BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Diversity of school is necessary for social development.

Homeschooling is not mutually exclusive from social interaction1. Interaction happens outside the classroom, where it belongs instead of acting as distractions to learning. In addition, homeschooling events involve children of all different ages as well as adults and in this way children learn to interact with a greater range of individuals than they would come across in a class just containing children of their own age and often makes them more confident in interacting with adults in a relationship that is not just a simple teacher and pupil relationship2. Parents still select schools for their children on the basis of common values, cultures and achievements - and even go as far as to move closer to the school they want to fall into its catchment area. 1Mike Fortune-Wood, ‘The “S” Word Socialisation’ from Home Education UK 2‘Civic Involvement’ HSLDA http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/Civic.asp improve this
Home schooling involves good community involvement and social interaction.

Homeschooling families do not operate in isolation. There are extensive support networks (particularly in the USA the nation with the largest proportion of the population homeschooling) that exist to provide companionship, promote sports events and social functions. In addition, standard social provisions for children in civic society – scout movements, sports club – are open to homeschoolers. Homeschooling is not a removal from society but just from state schools.1 Homeschooled children often engage with their local community to a greater extent than their schooled peers. 1 ‘Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream’ Patrick Basham, Public Policy Sources http://www.homeschoolersguide.ca/pdf/Homeschooling.pdf improve this
Home schooling is often the best option for catering for the needs of exceptional or disabled students.

Classroom-based education must, by necessity, cater for the needs of the group as a whole which leaves those the very bright unchallenged and those with special needs falling behind and unsupported1. The state often takes years to recognise the needs of students and they lose years of education in the process2. In addition, even if those needs are identified 'special schools' are underfunded and stigmatised. For many students with identifiable problems that affects their capacity to learn within mainstream schooling but is not severe enough to merit a place within the special needs sector, homeschooling can benefit such students by shaping the learning environment to cater for their needs by being flexible to adapt. 1 'Every Child is Special
Parents should be permitted to home-school their children provided they register the fact and submit to inspections

Parents who take their children out of school, or choose to home-school due to apprehensions over the quality of state education, should be entitled to do so provided the child is better off as a result. To ensure they are not neglected, parents hoping to home-school must both register the fact they are home-schooling their child and submit to regular, state inspections of the child's progress. If the child is deemed to be falling behind his age group, the parent may be forced to return the child to a school. The parent should be given standards of teaching that they must adhere to before the inspections occur, and the standards should be sufficiently flexible to reflect children learn at different speeds and that not all children's development reflects fairly on their teacher. improve this
The state operates a system of quality control run by experts.

Hundreds of experts and researchers ensure the quality of public schools. It is presumptuous for a parent to think they know how to teach a child better than that accumulated wisdom. Just because the child is a product of that individual does not mean that the education knowledge of the parent surpasses that of professionals in that field who have spent years training1. Furthermore, even the best teachers can be improved by the insight of a third-party; such evaluations are not accessible to home-schooling parents. The danger is that 'From the government's perspective, the world of home education is full of unknowns'; there are not sufficient measures of quality control in place to protect the child and their right to a comprehensive education. 1'Home truths: do we need yet another inquiry into home education?' from Guardian website
Diversity of school is necessary for social development.

Being forced to confront problems and individuals from different backgrounds is vital as a preparation for the future as a microcosm of the society they will later enter. Parents and children spending day after day at home re sometimes subject to a phenomenon sociologists call the 'hothouse' relationship the closeness between them becomes exclusive, with reaction to outsiders almost aggressive by instinct. This relationship makes it even more difficult for the child to adapt to life in the wider world.1 While there maybe attempts by parents to socialize their children through other means these organizations and club are centred around similarity. School is a mixture that does not filter out students, and there is an inherent social value to such a mix. 1‘The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling’ in Educate Expert (2011) www.educate expert.com improve this
The home is an ideal learning environment.

Schools have significantly better facilities and a much more appropriate and segregated learning atmosphere than the home. The state system pools facilities to allow access for all children to sports and science facilities1. Parents are very unlikely to be wealthy enough to provide the plethora of things necessary to a well-rounded education. Teaching within the home asks children to switch between 'learning' and 'play' mode in the same environment which is confusing especially for young children. Schools provide a specific environment that is dedicated to learning. Homes are more complex environments, ill-suited to teaching and the concentration required to learn. 1 'The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling' in Educate Expert (2011)
COUNTERPOINT Home-schooling is not the best option for exceptional students. The state does not ignore or abandon individuals that have special needs and those with special needs are those that most need the state's enormous resources to focus on their

A school education is not mutually exclusive with family bonding. Just because a child attends school does not mean that their parent loses all influence upon their moral development. It is important for children to have a variety of different role models around them1. There is also no guarantee that the moral structure that parents might be instilling in their children away from any effective monitoring is beneficial. 1 'Why a Positive Role Model Is Important for Children', Caitlin Erwin, LiveStrong.com (2010) improve this
Homeschooling allows for the accommodation of faith practices.

Those that wish to be educated in a religious environment have the chance to send them to a religious school the quality of which can be monitored by the state1. There are great dangers involved in exclusivity of faith. The adherents of all religions shouldn't shut themselves away, but rather engage in society as a whole, and understand other people's beliefs and points of view. 1'Gove defends faith schools', Riazat Butt, Guardian.co.uk (2011) improve this
Most parents do not have any teaching qualifications.

It is wrong to assume that home schooling will necessarily be of poor quality. Many parents will be fantastic teachers with or without a formal qualification. One parent says that it is often teacher themselves that recognise that teaching qualification are not necessarily the most important factor: 'the more people– mainly teachers – we spoke to, the more it began to seem like school could actually be a damaging place to be.’1 In addition, there are extensive support networks that are capable of providing a range of skills and knowledge that a parent might be lacking. The internet makes these connections increasingly viable as well as providing better research facilities than any school library had ten years ago. 1 ‘Honey, I think we're home-schooling the kids’ from the Guardian website
Danger of parents indoctrinating their children.

The state education curriculum offers only a very limited view of history and as such is itself a form of indoctrination. For example, in the UK, a proud history of achievement and creation goes untaught whilst the sins of colonialism and the faults of class structure are emphasised to pupils year after year. Parents do not necessarily have to have extreme or radical political views to want to home school their child and indoctrinate them. They often actually want to allow them to have broader historical and political education than offered by the narrow curriculum1. If parents are determined to prejudice their children it is unlikely that being in school will prevent that. And these parents who wish to teach tolerance shouldn't be penalised by a minority. 1'Prescriptive national curriculum restricts teachers', Jessica Shepherd, Guardian.co.uk (2009)
The home is an ideal learning environment.

Home schooling allows children to learn in an environment that has the needs of one or a very few number of students as the focus of the educative process. Parents are willing to invest in their children and can provide targeted provision that prioritises the learning needs of those individuals1. Therefore, specific textbooks that are tailored to the child's mode of learning can be purchased. State schools, in contrast, are often very ill-equipped and under-funded, leading to standardized text books and teaching methods. The home also lacks the many distractions and disadvantages of schools: peer pressure, social stigma attached to achievement, bullying, show-offs and general rowdiness. 1'Virtues in to Vices' in The Journal Of Home Education improve this
Radical action needed for racial equality in South Africa

It is plain for all to see how unrepresentative rugby union in South Africa is. While there is not necessarily a deliberate policy of racism, it is very easy for biases to creep in. Across the division where the quotas will come in only about 6% of players are black, a number that should increase to 33%.[1] Quotas could help concentrate the mind to ensure that the best team is picked. At grass roots level, there have been some cases of flat-out racial abuse of non-white players, including using racial terms that are particularly offensive in a South African context. [1] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/23713530
Broadening participation

The talent pool in South African rugby is not as racially diverse as one would expect from the “Rainbow Nation” – some commentators have argued that England and France produce more top level black players than South Africa[1]. This is because top level players are a result of development from the grassroots up. Targets or quotas could not only improve the talent pool of today, but could broaden it for the future. A new generation of youth across all races in South Africa would be able to see that rugby union is a sport that accepts people from their backgrounds, making them more likely to participate in rugby union, either as players, coaches, referees or as a general part of the rugby fraternity. [1] Blackwell, James, ‘South African Rugby Quotas – Right or Wrong?’, Sporting Mad, 16 September 2013, http://www.sportingmad.com.au/south-african-rugby-quotas-right-wrong/
Most South Africans support quotas

In 2006, the South African Social Attitudes Survey revealed that most South Africans (56%) support a quota system[1]. This support remained roughly the same over a four year period. Sport should reflect the will of the population of the country, if the population wants quotas then there should be quotas. There is particularly strong support from quotas among black people (63%) implying they feel that something needs to be done in order to let them into the sport. Doing nothing will simply ensure the status quo with very few non-white rugby players remains indefinitely. [1] Struwig, Jare, and Roberts, Ben, ‘The numbers game Public support for sports quotas’, South African Social Attitudes Survey, p.13, http://www.hsrc.ac.za/uploads/pageContent/1607/The%20Numbers%20Game.pdf
Meritocracy

It is a value of sport in general that it should be outside the sphere of social ills like racial, religious and political tensions. Sport should be based on merit only; those who play best get onto the team. Racial quotas will lead to any non-white player in a team in a competition where quotas are being employed to being under a suspicion that they are not good enough and were only selected due to their race. As Peter de Villiers, the first black coach of the Springboks, says “Everybody will believe that these players will be picked because people are looking out for them.”[1] The result could be more racial abuse of players, not less. [1] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/23713530
IRB rules

Racial quotas are a breach of the views of the world governing body of Rugby Union, the International Rugby Board[1]. If this were found to be the case then it would have a large negative impact on South African rugby. An IRB intervention would lead to at least interference by the governing body, which would be highly embarrassing for the SARU (as well as difficult for a sport which has had major political rows before), or even worse, some form of sanction or expulsion – things that could lead to long term instability in the sport, which should be avoided. [1] SARugbymag.co.za, ‘Saru quotas ‘breach IRP rules’’, 3 December 2013, http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/saru-quotas-breach-irb-rules
Quotas can drive players away.

Policies of racial quotas can have the effect of driving players abroad. Such policies have had similar affects in cricket. Kevin Pietersen stated that racial quotas in domestic competition, requiring four non-white players per team, were a key reason for his decision to leave South Africa and move to England. Eligible due to playing in England for four years and an English parent, he successfully had an England career. In rugby union, Brian Mujati left South Africa to play in England as he did not want to be selected to fill a racial quota[1]. [1] Foy, Chris, ‘Last orders at the bar for master brewer – prop Mujati calls time on Saints career’, MailOnline, 19 April 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2311854/Brian-Mujati-play-game-Northampton-Saints-weekend.html
Racial quotas don’t develop new players

The quota system could lead to moving players from the regional teams who generally have less non-white players pilfering them from other unions, rather “Home growing” them[1]. Former Springboks coach Peter de Villiers, the first non-white person in that role, has described quotas as a “waste of time[2]”. Depending on the exact phraseology of the rules, this could even allow black players from outside South Africa (from, for example, England) to be used to fill the quota. [1] McGregor, Liz, ‘New Year, new model for SA Rugby? Here’s hoping’, Books Live, 30 December 2013, http://lizmcgregor.bookslive.co.za/blog/2013/12/30/new-year-new-model-for-sa-rugby-heres-hoping/ [2] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/23713530
Broadening participation

Changing the demographics on the field will not be likely to change the demographics in the stands. Economic equality is still an issue – which means the change that is needed are changes in matters such as ticket prices, in order to bring in a broader base of spectators. The way to broaden the talent pool is through policies to make it larger, not to distribute positions within it. In other words, what’s needed is resources, and a commitment to take the game in to communities where it is not so popular currently – the best players will rise to the top no matter their ethnicity.
The West has demonstrated that hiding behind China is a viable strategy

Perhaps as damaging as the humanitarian consequences of the failure to intervene is the message it sent to other leaders considering solving their political and ethnic problems in a similar manner to Khartoum. Rather than deterring them from following in Bashir’s footsteps, the West by doing nothing, gave the impression that Bashir survived not through his own efforts, but because China protected him. Given the rapid expansion of Chinese influence around in Africa, this makes accepting Chinese investment instead of western investment vastly more attractive because in addition to the economic benefits, it is now perceived as buying Chinese political cover. In turn, this increasing interest in seeking out Chinese political cover will lead to more states being willing to imitate Bashir in the future, safe the knowledge that they will not be bombed.
The Chaos in Darfur is a threat to regional security

Sudan’s internal problems actively destabilized the entire region. More than a million refugees fled Darfur, many travelling to refugee camps in Chad and Southern Sudan. This in turn has placed stresses on local resources.[1] Furthermore, the tendency for resistance forces to base themselves in these refugee camps, threatened and continues to threaten to spread the war into these regions, either igniting the north-south Civil War in Sudan, or destabilizing Chad’s government. [1] Polgreen, Lydia, ‘Attacks Pushing Darfur Refugees Into Chad’, The New York Times, 11 February 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/world/africa/11darfur.html
Airstrikes would likely be politically ineffective

Military intervention, unless launched against the Sudanese state itself, was very unlikely to have been effective. While a no-fly zone would have limited the participation of the Sudanese air force in Darfur, the Sudanese air force was and is not vital to the continued genocide, as Sudanese ground forces and the Janjaweed would still be able to operate. Any air operations would furthermore have required over flight rights from Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia and either Somalia or Eritrea. Libya until Gaddaffi’s overthrow was unlikely to work with the West, and the new government is moving closer to Khartoum.[1] Chad would have feared military retaliation, whereas Revolutionary Egypt is in no condition to make major decisions about anything. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea have human rights concerns of their own. Avoiding overflights would limit NATO to using carrier based aircraft from the Red Sea that would have had to cross more than a 1000 KM of Sudan to reach the area. This would have made it very difficult to supply a force in Darfur and would have limited operational effectiveness even of the air force. As for the deployment of ground troops, there are few overland supply routes to the Darfur region, and supplying a military force there would have been next to impossible with the opposition of a still existent Sudanese government. [1] Newman, Alex, ‘Libya Rulers Vow ‘Integration’ with Sudan Terror Regime’, NewAmerican, 26 November 2011, http://thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/9936-libya-rulers-vow-integration-with-sudan-terror-regime
The Conflict is an internal inter-tribal conflict – arming the Darfur tribes would be better

The conflict in Darfur has been largely inter-tribal, and even the Sudanese government, lacking the full resources needed to suppress the opposition itself, has resorted to playing on these differences. Any Western effort to intervene would have been seen as intervening on one side by virtually all of the locals. The Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit would have seen the West as intervening to support them – the Abbala and the Janjaweed, as intervening to attack them. In this context intervention would be seen as a pretext to reverse the sides in the war rather than to end it. If our sole goal was to push for a settlement, it would have made far more sense to attempt to pay off the Janjaweed to turn on the government forces, and then to arm the Darfur tribes. It would have been cheaper, and prevented the Sudanese from playing the sides off against each other.
The Behaviour of the Sudanese government was tantamount to Genocide

The events in Darfur were first and foremost a Civil War, even if their consequences included a major humanitarian crisis. Darfur rose in rebellion against the central government first, and even the local conflict was a civil war, the Abbala tribe from which the janjaweed are drawn has a long history of conflict with settled Darfur tribes, which drove them off their land centuries ago. That the death toll in these conflicts was raised by the introduction of modern armaments is clear. What is not clear is how Western intervention would have solved either the underlying problems, or created a deterrent. The most likely outcome would have been genocide of the Abbala, as the West already demonstrated in Kosovo that it is unable to protect the “perpetrators” of genocide from its “victims” even with large military forces present.
Intervention might destabilize the peace deal in the South

It is unclear whether the Northern government has any desire to go back to war with the South even if an excuse existed. The Foreign Minister denied any such interest in December of 2011,[1] and the fact is that Sudan ended the war because it was costing far more to wage than could possible have been recovered. Furthermore, after 20 years government forces were losing, and it is hard to see how they would do better with a war on two fronts. Secondly, even if it would destabilize the Peace Agreement, that means in effect that the international community is allowing the  South Sudanese to be used as hostages for their “good behaviour” regarding Darfur. If so, that seems less like a triumph of Diplomacy and more like a bad deal. It would incentivise dictators like Mugabe to attempt to make similar deals, say offering to compensate white farmers in exchange for the West ignoring his treatment of black opponents. [1] ‘Sudan’s FM rules out return to war with South Sudan’, Sudan Tribune, 14 December 2011, http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudan-s-FM-rules-out-return-to-war,40990
The West should not atagonise the Muslim world

The United States at least had already stepped on various religiously sensitive toes due to its support of the Christian Southern Sudanese. These groups had support and lobbying in Washington from influential evangelical Christian groups,[1] and President Bush mentioned their religion in his speech celebrating the Peace settlement.[2] If this failed to produce an upsurge in Islamist sentiment, it is hard to see how helping Muslims who are being slaughtered would have, especially if Western intervention was limited to providing air cover. [1] Phares, Walid, ‘The Sudanese Battle for American Opinion’, The Middle East Quarterly, March 1998, http://www.meforum.org/383/the-sudanese-battle-for-american-opinion [2] Hamilton, Rebecca, ‘U.S. Played Key Role in Southern Sudan’s Long Journey to Independence’, the Atlantic, 9 July 2011, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/us-played-key-role-in-southern-sudans-long-journey-to-independence/241660/