BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Move forward and do what is best for the majority

Education should be based on an individual's hard work and not on a family bank account. If we look to countries such as Finland and Norway which have more than 95% of their students in public schools, these countries are some of the best-educated countries in the world. Statistics show that by allowing a two-tier system to continue to grow, too many 'hard-working' students are going to be unfairly disadvantaged. Education should be based on 'hard work' and our hospitals 'need'. In regards to a two-tier system, we have to ask ourselves: do we want our children to do well based on their 'own' hard work? Do we want an education system based on meritocracy or aristocracy? If more students begin to attend public schools, we will soon come to realise that the effects are not only extremely beneficial for the majority (poor and middle-class) but also for the minority (rich) because they enable everybody to become more socially aware and are a key to future economic growth as more people are given future opportunities to seek steady employment. Finally, the points made do not favour the abolition of private schools, what they do place emphasis on, though, is the need to increase government funding for progressive public education, which would only come through private schools being disallowed funds. Government funding to private schools in fact contradicts the purpose of private schools being free from government intervention. It is extremely important that we respect people from all different types of backgrounds; this is why public schooling provides an overall better education than private schooling; public schools enable students to learn more about what being democratic and coherent actually mean; private schools establish the basis for further inequality.
Control and management of water – the maintenance of dams, reservoirs, flood defences and irrigation...

It is immoral to charge for water beyond the cost of water systems’ maintenance. Water is a commodity only up to a certain point. Once water exceeds a reservoir’s capacity, it is not a commodity because it will flow free over the dam. However, by interrupting the natural flow of water, dams may harm downstream states by stopping seasonal variations in flow on which both agriculture and eco-systems have come to depend. Dams may also create dangerous conditions because downstream states may be flooded if a dam breaks. Excessive withdrawal of water for irrigation by upstream states is even worse, as it can greatly reduce the flow to downstream states.
Treating water as a commodity that can be traded will be good for downstream states as it creates an...

There are great dangers in making water supply dependent entirely upon economic exchange. If the states downstream are too poor to pay for a good supply of water, they will not only suffer in terms of drinking water and their agriculture, transport and fishing industries, they will also have their economic backwardness reinforced as a consequence. And if the countries downstream are richer than those upstream, they will be able to purchase so much water that the poor in the upstream states will themselves suffer, especially if their governments are unresponsive to their needs or corrupt. Instead access to water must be treated as a basic human right, with international cooperation to ensure that it is fairly distributed.
Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation and population growth will all put even grea...

Despite scaremongering about “water wars”, international conflicts over access to shared water resources have been avoided. In fact there have been nearly 300 international water agreements since 1948, showing that a cooperative approach which treats water as an essential common good is highly successful. Indeed, the regular technical interaction required to negotiate quotas, share data, and set up common institutions as part of international water agreements can all help to promote better political relationships between neighbouring states that may have histories of hostility.
Water occurs randomly, just like oil and gas, which are treated as commodities which can be bought, ...

Water occurs randomly, just like oil and gas, which are treated as commodities which can be bought, sold and traded across national borders. If countries can take advantage of their geographic location to sell fossil fuels, they are justified in using water resources to support their economies. Failure to view water as a precious, marketable commodity makes it far less valued and leads to unrestricted water use by environmentally unconscious societies.
Control and management of water – the maintenance of dams, reservoirs, flood defences and irrigation...

Control and management of water – the maintenance of dams, reservoirs, flood defences and irrigation systems – costs billions of dollars and is a burden on upstream states’ budgets. All of these expenses, including the opportunity costs of fertile lands allocated for reservoirs and dams, should be covered by downstream states, which are usually the primary consumers of water. For example, it is unfair if an upstream state cannot use the water flowing through it to produce electricity to offset the costs of water management.
Treating water as a commodity that can be traded will be good for downstream states as it creates an...

Treating water as a commodity that can be traded will be good for downstream states as it creates an incentive for upstream states to take account of their interests. By paying an appropriate rate for their water supplies, they can ensure regular flows and influence policy. For example, in order to profit from water as a commodity, upstream states may forego dam building, improve the efficiency of agricultural irrigation practices, and maintain large forest areas that are crucial to a healthy water cycle. Such leverage can only be achieved through treating water as a commodity; international agreements are too easily broken by new governments.
Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation and population growth will all put even grea...

Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation and population growth will all put even greater pressure on freshwater resources in the next century. As a result international tensions over water use are likely to escalate into conflict – water wars. Free market approaches provide the best means of avoiding such conflicts, as countries that trade with each other are less likely to go to war. And creating a commodity price for water also means that demand can be substantially reduced, so that there is more to go around and pressures are relieved.
Shakespeare enriches our language

Though there is no consensus as to the meaning of 'enrichment', Shakespeare perhaps 'enriched' our language, but does not continue to do so, as the enormous raft of exciting new writing talent does on a daily basis. Moreover Shakespeare seemingly constitutes the immediate focus of anyone looking at innovation in English - if one looks to Chaucer, or Milton, one can perceive a wealth of new vocabulary and phraseology just as, if not more important than Shakespeare's contribution. It is easy to ignore other influences on language in the wave of (largely artificially driven) excitement over Shakespearian etymology; the Norman conquest, for example, or even the advent of the digital age. Many authors can be said to 'enrich' the language, if they are a successful author. Choosing to make just one compulsory is entirely arbitrary, and restricts the education children receive. In being imposed, the focus on Shakespeare produces many disenchanted students for any one intoxicated reader.
As a tool for cultural integration

The idea that simply learning about a long-dead author will make people feel British is ridiculous. Art and literature can be appreciated without the need to be a part of the culture that produced it – admiring Macchu Picchu doesn’t integrate you with the Mayans, for instance. Any immigrant to the UK looking at Shakespeare will see the typification of the ‘dead white man’, the personification of all that is patriotically English, and feel no greater inclination towards cultural integration than if he or she had glanced on an etching of Goethe in Germany or heard ‘Waltzing Matilda’ in Australia. The images that Shakespeare created are outdated. Anyone who reads Shakespeare and then observes modern day Britain, with no prior knowledge of the historial relevance, would not see any link, and who could blame them? Shakespeare did not write about the things one associates with Britain today.
Shakespeare isn't the best poet ever

The compulsory inclusion of Shakespeare on the syllabus does not necessarily stop other authors and playwrights from being included. For example, Shakespeare formed part of my English Literature GCSE course, however I still read the works of several other writers and these works were examined with an equal and sometimes greater weighting. In addition to this, Shakespeare's literary value does not lie simply in the merit of his work. His influence on other authors has been enormous, and an understanding of Shakespeare's work opens doors to many other great works, and a fair amount of popular culture. Studying the form of sonnet known as 'Shakespearean' might be possible without ever having read one by Shakespeare himself, but surely you'd be missing something. In Huxley's Brave New World 'sophisticated' society shuns Shakespeare. Without having read anything he wrote, how would the reader know what meaning to interpret from this attitude? Like it or not, Shakespeare is a major part of the English canon and his influence is stretches too wide to disregard.
Shakespeare enriches our language

Shakespeare wrote a collection of poetry and drama that has survived five centuries in good stead, leaving our language richer and more vibrant through his use of neologisms and newly minted phrases that remain to this day. Many people use Shakespeare in everyday speech without realising it, and the richness of the language that a study of Shakespeare brings would be lost to future generations if they did not come across it at school. As a teaching aid, Shakespeare's innovative use of vocabulary helps show children how to use the language they are born with better than a bland textbook, even when used without this aim in mind. We must ensure our children have access to Shakespeare, and since parents seem to be too lazy to read to their children any more, it must be the place of school to offer this education.
As a tool for cultural integration

Many people are worried about an upcoming generation of immigrants that do not identify themselves as British, while living in Britain and paying taxes to the British government. Culture is a key tool in integration; if you can share a cultural identity, you can share other values and bring the wider community together. Teaching Shakespeare, a bastion of British culture, in schools to this end is far better than forcing citizenship ceremonies and oaths of allegiance on children. It is not forceful, but creates a sense that they are part of a country with a long and proud history, willing to integrate new communities into its growth.
Freedom of teachers to teach what they want

Teaching is best done when teachers know what they're talking about. Making teachers present material on certain subjects is dangerous in interpretive subjects like English, where teachers may not really know what they're talking about. Shakespeare is not a compulsory part of many English degrees, so the teacher may not be as good on Shakespeare as he is on other, equally deserving, poets, thus lowering the standard of teaching. Pupils get the most out of school when they enjoy what they're doing. A teacher, similarly, teaches best when they enjoy what they're doing. Having subjects imposed on them erodes their ability to teach in a subject like English; allowing them the freedom to tailor their lessons to their own passions and the abilities of their pupils allows for more creativity in the classroom, more enjoyment for everyone, and overall a better quality of education.
Shakespeare isn't the best poet ever

Shakespeare's reputation is largely inflated, and relative to the age you live in. In the 17th century, for example, several of his plays were rewritten for performance, with Lear given an alternate ending for example. Although there are of course some very fine moments, and some very good plays, he is by no means the uber-poet some make him out to be. The Merry Wives of Windsor, for example, is pretty much rubbish. Shakespeare has become synonymous with 'the best' erroneously; there are other authors equally deserving of time on the curriculum, so giving Shakespeare the limelight is unfair and only cements his irrationally-given place as the nation's best.
Shakespeare as national treasure

The name Shakespeare is ubiquitous within the study of English literature and this is unlikely to change. Almost every student has knowledge of Shakespeare (almost my entire English GCSE was a study of various Shakespearian works), and I'm certain that the large majority of university students, if asked their opinion on whether this was of benefit to them, would say it was neither enjoyable nor enriching. Making the teaching of Shakespeare optional would be far more logical, as younger students are totally capable of making these choices themselves. Why ignore the works of contemporary writers? Any students considering writing as a career will undoubtedly gain a firmer grasp of fiction writing by studying writers such as Tolkien, and hopefully even enjoy it, and wouldn't you be more receptive to work you enjoyed? Although Shakespeare is of clear value to our culture and language, compulsory teaching of his works is narrow minded and inconsiderate to the individuals in compulsory education.
It relates to our lives now

Shakespeare was way ahead of his time. Many of his characters and situatins are modern day and relate to us. Also, his plays ad poetry show us things about our selves that other peices of literature often can't C.S. Lewis wrote: Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the necessary competencies that daily life requires and provides; and in this respect, it irrigates the deserts that our lives have already become. I am studying in the ISC board of the Indian education system and have done 3 (unabridged version) plays of Shakespeare over almost 5 years. I’d disagree with the people who say that it is out of date and his language is confusing and boring. The mastermind himself has invented a whole new phase of the English language. I might add, that to this date we all use words which directly or indirectly have their origins in Shakespeare’s works. Also, many movies are being made on his works which has further generated an interest in the Bard. And who says the plays adhere to only the past centuries? They are even applicable to today’s 21st century. There are still Macbeths, Julius Caesars and others in the society. It’s just that their lifestyle has become more advanced, more tech-savvy and are dressed differently. But don’t people still strive for the ‘Numero Uno’ position in let’s say, the corporate world? Power struggle is still a part of this world and so are power-hungry people. It’s all a game of politics. How many times have you read in the newspapers of people murdering spouses because of jealousy? Othello is still relevant to today’s society. I personally believe Shakespeare to be a pro at deciphering the human emotions and the working of the mind. One can also see his works from a psychological point of view and identify with some of the characters. It might also give an insight to the students who are learning about it and give a better view of the real world as opposed to seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses. Hence, I say that a person who has not read Shakespeare’s work is really missing out on a lot. I consider myself privileged to be reading his works and will totally miss studying them when I pass out.
Shakespeare is too advanced

There is huge variety both thematically and concerning the use of language over Shakespeare's plays. Certain plays are far too complex for key stage 4 Children, for example Measure for Measure which is often referred to as a 'problem play' and deals with very complex ideas of justice and sexual conduct. However, there are certainly many plays and sonnets that are far more light hearted that could be easily understood by children of that age and younger with just a little help on the language aspect. One may look to plays such as A Midsummer Night's Dream or Twelfth Night in this instance. Yes, it can be argued that even the simpler plays may not be fully understood by a young teenager but one must consider the question - does this matter? As long as the child is able to grasp the basic concepts he or she will be able to enjoy the story. Yes, it can also be argued that the language is far too complex to expect a child to learn but this is underestimating the ability of children. They are expected to learn foreign languages such as French and German at school, even before Shakespeare's plays are tackled. If they are able to pick up a language that is entirely separate from English then surely they are perfectly capable of tackling Shakespeare, who uses merely English albeit with some words that are no longer common.
Shakespeare is boring

Many people enjoy Shakespeare's plays and sonnets whether reading them or seeing them performed. Many people though, especially school pupils find it incredibly dull. What is the purpose is spending so much time on teaching Shakespeare when some people will simply never enjoy it. There is a vast wealth of literature out there and by insisting that Shakespeare is in some way the best or the highest writing there will ever be, teachers drive their pupils away from literature and make them believe everything available is stuffy and dull. People want to read what reflects their lives and makes them feel alive. Shakespeare is often taught backwards, so pupils know the entire plot before reading it, so there are no surprises or twists in the plot.
Shakespeare as national treasure

An education in England cannot ignore the vast cultural wealth of our country. For too long have we lost pride in our national icons and allowed nationalists to reclaim them as their own. Keeping control of the powerful icons such as Shakespeare is a tool for integration. Shakespeare has enlightened the lives of the people of this country for 500 years, and for good reason. His poetry and drama represent the pinnacle of the English language, and influences the way we speak today. It is a beautiful body of work, ranging from comedy to tragedy, murder to hatred, treating difficult subjects brilliantly. If we are to remain proud of the history of this country, we cannot ignore the contribution made by this one man to our culture, and wider European culture. Shakespeare made his name here, but has been read by an audience far beyond the reaches of "this sceptred isle" (Shakespeare: Richard II, 2.i).
The Man Who is The Man

When Shakespeare wrote into Othello's mouth that he had seen, " The Anthropothagi whose heads do dwell beneath their necks ", when he was justifying his prowess before the Venetian court; well, I thought - ' That's bloody good! ' What a metaphor for an exotic journeyman! What a CV! Match that! So, as a teenager, I ventured forth... And I found... " And, as imagination bodies forth The form of things unknown, the poet's pen Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name. Such tricks hath strong imagination, ... This is a speech by Theseus in A Midsummer Night's Dream. That is the poetic light that shines behind every poet's sensibility since the Renaissance in Europe, and that has blazed across the Western world ever since. It takes account, due to the Renaissance's recognition of ancient scripts, of Greek and Arabic histories. That is - Othello himself, and his recollections of other lands he felt were valuable in his experience. Those lands beyond Europe where the Anthropothagi dwell. There is a coming-together, in Elizabethan times, that melded ancient and modern. Truly, a Renaissance! Hence the term! We should be doing it now, in our terms. In our day! A. Moore
Neither side emerges as a victor from a war. War rarely settles issues ( the First World War created...

Neither side emerges as a victor from a war. War rarely settles issues ( the First World War created the conditions that led directly to the Second World War ), but they create suffering for both sides concerned. Often the innocent suffer, as with the civilians of Dresden when it was firebombed by the Allies, or the people of Hiroshima when the USA dropped the atomic bomb.
Pacifists do not have to retreat completely from affairs; pacifists are not cowards. The ‘conscienti...

Pacifists do not have to retreat completely from affairs; pacifists are not cowards. The ‘conscientious objectors’ of the First World Wars stood up against the militarism and cynical diplomacy that had led to the conflict by refusing to fight in its name, and many of them were executed for their beliefs. Pacifism simply believes that violence begets violence.
Neither side emerges as a victor from a war. War rarely settles issues ( the First World War created...

It is true that sometimes disputes persist after wars, but often wars can lead to the resolution of some issues, such as the Gulf War, which led to Saddam Hussain’s withdrawal from Kuwait, or the Second World War, which prevented fascism from taking over Europe. In these cases, the failure to act would have led to the oppression of millions, and shown an aggressor triumphing over right.
Science is man made - man is not perfect therefore Science cannot answer everything

Science is an instense study to try and understand the workings of the universe, it is fundamentally flawed because it cannot and will not ever explain the WHY of anything. Religion was created/discovered to explain just that but then religion also depends on your own personal opinion; religion and science teamed together can explain everything, they work well as a pair but you cannot ever hope for science to explain everything because it's far too detached from emotions etc. to be able to explain questions such as why are humans here. Therefore science can never explain everything.
Science can explain most but not all.

To explain my point, here is a question for you. Can science explain why whales sing? yes. But can it explain what they're singing about? no. Can it explain if there is a god or not? no. can it explain what happened before or during the moment of the beginning of the universe. not anymore, the light took billions of years to get here. but it passed now. All we can see is 300,000 years after it happened
Everything occurs for a reason; science discovers these reasons

If you argue that science can only 'explain' something by proving it (for example, we know that the most abundant element in the Earth's atmosphere is Nitrogen, and science can prove this), then science can never know EVERYTHING, as there are many things that cannot be proved. Following the example on the left, one example of something that cannot be proved is the creation of the universe. No one will never know how this occured, as obviously, nobody was around at the time, and so science can only ever make 'educated guesses'.