BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Society has a moral responsibility to educate all its young people

There is indeed a responsibility to educate young people however this only applies to basic skills; something that is done by 18 if not before. Everyone needs basic literacy and numeracy to navigate through life – talking to others, writing letters, managing personal finances etc – so the state needs to provide that education. However, beyond a basic set level everyone specialises either by subject area or in terms of what they want to do in the long term. Once people are specializing in their education the government has no responsibility to be ensuring that everyone continues education. It is no longer a basic need, but a luxury. And it can never be a basic duty of the state to ensure that a luxury is provided.
Compulsory studying would be taking young people out of the workforce

Since Brexit young people have been touted as a potential source of casual labour to replace migrants from Eastern Europe who many assume will be less able to come to the UK.[1] However this policy will be taking one of the groups that could easily increase their participation in the workforce out of it. Instead of compensating for a loss of migrant labour young people will be spending longer studying rather than working. At the same time there is less opportunity for Saturday work because of changes in the working culture over the last couple of years. Working has increasingly become flexible, or sometimes zero hours, rather than 9-5 during the week. As a result there is no longer such demand for a company to have a different group of workers to cover the weekend; the one area where full time students can easily fill in.[2] With regards to 16-17 year olds there was a decline from 42% having a part time job in 1997 to 18% in 2014.[3] There are numerous factors behind this but wanting to focus on studies is one of them – and during this time education became compulsory to 17 showing that young people will be less willing to work and study. Making more education compulsory will hurt the economy by depriving it of much needed labour.   [1] Quinn, Ben, ‘Help us fix Brexit labour shortage with Saturday jobs, say employers’, The Guardian, 1st April 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/01/saturday-jobs-brexit-labour-shortage-young-people [2] Wallace, Tim, ‘UK needs migrants as young Britons ‘have bizarre attitudes to work’, The Telegraph, 8th March 2017, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/08/uk-needs-migrants-young-brits-have-bizarre-attitudes-work/ [3] Conlon, Gavin et al., ‘The Death of the Saturday Job’, UK Commission for Employment and Skills, 2015, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/435285/15.06.15._DOTSJ_Report_design_final_EDIT.pdf
Benefit from the increase in skills through their standard of living

There is no guarantee that there will be such an increase in skills, certainly not for all young people. Making education compulsory only really affects the minority that does not want to continue studying. However, it is exactly this minority that are going to have most trouble getting the new skills the government hopes to impart with this policy. These are the people who do not get their 5 GCSE’s or pass their A levels. If they are failing at the lower level of education is it really realistic to think that they will succeed when they get to level 6? And even if there is an increase in skills there is no guarantee that the graduate premium will hold up. There are no examples of a country where everyone gets educated to degree level so no evidence that with many thousands more getting such education that it will continue to be so valued. The increased supply of skilled workers would force down wages and the graduate premium.
Unrealistically costly

Everybody realises that going further in study, in whatever way that might be, results in increasing skills which benefits the person who does this studying. The principle used in current fees for university is that the increased earnings potential provided by further study means that the students will be able to pay for their education in the future. Thus their fees are paid by low interest loans that are then paid off as an extra alongside income tax and National Insurance payments once earnings has reached a threshold of £21,000.[1] This could be applied to any expansion of the further education system.   [1] ‘Financial support for full-time students of higher education in 2016-17’, gov.uk, 16th September 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-support-for-full-time-students-of-higher-education-in-2016-to-2017/financial-support-for-full-time-students-of-higher-education-in-2016-to-2017
The economy can’t absorb a greatly upskilled workforce.

We need to consider the jobs market of the future, not the jobs market of the present – or almost 10 years ago. An increase in low skilled jobs is likely only temporary; increasing automation will see to that. There are many areas where automation could eliminate or reduce low skilled jobs; in supermarkets we already see a decline in numbers manning tills due to increases in self service check outs. The courier economy has been booming, but will this job be as in demand once self driving cars are commonplace? Having a skilled workforce does not guarantee that jobs with high skills will be created, but it does make it more likely. Many will set up their own companies, and international companies will only bring skilled jobs if they know the workforce has the necessary skills or flexibility for them.
Society has a moral responsibility to educate all its young people

All men are equal. Each of human has the ethical weight of any other human. Yet education is distinctly unequal. Not only do the richest, go to the best universities (in far greater proportions to the poorest), there is an even greater gap with those who do not continue education at all. If we are equal then the state must provide educational opportunities for everyone beyond 18 as it is equal opportunities in education that allows for equal opportunities later in life. However we cannot simply have a responsibility to provide the opportunity for everyone to get this level of education since not everyone at 18 yet knows what they want to do later in life, or the value of continuing education it should be up to the state to ensure they continue being educated.
Benefit from the increase in skills through their standard of living

PwC estimates that reducing the level of 20-24 year olds not in employment, education or training to the same level as Germany would add £45 billion to the economy. This policy would have exactly this outcome[1]; being mandatory it would reduce the number of NEETS up to age 21 further than this. However this benefit to the economy through greater participation is only the start. Higher skilled jobs have higher wages. The value of a degree compared to not having one is estimated at being around £200,000 for the graduate over the course of a lifetime, and even for those who miss out on a first or second class degree result it is over £100,000.[2] With this is a commensurate increase in standard of living; they can afford a bigger house, more holidays, better food. And perhaps more importantly are much less likely to be unemployed and forced into poverty. 89.7% of recent graduates are employment compared to 79.8% of their peers without a degree.[3] This of course has knock on benefits on health, government spending, prospects for children and so on. The benefits derived from further education are substantial and justify making it mandatory.   [1] ‘Getting more young people into work, education or training could add £45 billion to UK GDP’, PwC, 26 October 2016, http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/2016/10/getting-more-young-people-into-work-education-or-training-could-add-45-billion-to-uk-gdp-.html   [2] Matthews, David, ‘Graduate premium is nearer £200,000 says new report’, Times Higher Education, 15 August 2013, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/graduate-premium-is-nearer-200000-says-new-report/2006574.article [3] ‘Employment rates of recent graduates’, Eurostat, July 2016, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Employment_rates_of_recent_graduates
The aging population and increasing retirement age requires higher skills

The population across the developed world is aging, and this is also the case in Britain. Most pensions are paid for by the state, and in Britain that comes from National Insurance. Unfortunately, it is not the national insurance contributions you put in while working that you are redeeming when you retire. Instead current workers pay for current retirees. This system is fine when there are a large number of workers paying for the retirees pensions, but faces a crisis when this ratio drops. In 1971 there were 280 retirees for every 1000 of working age, today it is 314, and by 2032 even with an increasing retirement age it will be 349. To make matters worse there will be a 106% increase in the over 85s, those likely to be the most costly to the NHS.[1] One way to avoid this problem is if the workers of the future earn relatively more than the workers of today. As more skilled workers earn more making it mandatory to be educated to degree level would be an ideal solution to defuse the pensions time bomb.    [1] ‘Aging Population’, The King’s Fund, https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/time-to-think-differently/trends/demography/ageing-population
The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines

Faith in these so called ‘smart’ mines is hugely misplaced. Conditions under testing will always vary from those in the field, where all is confusion and areas of deployment are often not properly recorded or marked. Even if they work as claimed, there is no guarantee that regimes that use them will wish to deactivate them upon ceasefire, if left in the territory of a neighbour or enemy with whom a dispute still smoulders. The equipment required for deactivation may be lost or destroyed. The best way to ensure that these weapons aren’t left in the soil is never to put them there in the first place. That some users might be responsible is not good enough, since if anyone has landmines everyone will.  Even that assumes that it is possible to be a ‘responsible’ user of landmines – once they are in the ground the user has lost all practical control over them. The only way to take back control is to disarm them.
Landmines are necessary to protect South Korea

North Korea has an extensive tunnel network under the DMZ that will facilitate the circumvention of the largest minefield on Earth, if the North Koreans were ever stupid enough to attempt invasion (and there is nothing to suggest that they are going to). This fact demonstrates the uselessness of landmines – the world’s biggest minefield is militarily redundant, a danger only to those that will live in this area in future years. The USA knows this – the defence of South Korea is a hollow, false excuse offered in defence of landmines – the real reason is the unwillingness on the part of the military machine to relinquish the capability of any weapon, no matter how horrible. Of course, there is a healthy profit to be made in their distribution, too.
Banning Landmines is a step towards reducing the horror of war

Landmines are a terrible and immoral tool of war. America should neither practise nor condone this kind of warfare. Unlike other weaponry, landmines remain hidden in the ground long after conflicts have ended, killing and maiming civilians in some of the world’s poorest countries years, even decades later.[1] In Afghanistan 17% of victims are children.[2] Even if other weaponry has similar effects, it doesn’t mean landmines are acceptable – it means they are bad, too. But we must start somewhere – we can make a difference by capitalising on the global movement against landmines, and we should. [1] United Nations cyberschoolbus, http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/banmines/units/unit1a.asp [2] Mine Clearance Planning Agency, Landmine Impact Survey Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, August 2005, http://www.sac-na.org/pdf_text/afghanistan/AFG_ExecSummary_Engl.pdf
The difficulty of removing Landmines far outweighs their usefulness

The usefulness of landmines is significantly over-represented. They are easily removed by quite low-technology military equipment – which means that they are not very dangerous to armed forces whose mobility is not significantly restricted, this is after-all the purpose of the mines, but are incredibly harmful to civilians.[1] A significant problem is that many minefields have been left unmarked and that they can remain active for more than 50 years. Removing a landmine can be fairly easy, but detecting them is not.  [1] ICRC, ‘Anti-personnel mines: not an indispensable weapon of high military value’, 28 March 1996, http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jmud.htm
Landmines provide a false sense of security

Landmines provide a false sense of security. They are often purchased and placed by nations that are fearful of their surrounding neighbours, rather than entering into diplomatic arena to improve relations. They are the symbol of exactly the wrong approach to international affairs. Small, underdeveloped countries should channel their efforts into improving their economies – they should not be encouraged (or frightened by scaremongering) by the USA into buying the USA’s military equipment.
The US army does not need landmines

It is absurd to suggest that landmines are the prime protector of US forces, or even an important one. It is well known that the principal benefit the USA’s troops (as opposed to those of other nations) have in peacekeeping is the threat of the deployment of overwhelming force if they are defied. Landmines are nothing to do with it. US troops have not been pinned down in the way the opposition suggests since World War Two, except in Iraq: and there, as elsewhere, the damage done to relations with the civilian community would far outweigh any narrow military benefit garnered from landmine deployment. Indeed the use of landmines by the US has slowly been changing, since 2004 the US has only allowed the use of landmines with deactivation mechanisms however it has not actually used landmines in more than 20 years.[1] [1] Good, Rachel, ‘Yes We Should: Why the U.S. Should Change Its Policy Toward the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty’, Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, Vol. 9, Issue 2, (Spring 2011), http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v9/n2/4/
Landmines are a useful military tool

In the future, landmines may not be needed. However, whilst armies still depend on conventional weapons and movement – moving tanks and large infantry groups – and borders are weak, the defensive tactic of landmines is highly appropriate: it is cheap, affordable, and maintains borders. Their existence can slow or stop an advance by breaking up an attack and forcing attackers to go certain routes,[1] delaying or even halting conflict; they can deter invasion in the first place.[2] By guarding wide areas from swift armed advance [1] ICRC, Anti-personnel Landmines. Friend of foe? A study of the military use and effectiveness of anti-personnel mines, 1996, pp.14-15 http://www.scribd.com/doc/21699394/Anti-personnel-Landmines-Friend-or-foe-A-study-of-the-military-use-and-effectiveness-of-anti-personnel-mines#outer_page_16 [2] Marin, Albert and Litzelman, Michael, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ: Non-Self Destruct Landmines in the Republic of Korea’, Journal of Mine Action, Issue 6.1, April 2002, http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/6.1/notes/marin/marin.htm
Landmines are easy to use illegally anyway

Landmines are merely a convenient way of providing what can be rigged in many ways – an explosion triggered when movement occurs in a particular area. Without landmines being legally available, troops will improvise landmines – they will wire up pressure plates and hand grenades and trip wires and high explosive charges, with much the same result. These will then be much more difficult to disarm as they will not have a standard design and they may also have much more explosive power.[1]  This behaviour was widespread in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The only differences are that these weapons are less efficient, and more dangerous to the user that prepares them. [1] Maresca, Louis, Maslen, Stuart, The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, International Committee of the Red Cross, 2004, p.316, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R_CjjO8-4-wC
The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines

The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can deactivate themselves and can self-destruct. America only manufactures smart mines, and since 1976 the USA has tested 32,000 mines with a successful self-destruction rate of 99.996 per cent.[1] The ban also fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible users. Under American deployment, only smart mines are used, and they are used responsibly, being set and removed in a methodical manner. [1] Hillen, John and Spring, Baker, ‘Why A Global Ban On Land Mines Won’t Work’, Heritage.org, 17 January 1997, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1997/01/why-a-global-ban-on-land-mines
Landmines are necessary to protect South Korea

The defence of South Korea from Communist aggression depends upon the thick belt of landmines that lines the demilitarized zone. Without it, North Korea’s million man army could easily cross into South Korea and take Seoul before defences could be organised.[1] South Korea is a key ally of the USA and to join in the ban on landmines would be to betray that ally. The failure of the Ottawa Convention to grant an exception for the Korean peninsula was the key reason for USA non-participation. With regards to the tunnel network: North Korea would never be able to perform an invasion through a dozen half-finished tunnels just big enough for a man to pass though.  Troops passing under the DMZ without any heavy equipment or armour would have to assemble in the open with no protection from RoK and US firepower and air support.  The main force of any invasion would have to travel over ground. [1] Marin, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ’, 2002
Banning Landmines is a step towards reducing the horror of war

Landmines do great harm to people that trigger them – but so do all weapons of war. They are not uniquely unpleasant and the debate about them has distorted the public perception of landmines – in truth, they are little different to a hundred other types of weaponry that remain legal under the Ottawa ban. In particular, landmines are an entirely defensive weapon.  They can render large areas un-enterable until cleared but in this they are analogous to the long term harm of a chemical spill – the harm can largely be mitigated by simply avoiding the area until it can be cleared.
The difficulty of removing Landmines far outweighs their usefulness

Landmines are an excellent way of defending a wide area for very little money. They permit the defence of an area without requiring large numbers of personnel. This is a legitimate aim both in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians and in poor countries during peacetime, who would rather invest in their infrastructure than funding the military capacity that would otherwise be required to defend the same ground. They can be easily removed, but not quickly, which is what provides their military utility. The fact that landmines can be easily removed (if someone actually goes about that process) highlights the real root of the suffering caused by landmines – it is the on-going military conflicts which prevent removal and cause more mines to be planted which are the true cause of civilian suffering.  If those conflicts ended  then the harm to civilians would dissipate anyway.
Landmines are a useful military tool

Chemical weapons are also cheap and highly effective.  The use of chemical agents was widespread in the First World War and domestic terrorists groups have been able to manufacture and use Sarin gas in attacks.[1] These weapons are banned despite being cheap and effective because of the unnecessary suffering they cause and because of their indiscriminate nature.  Mines and gas are both ‘area denial’ weapons whose effects can linger long after the conflict in which they were employed has faded into history. [1] Wikipedia, Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
Landmines are easy to use illegally anyway

That is true if we are discussing a single tripwire or booby trap. But the argument avoids the real point of landmines – blanket deployment over very wide areas, making them impassable for military units in the short term, and deadly for the indigenous population in the long term. Nobody rigs up a few thousand pressure plates at a time. Removing landmines from the available military options would mean that this kind of deployment would become impossible – it would mean the end of the mine field.
Hosting has wide-reaching economic benefits

Hosting does not leave a beneficial legacy. As a study found in 2010, 'there is insufficient evidence to show that major multi-sport events benefit or harm the health and economy of the host population.'1 The demands of the Olympics are very particular, an 80,000 all-seater stadium, pools, horse tracks, beach volleyball etc. Many of these stadia will never be used again after the end of the games. Even in Australia, which has a very strong sporting ethic, underused stadia in Sydney are costing the taxpayer $32m a year in maintenance1. In the long term, the money spent on these stadia would be much better off used to build affordable homes and transport infrastructure which is designed with local residents in mind rather than with the intention of impressing IOC members. As far as tourism goes, Greece may even have lost out economically in 2002-03 as potential visitors stayed away, frightened off by stories of disruptive building works, security worries and fears of over-crowding. 1 Ormsby, A. (2010, May 21). Benefits of hosting Olympics unproven. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from Reuters: 2 Davenport, C. (2004, September 1). A post-Olympic hurdle for Greece: the whopping bill. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Christian Science Monitor: improve this
Hosting only affects one city

Hosting has an impact on the whole nation. The Olympics involves hundreds of events and sports and so provides an opportunity for the whole nation to feel like they have taken part. Training camps are often located outside the host city, as are events such as rowing, sailing, canoeing and shooting, so that the rest of the country benefits too. During Beijing 2008 for example, the equestrian events were held in Hong Kong, drawing both tourism and prestige away from Beijing and towards other parts of the country. The lasting impact of this will be a generation of young people who are excited about sport. Given rising levels of childhood obesity and declining amounts of sport in schools, this can only be a good thing. improve this
The bidding process is too long, tying up funds and land

The bidding process is not too long and does not tie up funds or land that would otherwise be developed. Furthermore, the Olympic bidding process would not be as difficult, expensive or long if the benefits to the eventual victor were not deemed worth all the time and effort. The unsuccessful bids are not wasted, the plans drawn up and experience of the process can be utilized for later bids. Moreover, the exposure granted to land earmarked for Olympic redevelopment can both generate interest in the area and lead to further development in the area regardless of an unsuccessful Olympic bid. The bidding process is now open and trustworthy. Whilst the 1998 Salt Lake City scandal did reveal huge levels of endemic corruption, IOC president Jacques Rogge has taken significant steps to stamp it out. Cities can now be confident that the best bid will win and that they should not be put of bidding to host because they fear they will lose simply for not being corrupt enough. improve this