have done(I'll never know) do exist, so it is not forgotten. All the more disturbing is how acceptable calling people 'Yids' is in football and in life. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_(number)]]
I can't find anything good that Hitler did or could have done

"Leader of the Third Reich Adolf Hitler was not only a bloodthirsty tyrant, but suffered from many diseases. About this in the recently released book titled "Was Hitler is sick?" writes historian Heinrich Eberle and physician clinics Charity home in Berlin, Hans-Joachim Neumann. The authors presented a complete medical history of the man who unleashed World War II and the Holocaust in the name of racist delusional ideas about the superiority of the Aryans, wrote La Repubblica."- [[http://socyberty.com/history/hitler-was-a-drug-addict-and-suffered-from-many-diseases/#ixzz1e45oS2qR"]] The man was pretty popular among the Nazis and the Aryan Germans, he couldn't have been all bad? [[http://www.google.com.pk/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=hitler+philanthropy]] Not a good word about him.
The elderly may be just as capable as the young. Since age is not necessarily an indication of infer...

The elderly may be just as capable as the young. Since age is not necessarily an indication of inferior ability or potential, treating a person less favourably purely on the basis of their age is just as unreasonable and unfair as doing so on the basis of his race or religion. It would also be inconsistent with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, which are at the heart of the notion of individual rights. If a particular elderly worker truly has, say, less concentration or manual strength than a younger worker, and this objectively and reasonably makes him less qualified for the particular job, then employers can still make their decisions based on his relative lack of suitability for the job – not on his age. Age by itself should not be a determinant.
Discriminatory practices in recruitment and promotion cause detriment to the economy. Age discrimina...

Discriminatory practices in recruitment and promotion cause detriment to the economy. Age discrimination reduces productivity because job and advancement opportunities are inefficiently matched to workers and talent is wasted. The Cabinet Office study of older workers estimated that low employment among older people reduces GDP by £16 billion per annum. Higher participation rates among older workers lead to better matching of jobs to people, increased employment rates, and enhanced competition among workers that will stimulate the labour market in the longer run. The belief that the economy has only a limited number of jobs, and if older workers remain in the labour market they will deny job opportunities to younger people, or push down wages, is the well-known ‘lump of labour’ fallacy. Wages are especially unlikely to drop in industries with existing or projected shortages, such as in teaching, and nursing.
Without age discrimination and a mandatory retirement age, employers benefit from lower turnover and...

Without age discrimination and a mandatory retirement age, employers benefit from lower turnover and thus lower recruitment costs and effort, because workers stay on at work longer than they would otherwise have done. The DTI estimates that this benefit to businesses will amount to £39m in the first year alone. By contrast, discrimination discourages potentially talented job seekers from applying. Right from the recruitment stage, employers lose by having a smaller pool of workers to draw upon, and by failing to make the most of the existing skills potential of the population.
The elderly may be just as capable as the young. Since age is not necessarily an indication of infer...

In theory hiring should be based on ability. In reality certain abilities may be hard to truly test so employers use age as a proxy for them – in the same way that they use sports as an indication of one’s ‘ability to work in a team’, or extra-curricular leadership as an indicator of ‘management potential’. Though not foolproof, age is often an indicator of qualities such as concentration, memory, energy, and so on. These qualities may be important: a fashion designer may justifiably want his salespersons to have a certain level of energy and vitality; it is crucial that air traffic controllers and surgeons have very high levels of fitness and concentration.
Discriminatory practices in recruitment and promotion cause detriment to the economy. Age discrimina...

Laws against age discrimination may merely lead to old people working more, instead of more old people working. Research on age discrimination laws in the U.S. shows that the ‘increase in employment rates’ of older workers are due mostly to them staying on in jobs for longer, rather than an increase in rates of hiring among older workers. Worse, the increased supply of older workers may, at least in the short term, generate market pressures for wages to fall, such that all existing older workers suffer.
Without age discrimination and a mandatory retirement age, employers benefit from lower turnover and...

The argument that anti-discrimination laws are good for employers offends economics and common sense. If hiring and promoting old workers were in firms’ best interests, firms would do so without the need for such laws. In fact, without a mandatory retirement age, employers are suddenly obliged to continue paying into people’s pensions much longer than they expected to, and to put up with other significant increases in costs such as higher insurance premiums, more expensive healthcare benefit plans, and so on. Furthermore, at any firm there are always a limited number of senior jobs. If these are taken up by older workers staying on indefinitely, firms may find it hard to recruit, motivate and retain younger workers looking to replace them, leading to high turnover among younger staff. Firms may also find that with no retirement age they have no idea when people will leave, creating problems of uncertainty in manpower planning and possible bottlenecks.
Ageism is the most prevalent form of discrimination in the workforce today. Legislation can help to ...

In Australia, Canada and the US, where anti-discrimination laws have long been in place, there is no clear evidence so far of any significant shift in the attitude of employers and society to older workers. In fact, there is some evidence that employers may be less likely to hire older workers, and younger co-workers may be more resentful, because employers are not allowed to set mandatory retirement ages.
Part of the process of growing up to realise that adults aren't always right.

In certain situations; teachers are rigid and have the final word. For example, if a teacher marks your test/exam,(this is especially true for qualitative subjects but applies all around) often times only s/he can mark it or change your marks after an appeal. Whatever the teacher/examiner decides will be final, even if s/he decides not to raise your marks when you(and anyone else you've consulted) thought you deserved more marks and even if s/he punishes you for questioning her/his judgment by cutting marks. So while teachers should be neutral, flexible and mature, they aren't and neither are students. In practice however the teacher is right even when democratically wrong.
Part of the process of growing up to realise that adults aren't always right.

Pupils question teachers because they are starting to realise that adults aren't always right - maybe they saw the teacher spell a word wrong or they're learning in Science that something they were taught earlier is technically wrong but they were taught it for simplicity. If you don't let children discover that adults aren't always right, they'll believe any old lie you tell them, even when its dangerous or makes no sense to believe it, and are easily misled by an authority figure who doesn't deserve their respect. This isn't the same as pretending the pupils are equal to the teacher - children also need to learn to obey authority figures if they want to get on in a job - but they should know they are respecting the teachers because they are older and know more and have earned their position, not because they are infallible.
Teachers need to admit they are wrong

A perfect mind set to have for this topic is to actually think what the teacher is doing for a job. In the simplest form, what if a teacher was teaching their students to say "Cat" but had them pronounce it "Cot". Is it wrong to correct the teacher, or is the teacher always right? I have seen a case where a teacher gave false information to a class, a student corrected her and she insisted he was wrong and she was right. In the end she did her research and discovered she was wrong, however, she insisted to the parents of the student that he should serve his detention for disrupting the class. ^This is wrong! Horribly wrong! If said student had to serve a detention for "disrupting the class" he should also receive some kind of credit toward his final grade for helping teach the class, because in the end the kids would have been taught incorrect information and would have left that classroom poisoned. Just like in that "Cat/ Cot" Issue i stated above, we would not want our 3 year olds to come home pronouncing all their words wrong because the person who was correcting the teacher was forced to stop, thus allowing the other students to be poisoned.
A teacher can make mistakes just like any other human being and needs to be corrected before s/he takes action on the basis of a misunderstanding

When it comes to a student's word over a teacher's word, most times the teacher's word trumps that of the student, as there is no evidence to present nor witnesses to call upon. A lot of schools permit teachers to hit, yell at and defile their students, and many parents consider such behavior to be a necessary means to achieve discipline. Sometimes in certain schools, there is no authority to turn to and teachers are always right.
A teacher can make mistakes just like any other human being and needs to be corrected before s/he takes action on the basis of a misunderstanding

A teacher can make mistakes just like any other human being and needs to be corrected before s/he takes action on the basis of a misunderstanding. Teachers are human being and as such aren't perfect, If a student feels that a teacher has mistreated/misjudged her/him then that student should refer her/his case to a neutral authority , so that the confusion can be resolved. The best teachers admit to their mistakes when corrected and apologize if s/he finds that s/he was in the wrong. A teacher is not an autocrat/dictator and is there to aid your learning experience, if you feel that the teacher picks on you, has mistreated you(for example, by slapping an open palm with a steel ruler) and/or deliberately sabotages your work, then you must bring this to the proper authority's attention. Teachers are not sacrosanct and it is always up to your parents and/or the school authorities to put your needs and protection first.