BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poetry is a notoriously difficult concept. It is a highly challenging subject to teach, for its identity as an art form is constantly changing and being debated

While great poetry may deal with adult experiences there is poetry that targets a younger audience and methods available to teach this type of poetry. Children’s poetry, for instance, is not complex or dark in subject matter and uses very regular rhythm and rhyme schemes, which young students will enjoy. If age-appropriate poetry is taught in schools then it gives young people the chance to develop an appreciation for poetry and its various techniques. This means that in later years young people will have the skills necessary to properly understand great poetry. Poems that require more mature minds to understand can, and should, be used to stretch students to teach about these contexts as well as about the kind of imagry and analogy used in the poems. Using more difficult poems to stretch puplils will ensure they keep improving.
In schools where many pupils are failing the basics of English language, they cannot be expected to progress to a more complex level of English study like poetry before the basics have been mastered.

On the contrary, poetry is helpful to teaching English. Learning poetry involves chanting, exploration of syllables and vowel sounds. As the pupils chant the syllables, they read the letters that go into making that sound and so spelling will be improved. Reading poetry aloud improves reading ability because the student is vocalising the building blocks that form certain sounds to make words. Public speaking ability will also be improved from a vocal exploration of poetry.
The future of poetry teaching looks dismal. It is falling into disrepute by citing rappers as modern day poets.

Musicians have for some time been awarded poet status. The artist and their personal lifestyle choices can and must be regarded equally. Bob Dylan was originally described thus; "He sounded like a lung cancer victim singing Woody Gutherie. Now he's a Rolling Stone singing Emmanuel Kant" (page 36, Uncut Legends [magazine] #1: Dylan, September 2003). In 1992, he was described as "as good as Keats" (Ibid). If Bob Dylan can graduate from folk to electric to poet status, modern day musicians must also be allowed to follow suite; to gain the recognition they deserve and become similarly promoted. The poet and their personal lifestyle choices is separable from the poetry they produce. Dylan Thomas, Wales' national poet who is greatly and proudly upheld was an adulterer and an alcoholic. However, this does not make his impressive poetry any less credible. We must not sanitise all the great artists, but accept that the great art they offer as artists forgives them their wrongdoing as people. If we applied the policy of disregarding the art of every artist who has ever done wrong, we would soon lose many canonised ones and several of those who are held in very high esteem.
In countries where students are failing basic literacy, new measures to improve basic literacy skills in schools are required as a matter of urgency. In such cases, schools cannot justify wasting time by teaching poetry.

It is unthinkable that a school pupil does not know who his/her national poet is. English school pupils should be familiar with William Shakespeare, Scottish school pupils with Robert Burns and Welsh pupils with Dylan Thomas, Irish ones with James Joyce. Familiarity with one's own national poet is a basic.
If any art is to be taught in schools, it has to be Poetry, for poetry is the only artistic form of a core subject.

Learning the basics of literature and language is not designed to be fun or enjoyable, it is an essential requirement. It is important that students can get to grips with the basics of their home language and a standard 'look, cover, write, check' method for learning spelling and expanding vocabulary is effective, for it requires the learner to write the words themselves. Simply reading them is not enough, especially not in the context of a poem- unconventional, even strange concepts typical of poetry may well be too demanding for the pupil, whose priority is to learn writing and reading. They can still learn reading through the cultural means of reading novels, in which the extended prose used by the author is far easier to follow.
It is important to honour the memory of the men who fell in the wars in the defence of their nation. War poetry is a fundamental tool to this end.

An appreciation for the true horrors of war can be gained through factual reading. Factual books about the horrors of the First World War offer better understanding the true extent of the atrocities than poetry. Firstly, they are factual and not based upon opinion. Secondly, they are more modern and have been written in the aftermath of the First World War. Therefore, they tell its full story and provide a panoramic view of the Greta War. Thirdly, many of the men who wrote war poetry went mad with shellshock. Trying to find sense in the nonsensical lyrics of poetry by those poor men sent mad is an impossible task; knowledge of and research into shellshock is a relatively new development.
Poetry is art, art is inseparable from education; art is what makes us human, and that which makes us human is certainly to be taught in schools.

In failing schools, it IS justifiable to separate art from education. When a high number of students are struggling with basic literacy and numeracy, this is what needs to be addressed. Artistic studies will simply have to take a backseat while teaching of the basics is improved. This is a temporary measure, once teaching and abilities in basic literacy and numeracy improve, schools which have previously been failing can expand back into artistic studies. If this is not the case, and art and poetry continue to have a high profile in failing schools, what will result is a mass of very cultured high school leavers (not necessarily graduates) unable to add up in their head and with poor vocabulary, able to quote Shakespeare effortlessly but no idea how to spell his name.
Not teaching poetry in schools opens the gate to eradicating all artistic and creative subjects from the curriculum, which means the entire population would be Spartan and philistines.

We must be realistic in education; we need to prepare our students for the difficulties of the real world. It is those subjects that are vocational in nature and/or life skills, home language (not literature), maths and science and modern languages, business studies, law that must take priority in schools. We must equip and train the new generation to successfully gain employment. Therefore, art subjects like poetry are no priority.
Poetry is a notoriously difficult concept. It is a highly challenging subject to teach, for its identity as an art form is constantly changing and being debated

If top academics and those highly informed about the subject take issue with poetry, school pupils cannot be expected to fathom it. On December 7th, 2007, The Guardian, a British newspaper affiliated to the Left, noted that this ambiguous identity of poetry renders it very difficult to teach;"But until education theory asks itself what poetry itself is, and therefore what the teacher is trying to get across, poems will continue largely to figure as teaching aids, exercises and - for teenagers - increasingly tedious, somewhat arbitrary puzzles".1 The canonised poets and their poetry are concerned with adult life experiences, e.g. love, life, work, history and politics, solitude, loneliness, etc. For this reason, widely acclaimed poetry is deep and requires an adult mind and mature emotional depth to understand, or at least draw something from, this famous poetry. 1 Sampson, Fiona, "Poetry is not a tool for teaching other things", guardian.co.uk Books Blog, 7 December 2007, 1 September 2011
In schools where many pupils are failing the basics of English language, they cannot be expected to progress to a more complex level of English study like poetry before the basics have been mastered.

It is like asking a student who cannot count to solve a highly complex algebraic equation; completely impossible because the groundwork remains a nemesis. If the pupils cannot understand the basics of reading, writing and grammar, they will certainly struggle to with more complex concepts fundamental to the study of poetry such as similies, personifications, metaphors and extended metaphors. Let us take the UK as an example, for it is a country in which many students do not make progress in basic English. A report in 2011 voiced concern at the number of school children struggling with English and the published some horrifying statistics; "Hundreds of thousands of pupils are falling behind in the basics after starting secondary school, official figures suggest … three in 10 are not making enough progress in English, according to Department for Education data.160,000 did not make enough progress in English.”1 1Press Association, “Many secondary school pupils failing to meet expectations, report reveals”, guardian.co.uk, 9 June 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/09/secondary-school-pupils-..., accessed 1 September 2011 improve this
The future of poetry teaching looks dismal. It is falling into disrepute by citing rappers as modern day poets.

Given that the highly respected Royal Holloway University of London is one such institution that supports this, the future of poetry education and even poetry itself does not look hopeful. Sir Andrew Motion, Professor of Creative writing at Royal Holloway, University of London, specified that; "Poetry is a house of many mansions. It does pupils a disservice only to tell them things they already know. Rap has its own challenges and opportunities - but so do many other kinds of poetry, many of which are neglected in schools".1 Eminem has caused much offence and controversy over the years with his homophobic lyrics. This is just one example of why rap is not to be encouraged at all, let alone awarded a label of (so-called) "poetry". Rappers like him must not be promoted as great artists in the classroom. It is unthinkable that rappers who promote gun crime, drugs and degrade women should be given a platform and even promoted in classrooms. These are simply not the values education can possibly support. 1 Edwards, Paul, "Why rap should be taught in schools", Royal Holloway University of London, 28 January 2010, accessed 1 September 2011 improve this
In countries where students are failing basic literacy, new measures to improve basic literacy skills in schools are required as a matter of urgency. In such cases, schools cannot justify wasting time by teaching poetry.

In the UK, The Labour Party introduced The Literacy Hour, a programme that meant schools were obliged to dedicate more time to basic literacy (and numeracy) upon their election in 1997. However, as the aforementioned statistics have shown, all that has increased is the number of pupils failing in this basic subject. There are 5 million illiterate people in Scotland alone. All we know is that more time does need to be spent learning the basic literacy and numeracy. Appreciating literature and poetry, the artistic side of the English language, cannot be addressed until learners have fully understood and grasped the tools of reading, writing and vowel sounds that allow for fiction and poetry to be produced. We need an educational programme that recognises reading and writing as a matter of urgency and literary and poetry appreciation as a luxury in order to reduce the number of illiterate pupils.
The United States has greater military capacity than any other entity in the world.

The US accounts for 43% of global expenditures on military.[1] The US has greater capacity to prevent global security threats than any other entity. Furthermore, the US has used limited military intervention successfully in the recent past. In 1989, the US sent 27,000 troops to Panama to protect the lives of 35,000 Americans in Panama and to protect Panama’s own citizens. The invasion led to the removal of the dictatorial leader Manuel Noriega and the implementation of an elected government.[2] In the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, the US successfully forced Iraqi troops to retreat from Kuwait.[3] In 1995 the US used limited military tactics to protect civilians in Sarajevo from Bosnian Serb forces, leading to a peace agreement between the warring parties.[4] The Opposition does not contend that every US military intervention is or will be successful, or that military intervention is all that is necessary in addressing conflicts. The Opposition also promotes constant reevaluation of military tactics so that past tragedies are not repeated. But despite its drawbacks, US military intervention has the potential to be a source of stability and protection in the modern world from nuclear threats, terrorist attacks, and other large-scale violations of human rights. [1] “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011. [2] “A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions: From Vietnam to the Balkans,” PBS Frontline. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid.
The United States is not an appropriate agent for monitoring international security because it is only representative of one nation.

All conflicts are a threat to the entire international community. As is discussed in the Opposition’s arguments, conflicts have the ability to spill over into other regions and to destabilize governments. Such conflicts endanger the international community because they increase the risk of irrational/non-state actors attaining weapons of mass destruction. This is problematic because irrational actors do not necessarily have a sense of self-preservation, and thus cannot be deterred by threats of mass retaliation. Thus if such an actor attains nuclear weapons, there is little that can stop them from using such weapons. Non-state actors are problematic because governments do not know with whom they are negotiating or where/how to find them. Thus the US is justified in intervening in such conflicts as a means of self-preservation. The Pro’s argument is based on a theory of sovereignty that is already violated in most of the conflicts in which the US interferes. The Pro’s argument is based on the notion that the proper agent to act on behalf of a group of people is a legitimate government that has earned the right to sovereignty. The Opposition does not dispute this theory. However, many of the conflicts in which the US intervenes involve abusive governments or invading nations that violate human rights on massive scales. The people that the US seeks to protect often do not have a legitimate government to represent their interests. US protection may not be the ideal means of protecting global human rights, but it is better than not protecting them at all.
Failure after failure has made it clear that the US military is not an effective actor for maintaining international stability.

The Pro only identifies US military failures; there are also many occasions of US military success. The Opposition case details examples of military success in Panama, Kuwait, and Bosnia. The recent success of Libyan rebel attempts to overthrow Gaddafi is partially attributable to US military assistance.[1] Furthermore, US military strategy is constantly changing and adapting. The rules of international engagement change relatively quickly; when the rise of the Soviet threat rendered isolationism impossible, the US adapted its foreign policy to a bipolar world in which mutually assured destruction was an effective means of preventing direct conflict. The fall of the USSR created a multi-polar world in which MAD became a more complex and less reliable strategy. Today, the US is adjusting to the increasing threat of Islamic terrorism. These constant changes render perfect implementation of military force impossible- this impossibility is not unique to the US. But with constant reevaluation and assistance from the international community, the US can be a reasonably effective peacekeeper. [1] Steven Erlanger, “Panetta Urges Europe to Spend More on NATO or Risk a Hollowed-Out Alliance,” New York Times, October 5, 2011
As long as the United States works unilaterally to quell violent conflict, progress is not being made towards a better, internationally coordinated system.

The Pro’s perspective is backwards; as long as other nations do not move towards providing viable alternatives to US military dominance, the US cannot afford to reduce its own defenses. The US should not have to provide an incentive for other nations to improve their defense systems; their own self-preservation should be a sufficient incentive. In June 2011, then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that European NATO members’ reluctance to fund their share of NATO operations could be negative impacts for the alliance’s future. The New York Times related Gates’ words; “[Gates] warned of a ‘dim if not dismal future’ for the alliance unless its European members increased their participation, and he said that Washington would not forever pay for European security when the Europeans could do that for themselves.”[1] The US may be able to alter its role to be less unilateral, but it cannot do so until after other military entities improve their defense systems. [1] Erlanger.
The United States is entitled to take measures to protect its citizens.

The Opposition correctly identifies the threat, which is nuclear war. However, hegemonic US military power is not the solution to this threat. The first nuclear arms race began during the Cold War; because neither the US nor the USSR wanted the other to have the upper hand in nuclear capacity, each produced enough weapons to destroy the entire world. In the 1970s, Pakistan developed nuclear weapons; Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto argued that “the Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb, the Hindus have the bomb, why not Islam?”[1] As the US continues to increase its military strength, other nations that are not sure they can rely on the US as an ally feel compelled to increase their strength in response. This leads to a perpetual armaments race. Armaments races are a waste of resources that would be better spent on civil services, and create widespread paranoia that the other country may attack at any time. Furthermore, continuously increasing military capacity is not an effective way of combating non-state actors. Terrorist groups operate underground; because they are difficult to detect, they are most effectively addressed through community engagement with government security. Thus excessive military development puts the US and other nations at risk without effectively addressing security threats. [1] Sijo Joseph Ponnatt, “The Normative Approach to Nuclear Proliferation,” International Journal on World Peace, March 1, 2006. [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-152972617.html]
There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance.

US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world. There are alternatives –while some may contend they will be worse we do not know that this is the case. The United States would remain dominant but it would not need to use its military power in the overbearing way that it does now but rather in a much more constructive way that relies on diplomacy rather than military force. (See proposition argument)
The United States is not an appropriate agent for monitoring international security because it is only representative of one nation.

The U.S. is an independent nation, not an international entity. Thus 96% of the world population has no voice in its’ government’s decisions.[1] The US government has authority over its own citizens, and it is justified in engaging in war if its citizens are under direct threat. However, citizens of other nations have no means of expressing their opinion in the US government. If the US government abuses its power, these people have no reliable legal means of recourse. Consequently, the US government has no authority to intervene in their affairs. [1] “Country Comparison: Population,” The World Fact Book, Central Intelligence Agency.
Failure after failure has made it clear that the US military is not an effective actor for maintaining international stability.

The US military makes problems worse just as often as it makes them better. The US intervened in Vietnam on the grounds of protecting the free world from communism; over 58,000 American soldiers and approximately 2 million Vietnamese civilians were killed while the US failed to subdue the Vietcong. The United States provided covert support to Augusto Pinochet after his military coup d’etat over Chile’s democratically elected government under Salvadore Allende because the US feared Allende, a socialist, would promote communism.[1],[2] Today, Pinochet is remembered as a bloody dictator that ruled through terror for 17 years. US intervention in Somalia in 1992-94 resulted in little more than the loss of American lives.[3] The US experienced similarly negatively results during its intervention in Beirut (1982-84), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), and Haiti (1994).[4] More recently, the US has occupied Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly ten years without brining long-term stability to the region. The United States military needs to step down from its self-assumed role as world police officer because it is not effective and its failed attempts lead to huge civilian casualties. [1] Reel and Smith. [2] “Covert Action in Chile,” U.S. Department of State, December 19, 1975. [3] Richard W. Stewart, “The United States Army in Somalia: 1992-1994,” U.S. Army Center of Military History. [4] “A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions: From Vietnam to the Balkans,” PBS Frontline
As long as the United States works unilaterally to quell violent conflict, progress is not being made towards a better, internationally coordinated system.

The United States spends approximately $700 trillion annually on its military; China, the world’s second largest military spender, spends $114 trillion.[1] The US outpaces other possible peacekeepers by such a large gap that these other powers have little incentive to even try to keep up. Unilateral US intervention undermines international actors such as UN troops because it communicates the US’s refusal to submit to the interests of the international community. Thus US military intervention becomes a “quick fix” which prevents genuine long-term stability [1] “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2011.
The United States is entitled to take measures to protect its citizens.

In a nuclear world, it is impossible to dismiss another nation’s instability as “their problem.” If a government with nuclear weapons collapses, irrational actors (such as ideological terrorist groups) may attain control of such weapons. Nuclear war has the potential to destroy all of humanity- even in the case of a limited conflict. Alexis Madrigal of Wired Science explains, “Imagine that the long-simmering conflict between India and Pakistan broke out into a war in which each side deployed 50 nuclear weapons against the other country’s megacities […] Beyond the local human tragedy of such a situation, a new study looking at the atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war finds that the hot smoke from burning cities would tear holes in the ozone layer of the Earth. The increased UV radiation resulting from the ozone loss could more than double DNA damage, and increase cancer rates across North America and Eurasia.”[1] Thus it is impossible for the US to turn a blind eye to conflicts and instability in other regions. Furthermore, the stakes of nuclear fallout are so high that very few chances can be taken. Even if the chance of a conflict ending in nuclear war is very small, the damages that would occur are so great that even small chances cannot be taken. Thus the US military is justified in intervening in international conflicts because such intervention can be decisively linked to the welfare of its citizens. [1] Madrigal.