BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dicrimination by definition is treating people differently

Discrimination is putting down on certain people but it does not necessarily mean you do so when you treat them differently. For instance, you don't give the same treatment to your boss if he visited your home as compared to when a beggar does. Would you call it discrimination then if you served a chicken to the beggar but you served turkey when your boss comes? In the same way, there are always differences in the way we treat men from women. Due to the fact that each one varies in his and her physical, mental and emotional make up. There are myriads of ways that a woman differs from man--from the hormones her body produces to the likes and dislikes that are wired in her brain. Thus gender equality is treating men and women as they deserve to be treated and not necessarily the same way. What is most important is that neither of the gender is exploited, abused or his/her rights deprived.
You have to treat people differently in order to reach equality

Equality isn't, nor has it ever been, treating people equally. Equality is about giving everyone equal opportunity which almost always means treating people differently. Building a ramp or an elevator to help a disabled individual bypass stairs is very much treating them differently whilst also creating equality. Buying your daughter a toy kitchen or a baby doll and buying your son a toy D.I.Y set is treating them differently but creating inequality instead of equality. Also men 'tend to like blue and women tend to like pink' is because we are told exacly which colour we should like. The second we are born and stook in a towel, we are told which colour we should prefer for the rest of our lives. Pre 1940s pink was actually a very masculine colour and blue was femenine.
Education transcends international boundaries

No because; Why not education is a business. And our economy substantially depends on foreign people and their money. If they are happy to come; why shouldn’t we celebrate by charging them the amount that we need to get our bread and butter and sit idle at home on our backs. We are preveliged to had our predecessors ruled forein countries and made the all the wealth. As a famous dicoverer of human genetic material said, we are superior human beings in this world.
"TAX" THE WAY IT IS...

Most of the Home students and their families would argue about the fact that Tuition Fees cannot be equally laid down for both International and Home students simply because of the TAX they have been paying all throughout their lives. Glancing at their reasoning might make you say YES, THEY HAVE GOT A POINT! But looking closer at the issue will open your eyes to the blatant reality that is being ignored, and unseen. This argument could have been forceful if we were talking about twenty or thirty years ago, but looking at the current status quo, it is not. Most of the benefit seekers or those being supported by the social welfare fund are, obviously, the English nationals. They have the rights to claim and claim as much as they want, leaving the social burden on those who actually work, normally 3-4 jobs per person, and pay tax without getting anything back except for endless deductions and other miscellaneous contributions. Most of these hardworking individuals, who pay taxes NOW more than BEFORE, are foreigners. Even the INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS themselves are forced and obligated to work and juggle study and job in one go, just to finance and support their education. Here's one funny but annoying truth... these international students are TAXED very highly because most of them are doing part-time work and still CHARGED very high in university fees because they’re foreign. Meanwhile another student, who's jobless and has parents who are claiming disability or jobseeker’s allowance are paying normal fees. Well, if that's the case, its better to change the basis for fees from nationality to income and financial stability!
UK students should have priority to UK Universities

The most common answer… a street response to a very crucial issue. Indeed, this is their place and this is where they live, therefore it is just fair and equal to charge Home Students a lower fee compared to International Students. After all, the latter were given already the opportunity to live and settle in a place that is not theirs, use the country’s resources and services, and share with the real inhabitants the benefits provided by the government. The fact that they were welcomed into the country is a big blessing; it is too much then to ask for more and more, especially if it concerns major aspects of living like education.
We need the money

The cost of higher education in the UK is far greater than the amount a UK student pays. Without the higher fees that come from international students, UK students would be paying a lot more than they are, which would be bad for several reasons. Firstly, it would lower the numbers of UK students who go to university, particularly from poorer backgrounds. Education is the best way to get out of poverty, so keeping poor people out of education is self-evidently a bad thing. Secondly, and consequently, it would lower the number of graduates in the job market. Graduates are an increasingly valuable resource in our economy, which transformed to a predominantly service-based economy (with manufacturing outsourced to e.g. China). Having lots of graduates is a good thing for the British economy. Thirdly, it would push taxes up as the government would need to find money to pay for higher education from somewhere else. A high tax burden is not a good thing for a country, as it means the general populace has less money to spend on the goods and services that keep the economy buoyant. Because higher fees from international students keeps the cost down not only for UK students but indeed the UK taxpayer, this 'discrepancy' should remain.
International student do not contribute to the economy of the UK

International students will, most likely, go back home after they finish their studies. Once they start work, they will contribute to the economy of their home country using the skill they gained in the UK. Which means that the UK has trained a student who has not given anything back in return: tax, years of hard work etc. Charging a higher tuition fee is one way of balancing the books! International students also do not pay any tax in the United Kingdom so they are not entitled to receive anything in return. If the charges are unfair then they should be subsidised by their home nation where their parents and ultimately they will pay tax.
Education transcends international boundaries

Yes, I don't really believe that this point was used to justify high tuition fee - "We are preveliged to had our predecessors ruled forein countries and made the all the wealth." - "As a famous dicoverer of human genetic material said, we are superior human beings in this world." Counter-arguement - "About ruling foreign countries, Most of the times English people took undue advantage of hospitality by citizens of colonies. In some eastern countries where a Guest is considered next to God, English people came and started ruling. People showed hospitality and in return they got slavery from UK. - " Superior race' I hope you meet me in person so that you can explain me how you became superior race. I believed that origin of human being is from Africa and theory of evolution says that the we all came from Africa. But I am not sure if there is any chance that some people in Uk believe that they evolved separately in an Island compared to rest of the people. And based on these idiotic ideas if high tuition fees are justified then I dont believe that the education is worth taking. kind regadrs How do you then explain my situation. Born in England, parents took me to Canada when I was 11. returned to England at 18. I am being charged full International fees and despite not being able to pay I am unable to have my status changed. Scholarships are for non British. Who am I and where was I born?
VERY SIMILAR YET VERY DIFFERENT

Right, granted, an equal charge for fees is not feasible. Can these International Students get something extra with the 5000 pound more that they’re paying? AS USUAL, NO! If the government and these universities cannot level the tuition fees between International and Home students, why not provide the former some extra service like free English classes, tutorials or books? One of the most depressing realities taking place at the moment is that, after all those astronomical payments, these International Students have to pay whenever they want to perfect their English and learn more of the language, THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. It’s like another service, another expense, another problem, MONEY AGAIN! International and Home students are getting exactly the SAME MODULES, SAME TUTOR, SAME SERVICE, SAME FACILITIES, SAME LEARNING CENTRE HOURS, SAME BUS SERVICE, SAME VENDING MACHINE, SAME TOILETS, SAME ID CARD… but there is a £5000 difference separating the millions of similarities between them. Unfortunate but true!
UK students should have priority to UK Universities

In my opinion, UK has always been unfair. They ruled Asia. It was unfair indeed. They took gold from the developing countries to build their Universities, the towers, the bridges. UK has a history, and quite bloodshed. Now turning to Education here, UK universities indeed charge unfairly to International Student. They dont take into account that International Students dont come into same category. For instance, for an American Student, or a student from any other developed country, the International fees are not an issue. But what about those talented bunch of students who are not that rich? Local people should get a preference; thats right. Its their native country and they should get the benefits. But, intellectually both the native student and international student has to be on the same level. If a dumb person is ripping the benefits just because he is a local person, then it becomes Unfair. Not a great deal of Surprise though. Basically, they need money. And they are not strong enough to rule the world again. So universities are good sources of their economics. The argument against the yes seems to be under the impression that those attending University in the UK are moving here to reside. Most international students are just here to study. It's not that their own educational institutions were poor or lacks, but that they wanted learn about a different culture or society. Get a greater world perspective to help them in their studies. High tuition rates do not encourage international students to study abroad. I am a student form the US and to study here for a year is costing me more than the previous 3 years combined. I don't see what justifies this discrimination. I applied for my Visa, paid my fees, I speak English so there is no need for a translator or special assistance, in fact my impact on this university is nothing different than any other student attending. Essentially what is seems to come down to is that universities are underfunded and only have tuition rules in regards for national Students because the government doesn't care about foreigners (and doesn't really care for their own citizen for the most part)... no government does. So they keep the tuition high cause they can. It is incredibly unfair, immoral, and unjust. But governments don't care about that, and education is essentially a business so anyone with an interest in studying abroad should bend over and learn that tensing only makes it hurt more. Of course fees are a big issue for people from developed nations.. you think everyone's money is worth the same amount?
We need the money

So this argument is like the one you see for slave labour in other countries. Abuse the minority in order to benefit the majority.. does that seem right? If the Universities do rely on international students so much, then why keep their tuition so high? High tuition in comparison to one's own country and it's tuition rates would encourage them to stay where it is cheap. Personally if I wasn't required to study abroad for my degree, I wouldn't. Some people seem to be under the assumption that those who study abroad must be rich or well off. Most of use are taking on insane amounts of debt to attend university. Just like every other student.. except that to study abroad it tends to be 3-5 times more. Why not hold those in charge of the state budgets responsible for the lack of funding in higher education? Education is indeed very important, but if one considers that Universities grossly underfunded.. wouldn't that suggest that the government doesn't find it all that important? Governments don't care about anything else than what will get them the most money in the short run, that's why international students get screwed, cause there are not laws protecting us from being taken advantage of for being foreign. Racist bastards!
International student do not contribute to the economy of the UK

have u ever think about what you are using in this modern life to make your life easier than 100 years before? And do you think every thing was invented in your country UK? A quality product or the student can return back to the home country, this is the right fact but what about if he invent anything new? Isn't this a contribution for whole mankind? If anyone invents any new in his home country who had studied in university of UK then it will be the name and fame of the university and UK also, Don`t you think this is the contribution? And tax is paid by every individual of the country while doing any task for eg: lodging and fooding also contributes to the economy of the country by any means the tax is paid any how then how can you say that international do not contribute to the economy of the country?
University is not important in the same way that a basic education is.

University might not be as essential as say learning to write – but it is increasingly important in the modern world. Jobs in developed nations are becoming much more specialised and service based. You cannot (for example) just turn up at a computer software company and ‘learn the trade’ like you could at a coal mine in years past. Skills needed today are more complex and depend on scientific and mathematical knowledge, and/or an ability to think about abstract concepts. Such understanding can only be taught in higher education institutions. The point of education is to allow opportunity. As opportunities change, so must our education systems.
University education is an investment.

Education of this higher level should be seen as investment, not just of time but also of money. A person who gets a University education can expect to earn more in their life time than someone with just A levels. If we stopped making excuses and put the effort in, we could all afford to go to university, even if we did have to take out personal loans and credit cards. We just have to acknowledge that the three years of living on the breadline is worth it for the future profits that the degree shall reap. Such an investment is not one that the government should have to make on our behalf. It is for our benefit, therefore we should stump the costs. The amount of students leaving university and struggling to get a graduate level job is increasing, therefore why should the government fund free university education when the amount of jobs for graduates are running low?
Tuition fees will improve education recieved.

Universities are facing testing times at the moment. The recession has left public finances in a mess and universities are facing cuts in their funding from the government. Lecturers are losing their jobs, spending on research is being frozen, and with a record amounts of applications to universities, there are fears that many could miss out. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8491729.stm]]. Tuition fees are needed by universities to pump money into their institutions to provide a consistently high level of education for their students. It is clear that public money cannot wholly sustain universities in the future.
It is to expensisive for a student to pay tution fee plus books, living and other costs

Even though tuition fee is scrapped you will still have problems with paying for books, housing and food. When people talk about free education they forget such elements as housing and books. It is normal for a student from countries with free education in Europe to leave the university with a big loan. Education is indeed an investment and paying pack government the money you loaned to live while studying is reasonable. But if tuition fee is not scrapped a student will leave university with a double loan. It is also important to remember that people that do not study will work full time jobs and earn money, while students only have time to work part time jobs if even possible. Therefore people who do not study will earn a bigger amount of money the first years while people who choose to study do not earn so much money the first years. They also have to spend the paychecks paying books and housing and not before later on get the investment they spend years on getting. Tuition should be free and the students can pay for their books and housing themselves.
University is not important in the same way that a basic education is.

University is not important in the same way that a basic education is, and so it does not have to be equally open to everyone like normal schooling. It is hard to succeed with no education but very many people are successful in life without going to university. Also, there has to be a limit to how much education a state will provide, otherwise people could just keep on studying forever and never give anything back to society. Once the state has given everyone the same basic skills it is the responsibility of individuals to care for their education, just as they do when learning to drive or speak another language etc.
financial stress is part of university life

The argument opposite seems to centre around two principal points, the first being that it is fun to be in debt. I don't think anyone except a masochist would agree with that. The second point they seem to be making is that debt teaches self-sufficiency. Which is fair enough, only university fees are so large that they cripple students financially for much of the early part of their working life. There is a difference between undergoing minor hardship to teach carefulness with money and being saddled with crippling debt for years.
absolutely

Much as i am a supporter of free education, i do not subscribe to the escapist concept of making university education free. If we must attain the height that we have set for ourselves as a people and a nation then free education should be compulsory at the nursery to secondary school level, then everyone should be allowed to foot the university or tertiary institution bills. Because i am yet to understand how university education which is poorly funded and bedeviled by always striking lecturers will be operationable if the education is made free. So i am not an advocate or such education that is not improving our industry or bettering our socio-economic fabric.
Scrapping tuition fees would increase social mobility

At the moment social mobility in the UK is declining According to a report by former health secretary Alan Milburn "Social mobility has slowed down in our country. Birth, not worth, has become more and more a determinant of people's life chances." This starts in universities and as a result goes on to apply through the rest of life. As a percentage of Cambridge university's undergraduate population, there are fewer state-school students today than there were in 1980. The rest of the top universities are doing little better. Privately educated entrants into university should account for 7% of each universities intake but in the top universities it is often more than four times that. At Bristol it was 38.5 per cent, Nottingham 30.5 per cent, and Newcastle 28.9 per cent.[[Jeff Randall, How the class war backfired and put social mobility into retreat, The Telegraph, 30/7/09, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/5941721/How-the-class-war-backfired-and-put-social-mobility-into-retreat.html%5D%5D Unfortunately these top universities are often the only ones considered by the biggest companies when looking for new employees. Tuition fees are of course by no means the only reason for this decline in social mobility but it is a factor; make the poorest able to afford top universities again and they may well actually go to those universities.
It is well known that a university education leads to great benefits in later life.

University graduates might be more succesful in general – but that does not mean everyone who attends university becomes wealthy and well-employed. Many thousands of graduates cannot find jobs when they leave university and many more do not ever find the dream career they hoped for. A higher education does not guarantee of success and so it is unfair that those who do not succeed are still left with a huge fee or debt when they leave university. The basis of taxation is the income you actually have, not what you ‘should’ have. As high-earning graduates already pay big sums in income tax, the system is very fair already.
financial stress is part of university life

As much as students may moan about the mounting costs of education, what being a paying student provides is a sense of pleasure. Students will often congregate to talk about their financial worries. Some may form protest groups. However, as much as they complain about it,they find a certain satisfaction in being in such a predicament. It is almost a form of pleasure to see the loan accumulate. What it provides them with ultimately is a sense of self sufficiency which they would not6 get if University education was free.
Scrapping tuition fees could mean moving to a graduate tax where students do not need to pay anything up front.

The current system is surrounded by misunderstanding. This is because the debt as we know it isn't "a massive cheque" but rather a repayment of a debt as part of a persons salary over time. In effect this is something vary similar to a graduate tax.[[Nicholas Barr on why loans are better than a graduate tax.http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/24/nicholas-barr-graduate-tax%5D%5D
No debt

Student Finance loans that are used to fund students during their university education should not be viewed as 'debt' in the conventional sense. Since 2010 in the United Kingdom tuition fees rose to £9,000 per academic year, equalling a grand total for your typical undergraduate degree £27,000 for tuition alone. This is not counting accommodation and living expenses which should increase your overall borrowing up to £40,000 or more. Those are some rough figures, which if you are applying for university make for some very difficult reading, however, there is a misunderstanding amongst the public and that in 30 years time, all the money you borrowed will be wiped clean. If you borrowed £40,000 from your nearest bank, then they would certainly slap interest on it and it would not certainly be cleared after an extended period of time. You also only start paying the loan back in small instalments if you start earning £21,000 per year, with monthly payments of about £20. If you are lucky enough to be earning £21,000 a year, even £20 a week wouldn't be much loss considering you probably used your degree to get the high paying job in the first place. If you are not so fortunate and you are in a low paying job paying you under £21,000 a year then you pay back nothing. That is right folks, you pay back nothing. Zero. The notion that you will be forever paying off your 'debt' is a weak argument once faced with the actual facts. This enables students to find say part time work during their three years of study to save up for a gap year of travelling, fun and adventures. You wont be followed by 'men in black' driving white vans with a Student Finance recovery logo on the side...