BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures.

Many states in the modern world do not respect the rights of minorities or actively seek to dilute and subsume them into the majority culture. Others offer limited protections to minority peoples but stop short of allowing them to choose their own futures. We need to reassert their right to self-determination to ensure that these minority cultures are not lost. Failure to defend the principle of self-determination now will effectively close off the choices of future generations. For example, Australian government policy for many decades was to ignore Aboriginal rights, denying them full citizenship1 and removing children from their homes and relocating them with white families (the so-called "stolen generation"2). As a result many indigenous Australians no longer have a strong link to their native cultures and languages. The same is arguably true in places like Tibet, where traditional culture is being diluted over time through the deliberate policy of the Chinese government. 1 See "Collaborating for Indigenous Rights", National Museum of Australia  2 "Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families", Australia Human Rights Commission, April 1997. improve this
Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.

In some contexts, separation may not be a realistic option for minority peoples. However, that does not mean that self-determination is not meaningful for such groups. For indigenous peoples, self-determination may take the form of restitution for land that was stolen from them, or compensation and reparations. Furthermore, self-determination may take the form of political autonomy, or greater rights to decide how children are educated, or parallel systems of justice such as sharia courts. Self-determination is about representation and identity and choice - not about outcomes. improve this
Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures.

Modern liberal democracy is founded on the idea that people should be free to decide their own leaders and their own futures, but not all states give their minority peoples such a right. However, this is a right guaranteed under international law. The International Court of Justice has held that this right applies not just to national governments but also people1. The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance2. If these criteria are in place, such peoples should have the right to determine their own constitutional and political arrangements. 1 Western Sahara Case, 1975 International Court of Justice 12, 31.  2Critescu, A. and GrosEspiell, H. "The Right to Self-determination", United Nations, 1980 (not online, but widely cited improve this
Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.

Many modern nation states are the product of historical accident or hurried decolonisation processes that did not properly take account of ethnic or religious differences between peoples in the states that resulted. Examples can be seen all over the world but especially in Asia, Africa and the former Soviet Union, where postcolonial or post-Cold War boundaries separate people from their kin against their wills. Other territories may be disputed between one or more nation. Allowing ethnic or religious groups self-determination may help to reverse the harmful effect of artificial, poorly-drawn borders. If self-determination is universally accepted (and applied) by the international community as a key principle in such disputes, they may in future be easier to resolve. Two examples; Kashmir, which straddles the line of partition drawn up by the British when granting independence to India and Pakistan in 19471; and the Falkland Islands, which are the object of dispute between the UK and Argentina, including a brief war in 19822. History, law geography all offer competing and incompatible views of who should rightfully own these territories. If we recognise the principle of self-determination as key, however, it is clear that it is the view of the inhabitants that should decide its future. Indeed, if this principle is ignored, such disputes will rumble on for many years to come. 1 "Kashmir: Run-up to Partition", Globalsecurity.org  2 "Falklands/Malvinas War",Globalsecurity.org For the Falkland Islanders' view of self-determination, see Falkland Island Government website, "Falklands call on UN Committee to uphold right to self-determination", improve this
Requiring school attendance allows welfare to be the hand-up that it is meant to be, and keep children out of crime.

In the US, girls who grow up in families receiving welfare handouts are 3 times more likely to receive welfare themselves within three years of having their first child than girls who's families were never on welfare1. Children living in poverty were 2 times more likely to have grade repetition and drop out of high school and 3.1 times more likely to have children out of wedlock as teenagers2. They are 2.2 times more likely to experience violent crimes. Children of welfare recipients are more likely to end up on welfare themselves. Welfare should be a hand up, not a handout that leads to dependency on the state. It is the latter if we are only leading people to fall into the same trap as their parents. Education is the way to break the vicious cycle. Through education, children will acquire the skills and qualifications they need in order to obtain gainful employment once they reach adulthood, and overcome their condition. In the developing world, primary education has proven to reduce AIDS incidences, improve health, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth3. School can empower children, and give them guidance and hope that they may not receive at home. Getting kids in school is the first step to equipping them with the skills to better their situations, and if encouraged by their parents they might consider scholarships to college or vocational school. The program does not guarantee this for all, but it is likely more effective than the leaving parents with no incentive to push their children. Benefits are supposed to promote the welfare of both parents and children. One of the best ways to ensure that welfare payments are actually benefiting children is to make sure they're going to school. This is simply providing parents with an extra incentive to do the right thing for their children and become more vested in their kids' education. 1 Family Facts, "A Closer Look at Welfare", [Accessed July 21, 2011].  2Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011] 3http World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011].
There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend.

This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011].  2 Feeding America (2010), "Hunger in America: Key Facts", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, "Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger", [Accessed July 21, 2011].
Connecting welfare to failure of parents is unfair.

This policy requires that parents be held accountable and punished for the actions of their children. It suggests that their failure in instilling good values is because they care less than middle-class, educated parents. That is a broad and stereotypical assumption. Such parents, many of whom are single mothers, find it harder to instill good values in their children because they live in corrupt environments, surrounded by negative influences[1]. They should be aided and supported, not punished for an alleged failure. Just encouraging putting children in schools does not recognize the larger problems. Some families cannot control their children, who would rather make money than go to school. And caps on the number of children these programs can apply to, as is the case in Brazil, creates problems as well for the families[2]. People are doing their best, but the environment is difficult. Providing safer and more low income housing could be a solution versus punishing people for what is sometimes out of their control. 1 Cawthorne, Alexandra (2008), "The Straight Facts on Women in Poverty", Center for American Progress, [Accessed July 21, 2011].  2
School does not an education make

School attendance is not a positive outcome in and of itself. It should be encouraged only if it is conducive to learning and acquiring the meaningful education needed to break out of the poverty trap. Blaming the poverty cycle on kids failing to attend school ignores the fact that schools are failing children. Public schools are often overcrowded, with poor facilities and lacking the resources necessary to teach children with challenging backgrounds. In 2011, 80% of America's schools could be considered failing according to Arne Duncan who is the secretary of education1. Schools in developing countries often lack qualified teachers, and can suffer from very high staff absenteeism rates2. A more effective school system would result in fewer kids dropping out, not the other way around. Additionally, involved parents are integral to effective education3. Simply blackmailing them with money to do the right thing will not work. In fact, you might actually experience backlash from parents and kids, who'll see school as a burdensome requirement that is met just so you can keep the electricity on. Throwing kids into school where they do not have confidence, support, and the necessary facilities is not productive. 1Dillon, Sam (2011), "Most Public Schools May Miss Targets, Education Secretary Says", New York Times, [Accessed July 21, 2011].  2 World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011].  3Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), "Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011].
It is unjust to make welfare conditional

Welfare should not be used as a tool of social engineering. These are people who cannot provide even basic necessities for their families. Asking them to take on obligations by threatening to take away their food is not requiring them to be responsible, it's extortion. It is not treating them as stakeholders and equal partners in a discussion about benefits and responsibilities, but trying to condition them into doing what the rest of society thinks is good for them and their families. There is a difference between an incentive and coercion. An incentive functions on the premise that the person targeted is able to refuse it. These people have no meaningful choice between 'the incentive' or going hungry. This policy does not respect people's basic dignity. There is no condition attached to healthcare and Medicaid that says people have to eat healthily or stop smoking, so why should welfare be conditional? Allowing them and their children to go without food if they refuse is callous. Making welfare conditional is taking advantage of people's situation and telling them what they need to do to be considered valuable to society; it is inherently wrong. It impedes on people's rights to free choice and demeans them as worthless.
The policy has been effective in the past

But the program in Brazil is biased towards rural communities versus cities. In the two largest cities in only 10% of families are enrolled versus 41% in the rural areas of Brazil[1]. To consider the program effective it needs to work equally with all members of the poor, which it does not. [1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist​, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887
Parents on welfare are more likely to need the incentives to take on the costs of sending children to school.

If school is so expensive, than shouldn't the government be subsidizing school costs instead of forcing parents to send kids to school when they can't afford the books and clothes? It is also unfair to assume that parents on welfare on neglectful and do not value education. Supporting meal programs in schools and subsidizing other costs are much more likely to draw children than forcing parents to send children to school when the kids are hungry and embarrassed1. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011].
Requiring school attendance allows welfare to be the hand-up that it is meant to be, and keep children out of crime.

Just because students attend school does not mean that they are going to receive a quality education. The best educated children are those whose parents are involved heavily in their school, helping them with their homework, and pushing them to excel1. Without involved parents, students can become just as easily discouraged. There really need to be programs to involve parents more in school, and provide good mentors and role models for students who don't have them. Schools also need to be improved. Just sending kids to school doesn't mean that they are going to learn and be determined to better themselves. Additionally particularly in the third world if children don't have good schools and qualified teachers, then what is the point of going to school? 1 Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), "Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011].
Connecting welfare to failure of parents is unfair.

If families have incentives to send their children to school, and raise their children with a value of education, stressing the need for them to go to school they are more likely to finish high school and lift themselves out of these environments. The reason why some children would rather work then go to school is because they have been raised in an atmosphere that does not stress education and the necessity to finish high school. This type of program would push parents to change their children's values as they grow up. Additionally, a child's sense of duty to their family because of welfare payments being connected to their school attendance would give them further reason not to drop out, even if they do not like or value school.
The policy has been effective in the past

The main goal of this program is increasing school enrollment overall. If it was too much to expect from families, then the program would have failed in the cases that it was instituted. However, the opposite has been the case. 12.4 million families in Brazil are enrolled in a program called Bolsa Familia where children’s attendance in school is rewarded with $12 a month per child. The number of Brazilians with incomes below $440 a month has decreased by 8% year since 2003, and 1/6 of the poverty reduction in the country is attributed to this program[1]. Additionally it is much less expensive than other programs, costing only about .5% of the country’s GDP[2]. Considering that this program has been affordable and successful in both reducing poverty and increasing school enrollment it is worth using as an incentive in more programs around the world.  [1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887 [2] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist​, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887
Parents on welfare are more likely to need the incentives to take on the costs of sending children to school.

Parents on welfare benefits are the most likely to need the extra inducements. They generally tend to be less educated and oftentimes be less appreciative of the long-term value of education. In the late 90's, 42% of people on welfare had less than a high school education, and another 42% had finished high school, but had not attended college in the US. Therefore they need the additional and more tangible, financial reasons to send their children to school. Children living in poverty in the US are 6.8 times more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect1. While attendance might not be a sufficient condition for academic success, it is certainly a necessary one, and the very first step toward it. Some parents might be tempted to look at the short-term costs and benefits. Sending a child to school might be an opportunity cost for the parents as lost labor inside or outside the homes (especially in the third world) the household, or as an actual cost, as paying for things like supplies, uniforms or transportation can be expensive. Around the world there are an estimated 158 million working children, who often need to work to contribute to their family's livelihood2. In the UK it is estimated that sending a child to public school costs up to 1,200 pounds a year. If they lose money by not sending children to school, this would tilt the cost-benefits balance in favor of school attendance. 1 Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011] 2 http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html [Accessed July 13, 2011].
It is morally acceptable to make welfare conditional.

When society has to step in and provide for those who've proved themselves unable to provide for themselves that should reasonably create certain expectations on the part of those being helped. In almost every aspect of life, money is given in return for a product, service or behavior. It is the same with welfare payments; money in exchange for children being put in school. We expect parents to do a good job in their role as parents. Ensuring that their children attend school is a crucial part of parental responsibility. Children on welfare in the US are 2 times more likely to drop out of school, however studies have shown that children who are part of early childhood education are more likely to finish school and remain independent of welfare1. Thus, when a parent is a welfare recipient, it is entirely reasonable to make it conditional on sending their kids to school. If tax payers' dollars are being spent on those who cannot provide for themselves, there needs to be a societal return. One of the greatest complaints about welfare is that people work hard for the money that they earn, which is then handed to others with no direct benefit to society. If children of people on welfare are in school it increases the likelihood that they will finish high school, maybe get a scholarship and go to college, and have the necessary tools to contribute to the work force and better society. 1 Heckman, James (2000), "Invest in the Very Young", Ounce of Prevention and the University of Chicago, [Accessed July 25, 2011].and Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]
Causes divisions in society.

This treats everyone the same rather than treating people differently. The proposition does not accept that people will perceive this as one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another. This legislation does not create divisions in society but relieves them by ensuring that everyone is allowed to practise their religion to the fullest extent that they wish to. The status quo is that some religious groups are allowed to practise their religion to its fullest extent and others are not. The proposition believes that this is far more divisive than this legislation.
People have a right to freedom of religion.

Freedom to religion is widely considered to be a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion is very similar to freedom of expression and is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away by the state. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states “Everyone has the right to freedom of… religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”[1] In addition to this, many people consider religion to be the single most important thing in their life. Under the status quo, many people are inhibited in their ability to practise their religion to its fullest degree. This not only causes them great distress due to how important this is to them but is a breach of their human rights. The government has an obligation to provide people with a basic standard of life and thus must pass this legislation. [1] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations Article 18
Relationship between state and religious population

People who are caused distress and have their religious freedom limited by their government are likely to feel disillusioned with and sidelined by their government. They will wonder why other religious groups can follow all the teachings of their faith while the government limits theirs. This kind of limitation of how to worship or what traditions and beliefs to follow can be part of the cause that leads to members of that religion feeling not welcome and discriminated against, ultimately leading to extremism.  Allowing religious beliefs to override government laws would relieve these feelings and dramatically improve religious people’s relationship with the state. This improvement in relationship would severely reduce the likelihood of anti-government feelings and general civil unrest.
Relationship between state and organised religion.

Currently, the state and organised religion are often seen as diametrically opposed.[1] For example the state often worries about the threat of religious extremists. This causes a lot of tension between the government and religious communities within the country, as well as between the state and states which hold religion more highly. As the Bishop of Liverpool puts it “Church and politics are not two parallel lines; rather they are two live wires, side by side, which when they touch should ignite and explode.”[2] Thus when Rowan Williams suggested Sharia might be accommodated his comments created a political storm. This legislation would show that we do value and respect religious freedom and rights and would improve our relationships on both of these fronts. [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press 1992 [2] The Bishop of Liverpool, ‘Church and Politics: “My Kingdom is not of this world” Really?’, St Wilfrid Lecture, 18th February 2010.