BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States can reduce domestic demand for drugs through education

This makes it sound like the US government does not currently have an education program on drugs, this is not true. The current program is making very little difference to drug use.[1] So Romney’s policy is really the same failed policy being recycled again; more border security and a few measures that will make little impact on the demand side. The White House has been highlighting that it has been spending $5billion on reducing drug use while also increasing border security this is not a change so how can we expect an improvement?[2] [1] Hanson, Prof. David J., ‘Ineffective DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Program Remains Popular’, State University of New York. [2] Napolitano, Janet et al. ‘Administration Officials announce U.S.-Mexico Border Security Policy: A comprehensive response & commitment’, The White House, 24 March 2009.
The United States can reduce domestic demand for drugs through education

Like Obama, Romney has indicated a willingness to talk to Mexican leaders about collaboration and has admitted the need to address large-scale demand for drugs in the United States. When asked how to improve the War on Drugs, he stated, “We gotta stop the demand here in this country.”[1] And that demand is immense, it is estimated that there are 22.6 million Americans aged 12 of over using illegal drugs.[2] Additionally, he told the Hispanic Leadership Network that along with preventing demand through education, the United States needs to improve its control of the Mexican border.[3] Romney will try to control domestic demand for drugs by prohibiting their use, educating young people about their harms (as exemplified by his record as Governor of Massachusetts)[4], and punishing those who break the law. Through education and regulation, the United States can win the War on Drugs, rather than appease drug growers, traffickers, dealers, and users. [1] Romney, Mitt, ‘Romney Rally Pinkerton Academy Derry, NH’, Youtube, 7 January 2012. [2] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, ‘Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings’, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011. [3] Romney, Mitt, ‘Mitt Romney Remarks at Hispanic Leadership Network’, C-Span, 27 January 2012. [4] Harclerode, Kelsey, ‘What Would President Mitt Romney’s Drug Policy Look Like?’, the Atlantic, 2 March 2012.
Single-sex institutions are bad for the emotional health of males

The positive health effects of single-sex schools pointed out in the same Dr. Leonard study outweigh the emotional distress potentially felt by a minority of divorced men. Regarding the majority, the research found ‘those who stayed together were just as likely to be happy in their relationship as men educated in mixed schools’. As for girls, the findings suggest they ‘seem to learn what the nature of the beast is’ without needing to learn alongside boys, whilst a central finding of the study is that ‘single-sex moderates the effect of gender-stereotyping in terms of choice of field of study’.[1] [1] Garner, R. ‘Why single-sex schools are bad for your health’. The Independent, 1 December 2009.
Women are better off in single-sex institutions

Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more in class, develop much higher self-esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose ‘male’ disciplines such as science in college, and are more successful in their careers. In the USA Who’s Who, graduates of women’s colleges outnumber all other women; there are only approximately 50 women’s colleges left in the States today.[1] Elizabeth Tidball, who conducted the Who’s Who research, also later concluded that women’s colleges produced ‘more than their fair share who went on to medical school or received doctorates in the natural or life sciences’, typically male fields.[2] [1] Calefati, Jessica, ‘The Changing Face of Women’s Colleges’, US News, 11 March 2009. [2] Kaimer, W. ‘The Trouble with Single-sex Schools’. The Atlantic, April 1998.
Boys and girls are an unwelcome distraction to each other

Boys and girls distract each other from their education, especially in adolescence as their sexual and emotional sides develop. Too much time can be spent attempting to impress or even sexually harassing each other (particularly boys toward girls). Academic competition between the sexes is unhealthy and only adds to unhappiness and anxiety among weaker students. As Tricia Kelleher, a school principal, argues, ‘rather than girls defining themselves by their interests, they define themselves by what the boys think of them or what other girls think boys think of them’.[1] Furthermore, John Silber, President of Boston University, declared in 2002 that his university would prioritize male applications in order to even up the student composition and ensure the male population did not become ‘ungentlemanly’ towards women due to their numerical inferiority. A single-sex environment is therefore a space where (children) can learn without feeling pressurized by the other sex’.[2] [1] Kelleher, Tricia et al., ‘Should boys and girls be taught together’, perspicacious. [2] Kelleher, Tricia et al., ‘Should boys and girls be taught together’, perspicacious.
Boys and girls develop at different times and speeds, therefore they should be taught separately

Co-educational schools attempt to establish uniformity in the teaching of two groups, boys and girls, who typically learn and develop at different speeds and using different methods. ‘They do not develop in the same way or at the same time; boys favour visual processing and do not have the hand-motor control that girls readily achieve in early grades’.[1] It is widely accepted that ‘boys develop more slowly than girls..that’s true at every level of analysis’.[2] Furthermore, they develop physically at different speeds, girls often developing earlier which can lead to bullying from the opposite sex for those who either over-develop or under-develop. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, at least in the United States, elementary school boys are 50% more likely to repeat a grade than girls and they drop out of high school a third more often.[3]  If they were taught separately and the curriculum and teaching was tailored to their needs, drop-out rates would not be so high nor as vastly disproportionate. [1] Gilbert, M. ‘Single-sex schools help children thrive’. The Christian Science Monitor 20 September 2007. [2] Bronski, M., ‘Single-sex Schools’. Znet, 25 October 2002. [3] Gilbert, M. ‘Single-sex schools help children thrive’. The Christian Science Monitor 20 September 2007.
Teachers favour their own gender in co-educational schools

Teachers frequently favour their own gender when teaching co-educational classes; for example, male teachers can undermine the progress and confidence of girl students by refusing to choose them to answer questions etc. A recent study by the American Association of University Women found that ‘gender bias is a major problem at all levels of schooling’, asserting ‘girls are plagued by sexual harassment and neglected by sexist teachers, who pay more attention to boys’.[1] As a result, girls tend to fall behind their male counterparts. [1] Kaimer, W. ‘The Trouble with Single-sex Schools’. The Atlantic, April 1998.
Children need to be exposed to the opposite sex in preparation for later life

The formative years of children are the best time to expose them to the company of the other gender, in order that they may learn each other’s’ behaviour and be better prepared for adult life. Moreover, the school's role is to prepare its students for life which involves interaction between the sexes, by preventing inter-sexual interaction we hurt the role of the school significantly. The effects of same-sex schools are significant. This creates segregation men and women, this which as a result of a lack of contact between them can create fear and uneasiness between them. This might be compatred to segregation between black and white in the USA or South Africa where the resulting racism and troubles to bond has yet to heal. We already live in a society where women are discriminated against, segregation cannot be the answer to this. Furthermore, the number of subjects benefiting from single-sex discussion is so small that this could easily be organised within a co-educational system. Furthermore, even if girls naturally perform better in an environment without boys, they need to learn how to perform just as well with boys. Dr. Alan Smithers, a respected British schools expert, declared in a 2006 report that ‘distraction by boys was a myth’ and that ‘half a century of research has not shown any dramatic or consistent advantages for single-sex education for boys or girls’.[1] [1] Asthana, A. ‘Single-sex schools ‘no benefit to girls’’. The Guardian, 25 June 2006.
Single-sex schools are manifestations of patriarchal societies

Single-sex schools are a throwback to the patriarchal society of the past; in many historical cultures, only men were allowed an education of any sort. To perpetuate this is to remind women of their past subservience and to continue to hold them from full social inclusion. In India, where the colonial yoke of British rule remains, the national average for the difference in male-female literacy is 16.7%, with some districts as high as 28%.[1] Single-sex schools discourage female education and make it increasingly difficult for parents to find room for girls in the limited co-educational schools. A push for single-sex education therefore is ‘predicated on outdated, moronic, and destructive gender stereotypes’.[2] [1] Times of India, ‘Male-female literacy gap highest in Rajasthan’, Times of India, 5 April 2011. [2] Bronski, M., ‘Single-sex Schools’. Znet, 25 October 2002.
Single-sex institutions are bad for the emotional health of males

Men always say that they do not understand women, perhaps because they were sent to single sex schools. Research has proved that boys who went to single sex schools as opposed to mixed schools are more likely to get divorced and suffer from depression in their 40. This is proof that we should school our children in mixed schools in order to give them the best bill of emotional health. Dr. Diana Leonard, who presented the findings, concluded that ‘Boys learn better when they are with girls and they actually learn to get on better’.[1] [1] Garner, R. ‘Why single-sex schools are bad for your health’. The Independent, 1 December 2009.
Women are better off in single-sex institutions

Other studies have found that women in fact are not any better off in single-sex institutions. A 1998 survey from the American Association of University Women, a long-time advocate of single-sex education, admitted that girls from such schools did not show any academic improvement.[1] That they are more inclined towards maths and sciences is of questionable importance to society as a whole. As the report noted, "boys and girls both thrive when the elements of good education are there, elements like smaller classes, focused academic curriculum and gender-fair instruction".[2] These can all be present in co-educational schools. Tidball in her research made the mistake of not controlling for other characteristics, namely socio-economic privileges of those at elite women’s colleges.[3] [1] Morse, Susan ed., Separated by Sex a critical look at single-sex education for girls, American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, March 1998. [2] Lewin, Tamar, ‘All-Girl Schools Questioned As a Way to Attain Equality’, The New York Times, 12 March 1998. [3] Kaimer, W. ‘The Trouble with Single-sex Schools’. The Atlantic, April 1998.
Boys and girls are an unwelcome distraction to each other

In fact boys and girls are a good influence on each other, engendering good behaviour and maturity – particularly as teenage girls usually exhibit greater responsibility than boys of the same age. Academic competition between the sexes is a spur to better performance at school. Any negative effects of co-educational schools have been explained away by studies as the result of other factors, such as ‘classroom size, economic discrepancies and cultural differences’.[1] Furthermore, the separation of boys and girls only serves to embrace sexual objectification, for they exist for each other only as dates rather than the classmates they would be in a co-educational environment[2]. Allowing them into the same educational environment, in part to permit them to distract each other, is a welcome social development as well as a beneficial learning curve. [1] Bronski, M., ‘Single-sex Schools’. Znet, 25 October 2002. [2] Kaimer, W. ‘The Trouble with Single-sex Schools’. The Atlantic, April 1998.
Boys and girls develop at different times and speeds, therefore they should be taught separately

Everyone develops at slightly different speeds, however few would advocate everyone should be home-schooled. Ultimately, the curriculum determines the mode of teaching, not the gender composition of the class, and the curriculum can be moulded to suit both girls and boys, faster and slower learners and those with under-developed hand-motor control. If elementary school boys are being forced to repeat grades that is a manifestation of difficulties in learning and as relevant to their proximity to girls in the classroom as it is to the higher-achieving boys. Furthermore, the sociologist Cynthia Epstein argues that in fact ‘there is no consensus among psychologists as to the existence of psychological or cognitive differences between the sexes’.[1] Finally, as Michael Bronski notes, the benefits of same-sex schools cannot be applied across the educational sphere for the private schools where the tests take place admit ‘either only high-achieving pupils or self-select by expelling poorly-performing or misbehaving students’.[2] [1] Kaimer, W. ‘The Trouble with Single-sex Schools’. The Atlantic, April 1998. [2] Bronski, M., ‘Single-sex Schools’. Znet, 25 October 2002.
Teachers favour their own gender in co-educational schools

There is little evidence to support this claim. Valerie Lee, a professor at the University of Michigan, studied a sample of coeducational, all-boys and all-girls independent schools, finding that ‘the frequency of sexist incidents was similar in the three types of schools’. Wendy Kaimer argues that the restraints of femininity are actually ‘self-imposed’ at single-sex schools, ‘whether manifested in feminine décor or…pandering to women’s fear of masculinizing themselves’.[1] [1] Kaimer, W. ‘The Trouble with Single-sex Schools’. The Atlantic, April 1998
Children need to be exposed to the opposite sex in preparation for later life

Children will gain exposure to the opposite sex when they reach adult life; whilst they are young, they should be around those who they feel most comfortable with. The inclinations of children in the formative years, between 7 and 15, are to gravitate towards their own sex. What is natural should be encouraged, and can most easily be done so in single-sex institutions. Furthermore, they naturally tend towards behaviour appropriate to their gender. It is therefore easier to implement an education strategy geared specifically towards one gender. Moreover, certain subjects are best taught, both in terms of ease and effectiveness, in single-sex classrooms, such as sex education or gender issues.
Single-sex schools are manifestations of patriarchal societies

Single-sex schools for women are a natural extension of the feminist movement; there are co-educational schools, men have had their own schools, why should women not? It would still be discrimination if there were only male single-sex schools; as long as both genders are catered for, this discrimination is redressed. The issue in states like India is not there are too many single-sex schools, but that there are not enough. This is more to do with cultural preferences for males, and a population heavily overpopulated with males, than the lingering effects of British colonial rule.
The risk of creating dependence

Always looking at the state for solutions makes these communities dependent on the government in a world in which the state will continue to gradually lose its power. On an individual level increases in people taking disability benefits over the long term are a good example of dependency, in Australia for example between 1972 and 2004 those receiving the Disability Support Pension rose fivefold well above the increase in the disabled population(Saunders, ‘Disability Poverty and Living Standards’, 2005, p.2). Putting more pressure on increasingly weaker states is probably not the best idea. While strong social-democratic states such as France might be able to handle it, developing countries or unstable states will never be able to withstand these pressures. We need to look for solutions elsewhere, and we need to accept the fact that there might not be one solution for all. Each community, facing different kinds of problems, will have to be addressed differently. The new rise in the field of corporate social responsibility signifies that corporations are looking to take over some of the responsibilities of the state.
Social change

As modern societies are clearly moving away from an agricultural economy to an industrial and post-industrial economy, new demographic challenge arise with high concentrations of people in urban areas where jobs are available. From 2008 more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities meaning that poverty is now growing faster in urban than rural areas (UNFPA, ‘Urbanization: A Majority in Cities’, 2007). The solution here is not subsidies, but rather the spreading of jobs across the whole economy, including rural areas, and the re-education of those who need to fill these jobs. These are structural problems that every society will need to address, regardless of how many subsidies the state is providing or not.
Communities should be engineered to be self sufficient

As the introduction and opposition argument 1 explain, subsidising poor communities involves taking money away from wealthy communities. It is unfair to make the wealthy members of a community pay for the benefit of the poorer members, when the poorer members should be putting in the effort to raise and support their own communities. Those who are wealthy have earned their wealth by working hard. If they wish to be subsidizing poor communities they can give to charities that work in poorer areas.
Subsidies are the most efficient way for a state to redistribute wealth within its borders.

While we do not concede that subsidies are the most efficient means of redistributing wealth even if they are then is this redistribution something we want to see? Poor communities should instead be shown how to pull themselves up rather than having subsidies spoon fed to them. Giving those in poor communities the education and means to better themselves is a much more effective long term solution. Redistribution of wealth through subsidies is simply discouraging the poor from working hard towards the betterment of their lives both because the state is already giving them enough to survive and because they know the state will begin taking what they have earned away if they do manage to work their way up.
Poor communities create criminality

The existence of slums and favelas and their increasing criminality in Latin America cannot be explained by the lack of social subsidies. In fact, quite the opposite is the case: the leftward turn in Latin America with an increase in state subsidies that promised to help poor communities has yet to ease the problems of criminality. Subsidies not only do not help or provide only weak temporary relief, but they are also used to manipulate political opinions and influence the poor particularly around election time. The successful presidential campaigns of Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela have been run precisely on promises to the poor that for the most part were left unfulfilled. Because government subsidies are not efficient, the large problem of social unrest is not avoided. Furthermore the poor communities in the suburbs of Paris were already receiving state subsidies for housing and education, but this did not keep them from rioting. Therefore subsidies do not guarantee a reduction in crime.
Subsidies create a sense of social equality

This kind of idealism and desire to make the world an equal place has already gotten us into quite a bit of trouble, ruining a large part of the world under the rule of communism. The idea that we could solve all the world’s problems through redistribution of wealth through government subsidies is not only naïve but also dangerous. Being committed to new human rights and wanting to offer help to the poor is not the same thing as imposing subsidies. Indeed, in many countries subsidies for particular activities end up favouring well-off landowners and the urban middle classes. Examples include agricultural subsidies in the EU (Financial Programming and Budget, 2011) and the USA, subsidies for power and water in rural India (Press Trust of India, ‘World Bank asks India to cut ‘unproductive’ farm subsidy’, 2007), and subsidies for water or Higher Education in much of Latin America. In each case the well-off benefit disproportionately, while the poor end up paying via the tax system and through reduced economic growth (Farmgate: the developmental impact of agricultural subsidies, ukfg.org.uk). It would be much better to price these activities at commercial levels and to develop economic policies aimed at growth and job creation.
Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact

Rich communities have a disastrous effect on the environment as well. The question of whether development is possible without manipulating nature and the environment is again entirely separate from the question of subsidies. Ultimately, the problem is one of resources and the best distribution and management of those resources, particularly natural resources. Getting people to understand that forests, water and land are essential resources that need to be preserved is what should be done (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies have in fact often created more environmental problems by investing in poorly built infrastructure and housing, and by encouraging people to stay in areas that could otherwise not support them.
Government supervised redistribution of wealth is inefficient

Rather than criticising the inefficiencies of current subsides we should put efforts into improving subsidies so they work efficiently. This is clearly a very complex issue and would involve taking each poor community as individual with different needs. One specific example of where this has been efficient is subsidising housing in poor communities, such as the Gautreaux program in Chicago. This project involved the CHA (Chicago Housing Authority) handing out 7,500 housing vouchers out to residents of deprived communities (thus providing a housing subsidy to those residents). The project was widely considered a success and was supported by the government until its completion in 1998. Longitudinal studies suggested that participants where ‘pleased to be living in safer neighbourhoods with quality schools and greater job opportunities’, which all occurred as a result of the Gautreaux project (Fisher, Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program, 2005). This project shows that subsidies can be successful if we look and attend to at the particular needs of each poor communities.