BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Monitoring prevents cyberbullying.

While cyberbullying is indeed a danger to children, it is not an excuse to invade their personal life-worlds. The UNCRC clearly states that “(1) No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” and that, “(2) The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack.” These ‘interferences’ or ‘attacks’ not only apply to third parties but to parents as well. [1] Moreover in less traditional ‘offline’ spaces children have far greater ability to choose which information they share with their parents and what they do not. As online spaces are not inherently more dangerous than those offline, it seems reasonable to suggest that similar limitations and restrictions on invasions of privacy that apply online should also apply offline. What a parent can do is to be there for their children and talk to them and support them. They should also spend time surfing the Internet together with them to discuss their issues and problems. But the child should always also have the opportunity to have his or her own protected and private space that is outside the every watchful surveilant eye of the parent.. [1]        United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition.  Geneva.  United Nations Publications.  Google Search.  Web. May 2013.
Monitoring allows parents to correct children who are wasting their time.

Certainly parents should help their children to make most of their time with the computer and their phone. However, monitoring children in order to do so is lazy, or more precisely a form of ‘remote-control parenting’. Parents abuse of their children’s inherent right to privacy and feel that they have satisfactorily fulfilled their parental role when instead they are just lazy and unwilling to talk to their child personally about being a responsible netizen. [1] How are children to develop a healthy relationship to sharing information and privacy protection if they are constantly being surveilled by their own parents? More effective parents would instead choose to personally and positively teach their children about time management. [1]        Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review.  Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.
Monitoring decreases children’s involvement with pornography.

Indeed it is important to consider that children do not receive or send sexually disturbing media. However, as proposition has already stated parents are much less likely to be digitally savvy than their children. Should they wish to learn children are likely to be able to penetrate any elaborate digital monitoring set by a parent. As it is, Defcon, one of the world’s largest hacker conventions, is already training 8- to 16-year olds to hack in a controlled environment. [1] That pornography is so widely available and so desirable is the product of a culture the glorifies sexuality and erotic human interaction. The effects on childrens well-being are by no means clear, indeed it can be argued that much of what parents are no able to communicate to their children in the way of sexual education is communicated to them through Internet pornography. While this brings with it all manner of problems, aside from the outrage of their parents there is little scientific data to suggest that mere exposure to pornography is causing wide-scale harm to children. Instead, it may be that many of the ‘objects’ of these debates on the rights of children are themselves quite a bit more mature than the debates would suggest.. [1] Finkle, Jim. “Exclusive: Forget Spy Kids, try kiddie hacker conference.” Reuters. Thomas Reuters. 23 Jun 2011. Web. May 2013.
Monitoring raises digital awareness among parents.

While it is certainly beneficial for parents to immerse themselves in the digital world, it may not be good for them to be partially and informally educated by simple monitoring. Especially for parents who are not already familiar with the internet, monitoring may simply condition them to a culture of cyberstalking and being excessively in control of the digital behavior of their children. As it is, a number of children have abandoned Facebook because they feel that their parents are cyberstalking them. [1] Besides, there are other ways of educating oneself regarding ICT which include comprehensive online and video tutorials and library books that may cater to an unfamiliar parent’s questions about the digital world. [1]        “Kids Are Abandoning Facebook To Flee Their Cyber-Stalking Parents.” 2 Oceans Vibe News.  2 Oceans Vibe Media. 11 Mar 2013. Web. May 2013
School uniforms are often impractical or uncomfortable

A lot of schools have a choice of uniform so that children can wear what they feel most comfortable in. For example, in Australia, which is a very hot country, schools often have a summer uniform of clothes that are more comfortable in the hot weather [9]. This means that in summer, children might be allowed to wear shorts instead of trousers and short-sleeved instead of long-sleeved shirts. If children were allowed to choose their own clothes to wear to school, instead of a uniform, they might choose impractical clothes themselves, like baggy tee shirts or long skirts, or jeans with chains hanging from them. To make sure that children are all wearing sensible clothes in which they will be able to take part in all their school activities, there needs to be one uniform that all children at the school wear.
School uniforms are often expensive

In many countries, parents can apply for help with the cost of school uniform. For example, in the U.K., parents who don't earn a lot of money can get money from the government to help pay for their child's school uniform[13] . In Australia, the Australian Scholarships Group, which specialises in helping parents save money when it comes to their children's education, has tips for parents to get their child's uniform cheaper.[14] Also, parents would probably have to spend a lot more money if their children didn't wear a uniform to school, because they would have to buy them more casual clothes. Since children don't like to wear the same thing too often (in case they get bullied), parents would have to spend a lot of money making sure their children have lots of different outfits. improve this
Individuality and creativity should be encouraged

Schools can foster creativity and individuality without getting rid of school uniform. There are many schools with a uniform which still support creativity and individuality with "Child Initiated Independent Learning", and other schemes which encourage children to think for themselves [19, 20]. Also, if children are participating in creative activities like art, it is surely better for them to wear sensible clothes, and it's easier to make sure all children are wearing sensible clothes if they all have to wear the same uniform.
School uniforms create a sense of equality

There will always be teasing between children. If it's not based on what clothes the kids are wearing, it'll be because of their hair colour[4], or the fact that they wear glasses [5]. Children need to learn from an early age that everyone is different, or how can they learn to accept that? The differences between people should be embraced; in making students wear a uniform, schools are wrongly teaching children that everyone should look the same. When it comes to the opposition's evidence it should be remembered that opinion polls themselves are slippery, depending on the question asked, as is something like a belief in the benefits of school uniforms. There is also no evidence to link parent's belief that it promotes equality to whether it really does. improve this
School uniforms contribute to the sense of school unity

School uniforms might help improve the feeling of unity within schools, but pride in one's school is dependent on being distinct and different from another school. This can lead increase rivalry between schools (already present from school sports matches). There are many examples of school rivalry (often made worse by the fact that children from different schools are made to wear different uniforms) leading to children being beaten up or worse. For example, in New Zealand, a boy was beaten up by boys from a rival school; he said that the boys told him he should be shot because he went to a different school, which they could see from his uniform[17]. Because of this rivalry, it might be better for students not to wear school uniforms on outings, where they might encounter children from other schools. Schools can use other things to make sure children don't get lost on school trips, like buddy schemes where each child has a buddy, and having plenty of teachers or assistant teachers. 1 TVNZ, 2007. Boy beaten as school rivalry heats up [online] 21 October.
Students should be allowed to wear religious dress

If children are religious, they should be allowed to wear the clothes that express their religion, but school a uniform can often restrict this. Religious beliefs can be extremely valuable and important to many children, giving their lives a great deal of meaning and structure and inspiring them to work hard and behave compassionately in a school environment. Some religions place a great deal of value upon worn symbols of faith, such as turbans, headdresses and bracelets. When a school demands that a child remove these symbols, it inadvertently attacks something central to that child’s life. This may cause the child to see her school and her faith as mutually exclusive institutions[1]. Vulnerable young people should not be forced into an adversarial relationship with their school, as close, collaborative involvement with teaching and learning techniques will greatly effect a child’s ability to adapt, learn and acquire new skills in the future. For example, school skirts are often not long enough for Muslim girls, who believe that they should cover most of their bodies. To allow children to express their religions, we should get rid of school uniforms.
School uniforms are often impractical or uncomfortable

School uniforms are often not very comfortable or practical. In state schools (schools for which parents don't have to pay fees) in the U.K., for example, girls often have to wear dresses or skirts, when they might feel more comfortable in trousers, and boys often have to wear button-up shirts and ties, which can also be uncomfortable for active children[7]. In independent schools, uniforms are often even more impractical and uncomfortable, with blazers or even tailcoats for the children to wear[8].
School uniforms create a sense of equality

School catchment areas are diverse and in private schools, some children are there on a scholarship. So, without uniforms there are clear indicators of wealth between what children wear. This makes poorer children stand out, (or even possibly the reverse). Children can then be bullied for being different, which diminishes a child's enjoyment of school. A study in New York has shown that 84% of parents think uniforms promote equality, and 89% of guidance counselors think uniforms help teach children to be more accepting of others who are less fortunate[3]. This perception among parents will help create the same perception among their children. This is also likely to translate to the teachers who will therefore treat their pupils more equally. improve this
School uniforms contribute to the sense of school unity

Schools that have a uniform often say that they do so because wearing a uniform helps their students feel a sense of unity and pride in their school (e.g., Sacred Heart Catholic School, 2010)[15]. The headmistress of Fulham Cross School in London, England, has been quoted as saying that introducing a uniform at her school gave students "an incredible sense of pride"; after the introduction of a school uniform, GCSE passes at her school rose from 42 to 53 per cent[16]. This sense of unity is especially important on school trips, where teachers need to be able to tell which children belong to their school, so that no one gets lost.
School uniforms encourage discipline

Having to wear smart clothes encourages children to respect their school and their teachers and behave themselves. This is because of the association between smart clothes and work. Casual wear at school can also make students feel over-relaxed and 'at home,' meaning they don't focus as much on work. A lot of schools are bringing back school uniform because they want to improve discipline[21]. Moreover, school uniform can actively encourage students to enter into an adversarial relationship with the curriculum and their teachers. Exercising arbitrary control over children in the interests of “discipline” is likely to convince them that the very sensible, rational principles of learning and critical thought that they acquire during the school day are equally arbitrary and meaningless. By refusing to allow children to participate in enjoyable, beguiling processes of discovery and understanding unless they comply with unjustified and meaningless rules about dress, schools risk being seen as oppressive and capricious by their students. 1 The Telegraph, 2009. School uniforms return in drive to improve school discipline [online] 1 October. improve this
Cultural artefacts are enriched when displayed in the context from which they originated

Cultural treasures should be displayed in the context in which they originated; only then can they be truly valued and understood. In the case of the Parthenon marbles this is an architectural context which only proximity to the Parthenon itself can provide. In the British Museum they appear as mere disconnected fragments, stripped of any emotional meaning. It may also be useful for academics to have a cultural property in its original context in order to be able to understand it, for example a carved door may be a beautiful artefact but it cannot be truly understood unless we know what the door was used for, where it leads too something for which it is necessary to see the context. Cultural and historical tourism is an important source of income for many countries, and is especially important for developing countries. If their artefacts have been appropriated by foreign museums in wealthy nations then they are being deprived of the economic opportunity to build a successful tourist trade. Both the treasures themselves are being devalued as is the experience of seeing the treasures.
Retaining artefacts is a relic of imperialist attitudes to non-occidental cultures

Display of cultural treasures in Western museums may be seen as a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true cultural successors to Ancient Greece and Rome, and that the ‘barbarian’ inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt; it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre 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[1]. 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 way of retaining cultural ownership long after the political power of Britain has faded. Returning them would be a gesture of goodwill and cooperation. [1] “The British Museum which refuses to state clearly how many of the bronzes it has is alleged to be detaining has 700 bronzes whilst the Ethnology Museum, Berlin, has 580 pieces and the Ethnology Museum, Vienna, has 167 pieces. These museums refuse to return any pieces despite several demands for restitution.” From Opoku, Kwame, ‘France returns looted artefacts to Nigeria: Beginning of a long process or an isolated act?’ 29th January 2010
Many artefacts resting in western museums were acquired illegally. Western states have a duty to retain them.

Artefacts were often acquired illegally. Elgin, for instance, appropriated the Parthenon Marbles from the Ottoman authorities who had invaded Greece and were arguably not the rightful owners of the site; he took advantage of political turmoil to pillage these ancient statues. Doubt has even been cast on the legality of the 1801 document which purportedly gave Elgin permission to remove the marbles[1]. The Axum obelisk was seized from Ethiopia by Mussolini as a trophy of war; fortunately the injustice of this action has since been recognised and the obelisk was restored to its rightful place in 2005[2]. UNESCO regulations initially required the return of artefacts removed from their country of origin after 1970,when the treaty came into force, but did not deal with any appropriations before this date due to deadlock in the negotiations for the framing of the convention that prevented inclusion of earlier removals. . However, the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects essentially removes the ambiguity about time limitations of UNESCO’s 1970 convention. Here, nations are required, in all cases, to return cultural artefacts to their countries of origin if those items were once stolen or removed illegally[3]. International law is thus on the side of returning artefacts.  [1]  Rudenstine, David, 'Did Elgin cheat at marbles?' Nation, Vol. 270, Issue 21, 25 May 2000. [2] BBC News, ‘Who should own historic artefacts?’, 26th April 2005,     [3] Odor, ‘The Return of Cultural Artefacts to Countries of Origin’.
Developing countries are able to guard and preserve their own cultural treasures

It may have been true that countries such as Greece were not capable of looking after their heritage in the past, but that has now changed. Since 197 5 Greece has been carefully restoring the Acropolis and Athens now has a secure environment to maintain the marbles. The state-of-the-art New Acropolis Museum, which cost $200m, has now been completed to house the surviving marbles[1], and even contains a replica of the temple, thus the marbles would appear as being exactly the same as on the real temple. Pollution control measures (such as installing pollution monitoring stations throughout metropolitan Athens and ensuring that motor vehicles must comply with emission standards[2]) have reduced sulphur-dioxide levels in the city to a fifth of their previous levels. At the same time the curatorship of institutions such as the British Museum is being called into question, as it becomes apparent that controversial cleaning and restoration practices may have harmed the sculptures they claim to protect. In the 1930s the British museum’s attempt to clean them using chisels caused irreparable damage.[3] They have also been irresponsible when it comes to protecting the fate of many of its artefacts: “The British Museum has sold off more than 30 controversial Benin bronzes for as little as £75 each since 1950, it has emerged”; “The museum now regrets the sales”[4]. [1] Acropolis museum, Home page. [2] Alexandros.com, ‘Greece’. [3] Smith, Helena, ‘British damage to Elgin marbles ‘irreparable’’, The Guardian, 12 November 1999. [4] BBC News, ‘Benin bronzes sold to Nigeria’, 27th March 2002.
Scholars will have better access to artefacts, and more opportunities for study and collaboration, if they are stored in the west

If the Rosetta Stone had not been taken by the British in 1801, the deciphering of the ancient hieroglyphic language of the ancient Egyptian civilizations would have been near impossible. The British Museum is within just hours, and in some cases minutes, of such world-renowned institutions as Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, and Edinburgh. The scientific research that occurs in stable developed countries and scientifically excelling countries is of the highest degree, and parallels to this high level of study are simply non-existent in many underdeveloped countries.
The historical significance of artefacts extends beyond their culture of origin

Artefacts have a historical and symbolic meaning that transcends their origins; over the years they acquire a connection with the place that they are housed. For example, the Egyptian obelisk that stands in the Piazza di San Pietro in Rome was brought to Italy in the reign of Caligula.[1] It is no longer merely an ‘Egyptian’ artefact - it has become a symbol of Roman dominance in the ancient world and the European Christian culture that succeeded it. During the Middle Ages it was believed that the ashes of Julius Caesar were contained in the gilt ball at the top[2]. Further, all artefacts are part of a world-wide collective history. Olduvai handaxes (from countries in Eastern Africa such as Tanzania) are held in the British Museum[3] - 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 only highlights our differences and tribal identities. “Culture knows no political borders. It never has. It’s always been mongrel; it’s always been hybrid; and it’s always moved across borders or bears the imprint of earlier contact”[4]. [1] Saintpetersbasilica.org, ‘The Obelisk’. [2] Wikipedia, ‘List of obelisks in Rome’, And Wikipedia, ‘Saint Peter’s Sqaure’, (Both have useful links and pictures.) [3] The British Museum, ‘Highlights Olduvai Handaxe’. [4] Cuno, James, author of ‘Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over our Ancient Heritage’, quoted in Tiffany Jenkins, ‘Culture knows no political borders’, The Spectator July 2008.
Artefacts should be made accessible to the largest possible number of visitors

Art treasures should be accessible to the greatest number of people and to scholars, because only then can the educational potential of these artefacts be realised. In response to a question about whether museums have any social responsibility, Richard Armstrong, director at the Guggenheim, said “Absolutely, it began with the French Revolution. It is the more than a 200-year-old quest to have the most powerful cultural artefacts available to the greatest number of people. One could say it is the project of democratizing beauty”[1]. In practice this means retaining them in the great museums of the world. Further some of the world great museums, such as those in Britain and the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. are free of charge. [1] Boudin, Claudia, ‘Richard Armstrong on the Future of the Solomon R Guggenheim Foundation’, 4th November 2008.
In many cases, returning an artefact may prove to be unreasonably expensive

Even with modern transport links and technology, transporting every artefact in a foreign museum back to its original location 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. Moreover, the infrastructure of developing countries is probably not sufficient to cope with that volume. Greece may have spent $200m developing a new museum but relatively it is one of the more wealthy countries of origin for artefacts in the British Museum; places such as Nigeria are unlikely to put such emphasis on cultural investment. Museums all over the world do loan out their collections[1]. Just because they are held in another country’s museum does not mean that the place of origin would not be able to access artefacts. Creating a generous and dynamic network of sharing relics between museums would be a much more realistic way of sharing and ensuring that all could benefit from seeing them. [1]  The British Museum, ‘Tours and loans’.