BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
National testing offers more choice to parents of children at under-performing schools

National testing, and the public information they provide, can allow parents to choose between schools for their children. In the United States, if a school fails to meet targets two or more years running, the school must offer children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs. It also must provide information for parents by requiring states and school districts to give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts explaining the school's national test performance. It must also notify parents of schools that do not meet standards, giving them a way to weigh different school options. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or substitute who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements. All these measures permit parents more choice in deciding where best to send their child.
National testing will ensure all students learn the same, essential skills and information

Standardized tests ensures students learn the most important information. There is some information in the world that is essential to know so that, as adults, schoolchildren can excel in their jobs. Standardized tests help ensure that all students learn this important information. It is true that this information can be difficult, and perhaps even boring, including history, literacy (reading comprehension), and math. Yet, it is, nevertheless, essential, so testing for it and ensuring students know the information is extremely valuable. A recent study of American high school seniors found that just 13 per cent could answer basic questions of American history correctly; national testing ensures that the next generation will be encouraged to learn about such history, in a fair and balanced manner, up and down the country1. 1 Banchero, S. (2011, June 15). Students stumble again on the basics of history. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from The Wall Street Journal: improve this
National testing encourages teachers to 'teach to the test', rather than teach life skills

Teaching to the test" happens only when schools decide to test without changing what and how they teach. A good teacher using their time properly will be able to teach both the skills necessary for the national test, and the 'life skills' needed to be a good citizen. In the United Kingdom for example, fifteen schools account for around one third of places at its top university, Oxford1.This is despite the fact that all students take the same tests. These good schools, with the best teachers, are able to provide both the teaching required to get the best grades and the important life skills. Therefore, national testing does not have to lead to teachers 'teaching to the test'. Anyway, there is little to worry about; the school day allows plenty of time for students to learn the information for tests and still take part in additional activities and attend classes that teach more of the life skills. 1 Cook, C. (2011, July 8). Elite schools take third of Oxbridge places. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Financial Times: improve this
National testing will make schools and teachers more accountable

National testing helps reveal failing teaching methods and forces schools to make changes, for the benefit of the schoolchildren. The focus of testing is to point to teaching methods that are working and ones that are not. It does this by providing common standards, making it possible for teachers and schools to adjust their methods accordingly, based on whether their students are reaching these standards or not. As Claudia Wallis describes of American national testing, everyone can 'agree that the law's greatest accomplishment has been shinning an unforgiving light on such languishing schools and demanding that they do better'1. At Blaine, an American primary school with a history of failure, the number of fifth to eighth-graders reading on grade level or above rose from 13% to 36% after the introduction of national testing1. The pressure placed on the school to be accountable, and the threat of sanctions and sackings if they did not improve, can be thanked for this improvement. 1 Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Time
It is impossible, in large countries, to have a national curriculum that teaches all the relevant information and sets a fair common standard POINT The idea of national testing may seem like a good idea until you start to actually try to agree the standa

Developing acceptable national standards is not easy, but other countries have demonstrated that creating a good standard of tests that inspire students and teachers is possible. Excellence is created by bringing together the right people, examining textbooks, and looking at standards already put in place by many national teachers' associations. In the United States, the quality of education that students receive previously depended on what state, county, and town they live in. This broke the principle of equality that is a key part of the values of the country. If all teachers are aware of the expected standards their students should be attaining, the quality of education for all children can go up. improve this
National, standardized tests are a poor measure of student learning

Standardized testing is not perfect, but it helps to sets useful standards that help student learning. It is important that a nation has a general frame of reference on where students should, on average, be at various stages in their education. Standardized testing helps do this by setting a baseline level of achievement at each grade, where the average student is expected to be. While some students may perform above or below this standard, the important thing is judging the general educational trends across society, so that governments can help guide their national educational system onto a globally competitive path. improve this
National testing will allow the state to locate and fund under-performing schools, ensuring all school children are given a good education

National testing will not tell the state much at all about school performance, or at least nothing more than they already knew. They are so many different things that affect test results that to judge a school's performance based only on national tests is wrong. Furthermore, to compare schools in poor areas with schools in rich areas is not fair on the former, which are thereafter deemed so-called 'underperforming schools'. As Connecticut Commissioner Betty Stenberg describes, 'We won't learn anything new about our schools by giving these extra tests'1. As if to prove the point, in California, 'as public school spending has declined…student achievement test scores have gone up’2. This demonstrates that there is no clear link between the amount of government funding and the quality of schools. 1http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nctq.org%2Fnctq%2Fresearch%2F1180459263221.pdf&rct=j&q=claudia%20wallis%20no%20child%20left%20behind&ei=rvYWTqCvM8nEswbH4ZiYDw&usg=AFQjCNFL18GBmPU_8VtcUFpkkM_pl6XIfg&cad=r 2Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Time improve this
National testing will improve educational equality

National tests will not improve educational equality, for they will be tailored towards the dominant group. National tests are written largely by the ethnic majority within states (e.g. white men and women in the United States) with a certain unintentional bias toward these ethnic groups, putting minorities at a slight disadvantage. National testing also effectively penalizes schools that have a diverse population of students. Because diverse schools more frequently have statistically underperforming minority groups, non-native speakers, or disabled groups, they are much more likely to "fail" and be penalized. National testing, therefore, effectively penalizes diversity in schools. improve this
National testing encourages teachers to 'teach to the test', rather than teach life skills

National testing will result in teachers "teaching to the test". Students will be taught how to take tests instead of learning skills and knowledge that will help them become good citizens. This is because teachers will be judged based on how well their students do at tests, not on other important things like whether they are better behaved, more confident or learning faster. As Charles Murray describes, his children's school lost their best English teacher because he said 'I want to teach my students how to write… not teach them how to pass a test that says they can write’[1]. With national testing, they will become good test takers but will miss out on the joy of learning for learning’s sake. Subjects like art and music that are not covered on the national tests could be cut so that more time can be spent teaching students to pass the test[2]. Children’s education would become focused on a yearly test.
Unconventional oil increases climate change

A report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) finds that exploitation of North America’s shale and tar-sand oil reserves could increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by up to 15% (Unconventional Oil, 2008). This calculation is not only based on the additional amount of carbon dioxide that using this fossil fuel will generate, but also the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the extraction of oil and the amount of so-called ‘carbon sinks’, natural resources that absorb carbon dioxide, destroyed. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian oil sands would be about 82% greater than average crude refined in the U.S. on a well-tank basis.(United States Environmental Protection Agency , 2010)
Unconventional oil destroys local communities

Developing unconventional oil requires large amount of land and water – land and water that people use to live off. The environmental hazards translate to severe health risks, like concerns over increased rates of cancer (Unconventional Oil, 2008). Moreover, the ‘boom town development’, where suddenly large groups of oil workers arrive in local communities, disrupts their normal patterns of living. That’s why, for example, Canada’s First Nations have resisted development of oil sands (Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation serves Shell Canada with intent to Sue over tar sands projects, 2011)
Unconventional oil is hazardous for the environment

Oil sand operations lead to deforestation, particularly when the mining is on the surface, and damage to peatland and wetlands. These landscapes are the home to (endangered) species. The production of oil sands is also water intensive, averaging three barrels of water to produce a single barrel of oil. The wastewater gathers in ‘tailing ponds’, which contain high levels of napthenic acids from the bitumen, which is toxic to wildlife and aquatic life (Unconventional Oil, 2008). In the case of Canada’s Athabasca tar sands these ponds cover 130 sq km and are leaking 11 million litres of toxic water into the Athabasca river and groundwater every day.(WWF) Finally mining is also energy intensive in itself; 1,200 cubic feet (34 m3) of natural gas is required to produce one barrel of bitumen from sub surface and about 700 cubic feet (20 m3) for surface deposits. This is however a large energy gain as a barrel of oil equivalent is about 6,000 cubic feet (170 m3) of gas.(National Energy Board, 2011)
Unconventional oil can mitigate ‘peak oil’

The threat of peak oil is exaggerated Sure, one day in the far off future we’ll have finished up the last barrel of oil – assuming we haven’t succumbed to the devastating effects of climate change by then. But that day is definitely not as close as the prophets of peak oil claim. The argument for Peak Oil in the short term relies on a generalization from the production curve of a particular oil field to global oil production. But because many oil fields are government owned, and because they have strategic incentives to mystify how much oil they actually have, the data on which the Peak Oil prediction relies is unreliable. In fact, we have already ‘missed’ several predicted peaks (Closed Coffin, 2001). Another crucial fact Peak Oil doesn’t discount is the ‘unknown unknowns’: we might suddenly make a new discovery of an oil field. For example, the US Energy Information Administration announced in 2009 that they believe that the Arctic region might hold 22% of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil supplies (Arctic Oil and natural gas potential, 2009). With conventional oil not running out in the short term yet, we have more important things to focus on than developing unconventional oil.
Unconventional oil is economically viable

The production costs the International Energy Agency estimates do not include the costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions (World Energy Outlook 2008, 2008) or any other negative externalities. Given the many other ‘externalities’, like pollution and social cost, the actual cost to society of unconventional oil is a lot higher than the monetary cost. Given the estimates the proposition provides for costs provide relatively little profit margin unconventional oil could easily become unviable should the costs of pollution be brought into the costs of production, for example if a carbon tax was imposed.                          Moreover, the so-called ‘Energy Return on Investment’, a figure describing the relation between the energy input and output of the production process, for oil shale at least is around 1.5 to 1 (Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of Oil Shale, 2011). In lay terms, that means that unconventional oil requires a whole lot of energy for very little energy gain.
Unconventional oil can contribute to ‘energy security’

If a nation-state’s energy security works like an investment portfolio, investing in ‘oil’ to diversify from ‘oil’ is not diversification at all, since the two types of oil are assets whose returns correlate. Also, Venezuela, who has the world’s largest proven oil sands deposit, is a member of OPEC, and its leader Hugo Chavez is famously anti-American, so the actual diversification happening is only marginal. More importantly, energy security is a matter of global energy politics, not markets: OPEC is a political instrument, as shown in 1973 when OPEC punished the West for supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur war. In global political terms, what an investment manager calls ‘diversification’, an international relations theorist calls ‘multipolarity’: instead of one actor calling the shots in the political arena, there are several, competing blocks.  A multipolar strategic arena (i.e. where countries ‘diversify’ from OPEC) is inherently more unstable than a unipolar (i.e. an OPEC-dominated) strategic arena: the opportunity for strategic interactions, thus also strategic miscalculations, is higher, causing systemic unpredictability (see for example The spread of nuclear weapons, 1981 and The Prediction of Unpredictability, 1997). The example of the Athabasca oil sands proves this: whereas previously oil importing nations were ‘price takers’ following OPEC with no conflict between them, suddenly energy rivals China and the USA find themselves in diplomatically fraught negotiations within the borders of a neighbor of the USA (Enbridge and PetroChina Sign Gateway Pipeline Cooperation Agreement, 2005).
Unconventional oil increases climate change

Research done by independent energy consultants IHS CERA finds that unconventional oil from Canada’s tar sands would emit 5% to 15% more carbon dioxide ‘from well to wheel’ than regular crude (Oil Sands, Greenhouse Gases, and US Oil Supply, 2010). That’s an increase, but by far not as much as the opposing side claims. Moreover, new technologies like carbon capture and storage can mitigate the extra emitted carbon dioxide, making this a feasible alternative.
Unconventional oil destroys local communities

This is not an argument against oil sands per se: most mining goes on in unpopulated areas. The impact that development of unconventional oil has on local communities is something that should be carefully regulated by governments. In the example of Canadian oil sands, even while there is no evidence that exploiting oil sands leads to increased cancer rates, the Royal Canadian Society still recommends that both government and oil companies monitor the situation closely so as to address First Nations’ concerns (Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oil Sands Industry, 2010).
Unconventional oil is hazardous for the environment

The Royal Society of Canada researched the environmental and health impact of exploiting oil sands. For many of the problems mentioned, they concluded that there are strategies available to reduce the environmental impact to zero. Forests can be replanted and tailing ponds can be reclaimed (Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oil Sands Industry, 2010). Oil companies in Canada are actually taking the effort to do this, so much so that Greenpeace Canada co-founder Patrick Moore concluded that the oil companies leave the environment better off than it was before (Oil sands necessary, 2011).
Unconventional oil can mitigate ‘peak oil’

According to Shell geoscientist Marion King Hubbert, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (similar in shape to the bell-curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. The peak of world oilfield discoveries occurred in 1965 but global energy demands are still rising (wikipedia, Peak Oil). This means we’ll likely hit ‘peak oil’ in the coming decades, after which global oil production will decline rapidly. The effects of this will be devastating: oil prices will rise, global transport chains will fall silent and the use of many other oil-related products, like plastics, in our everyday life will be near impossible. The reserves of unconventional oil, however, are so massive that they dwarf the current reserves of conventional oil, the tar sands in Canada alone have estimated reserves of 1.7 trillion and possibly as much as 2.5 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, so that we can effectively postpone ‘peak oil’ for decades, if not centuries (New oil reserves pose threat to OPEC dominance, 2011 and The Status of World Oil Reserves, 2011). This would provide more than enough time to be changing to using other technologies and away from dependence on oil towards more renewable energies.
Unconventional oil is economically viable

The production costs per barrel of oil from oil sands is somewhere between $40 to $80 per barrel, and from oil shales somewhere between $50 to over $100 per barrel (World Energy Outlook 2008, 2008). The International Energy Agency expects oil prices to be around or over $100 per barrel in the coming decade (Medium Term Oil and Gas Markets 2011, 2011), rising to $120 per barrel in 2035 (World Energy Outlook 2011 Factsheet, 2011), this is exactly what should be expected with surging demand for oil while supply does not keep up. Moreover, with technology advancing, the production cost per barrel for unconventional oil is likely to decline even further as fields are developed (Can non-conventional oil fill the gap?, 2009). That means this is a sound investment decision.
Unconventional oil can contribute to ‘energy security’

Currently, global oil supply is dominated by the OPEC-cartel, consisting of countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. In 2010, OPEC-countries held about 80% of the world’s global proven conventional oil reserves, with the bulk of this in the Middle East. This creates a dangerous dependency for all oil-importing countries. Suppose the United States or the European Union would face a serious deterioration in diplomatic relations with the Middle East, after which OPEC would decide to cut oil supplies – the consequences would be dire, as the 1973 oil crisis showed. Since unconventional oil is found in many places around the world, it offers oil importing countries the possibility to diversify their energy import portfolio, thus lessening the risk of being cut off for political reasons (Unconventional oil shifting the energy balance of power, 2011). Problems affecting the flow of oil from the Middle East are unlikely to affect the flow of unconventional oil from Canada at the same time.  A lot of the world’s unconventional oil is outside of OPEC. For example, the second largest world oil reserve lies at the Athabasca oil sands deposit in Canada, which is not a member of OPEC (wikipedia, Athabasca oil sands). The United States and other oil importing countries could lessen dependence and thereby stop financing corrupt Middle Eastern regimes via oil imports (Tarred with the same brush, 2010).[1] [1] In conjunction with this there is a debate in the United States about whether to build a new pipeline system, Keystone, in order to transport oil from tar sands to US markets.
Blasphemy causes offence to groups and individuals

Not agreeing with a law does not provide carte blanche to ignore it. The reality is that large numbers of people in many countries and religious traditions find blasphemy offensive and upsetting. If, as prop argues this crime causes no harm, then they presumably accept that it can have no physical benefit to the blasphemer. So why do it? We place limitations on violence, sex and expletives in movies, on TVs and in publications, not because they cause a provable harm but because some find them offensive[i]. These actions, along with blasphemy, are collectively classed as criminal libels as they require the state to act rather than an injured party. We further create public order offences in relation to racial abuse, which, like blasphemy, may not be premeditated[ii]. Those in breach of such limits face a punishment. If we are happy to impose widely held norms of behaviour in public fora such as entertainment – or in regard to public behaviour - then why not acknowledge similar issues in the case of spiritual beliefs. If, for example, the overwhelming majority of the population find attacks on the prophet Mohammed offensive then why not legislate on that basis? [i] The News Manual. Chapter 71: Blasphemy, obscenity and sedition. [ii] Brian Farmer. The Independent. Comic Frankie Boyle sues Daily Mirror for libel. 15 October 2012.
Blasphemy is comparable to legislation banning hate speech

Not only can remarks or images be labelled as inappropriate but, in extreme cases governments ban organisations, meeting and demonstrations. Where speech is deemed to be prejudiced or inflammatory the state intervenes to prevent either offence or possible violence. In all of the situations covered by blasphemy laws, the first of those would apply and, as has been seen on so many occasions, the latter is not uncommon. The experience of the “Anti-Islam video” prompted civil unrest around the world[i] costing nations money in terms of lost work and increased police time. Both governments and individuals have the right to be protected against such outpourings of outrage. It seems only sensible for governments to prevent such difficulties where they can. In this light a legislative code that bans blasphemy is useful in the maintenance of social order and cohesion in many countries. It is a given in most countries that the government has a duty to protect citizens against statements or actions that they have a reasonable basis for believing are likely to cause social unrest. Blasphemy is just another example on that list. [i] Al Jazeera. Timeline: Protests over anti-Islam video. 21 September 2012.