BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Works written in Latin and Greek (e.g. by Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Vergil) address issues...

Latin and Greek texts are not necessarily better than modern texts. They were influential for a long time because most medieval and early modern societies greatly respected authority and tradition, rather than original thought. Modern texts may be influenced by classical ideas, but are likely to be more worthy of study, since they can also draw upon subsequent thinking and discoveries. Moreover, modern texts can relate general themes (e.g. love) to the specific concerns of contemporary life. In any case, there are no objective criteria for deciding that one work is “better” than another: each reader must make his or her own assessment of this. If school pupils are to study texts written by classical authors, they can do so in translation: it is nonsense to suggest that schoolchildren will be analysing texts in such detail that the niceties of translation will make any significant difference. There is therefore no need for school pupils to learn Latin or Greek.
These benefits should be extended to all, not just the privileged few who can currently learn Latin ...

Even if Latin and Greek were worth studying, it would be counterproductive to make them compulsory. Pupils should be encouraged to choose subjects at which they are successful and which fit into their career ambitions; for most, other subjects will be more useful. Forcing pupils who lack interest to study a subject will only lead to bored pupils disrupting classes, to the disadvantage of those who want to learn.
Learning classical languages gives pleasure to many who study them, since they are satisfying intell...

Learning classical languages gives pleasure to many who study them, since they are satisfying intellectual challenges. A substantial proportion of those who are given the opportunity to study Latin and/or Greek at school continue this study at university. Societies should not be obsessed with balance sheets and vocational skills, but should seek to provide cultural enrichment to their citizens. It is wrong that the opportunity for such cultural enrichment through classical languages if often only available to those whose parents can afford private education.
monetary pursuits outside of professional winnings take a players' attention off the game,close friends & family and their own health.

sportsmen choose to be stars and if they don't milk that cow other people will for them. Someone who refuses to appear in advertisements loses PR with his/her fans. Makes less money than his/her peers and thus spirals into depressive demotivation. Money motivates sportsmen to work hard at life and in turn the game. Their hectic lifestyles: teach them to organize their dynamic schedules, pump up their adrenaline, increase their metabolism/focus/strength and in the end make them better sportsmen.
match fixing cheating bribery steroids

The pressure maybe intensified but there's still a choice, in the end if a player chooses to break the rules it is her/his decision and attractive factors like sex and money are irrelevant. Religions state that all of us, face temptations but we will not excused for going after them unless we repent(admit it was our weakness of character and ask for forgiveness). sportsmen should be treated like grownups and once they aren't being excused/celebrated persistently , they will naturally be responsible.
It adds to sports value

The concept of money is now so far woven into sport that it has become part of the sport itself. Where would the Olympics be without stories hitting the newspapers regarding some athletes being on steroids, pushed by their pushy parents? Yes sport has become more centred around great achievement for great profit rather than for achievement alone, but this makes sport more interesting, more entertaining, and that is what sport is supposed to be, a form of entertainment. There are numerous examples of sportsmen trying to earn more money has hit the news headlines in a sensational way. What about the Italian match fixing saga? The discovery did not only lead to massive media attention, but also in brilliant teams with good players being relegated out of leagues. This changed the game in a way which entertained us all and made football a lot more interesting. Without the money motivation, there would not be such a frenzy over such shenanigans.
monetary pursuits outside of professional winnings take a players' attention off the game,close friends & family and their own health.

money is distracting, the art of making money through means other than your profession(where you use your real skills/talent), like for example; modeling in advertisements to keep endorsements/sponsors is outrageously distracting. Sportsmen should a)concentrate on their game b)'practice' :'hone their game' during work hours and not have to pose in advertisements through twenty seven strenuous takes after hours in makeup c)have family time and time to socialize with close friends outside of attending hectic glitzy parties again for sponsors/endorsements/popularity which concentrate the players' attention on superficiality/drug-abuse/and-otherwise-self-deteriorating-activity. Sportsmen are consistently pressured to competitively become, media sports stars by literally chiseling their 'image' rather than their game.
match fixing cheating bribery steroids

Are all features of contemporary sports because players want to make as much dough as they can or win at any cost. Players instead of being motivated by the joy/zest/love of the game are only concerned about their bank accounts,sexy girlfriends;their names/photographs in the tabloids et Cetera. Wants are limitless , the sins of greed and gluttony permeate where it's easy/common/contagious to commit them.
The entire entertainment industry is wrought with filth/debauchery/intoxication

It's not money that drives players' onto the wrong side of the tracks, it is the lifestyle of an entertainer. Most/all 'stars' are not stars to begin with, they're all selected/discovered and they mostly come from a lifestyle of poverty/drug-abuse/casual-sex/delinquency/at-least-verbal-abuse; if they didn't do it themselves people around them did. If they come from a clean straight laced home they have to interact with others in their circles who have not; peer pressure means deterioration. It isn't money but the need to fit in and be cool that drives sportsmen bonkers: image consciousness, peer pressure etc.
Sport has no value to begin with

To ruin something’s ‘value’ there has to be some merit in it in the first place. But there is no merit in sport./ Just like there is no merit at acting. There is no value role to be played by these professions, the mere role is entertainment. Entertaining is not value in the spiritual sense. The most appealing actor can be entertaining just as the poorest sportsman could be entertaining. This is not value in the sense that this debate is trying to indicate. The debate is posed as if to say there is cultural merit to sport,. However, I would contend that there is nothing cultural about entertainment on its own.
In the interests of the USA and its allies to help save fragile states from failure. Failed states o...

There is very limited evidence to support the theory that failed states become havens for terrorists. It is true that there are some Al-Qaeda sympathisers in Somalia, but these seem to be few in number and no greater in threat to the USA and its allies than similar groups in other countries. Nor is Afghanistan a good example of this theory; Osama Bin Laden was invited to take refuge there by an established government - the Taliban - only after they had successfully grabbed power in Afghanistan. Before this, Bin Laden was sheltered in Sudan - not in the war-torn and lawless south, but in the northern part where the government was in firm control. Here the problem was not a failed state, but rather one with an extreme islamist government. On the other hand, Iran and Syria are both accused of providing bases for terrorists, but neither could be considered a failed state.
The cost of intervention is lower than the cost of inactivity. Sometimes, as in Afghanistan and the...

The cost of intervention is too high. The United Nations has neither the money nor the support of the international community to undertake speculative missions. Already it fails to meet its targets for troops to provide peacekeeping in countries which request its help. The USA already contributes nearly a quarter of the UN's peacekeeping budget and cannot afford more at a time when it is already stretched by major commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is a need to change the rules for access to US aid programmes (e.g. the Milennium Challenge Ac...

The current US approach to international development, in which aid, loans or market access are conditional upon good governance should be maintained, and even extended more widely. Such conditions provide incentives for developing countries to put constructive policies in place and reward those who fight corruption. As past failures show all too clearly, there is no point throwing money at chaotic, lawless and corrupt regimes - it will never reach the people anyway. In any case, humanitarian relief is not conditional and the USA continues to respond with compassion to emergencies anywhere in the world.\ It should also be noted that special measures to support states identified as at risk of failure could in themselves be harmful. Discussion of intervention will scare off investors and help to bring about economic collapse - becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.
Intervention to prevent state failure is best done by the US working with the UN. The United Nation...

Intervening in fragile states is simply a new form of imperialism. It is not for either the USA or the UN to impose their own rule upon individual countries. Doing so would deny their people the right to chart their own future. And if the USA regularly intervened it would create even more hostility, with accusations that it is acting out of a self-interested desire to exploit peoples economically. US troops and civilian personnel could rapidly become a target for attacks. Nor is it desirable to encourage the UN to increase the level of its intervention in the domestic affairs of member states. This might start with weak countries but could rapidly become a habit and encourage the organisation in its ambitions to become a world government.
We should act to help the people of a failing state, as once it collapses no government services wil...

We should act to help the people of a failing state, as once it collapses no government services will be provided, including law and order. The USA should work with the UN in leading attempts at conflict resolution, and should engage in subsequent peacekeeping missions and investment in nation-building initiatives (e.g. funding and organising the reintegration of non-combatants into society, organising elections, building up civil society, creating effective government institutions, etc). This will require both greater willingness to commit funds on the part of the USA and a commitment to conflict resolution which has been largely lacking in recent US policy.
It is in the interests of international stability that failing states are rescued before it is too l...

It is in the interests of international stability that failing states are rescued before it is too late. Failed states often infect a whole region, as the collapse of Liberia did in West Africa - a problem known as contagion. Neighbouring states back different factions with arms and squabble over resources, such as the diamonds of Sierra Leone and the mineral wealth of Congo. Internally neighbours are destabilised by floods of refugees and weapons from next door. Their own rebel groups can also easily find shelter to regroup and mount fresh attacks in the lawless country just over their borders.\ Failed states also export dangers more widely, as they often provide an opportunity for drug crops such as Opium (Afghanistan) or Coca (parts of Colombia) to be grown, processed and traded without fear of authority, with devastating effects both locally and globally. Desperate people may also take refuge in religious or political extremism, which may in time come to threaten the rest of the world.
In the interests of the USA and its allies to help save fragile states from failure. Failed states o...

In the interests of the USA and its allies to help save fragile states from failure. Failed states often become havens for terrorists, who can find safety in them to plot against the West, to establish training camps for future terrorists, and to build up finance, weapons and other resources with which to mount campaigns. This can be seen in Afghanistan and in Somalia, and may yet be seen in Iraq if the present situation deteriorates further. Other fragile states, such as Niger, Congo and Sierra Leone have radioactive and other valuable minerals which could be very dangerous in the hands of determined terrorists. The USA should work with the UN to strengthen governments so that they can more effectively maintain internal order while controlling their borders and tracking resource-flows.
The cost of intervention is lower than the cost of inactivity. Sometimes, as in Afghanistan and the...

The cost of intervention is lower than the cost of inactivity. Sometimes, as in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, the situation will become so bad that US military intervention is necessary - this is hugely costly compared to funding preventative action through the United Nations. The role of failed states as reservoirs from which refugees, narcotics, terrorism, illegal diamonds, etc. are exported means that the USA already spends many billions of dollars a year in dealing with the mess they create. Finally, there is an opportunity cost of lost trade and investment which applies to the developing world and developed economies alike (e.g. the benefits to the US of trade with oil-rich Angola, Sudan and Congo).
There is a need to change the rules for access to US aid programmes (e.g. the Milennium Challenge Ac...

There is a need to change the rules for access to US aid programmes (e.g. the Milennium Challenge Account) and trade preferences (e.g. the African Growth and Opportunity Act), and those of international organisations in which the USA is influential (e.g. the World Bank, G8 moves on debt relief). At present these programmes are structured to reward developing countries with particular government policies (e.g. protection of property rights, focus on education, sustainable budgets, anti-corruption measures, etc). Sensible though this seems, it denies international help to those states whose people need it most - those where government is weak or absent. Funding microcredit schemes, education, health and sanitation programmes in the more stable parts of failing states, and providing meaningful trade access could all provide long-term benefits to the USA.
Intervention to prevent state failure is best done by the US working with the UN. The United Nation...

Intervention to prevent state failure is best done by the US working with the UN. The United Nations has expertise and is widely respected, whereas the international reputation of the USA is now sufficiently damaged that the hostility it generates can undermine the good work it wishes to do. In partnership the USA can provide resources to enable the UN to secure the future stability of many fragile countries, while the UN's involvement can show that these operations are altruistic and pose no imperialist threat. Over time, commitment through the UN to international peace and humanitarian concerns will allow the USA to change the way it is viewed worldwide - an important aspect of the War on Terror.
We should act to help the people of a failing state, as once it collapses no government services wil...

The United States National Security Strategy (2002) rightly states that the USA 'should be realistic about its ability to help those that are unwilling and unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be ready to move decisively.' Past US failures in Haiti and Somalia show the wisdom of this principle. The USA should instead pick its areas of engagement with care according to their strategic importance and the likelihood of success (e.g. India-Pakistan relations, Afghanistan, Colombia), rather than spread itself too thin ineffectually. \ Being willing to step into every fragile state could also create a moral hazard. Irresponsible governments will assume that they will be bailed out by the USA and the UN, who will always intervene to prevent too much suffering. This in itself makes future failures much more likely.
It is in the interests of international stability that failing states are rescued before it is too l...

The contagion theory is hard to apply beyond a small group of countries in West Africa - elsewhere failed states do not tend to drag down their neighbours with them. For example, countries bordering Somalia, such as Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Eritrea, are far from perfect but none of them is close to being considered a failed state. In most cases the best solution to the problem of failed states is for regional groups (e.g. ECOMOG in West Africa, the African Union in Western Sudan, the European Union in Macedonia, Australia in East Timor) to take responsibility for their areas rather than to overburden the USA and UN.
A safer world: The civilian police and the neighborhood watch

Neighborhood watch programs have seen a general trend of success all over the U.S.A. A sense of community/belonging, plus the logic of there being safety in numbers and the addendum that more people can accomplish more things supports the falling crime statistics in areas where these programs are in place. Anonymous reports/tips coming from civilian by-standers and psychics have also hugely contributed to crime fighting. The more involved people get in being good Samaritans and snitches; the greater the propensity for culprits/criminals to be apprehended.
Community sense and longevity

This may be true for extroverts(most people) but introverts need some time alone to be productive,happy and to live long. While unjust laws within one’s local community may affect one’s well-being, unjust laws which occur overseas actually have little impact on one’s life. Additionally, in some instances, individuals thrive on unjust laws. For example, sweatshops and child labour allows manufacturers to sell clothing at very little cost. While this does not mean that sweatshops are good, it illustrates that it is not necessarily true that unjust laws will affect your well-being negatively. Furthermore, the idea of gaining a sense of unity through protesting against a law only creates an idea of unity in a very narrow sense.When you lobby against a law, there is always an opposition that you must lobby against. This creates more “us” and “them” divisions rather than unity. The idea of unity is also problematic. There is a point in which becoming part of the community only devolves into conformity and lack of individualism. -http://www.suite101.com/content/extroversion-v-introversion-a24464
Community sense and longevity

Human beings are generally social animals. The well-being of an individual person is dependent on exterior factors. We are able to have clothes, food, medicine and an education through our participation in society. What occurs within a community then,whether local or global, will always have some impact on an individual. By speaking out against unjust laws, we improve the conditions of the society we live in and thus improve our own well being. If we did not speak out against, for example, the Jim Crow laws, millions of people would still be treated as second class citizens and denied the opportunity of the education and career which has led to great improvements in our society. In addition, when one is involved in political protests, by rallying behind a single cause, humanity can form a sense of cooperation and greater unity. By lobbying for a cause, one gains a greater sense of industry, a usefulness and self-worth and a feeling of being part of a community.
Nazi Germany showed us.

The main problem is what is tolerance of unjust laws? proposition An unjust law is a law that was put in place by legislators to appease parliamentarians or politicians or other people in power to serve the interests of legislative committees without the slightest bit of concern for the public. Yet if as the proposition also mentions "German people did not feel aggrieved at this new law" then how is the law simply an attempt to appease politicians without concern for the public? Simply from your statement it would seem that at least a large segment of the public agreed with the policy. A country where there is a large amount of coersion already (you mentioned the SA - essentially a large organisation of state sponsored thugs) is not a good example because there is a cost to not tolerating the laws as those who disagree with it get beaten up.
Nazi Germany showed us.

In Nazi Germany from 1931-1945, we saw that things can spiral out of control if an unjust law is tolerated. In 1933 it first started with the SA boycotting Jewish shops. German people did not feel aggrieved at this new law and as time went on, levels of anti-semitism dramatically increased. The Night of Broken glass happened in 1935 and it was the first time when Jews were openly slaughtered. Once again German people did not show signs of sympathy. Hitler understood that he could now do whatever he wanted. Eventually in 1941 concentration camps were introduced and millions of Jews were massacred. It all started with boycotting of Jewish shops. I can't help but wonder if the German people did not tolerate that unjust law, the whole of German and modern world history would have been different. your job as a politician is to serve everyones interests, not discriminate against members of the community, so the germans where not doing what was in the interest of there jewish population and it therefore had no concern for the public.
Justice in the legal sense is not the same as justice in the general sense.

Justice cannot begin to be rational until it's logic has axioms. These axioms are generally drawn from ethics or morality. Once we have these axioms we can then proceed to rationally work out how the legal system must operate. Now, some good laws may appear morally reprehensible to the uneducated, but laws which actually are morally reprehensible are only possible if the legal system has failed, either because it is not operating rationally or because it's underlying morality is bad. Also, while consistency and openness are usually considered desirable, they are only desirable because the rational approach has found them to be so. If secret, arbitrary laws offer the most morally desirable outcome then a rational legal system will implement them. Jurors and witnesses have their identity concealed. Jurors are selected randomly. The people who make laws are selected by secret ballot.
Justice in the legal sense is not the same as justice in the general sense.

Justice in the legal sense is not the same as justice in the general sense. A jurist is less concerned with questions of morality or ethics, and more concerned with things like rationality, coherence or consistency. As such, legal principles of justice are derived from norms that reveal themselves from the nature and function of law itself, and are careful to avoid external concepts, like morality, which are dubious, malleable and disputable in nature. A legal system which is arbitrary, secret or irrational cannot rightly be called a just legal system. But a legal system which contains laws which appear morally reprehensible can still function as a just legal system, so long as the legal principles of justice are respected. This is the legal positivist approach.