BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Year-round schooling handles more students, requires fewer schools

National Association for Year Round Education, Typical Calendars - Multi-Track is used primarily to alleviate overcrowding, although it also incorporates the educational values of single-track YRE, including intersessions. It was designed specifically for schools with a shortage of classroom space. Multi-track is used to avoid double sessions, building new schools and temporary structures. It not only saves on capital construction costs, but on the ongoing costs that are part of operating a new school.
Many school buildings are not built for summer use.

One of the historical reasons for avoiding school during summer was the lack of air conditioning during summer months. This is a problem throughout the United States and southern Canada, particularly for older buildings. School buildings, classrooms in particular, tend not to be well ventilated. This is not a handicap when buildings have to be heated, but is when an older building is retrofitted for summer use. Room air conditioners are usually inappropriate for spaces with high ceilings and lots of volume - typical of most classrooms. They would also require electrical retrofitting.
Multi-track year-round schools often become overcrowded

"Year-round Schools Don't Boost Learning, Study Finds". Science Daily. 14 Aug. 2007 - "Year-round schools also tended to have problems with overcrowding. In fact, year-round schedules are often adopted to cope with crowding. By staggering students' schedules, year-round schools can arrange for some students to be in session when others are on vacation; in this way, schools can accommodate more students than they could on a traditional nine-month calendar."
Summer youth programs suffer from year-round schooling.

Youth summer camps rely on the existence of year-round schooling systems with summer breaks. Year-round schooling will threaten the viability of these systems, and, subsequently the positive experience enjoyed by young attendees. Academic summer programs such as CTY demand a large block of time in order to teach their targeted content. While there may be an equal amount of vacation year-round with year-round schooling, they would be in blocks too small to allow for many types of summer programs.
Year-round school is not uniquely helpful to at-risk students

"Stop Year-round School in Auburn". A report to the Auburn City Schools Board of Education. 7 Nov. 1998 - "Of concern to any school system is the low achievement of at-risk students. The number of at-risk students in the ACS district is 537 as cited at PTA meetings. There are about 4100 students enrolled in the district schools. The advantage of YRS for at-risk students is the possibility that remediation during the intersessions might help. Unfortunately this promise has not been fulfilled. As was pointed out at the Cary Woods PTA meeting, the suggestion that 9 weeks of failure can be remedied in one week of intersession is unrealistic."
Areas that depend heavily on summer tourism will suffer economically.

Cottage areas typically swell in population by five to ten times during the summer months, generally with regular cottagers. Many of these areas are ill suited to all-year tourism due to the facilities available (such as boating) and the necessity of winterizing housing, from cottages to resorts. Many resort operators are closed during the winter and rely on summer business in order to stay in operation. Ironically, these areas rely heavily on taxation of summer residents to finance their own schools.
Year-round schooling offers three month-long breaks.

Instead of having summer break for 3 months year long school would have school for 3 months and a month of break. Students that like winter sports will have a chance to play them. Students that like summer sports they will be able to swim too. Every body is happy. There is a break for almost every season so it would be a good little break for them every three months they will be able to get away for a month. That will mean less stress with a long period of time to be in school. Students will have something to look forward to every three months, will have a goal, and will do good in school so that the reward is the month of vacation. Students GPA's may improve along with the reputation of schools.
9-month schooling crams too much info into shorter period

Jeanette Wat. "Extended Year-Round Schooling, Extended Success". Naperville, Illinois - "The third problem is insufficient learning time. In order to provide a long summer break, learning must cram within a shorter period of time, which requires students like John to either give up a comprehensive learning or cut sleep, both of which are undesirable. Furthermore, a long summer results in less learning time and less knowledge acquired."
Summer breaks result in "summer learning loss"

Experts frequently speak about "summer learning loss" as a major problem for North American students. The theory is that, during summer break from school, students set aside learning entirely, fall behind educationally and mentally in those three months, and come back to school behind where they left off. Year-round schooling counters "summer learning loss" by eliminating summer breaks and replacing them with more consistent breaks distributed throughout the year. Under this system, students enjoy a much more consistent and stable learning pace and rate of improvement.
Opponents of year-round schooling are simply intolerant of change

Jeanette Wat. "Extended Year-Round Schooling, Extended Success". Naperville, Illinois - "It takes time to widely change an education program that has been used in this country for many decades. People get used to it, and it is human nature to resist change. Some of the resistance, though, originated from the organizations of summer recreational programs and other summer programs. It is, therefore, important for us to focus on our students and their needs. We then see that we just cannot maintain the status quo on traditional schooling and continue to put our students in a disadvantageous position."
Google colluded with the US government on emails

"Editorial: Google and China." Arab News. January 15, 2010: "the reason given is that it has detected sophisticated cyber attacks on its e-mail service in what it says were unsuccessful attempts to access the e-mails of leading Chinese dissidents. This in itself is odd. It has to be presumed that intelligence services around the world, not least in the US, have been busy trying to penetrate e-mail accounts, including Google’s, as part of the fight against international terror. Google must have spotted this activity as well, but has never protested."
China is improving on free speech; Google should stay

Shaun Rein. "Opposing view: Google's big mistake." USA Today. March 29th, 2010: "Contrary to the way Google founder Sergey Brin makes it sound, the Chinese Internet has in fact opened up since the Olympics. The government has become less scared of content, and sites such as The Huffington Post and the BBC have been unblocked. True, sites heavy with user-generated content, such as Facebook and Twitter, are now blocked, but home-grown versions have flowered because the government feels they will follow local laws."
By leaving, Google impairs Chinese scholars and reformers

Shaun Rein. "Opposing view: Google's big mistake." USA Today. March 29th, 2010: "Ballmer was right: Remaining in China helps Microsoft provide Chinese consumers with more product choice and gives him a seat at the table to help push for reform. Google's standing up so publicly and stridently is counterproductive — hurting those who want to reform China's approach to the Internet more than it helps them."
Google's decision in China was mostly ethics, not business

"Google vs. China." The News Tribune. March 26th, 2010: "Viewed every which way, Google’s decision looks genuinely principled. It stands to pay dearly for picking a public fight with China’s rulers. [...] The company has routed its search traffic from the Chinese mainland to its uncensored Hong Kong Web site, but the government could shut that address down overnight. [...] Even if it doesn’t, Google is already forfeiting partnerships with companies that were marketing smart phones loaded with its search features and Android operating system. Chinese mobile phone companies are already moving in on Google’s share of that market; Yahoo and Bing, Microsoft’s search engine, could grab much of Google’s search traffic if they don’t follow its admirable lead."
Reform must come from within China, not Google leaving

Shaun Rein. "Opposing view: Google's big mistake." USA Today. March 29th, 2010: "True reform in China has to develop from within. It cannot be seen as coming from the West. Like the failed economic sanctions against North Korea, Cuba and Burma (also known as Myanmar) that prop up unsavory governments, isolating China over Web censorship reinforces the power of hard-liners."
Stopping Google censorship improves user experience long-term.

While it is true that the effect of Google stopping the censorship of its results may cause the site to be banned from China (which is not good for Chinese users in the short-term), the long-term objective is to increase access to information for Chinese users by pressuring the Chinese government to loosen its censorship laws. In so far as such freedom of information is improved by Google's decision, the decision will benefit Chinese Google users (or just Internet users in general) in the long-run.
Google should not bend ethics to be in China

"What Lengths Will You Go For China’s Market? What are You Willing to Give Up?" All roads lead to China. March 26th, 2010: "if according to “conventional wisdom” you have to be here, and that by some accounts of conventional wisdom” stipulating you need to bend various morals, values, and laws in order to do it…. is it worth it? Or, should China be a market that, even when accepting the conventional wisdom on its opportunities for a product or service, is left alone because to operate with a sense of integrity is more important to the firm, its managers, its customers, its investors, society at large, or all the above…. and it is here where organizations can easily find themselves in a downward facing dog position."
Google's departure from China sends message for free speech

"Google and China." New York Times Editorial. March 23, 2010: "Google’s departure may have more resonance outside China than within. We don’t know how many of China’s many millions of Internet users will be able to read about this public indictment of China’s use of censorship. But that is preferable to helping maintain the fiction that the Internet in China is the same sort of vehicle for open communication that it is most everywhere else."
Google pressuring China on censorship emboldens hard-liners

Shaun Rein. "Opposing view: Google's big mistake." USA Today. March 29th, 2010: "Like the failed economic sanctions against North Korea, Cuba and Burma (also known as Myanmar) that prop up unsavory governments, isolating China over Web censorship reinforces the power of hard-liners. [...] Google's ultimatum — to let it stop censoring searches or it will leave— has cut reform-minded officials' legs off at the knees, as well as strengthening the power of officials who take a dimmer view of allowing Chinese Internet users access to sites outside China."
Google's decision to leave China harms Chinese users

Loretta Chao. "Pullout Threat Jolts Chinese Users." Wall Street Journal. January 14, 2010: "Google's announcement sent shock waves through the country's fast-growing Internet industry and prompted an outpouring of concern from Chinese users, some of whom brought flowers to the U.S. firm's Chinese offices in a show of support. [...] Li Qin, a student at China Agricultural University, placed a single red rose on the Google logo outside the company's office. "I support what Google does in China," she said. "If they leave, I will be very disappointed. I wanted to express my support for them." "It's a tragedy if Google pulls out of China," said Xu Hao, a junior studying Japanese at Tongji University in Shanghai."
Google left China only for business reasons

Sarah Lacy. "Google’s China Stance: More about Business than Thwarting." Tech Crunch. Jan 12, 2010: "1. Google’s business was not doing well in China. Does anyone really think Google would be doing this if it had top market share in the country? For one thing, I’d guess that would open them up to shareholder lawsuits. Google is a for-profit, publicly-held company at the end of the day. When I met with Google’s former head of China Kai-fu Lee in Beijing last October, he noted that one reason he left Google was that it was clear the company was never going to substantially increase its market share or beat Baidu. Google has clearly decided doing business in China isn’t worth it, and are turning what would be a negative into a marketing positive for its business in the rest of the world."
Working in China does not means supporting all state policies

"Google Makes Right China Decision." Internet Outsider. January 24th, 2006: "In this case--as with Yahoo, Microsoft, and others--agreeing to work with the Chinese government does not mean supporting all of its policies, and doesn't make Google 'evil.' So hats off to Sergey and Larry for making a tough, mature, and pragmatic decision [to go into China in 2006]."
China's response to Google's decision shows depths of censorship

"Google vs. China." The News Tribune. March 26th, 2010: "The issues behind Google’s decision to stop censoring its own search engine in China are perfectly encapsulated in the Chinese government’s response to it. Here are some of the instructions – as translated by the Washington Post – the government handed down to Chinese Web forum managers this week in reaction to Google’s move: 1. It is not permitted to hold discussions or investigations on the Google topic. 2. All Web sites please clean up text, images and sound and videos which attack the party, state, government agencies, Internet policies with the excuse of this event. 3. All Web sites please clean up text, images and sound and videos which support Google, dedicate flowers to Google, ask Google to stay, cheer for Google and others have a different tune from government policy. 4. [...] For all of China’s economic dynamism and modern trappings, it remains ruled by a dictatorship terrified of independent political thoughts and the means of communicating them."
Google motto "don't be evil" forbids censoring results

"Yes go! If Google's motto is don't do evil (or something like that), then it cannot support an oppressive regime. I hope that Google will stand its ground, and have the moral standing to say thanks but no thanks." - Reader comment on CNN.com (March 12, 2010).[10] In general, a company, for PR reasons, must uphold its motto. If it does not, then it will lose its fan base and significant business.
Google employees should not self-censor results in China

"Google and China." New York Times Editorial. March 23, 2010: "We have no illusions that the Chinese Communist Party will suddenly decide to allow its citizens unfettered access to the Internet through Google’s Hong Kong service, where it was redirecting China-based searchers. Beijing is already reportedly disabling searches and blocking search results on Google’s site. [...] But that is much better than self-censorship, which put Google in the troubling business of stripping out results from searches about politically touchy subjects like China’s occupation of Tibet and the massacre on Tiananmen Square by the Chinese Army." This is bad for Google, because it requires dedicating Google employees and resources to this onerous task.
Google has higher responsibility to global norms than Chinese laws

"What Lengths Will You Go For China’s Market? What are You Willing to Give Up?" All Roads Lead to China. March 26th, 2010: "What firms should be doing is playing by global standards that exceed China’s. Building factories that exceed today’s regulations, and ignore the fact that local rules may look past those who fail to meet those rules TODAY, having global labor standards that exceed local “Conventional wisdom” and regulations, and implement global codes of conduct on managers related to bribery. [...] That, in fact, while firms need to certainly abide by China’s rules, it is the firms who exceed those rules who will ultimately have the most sustainable business models, even if developing these models require an upfront higher cost and may limit the short term opportunity that would only be accessible to those who are willing to bend over their moral lines."
Benefits of Google staying in China outweigh costs.

The main benefits are continuing to provide Chinese users with a great informational resource, continuing to expand access to information and free speech in China, maintaining a foothold in the huge Chinese Internet market, and making millions and potentially billions in revenue in the country. The costs may be having to censor a hand-full of search terms, employing Google workers to do this, and jeopardizing an element of Google's image. But, the benefits far outweigh these minimal costs.
Bad idea for Google to leave biggest search market

Sumner Lemon. "Google's China decision ignores conventional wisdom." PC World. March 22, 2010: "Google’s decision to stop censoring search engine results in China flies in the face of common wisdom when it comes to doing business in the country. [...] China is supposed to be too important to ignore, the promise of a market with more than 1 billion people too lucrative to pass up. Common business wisdom holds that no company can afford to ignore, let alone walk away from, China."
Chinese hacks into Google user accounts justifies leaving

David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer. "A new approach to China." Official Google Blog. January 12, 2010: "Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different. [...] First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities. [...] Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists." The inference at Google has been that the Chinese government is likely to have been involved. This is sufficient justification for considering leaving China.
China has a right to censor in its national interests

Nicholas Deleon. "China has every right to be upset with Google right now." Crunch Gear. March 23, 2010: "What I don’t understand is, what gives Google the right to flout a country’s laws, no matter how “bad” they may seem? China doesn’t want its citizens to read up on Tienanmen Square—and? I really don’t think it’s the place outsiders to tell China how to run itself. You wouldn’t want Big China Corporation to build a factory in the middle of Texas, then demand that the state of Texas bend to its whims, would you?"
Lifting sanctions against Cuba would benefit US exporters

There is a major market in the Cuba for United States export goods. Sanctions, however, deprive US businesses of the opportunity of profiting from these possibilities. In this way, the United States is harming itself in order to sanction Cuba, and this makes little sense. Mid-Western Republicans have all voted to drop the embargo because of the potential for profits in their farming states. This is a market for American products as well as a local producer. Further, if sanctions end Americans will be able to stop pretending that they prefer Bolivian cigars![6]
The sanctions cause real and unacceptable harm to the Cuban people.

In the 1990’s Cuba lost $70 Bn in trade and $1.2 Bn in international loans because of U.S. sanctions. Cuba is too poor a country not to suffer from these losses. The dominance of America in the pharmaceuticals industry, moreover, means that it is actually impossible for Cubans to gain access to many drugs. America would be the natural market for most Cuban products, and its refusal to accept goods with even the tiniest Cuban inputs from third nations damages Cuba’s ability to trade with others. Other South American countries have shown their reliance on the types of loans that Cuba is denied in the last few years to keep their economies on track.[3]
Sanctions have not been the cause of the economic failure in Cuba.

The communist political and economic system has been shown to lead to economic collapse all over the world, whether sanctions are in place or not. Even if sanctions were lifted, lack of private ownership, foreign exchange and tradable commodities would hold Cuba back. The International Trade Commission found a ‘minimal effect on the Cuban economy’ from sanctions. In fact, it is by using sanctions to pressure Cuba into economic and political reform that the US can best contribute to an economic recovery there.[4]
Lifting US sanctions will not be a victory for the Cuban regime

Lifting sanctions on Cuba need not be seen as an admission of failure on the part of the United States' policy and, thus, a victory for the Cuban government. Rather, it can easily be framed simply as an alteration of approach toward the same goal of liberalizing Cuba. In addition, dropping sanctions, despite any immediate media benefits to the Cuban government, will be a long-term liability for them as it will become impossible to blame their failures on the United States. Their failures will be seen as their own, and this will be a certain cost for the Cuban government. In addition, policies should not be continued merely on the basis of costs surrounding admissions of failure. Failed tactics such as sanctions should always be ended if in the bigger and more important interest of "winning the war".
Changing legally etched Cuban human rights violations requires sanctions

Cuba's human rights violations are not merely a factor of capricious actions being taken by the Cuban regime. Rather, human rights violations are enshrined in Cuban law. The Cuban constitution does protect certain individual freedoms, but then nullifies them when they are contrary to "the goals of the socialist State," "socialist legality," or the "people's decision to build socialism and communism." By making individual rights conditional on the will of the Cuban regime, the door to human rights is opened very wide with no room for narrowing the gap. The only way that human rights violations can be ended in Cuba is if these laws are fundamentally changed or if the constitution itself is thrown away. Such drastic change cannot be achieved through gradual change, but requires sanctions for either regime change or as a lever to institute dramatic change.
Sanctions should persist to leverage Cuban leaders that follow Castro

Sanctions are a good lever to influence Cuban political leaders toward liberalization. While this may not be achievable with Castro, it is certainly possible with the leaders that follow Castro. Sanctions have more potential to influence post-Castro Cuban leaders because these leaders will be less able to resist the public outcry against the government actions in Cuba that have led to the existence of these sanctions. Therefore, the liberalizing objective of sanctions are much more likely to succeed with the next Cuban leaders, and so they should be sustained so that they can be used effectively in this context.