BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Globalisation is disastrous for biodiversity.

yes, but people were exploiting the environment long before nation states were no longer stringently centralized. Japan was fairly isolated for very long but that did not stop Japan from grazing cows and polluting her land. With globalisaton comes awareness(of what is good and bad in universal terms, such as what is pollution? or what are human rights? etc) with awareness/knowledge comes power and with power comes responsibility. As borders/boundaries diminish and our differences are allayed , we have a greater sense of our responsibility towards to entire planet and knowledge(from across the world) about what to do.
Globalization and Decentralization

Most countries especially the developing ones around the world are facing external as well as internal pressures to decentralize and are actually becoming part of the trend which if not universal is nonetheless the dominant trend. General causes include systemic forces like democratization and economic development; specifc causes however are different for different countries. In some countries the policies of opening up of economy and policies devised to deal with the challenges posed by new ‘globalized’ world are interacting with domestic political and economic institutions in such a way so as to create incentives for decentralization. In addition there is external pressure coming from IMF and WB who implicitly and explicitly have declared ‘decentralization’ as their most favoured policy prescription especially for the developing world.
The National Curriculum sets standards for the Teaching Learning Programme

The 'Higher Authority,' referred to is a group of "Educational Elite,'" having little or no experience of the realities of how children can be taught and learn and which is appointed by a Contemporary Government Elite also removed from contact or unity with the public it is supposed to serve. Both of these elite groups responsible for the central administration of the education system actually proliferate their own "whims and fancies" knowing that whatever they decide and whatever the outcomes, it will not affect their own children. The education they create for other people's children, the children of less important people, cannot be the same as the education they create for their own. The private complaint of the elites, enhance by a general contempt for the masses, is that large sections of the population are uneducable, when at the heart of the problem lies the belief in the idea of a single, all-purpose criteria and methodology.
The National Curriculum is the product of a factory system designed for a world that no longer exists.

This form of schooling has been edited out over the years as the Industrial Revolution turns to the Technical Revolution. No longer are we taught our sums 'parrot-fashion', discipline has transformed from corporal punishment, dealt out to the criminals who originally went there, to much more lenient yet effective punishments, and the system allows for an all-round, effective education in many subjects.
The National Curriculum does not provide personalised learning since it is an instrument of mass instruction.

The education system has only limited resources. Without a ridiculous small ratio of teachers to pupils, a system that teaches a broad range of basic skills to everyone is the only option, and hiring lots of teachers is impossible, dependent on higher taxes and having a wealth of adequate teachers available. Neither of these conditions will be met, so a general system as we have already is the best option. Personalized learning does exist under the NC. While the curriculum outlines what knowledge is to be taught, the teacher plans their lessons to suit the individuals within their class based on their particular strengths and weaknesses. It is known as differentiation and is an essential part of lesson planning.
The national curriculum is capable of substantial improvement

The present problem is that the curriculum is too comprehensive. It tries to squeeze all children into the same mold. We need a more flexible policy to allow for individual aptitudes and interests. However there should still be a more limited core curriculum. Maths and English are essential to enable us to function in modern society. Schools should be required to ensure the highest possible standards in these subjects. Then they should be encouraged to offer any other subjects which the pupils and their parents want. If the school successfully imparts the motivation to learn, the particular subjects they study are much less important.
Local variations

The national curriculum does not allow for enough local variation. It is important for children to learn the values of things such as local history, accents and dialects. We are not all the same and school should reflect that. I'm going to give a United states example to strengthen this argument. Under the national curriculum, the information taught to our youth (state history in this example) will be chosen by a committee presumably not from the the state the material will be taught in. I don't want someone telling my teacher to teach history that really isn't Idaho history, but the committee presumably won't know that because there's probably not someone from Idaho on that committee. Also, because the government chooses what will be taught, some historic events that reflect poorly on the government or incites fear about the power of a government and what it can do will no longer be taught and, in essence, won't have happened. The Holocaust, for example, that shows the power of government and political corruption, will no longer be taught and in a few generations nobody will remember, and "Those who do not remember their history are condemned to repeat it." We don't want another holocaust to happen. The national curriculum should be done away with... now, and forever.
The National Curriculum provides reference points of achievement for parents and government.

The Blair/Brown government is obsessed with targets, though their effectiveness seems marginal to say the least. The national curriculum does not effectively measure achievement in either students or teachers. Especially under a national curriculum that uses merit based pay. Using standardized tests encourages "teaching to the test" (teachers giving only the information that is required to pass the test). Now all our students are do is MEMORIZE and REGURGITATE information... as opposed to actually UNDERSTANDING the material (so as to be able to apply what they have learned). Overall standardized tests are ineffective at providing the information you argue that our policy makers need, because the results are often artificial.
The essence of sport is base

True, sports have has an increase on the profits and sponsorship but that ios part of the normal evolution of any activity and it's not alarming, However, we think that those few athletes that gain those huge profits are those athletes that before that have had great sporting results. Those arthletes that have huge contracts have been those with great results during the last decade (such as Tiger Woods or Michael Schucmacher). To think profit comes before results is false.
Sideshows and promotions generate extra revenue.

My wife is from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Soccer is the only sport she knows. She could not tell you which bag is first base. However, during the inflatable horse race she gestured for my two-year old daughter to “look at the horsies.” The non-baseball field entertainment, Dippin’ Dots, and a “super cute” pink Charleston Riverdogs hat were enough to make her want to go back. The blaring music at a Major League Baseball game, the giant pretzel, and “The Freeze” mid-inning race could provide the same for a casual baseball fan in Atlanta. The “Stan the Man” bobblehead giveaway at Bush Stadium sold how many more hot dogs, beers, and sodas because fans got there early to be one of the first 20,000 in attendance? In football and basketball, the cheerleaders are the obvious distraction and secondary form of entertainment. Secondary entertainment and promotions may often be the deciding factor in a casual fan deciding whether or not to attend a game. According to The Sports Journal, the positive effects of promotions have led to an overall 14% increase in attendance (McDonald & Rascher, 2000). Although the “sideshow entertainment” may seemingly carry comparable value to the actual game being played, one may argue that they are necessary because of down time during the game. Especially in baseball. Baseball is taking many initiatives to try to speed the game up, and until they’re able to do so more effectively, Major League Baseball needs all the help they can to keep the fans entertained during the pauses in action.
Players are all about the money.

Players unions have made playing for the love of the game, a thing of the past. I remember my dad always talking about Cal Ripken and how much he respected that he was with the same organization his entire career. That kind of loyalty is hard to find now, mostly because of the players unions wanting players to get as much money as possible. That way, a comparable player can also get a similar salary. If a high-quality impact player takes less money to remain in a city they love playing in, then another player that’s not as good who is also a free agent, will not have the negotiating power because a better player took less than what he is asking for in his new contract. It also seems like players are always more motivated in their walk year, or the last year of their contract. “When it comes to the effectiveness of sports labor unions, who are the winners and losers depends on which side of the table you're sitting. However, the fans -- the ones fueling the revenue engine in the first place - are the ones who inevitably feel the crunch. When salaries rise, so do ticket prices. When negotiations stall and seasons hang in the balance, the fans are forced to sit and wait.” (Angela Daidone, Investopedia.)
The essence of sport is base

What's been said is partially true but some points have not been considered. For example, English footballers get paid so much and then they perform appalling in the World Cup; the biggest stage of football. In contrast, one of the best English player's wages summed up to the entire Germany squad's wages. this epitomises my point that football has become more about the money than playing well!! Furthermore, the English squad automatically become cocky and think they are too good because they have got money. If the English team got paid like the Germany squad did, I know that they would have got further than they did. The justification of this is if you have lower wages, you work harder when you play football. With lower wages, different factors come into consideration. Paying the mortgage! Paying bills! Providing for your family! Buying luxurious items! Increasing your standard of living! Respecting your manager so he pays you more. Overall, sports in general haven't become more about making money than playing well. However, football definitely is more about making money than playing to your ability!
Need to play well to get the money

While sports may be increasingly about money they still are as much about playing well. Sports fans know what their sport looks like when it is played well and if the level of skill involved in playing was declining they would probably pay less attention and so spend less money on the sport. Money therefore acts as an insentive to keep standards of play as high as possible. It is due to this that we begin to have immense amounts of money going around to buy the best players in many sports.
We love our sports.

Professional sports teams will always be looking to capitalize and earn as much profit as possible throughout the course of the season. There will be sideshows, promotions, cheerleaders, 18-inch hot dogs with fried ice cream, gimmicks, souvenirs, and everything else that comes with attending a pro sporting event. The love that we have for our sports makes all this possible. The better the product on the field, the more opportunity to maximize revenue. For players, the better their performance, the more their worth. For the Dominican baseball player that trained for a decade prior to signing a pro contract at age 16, and earning a ticket to the USA to play minor league baseball at age 18, it’s about a better life. For the wide receiver who grew up in a rough neighborhood and overcame numerous obstacles to establish himself in the NFL, it’s about taking care of his family. For the child prodigy turned NBA superstar, maybe it’s about his influence on a generation. For owners, it’s about a business venture and appeasing a fan base. As long as we as fans continue to love our sports, there will be dollars to be made. For the coaches, it’s about a championship. At the foundation, the roots, the origin of everything for these people, I believe…lies passion for a game they love. For most in the sport industry, it may seem that money is often the main motivator, but deep down it’s about the love of the game. At least I’d like to think so.
Quality player performance benefits everyone.

Team owners are often more concerned about the bottom line than winning championships. However, if the team fails to put a decent product on the field it will have a substantial impact on that organizations profits. It is rare for bad teams to draw decent crowds. Nobody wants to tune in everyday to watch their favorite team get beat, again. There are a few teams in baseball that have a rich history, and draw well regardless of how the team is doing, but they are the exception. Even if the team is bad, and a certain player is excelling, it is beneficial. If a statistical milestone is close to being achieved, or a rookie player is having an incredible year, it helps to put fans in the stands. It obviously would help with TV ratings, jersey sales, concessions, and ticket sales, etc. For the player, quality performance may help land an endorsement deal or a big contract once they hit the free agent market.
Unmanned salons are legal, yet deadly

As with the previous argument this is an example of taking an argument against a specific part to a complete extreme. Maybe the government should introduce tougher regulations covering sunbeds such as strict supervision or an area where access is restricted or sunbeds have to have built in manual safety/ override mechanisms etc. The problem described does not give a licence for the government to ban sunbeds and deny people (with age restrictions) the right to expose themselves to legitimate personal risk.
Alternatives

There is absolutely no need for sunbeds with all these new, safe and effective alternatives that are now available. Those looking for a sun-kissed tan can purchase a luxurious tanning treatment and have someone else apply the tan or buy it cheaply and do a ‘DIY job’. Both of these options are completely safe, completely effective and now all the companies in the market are competing with each other for the most natural, long-lasting colour, the consumer has so many alternatives available that they need not choose the most dangerous tan. Using sunbeds is time-consuming, dangerous and can be pricey, depending on the strength and frequency of the bed.
Unmanned salons are legal, yet deadly

Day after day, we hear and read about horror stories of kids who pop their pocket money into the sunbeds in unmanned salons and end up in hospital, burned and in agony. This is just the tip of the iceberg. These unmanned salons are still legal and very dangerous. The only way to protect everyone from dreadful cases of skin cancer is to ban sunbeds completely: they will thank the Government for it, in the end.
Cosmetic purposes

Open the pages of any magazine and you will be confronted with hundreds of celebrities: smiling, looking beautiful and truly happy and healthy… With a glowing tan. It doesn’t matter to the readers how that tan was achieved – many readers think the easiest way to achieve this look is by using a sunbed. Sunbeds are used for a cosmetic purpose: making the user feel happy and healthier. The majority of sunbed users are responsible and sensible and should not be denied their use of the beds for their enjoyment.
A nanny-state

Banning sunbeds would be yet another example of the Government exercising its control over its constituents. We are told day-in, day-out to exercise more, not eat fatty foods, don’t drink alcohol, don’t smoke… The list goes on and on. Although we know that essentially these recommendations are for our own good, they are just a few of the things we enjoy. Can we not indulge in anything we enjoy anymore? Apparently not, without being told off by the powers that be! If sunbeds are just as dangerous as cigarettes, why not ban those as well? The Government can continue to ‘recommend’ us not to use sunbeds, but banning beds would be overstepping the mark.
New research

It is very difficult to prove that sunbeds are the sole cause of the increased risk of skin cancer. This is because those who are having sunbeds are also being exposed to the sun itself, so it is difficult to prove. Additionally, three million people use sunbeds every year in the UK, so the odds are small.[[http://www.sunbedassociation.org.uk/]] Every time a new report is released, there is always an element of doubt and until it can be certainly proved, there is no need to ban sunbeds at all.
New research

Around 65,000 cases of skin cancer are reported in the UK each year, with 2,000 proving fatal. Most cases are linked to sunburn or prolonged exposure to the sun and it is believed that sunbeds play a role too. The new research indicates there is now ‘no doubt’ that exposure to sunbeds increases the risk of skin cancer.[[http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/300903sunbed.html]] The new assessment puts sunbed use on par with smoking or exposure to asbestos. But these terrifying facts are not enough to put off the sunworshippers, who will risk skin cancer for a summer glow. Surely, it is our duty to ban sunbeds and deter the vulnerable and the young from increasing their risk of getting skin cancer.
Under-age ‘tanorexics’

Sunbeds should be banned to protect the teenagers who continue to use sunbeds and risk skin cancer. These girls (and boys) are young, vulnerable and do not know or completely understand the danger of using these beds. Whilst fourteen and fifteen-year-old girls are still sneaking in the salons to use beds, they have little knowledge of what they are doing to their skin. Sunbeds are adapted to mimic the sun’s rays and often to intensify it. Users get a mix of UVA and UVB rays, which can lead to all types of skin cancer and, in half an hour on a sunbed, you get far more exposure than spending the same amount of time in the sun. Sunbeds should be banned to protect our teens.
Over-exposure

The Sunbed Association assures its users that the risk of skin cancer is only a risk when you allow yourself to be ‘over-exposed’ to the sunbed and if you burn. 88% of the population in the UK have skin types that can successfully tan in a controlled environment.[[http://www.sunbedassociation.org.uk/didyouknow.php]] This then indicates that very few people can burn under the sunbed and therefore, fewer people are at risk. As long as the users are careful, there is no reason at all to go to the extreme of banning sunbeds.
The sun can be good for you

The benefits of the sun are being overlooked. Sunshine is a natural source of vitamin D, which is essential for healthy teeth and bones. Some scientists believe that moderate sunbathing increases feelings of wellbeing by raising serotonin levels in the brain and it is easy to protect yourself against sunburn. The new research conveniently does not highlight the benefit of using sunbeds. (1) http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/tanorexic-teenagers-face-sunbed-ban-469604.html
Alternatives

These treatments can be expensive. The most natural and lasting treatment at a beauty salon can cost a great deal of money and only last two weeks at the most. A sunbed guarantees a natural tan and minimal effort; as opposed to the DIY job: exfoliating; covering yourself in a smelly lotion and scrubbing at your orange hands afterwards. No wonder people continue to use sunbeds. Whilst the market cannot provide a cost-effective and minimal effort tan, consumers will continue to put their health at risk.
The people of both Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, and that is the best reason for welcoming ...

The people of both Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, and that is the best reason for welcoming them into the alliance. NATO is an alliance of democratic states and should respond positively to the request of a sovereign nation. Both states are at risk of being pushed around by Russia, partly because their desire to adopt “western” democratic values is at odds with the more autocratic values of Russia’s leadership. They also fear that Russia has designs on their territory and sovereignty, knowing that many in the Russian elite have never fully accepted the collapse of the old Soviet Union. Joining NATO offers Georgia and Ukraine the protection of a proven alliance and a clear route to European Union membership that has already been travelled by other former Soviet states.
Expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine is in the interests of NATO. After more than a decade with...

Expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine is in the interests of NATO. After more than a decade without a clear role, the alliance now once again stands for the principle of solidarity between western liberal democracies. The hopes of the 1990s for a new world order in which a democratic and liberalising Russia would see partnership with NATO and other western clubs as strongly in its own interest died during the Presidency of Vladimir Putin. Russia once again poses a threat to Europe and needs to be contained. Extending NATO up to Russia’s southern border will signal the West’s strength and determination and force Russia to respect the alliance and its members.
We must not allow Russia a veto over western policy or over the ability of sovereign states to decid...

We must not allow Russia a veto over western policy or over the ability of sovereign states to decide their own future. Refusing to grant Georgia and Ukraine the NATO membership they are seeking would be to give into Moscow and would set a bad precedent. Encouraged, Russia’s leaders would be likely to demand yet more concessions, for example for the independence of the Transdniester client state from Moldova, or for the suspension of the Baltic states from NATO.
We do not need to buy Russia cooperation by sacrificing Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty. The Wes...

We do not need to buy Russia cooperation by sacrificing Georgian and Ukrainian sovereignty. The West would like Russian cooperation in a whole range of areas, but this isn’t a zero sum game where if one side wins the other must lose out. Russia should also worry about issues such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, and the threat posed by failed states, so it is in its own interests to work with international partners to find global solutions. It also wants World Trade Organisation membership to continue its economic growth, especially if oil and gas prices should fall. For these reasons Russia will not make its whole foreign policy dependent on the expansion of NATO, but can be relied upon to continue existing partnerships because they are of mutual benefit.