BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Undermines separation of religion and the state.

Since education is something that the state is obligated to provide, any organisation that provides education is a representative of the state, even in private education. If religious groups are allowed to run schools then this means they are acting on behalf of the state, which undermines the separation of religion and the state, which the proposition believes is inherently harmful and undermining to the concept of democracy.[1]  Even the Archbishop of Canterbury believes having greater separation of church and state would be beneficial arguing "I think that the notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness.”[2] This separation has to include the education of children.   [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992. [2] Butt, Riazat, ‘Church and state could separate in UK, says Archbishop of Canterbury’, The Guardian, 17 December 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/17/religion-constitution
Faith schools are inherently divisive.

At the age at which children are sent to faith schools, they are too young to have decided their religion for themselves, and so, their parents must have decided it for them. The proposition accepts that parents have a right to decide a child’s religion on its behalf but this means that faith schools end up segregating children based on the faith that they inherit. School should be about bringing children together not segregating them. In the UK the government allows faith schools to ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship[1]  which is inherently discriminatory and divisive. Proposition believes that separating children based on what families they are born into creates communities which find it difficult to associate with people from outside their community and therefore cause massive divisions in society based on what religion people were born into. [2]   [1] Directgov, “Applying for a school place: admissions criteria”, direct.gov.uk, http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/ChoosingASchool/DG_4016369 [2] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006. http://www.cesew.org.uk/standard.asp?id=4464
Creates animosity towards religious groups

Faith schools continuously perform better than normal schools. This creates a feeling amongst parents and children of wanting to be included in these faith schools. They are, however, excluded on the basis of their religion. This will create feelings of unfair exclusion, which will lead to animosity towards the religion running the school and, by extension, people of that religion.[1]  As a result of this 64% of people in the UK believe that there should be no state funding for faith schools.[2]     It would be easy to convert faith schools to normal schools. The majority of faith schools are already tied closely to the state education system making it easy to convert them into normal schools which are not faith based. Much of the curriculum is the same or very similar so the change would not be difficult for teachers. In England for example there 6783 faith schools that are also state schools and 47 that are academies.[1] These schools would simply change to having the same systems as any other school and admission would become open to all. [1] Department of Education, “Maintained faith schools”, 12 January 2011, http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/foi/disclosuresaboutschools/a0065446/maintained-faith-schools [1] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007. [2] ICM, ‘Guardian Opinion Poll Fieldwork August 12th-14th 2005’, ICM/The Guardian, 2005, pp21 http://www.icmresearch.com/pdfs/2005_august_guardian_august_poll.pdf
Relationship with organised religion.

Passing this legislation with be sending a signal to the religious groups that are running faith schools that we do not think they are capable of running schools. The state’s relationship with organised religion is already a fractured one. This legislation would cause a lot of tension between the government and religious communities within the country, as well as between the state and states which hold religion more highly.[1]   [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.
Faith schools perform better than ordinary schools.

Faith schools consistently perform better than ordinary schools. According to Ofsted, the UK schools inspectors, 73% of Catholic secondary Faith schools are good or outstanding, compared with 60% of English schools nationally. At primary level, 74% of Catholic schools are rated outstanding or good, compared with 66% nationally.[1] This shows that the religious aspect of their education must have some positive impact on the children who are educated there. Banning faith schools, therefore, would be condemning many children to a poorer standard of education than necessary. The opposition believes that it is the government’s role to provide the best it can for its citizens and banning faith schools would, therefore, be the opposite of this.[2]   [1] Butt, Riazat, “Gove defends faith schools”, The Guardian, 17 February 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/feb/17/gove-faith-schools [2] Glenn, Charles L. “The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies.” Princeton University Press. 2002.
State has a responsibility to protect and educate its citizens.

Parents have a right to act on behalf of their children. It is the right of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children. It is not the role of the state to intervene in the raising of a child except in exceptional circumstances and the opposition do not accept that raising a child religiously constitutes exceptional circumstances. It is not the role of the state, therefore, to intervene by banning faith schools simply to ensure that children are not educated too religiously.
Faith schools can be necessary for a religious upbringing.

This is not the government’s responsibility. The government has a responsibility to educate and to allow its people to practise whatever religion they wish to. The government does not have a responsibility to facilitate the practise of a religion where it would cause harms to its people in other ways. Since it is outlined in the main proposition case that it would cause harms in other ways, this is over and above the responsibility of the government.
State has a responsibility to protect and educate its citizens.

The state should not allow the education of a child to be polluted by what is tantamount to brainwashing. Amartya Sen argues “Under this system, young children are placed in the domain of singular affiliations well before they have the ability to reason about different systems of identification that may compete for their attention.”[1] Instead they have to learn about all religions to encourage tolerance. It is totally acceptable for children to have religious education outside of school and to brought to places of worship but school is a place of education and they should be given an education that is not tainted by trying to ensure that they grow up with a certain attitude towards their religion.[2]   [1] Jeffries, Stuart, “To abolish only non-Christian faith schools would be taken as an affront. The answer is that they all have to go”, The Guardian, 28 July 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/28/comment.schools [2] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007.
Shows that religion is not a higher authority than the state.

When the government allows religion to act on its behalf, it confuses the role of the state and the role of religious groups. As it stands, religious groups do not appear to be truly answerable to the state and, therefore, it is unclear whether they or the government are the higher authority.[1] For example in the UK faith schools set their own admission standards and increasingly have control over their curriculum, which in other state funded schools is set by the government, as well as they are being converted to academies.[2]  This legislation would make it completely clear that the state is the ultimate authority.   [1] Dawkins, Richard. “Faith School Menace.” Channel 4. 2010. [2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Faith schools 'get more freedom over curriculum and admissions'’, The Telegraph, 7 May 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8498333/Faith-schools-get-more-freedom-over-curriculum-and-admissions.html
Parents have a right to ensure their child is brought up with the values they consider important.

Parents send their children to school so that they can be properly educated. For many parents, this education includes proper moral codes and values. Sending their child to a faith school that they know will adhere to the moral codes and values of that particular faith is one of the only ways that they can guarantee their child will be brought up with the values they consider important.[1] It is this that in part makes the schools popular as Ed Balls, then UK education secretary recognises "One thing we've learnt as a government is that having a distinct ethos, strong leadership, a commitment to promoting opportunity for all, those are the kind of schools where parents want to send their children.”[2]   [1] Mott-Thornton, Kevin. “Common Faith: Education, Spirituality and the State.” Ashgate Pub. Ltd. 1998. [2] BBC News, “Faith schools set for expansion”, 10 September 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6986398.stm
Relationship with religious people.

This legislation would send a message of no confidence in religion and would be tantamount to the government condemning religion. It is wrong for government to suggest that faith schools are divisive as “the average grade awarded by Ofsted to secondary-level faith schools for promoting community cohesion was "substantially and significantly" better than the average grade awarded to community schools.”[1] This will lead to religious people feeling undermined and insulted by their government who would be attacking their faith with no justification based upon the performance of the schools.   [1] Pritchard, John, “Church of England schools must serve the whole community”, guardian.co.uk, 5th May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/05/church-of-england-schools-admission
Translation allows greater participation by academics in global academia and global marketplace of ideas

Communication in academia is necessary to effectively engage with the work of their colleagues elsewhere in the world, and in sciences in particular there has become a lingua franca in English.[1] Any academic without the language is at a severe disadvantage. Institutions and governments of the Global North have the resources and wherewithal to translate any research that might strike their fancy. The same is not true for states and universities in the Global South which have far more limited financial and human capital resources. By subsidizing the translation of academic literature into the languages of developing countries the developed world can expand the reach and impact of its institutions' research. Enabling access to all the best academic research in multiple languages will mean greater cross-pollination of ideas and knowledge. Newton is supposed to have said we “stand upon the shoulders of giants” as all ideas are ultimately built upon a foundation of past work.[2] Language is often a barrier to understanding so translation helps to broaden the shoulders upon which academics stand. By subsidizing the publication of their work into other significant languages, institutions can have a powerful impact on improving their own reputation and academic impact. Academic rankings such as the rankings by Shanghai Jiao Tong University,[3] and the Times Higher Education magazine[4] include research and paper citations as part of the criteria. Just as importantly it opens the door to an improved free flowing dialogue between academics around the world. This is particularly important today as the developing world becomes a centre of economic and scientific development.[5] This translation project will serve to aid in the development of relations between research institutes, such as in the case of American institutions developing partnerships with Chinese and Indian universities. [1] Meneghini, Rogerio, and Packer, Abel L., ‘Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication’, EMBO Report, February 2007, Vol.8 No.2, pp.112-116, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1796769/ [2] Yong, Ed, ‘Why humans stand on giant shoulders, but chimps and monkeys don’t’, Discover, 1 March 2012, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/01/why-humans-stand-on-giant-shoulders-but-chimps-and-monkeys-dont/#.UaYm_7XVB8E [3] ‘Ranking Methodology’, Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2012, http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2012.html [4] Baty, Phil, ‘World University Rankings subject tables: Robust, transparent and sophisticated’, Times Higher Education, 16 September 2010, http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-11/world-ranking/analysis/methodology [5] ‘Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012’. National Science Foundation. 2012, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c5/c5h.htm
Translation gives access to students to learn valuable information and develop their human capital and to become academically and economically competitive

The ability to access the wealth of knowledge being generated in the developed world would greatly impact the ability of students and budding academics in the developing world to develop their human capital and keep abreast of the most recent developments in the various fields of academic research. Lag is a serious problem in an academic world where the knowledge base is constantly developing and expanding. In many of the sciences, particularly those focused on high technology, information rapidly becomes obsolete as new developments supplant the old. The lag that occurs because developing countries' academics and professionals cannot readily access this new information results in their always being behind the curve.[1] Coupled with the fact that they possess fewer resources than their developed world counterparts, developing world institutions are locked in a constant game of catch-up they have found difficult, if not impossible, to break free of. By subsidizing this translation effort, students in these countries are able to learn with the most up-to-date information, academics are able to work with and build upon the most relevant areas of research, and professionals can keep with the curve of knowledge to remain competitive in an ever more global marketplace. An example of what can happen to a country cut off from the global stream of knowledge can be found in the Soviet Union. For decades Soviet academics were cut off from the rest of the world, and the result was a significant stunting of their academic development.[2] This translation would be a major boon for all the academic and professional bodies in developing countries. [1] Hide, W., ‘I Can No Longer Work for a System that Puts Profit Over Access to Research’, The Guardian. 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/may/16/system-profit-access-research [2] Shuster, S. “Putin’s PhD: Can a Plagiarism Probe Upend Russian Politics?”. Time. 28 February 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/02/28/putins-phd-can-a-plagiarism-probe-upend-russian-politics/
Translation expands the knowledge base of citizens to help solve local problems

It is often the case that science and technology produced in the developed world finds its greatest application in the developing world. Sometimes new developments are meant for such use, as was the case with Norman Borlaug's engineering of dwarf wheat in order to end the Indian food crisis. Other times it is serendipitous, as academic work not meant of practical use, or tools that could not be best applied in developed world economies find ready application elsewhere, as citizens of the developing world turn the technologies to their needs.[1] By translating academic journals into the languages of developing countries, academics and governments can open a gold mine of ideas and innovation. The developing world still mostly lacks the infrastructure for large scale research and relies heavily on research produced in the developed world for its sustenance. Having access to the body of academic literature makes these countries less dependent on the academic mainstream, or to the few who can translate the work themselves. Having access to this research allows developing countries to study work done in the developed world and look at how the advances may be applicable to them. The more people are able to engage in this study the more likely it is that other uses for the research will be found. [1] Global Health Innovation Blog. ‘The East Meets West Foundation: Expanding Organizational Capacity”. Stanford Graduate School of Business. 18 October 2012, http://stanfordglobalhealth.com/2012/10/18/the-east-meets-west-foundation-expanding-organizational-capacity/
It is better to have fewer languages in common use in global academic and economic interrelations

A proliferation of languages in academia will serve to fracture the interrelations of academics, not unify them. As more and more academics and innovators interested in new academic developments find it possible to obtain information wholly in their native languages, then the impetus toward unification in a primary language of academia and commerce will be slowed or entirely thwarted. Through history there have been movements toward this sort of linguistic unity, because it reduces the physical and temporal costs of information exchange; for example scholars throughout Early Modern Europe communicated in Latin.[1] This policy serves only to dampen this movement, which will, even if helpful to people in the short-run, serve to limit the capacity of developing world academics to engage with the developed world. Today English has become the definitive language of both international academic discourse and commerce. In France for example, a country known for its protective stance towards its language, journals have been changing to publishing in English rather than French; the journal Research in Virology changed in 1989 as almost 100% of their articles were submitted in English compared to only 15% in 1973.[2] The trend towards one language is a positive one, because it has meant more movers and shakers in various countries have all been able to better and more quickly understand one another's desires and actions leading to more profitable and peaceful outcomes generally.[3] Also important is the fact that while academics and other interested parties in the developing world may be able to grapple with academic work more effectively once translated for them, they now have a greater disadvantage due to the enervating effects this translation produces. Without the positive impetus to learn the major language or languages of international discourse, developing world academics will never be able to get posts and lectureships at institutions in the developed world, or to take part in joint research in real time. The convergence of language ultimately serves to promote common understanding, which means people from the developing world can more effectively move between their home country and others. It also helps build a common lexicon of terms that will be more robust for international use, as opposed to translations, which are often imperfect due to divergences of linguistic concepts and thus susceptible to mistake. [1] Koenigsberger, H. G., Mosse, George L., and Bowler, G. Q., Europe in the Sixteenth Century, London, 2nd Edn, 1989, p.377 [2] Garfield, Eugene, ‘The English Language: The Lingua Franca Of International Science’, The Ceisntist, 15 May 1989,  http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/10374/title/The-English-Language--The-Lingua-Franca-Of-International-Science/ [3] Bakopoulos, D. ‘English as Universal Academic Language: Good or Bad?’. The University Record, 1997, Available: http://www.ur.umich.edu/9697/Jan28_97/artcl18.htm
The West has no particular obligation to undergo such a sweeping policy

Governments and academic institutions have no special duty to give full access to all information that they generate and publish in academic journals to anyone who might want it. If they want to make their research public that is their prerogative, but it does not follow that they should then be expected to translate that work into an endless stream of different languages. If there is a desire by governments and institutions to aid in the academic development of the developing world, there are other ways to go about it than indiscriminately publishing their results and research into developing world languages. Taking on promising students through scholarships, or developing strategic partnerships with institutions in the global south are more targeted, less piecemeal means of sharing the body of global knowledge for example the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences funds junior scientists from the developing world working in their labs.[1] States owe their first duty to their own citizens, and when the research they produce is not only made available to citizens of other countries but translated at some expense, they are not serving that duty well. It will prove to be a fairly ineffective education policy. [1] ‘Building Research Capacity in Developing Nations’, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 114, No. 10, October 2006,  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626416/
It is prohibitively expensive to translate everything and difficult to prioritize what to translate

Ultimately any policy of translation of academic work must rely on a degree of prioritization on the part of the translators since there is no way that all academic work of any kind could be translated into other major languages, let alone into all the multitude of languages extant in the world today. In 2009, for example, the number of published research papers on science and technology exceeded 700,000.[1] That is a gigantic amount of research. Translating all of these articles seems to be an obvious waste of time and resources for any government or institution to pursue and increasingly so when one considers the more than 30,000 languages in current use today. Translations today currently exist for articles and research that is considered useful. Any blanket policy is infeasible. The end result will be only a small number of articles translated into a finite number of languages. This is the status quo. Expanding it only serves to further confuse the academic community and to divert useful energies away from positive research to the quixotic task of translation. [1] ‘Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012’. National Science Foundation. 2012, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c5/c5h.htm