BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The proposition suggests the option of all-black, all-male schools which are publicly funded in order to directly address the needs of African-American male students in modern society.

In the US, black males are at a higher risk for murder, drug use, and imprisonment than any other group- they are 6.5 times more likely to be imprisoned than white males.1 They are disproportionately affected by drug use, violence, single parenting, poverty, racial profiling, and other factors that alienate them from society.2 Education specialists argue that because black males currently perform worse than any other group in school, teachers assume their black male students will be low performers and treat them differently.3 This treatment causes these students to accept defeat before they have been given a chance to show their potential. An educational environment that is specially designed to push black male students to succeed and take pride in their identity would eliminate the feeling of inferiority which integrated schools often impose. This means that all-black, all-male schools which are publicly funded are needed in order to directly address the needs of African-American male students in modern society. This does not mean that black males should be compelled to attend these schools, and, while this argument focuses on black males, the proposition is amenable to schools which address the needs of other minorities and minority females. 1 Ibid, 7. 2Ibid, 3. 3Marcia L. Narine, "Single-sex, Single-Race Public Schools: A solution to the Problems Plaguing the Black Community?," DRS, 1992, 25. improve this
Single-race schools are likely to do more harm than good.

The landmark Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, was based on the fact that deliberate separation cannot be equal.1To separate black students from white students teaches black students that they are unable to function competitively with whites. Because the majority of the United States is white, black students are learning that they are better off if they are removed from mainstream society; that they cannot handle being around most students. This implied assertion teaches black students that they are incompetent and lowers their academic performance. 1 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483,
Segregation is wrong.

Children must learn to interact with all kinds of people, especially those that are different from them. Separating children from anyone of a different background teaches them that they are inherently incompatible with these other people. Children learn that they cannot get along, and are therefore more likely to develop an "us versus them" attitude. This mentality has been the cause of centuries of oppression and racial violence; going back to race-segregated schools is a step in the wrong direction.
Black students should have the choice to attend these schools if they wish.

Even though the state requires mandatory education, the Constitution respects the right of free choice and free association: Catholics, for example, are free to attend schools with all-Catholic populations, and girls can go to schools that serve only girls. The result is that students are allowed to attend the schools that serve them best. But this should not be a privilege given only to those who can afford private schooling. Public school students, too, deserve options that serve them - and those options should include single-sex, single-race schools. Equality under the law does not mean sameness.
Single race schools would prevent black students from being assigned to lower classes.

In mainstream schools which track students by ability, as many as 1/3 of black male students are incorrectly placed in slower classes.1 These lower-end classes are often assigned the worst teachers, reserving the better teachers for a school's honor classes.2Consequently, black males are often prevented from receiving an equal education in integrated schools. Allowing black males to be educated in an environment isolated from racial tensions and inequalities eliminates the psychological impact of "tracking" in integrated public schools. 1 Narine, 25.
Other efforts have not proven sufficiently effective,<sup>1</sup> and so even sceptics should give single-race, single-sex schools a chance.<sup>1</sup> Lewis, 3.

Despite almost sixty years of integration, black students lag behind whites, and the difference is even greater for males.1 Only 12 percent of black fourth-grade boys are proficient in reading, compared with 38 percent of white boys, and only 12 percent of black eighth-grade boys are proficient in math, compared with 44 percent of white boys.2 Figures that are not explained just by poverty. The idyllic image of integrated schools does not line up to reality; black males are still at great risk for dropping out of school, being imprisoned and murdered at rates several times higher than young white men. There is evidence to show that this alternative school system may benefit its students; educators should not reject the opportunity without giving it a fair chance. 1 Lewis, 3. 2Gabriel, 2011
Single-race schools are likely to do more harm than good.

The proposed plan is not like the segregated school system of the past. When public schools were intentionally segregated, the purpose was to prevent any blacks from interacting with any whites on the basis of white superiority; no student could opt out of the system. Furthermore, a major difference was that white schools received much more funding than black schools. The proposed plan would provide equal funding, and is simply an alternative- black males would not be compelled to attend these schools. Furthermore, far from isolating minorities to keep them at the bottom of society, these schools would address unique problems that young black males face and help them to overcome these problems to succeed.
Segregation is wrong.

The status quo does not teach diversity. Approximately 2/3 of black students today attend schools that are predominately black- "integrated" schools are not teaching diversity or tolerance because truly integrated schools are few and far between.1 School districts across the country have tried to increase integration by bussing children and reforming district line- this attempt has often ended in violence. Rather than assuming black students will suddenly perform better if they sit next to a white student in class, we should foster education programs that target their specific needs. 1 Narine, 16. improve this
Students are more engaged in material to which they feel a connection.

Schools in the US focus primarily on European history and a version of American history that does not adequately cover African-American history. A few experimental schools with all black students have incorporated an "Afrocentric" curriculum, which focuses more on African history than European history and places a greater emphasis on the role of African-Americans in United States history.1When students learn history as something that includes them, rather than the story of some other people, they are more likely to be engaged in the subject matter as they have a personal connection to the history, they will be learning their own history not someone else's.1 Ibid, 37.
Single race schools would prevent black students from being assigned to lower classes.

This is a problem with the way tracking is implemented, not a problem with integration. If students are incorrectly being placed in lower classes, a new criteria needs to be used for evaluating students. Students should, perhaps, be frequently re-evaluated, or initially placed in a regular class until there is proof that the student cannot keep up. Racially segregated schools are not an appropriate solution to an improper tracking system.
Other efforts have not proven sufficiently effective,<sup>1</sup> and so even sceptics should give single-race, single-sex schools a chance.<sup>1</sup> Lewis, 3.

One-race schools are a dangerous idea that will do more harm than good. Before Brown v. Board of Ed., black schools were at a striking disadvantage; they received less funding, had bigger classes, and lower performing students. While the education system still does not adequately service minority students, going back to intentionally segregated schools reinforces assumptions that interracial cooperation is not possible, thereby isolating the black community more and causing black male students even more disadvantages
We need to imprison fewer people

The prison population is soaring, to 87749 on 5th November 2011 in England and Wales, and we have to find ways to keep it down, or at least slow the speed of its rise. Talking about crushing sentences for all may arouse the passions of a certain type of voter but we have to have a pragmatic look at the pressures on the system. The UK has the second highest incarceration rate in western Europe and 63% of prisons overcrowded in September 2011 and several times over the few years the prison population has come close to going over the capacity of the prison service resulting in having to use cells in police stations.[1] ASBOs are one way to punish offenders while still ensuring they have continuing access to education, family support, job opportunities, etc., and they are much cheaper than the alternative of prison. [1] Berman, Gavin, ‘Prison population statistics’, House of Commons Library, 7 November 2011, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04334.pdf
No system is perfect

Of course, some ASBOs fail. But no aspect of the justice system has a 100% success rate, and by their nature ASBOs are more likely to be abused because (unlike prison) the offender remains in his own environment. Should more in breach of ASBOs be punished? Sure. That’s not an argument against ASBOs though, is it? Neither is the fact that not enough are handed down. Although the use of ASBOs around the country is still patchy, some authorities have made very effective use of them to improve life in many local communities.
Useful tool to combat anti-social behaviour

ASBOs are a useful tool in the armoury in order to combat anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour is a serious problem in the wider community (76% thinking it is a moderate or big problem in 2006[1]) – abolishing them would send out a message that such behaviour is acceptable. [1] Weaver, Matt, ‘UK ‘has worst behaviour problem in Europe’’, theguardian.com, 9 May 2006, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/09/ukcrime.britishidentity
ASBOs do not address the real problem

Something meaningful has to exist to punish actions that don’t merit criminal punishment, but damage the quality of life of others, especially through constant repetition. The ASBO is such a tool. It is intended to be the primary weapon in a ‘zero tolerance’ environment. ASBOs allow communities to take back their streets and estates from intimidating and out of control youths, and to establish proper norms of behaviour. In this way a slide into more serious lawlessness and criminality can be prevented, and the rights of the law-abiding majority to walk the streets and live peacefully with their neighbours can be secured.
ASBOS encourage antisocial behavour

ASBOs offer a wide flexibility to the sentencing authority as they are not only a punishment for past actions but also a form of restraint to prevent future misbehaviour. They permit the judge or magistrate to forbid the offender to go to a certain place, avoid a certain person, and ban them from participating in a particular activity. Without such powers, our courts will never be able to deal with the rising tide of yobbish behaviour that is, whilst not criminal, hugely damaging our communities.
ASBOS breach basic principles of justice

The problem of service and enforcement of ASBOs is identical that of all other court orders and can be solved the same way – in the proposition example the obvious solution would be to  ensure that the youth in question had had the order fully explained to him on service. An ASBO can only be made after a court hearing where both sides have the opportunity to have their say.  The burden of proof remains on the person seeking the order to show why it is necessary.  An impartial magistrate oversees the hearing.  People subject to ASBOs are typically allowed to breach it several times before serious enforcement action is taken against them. The fact is that the system of ASBOs is perfectly just and a much more liberal alternative to simply criminalising minor anti-social behaviour altogether
No system is perfect

58% of ASBOs have been breached,[1] with little resulting punishment. Only 2% of those who breach their ASBO are currently punished with a prison sentence.[2] This brings the justice system into disrepute. It doesn’t seem to matter if they’re breached – so people don’t care about getting them. Furthermore, they’re not granted in anything like the proportions needed to have an effect: 5,000 were supposed to be imposed every year, but instead only 3,800 were used in the first five years. [1] ‘Statistical Notice: Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) Statistics - England and Wales 2012’, gov.uk, 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253535/Anti-Social_Behaviour_Order_Statistical_Notice_2012.pdf [2] ‘No prison for Asbo-breaching yobs’, Metro, http://www.metro.co.uk/news/61949-no-prison-for-asbo-breaching-yobs
ASBOs do not address the real problem

ASBOs address the symptom, not the condition. Their powers are wide and undefined – too wide, meaning that Judges and magistrates can do pretty much whatever they like. Certainly there are problems in the way people conduct themselves – but if such behaviour isn’t criminal, then it’s up to families and communities to fix it. The ASBO is the latest example of excessive state interference in the lives of citizens. Either conduct is criminal, or it is not. The law of nuisance exists. Restraining orders exist. ASBOs aren’t intended to deal with that kind of problem: they’re the tool of the state controlling behaviour. Just because a problem exists, doesn’t mean it’s the job of the state to try and fix it. The powers granted to the state in its efforts are disproportionate to the problems concerned. Indeed, the current trend is against such interference both as shown by the potential replacement of ASBOs and by court decisions such as one that people should not be punished for hurling obscenities.[1] [1] Kelly, Jon, ‘Should swearing be against the law?’, BBC News Magazine, 21 November 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15816761
ASBOS encourage antisocial behavour

ASBOs are explicitly intended to deal with bad juvenile behaviour. But they encourage rather than deal with such problems. They are viewed as badges of honour that boosts street credibility amongst young gangs – the ‘naming and shaming’ just increases this.[1] They push people that could be helped by social work or proper attention into an unenviable category of ‘offender’ – they criminalise people for behaviour that isn’t criminal. [1] BBC News, ‘Asbos viewed as ‘badge of honour’, 2 November 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6107028.stm
ASBOS breach basic principles of justice

“A youth recently appeared in Court in Manchester for breach of his ASBO. The Order had been made in the youth's absence without his being able to give his side of the story (one of the main concerns about ASBOs and one that can lead to misuse). The day after the Order was made someone came to his house to "serve" it on him. This consisted of his being handed a copy of what was a fairly bulky document running to several dozen pages with no attempt to explain it or even to ascertain if he was literate enough to read it. The Order included an restriction preventing him entering a particular estate nearby and another preventing him from associating with certain others. Unfortunately, he went out before reading the Order and beached it twice that day. The next day he went out again and breached it three times by mistake as he had not read the part covering the particular restriction. He now faces possibly custody although he has never been convicted of a criminal offence.”[1] The issuing of ASBOs is inconsistent and almost amounts to a geographical lottery.  People can be jailed for breaching an ASBO where the original offence was itself non-imprisonable – i.e. A civil procedure is being used to create and expand criminal sanctions.  ASBOs have also been imposed on people with mental health problems where treatment would have been more appropriate. [1]Select Committee on Home Affairs, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders – Analysis of the First Six Years’  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm
There is no respect among the population for ASBOS

Newspapers are full of examples of absurd ASBOs. They make an ass of the law and show that the nanny state is overreaching. People trying to kill themselves really aren’t going to be put off by the prospect of breaching their ASBO.[1] Other examples include a prostitute who was prohibited from carrying condoms in an area that included her drug clinic, a prohibition on mobile soup vans that fed the homeless and a deaf girl who was banned from spitting in public.[2] [1] BBC News, ‘Suicide woman banned from river’, 25 February 2005,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4297695.stm [2] Select Committee on Home Affairs, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders – Analysis of the First Six Years’  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm
Carbon Taxes Are More Progressive both Politically and Economically than Cap and Trade

A "regressive" tax is one that disproportionately burdens poorer groups. The amount of money payable under a regressive tax gets lower as payment taxed increases, or the activity taxed becomes more productive. Energy consumption generally makes up a larger portion of the personal budgets of poorer groups. This is because their budgets are significantly smaller and they tend to purchase a greater deal of perishable goods. Specifically, durable goods such as new sets of cutlery etc. tend not to increase the level of carbon consumption in a household. However, perishable goods such as food often need to be cooked. Companies that are subjected to a flat carbon tax that cannot be offset by carbon credit training are likely to pass on some of their tax liability to consumers in the form of increased prices. As has already been established, the cost of consumables and energy purchases constitute a greater proportion of the income of poorer households. A flat carbon tax, even if levied against businesses and industrial polluters would, inevitably, be paid in part by the poor. Tradable carbon credits, on the other hand, could conceivably result in a net transfer of wealth to the poor. Although the poor spend a bigger proportion of their income on energy, the wealthy consume a far greater amount of carbon in absolute terms. So under a cap-and-trade regime, we would expect the poor (and the energy thrifty) to have excess credits to sell to their more profligate neighbours.[1]   [1] Stein, Adam. “Carbon tax vs. carbon market: who would win in a fight?” Terrapass.com 15/08/2006 http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/carbon-tax-vs-t
Cap and Trade will Harm Energy Consumers

A carbon tax would be more likely to pass on problems to consumers. With the tax being as clear as it is, firms could quite easily appeal to the public and claim that it is the government that is causing them to change prices. Given the inelastic nature of the markets for energy and food, if a number of core companies were to take this action at the same time, then it could simply lead to the government taxing people more for the mistakes and harm that firms cause. Whilst the public bear some measure of responsibility by consuming the firms’ products, the majority of the cost should be borne by the firm. This is especially true in energy markets where it is impossible for consumers to simply avoid using energy altogether. Moreover, businesses are in a better position to control and improve the efficiency of their operations than their customers are.  Given that a cap and trade system results in a lower loss for firms it is less likely to be passed on to the people instead.
Cap and Trade is Better at reducing carbon emissions than a carbon tax.

A cap-and-trade system provides companies with credits if they are able to reduce their emissions below an established level. They can then sell these credits for a profit. So, if a company takes action to reduce its carbon emissions below the designated level, than it can make a profit. This is a powerful market incentive that is more likely to cause companies to invest money in finding ways to reduce their carbon emissions. A carbon tax, conversely, only provides the incentive of cutting costs, and does not offer this important profit motive. With cap-and-trade emissions are much more likely to be meaningfully reduced, specifically because the cap is static and as such nations can choose to raise and lower it as they wish. Within this mechanism, market prices would simply reflect the availability of credits. As such, nations can guarantee a reduction in carbon emissions just by reducing the number of credits in the market. Finally, because cap and trade affects all companies and minimises cost to them, it provides all companies with an incentive to work toward green technology. Under the status quo, where subsidies and research grants are paid to businesses researching emissions reduction technology, the government has to decide which companies are “best” at solving the ecological damage that industry causes. Other companies feel they don’t have to contribute because they are simply being taxed instead. We do not know where the next development in green technology will come from. As such a smaller impetus for everyone is likely to be better than a large impetus for a small number of companies who might not, in any event, be able to develop workable solutions to emissions problems.[1]   [1] Mankiw, Gregory, “Carbon Tax Problem,” 11/04/07 http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/04/carbon-tax-problem.html
Cap and Trade is More Economical Than a Carbon Tax

"The efficiency [of a cap-and-trade system] comes with the "trade" part. Let's say you have two power plants, each emitting 100 tons of carbon per hour. The first can reduce its emissions by 20 tons at a cost of $5 per ton, and the second can reduce its emissions by only 10 tons, at a cost of $30 per ton. Clearly the efficient thing to do is to make the former reduction rather than the latter, with the owner of the second plant paying the owner of the first plant to offset the first owner's extra costs [by buying carbon credits and the "right" to pollute from the first plant]."[1] This technique allows effective emissions reductions to occur at the lowest cost. Hence as this is less disruptive to business they are more likely to be on board and not try to get around a cap and trade system using accounting methods in the same way that they might with a tax. A cap-and-trade system is more flexible in the global economy. Nations that adopt a cap-and-trade system can later link that system into other cap-and-trade systems around the world. It would not be as easy for a carbon tax to achieve this. This is important in today's global economy, where multinational companies exist across borders. As such cap-and-trade is the most viable solution that if implemented could lead to a long term solution and agreement between countries regarding reductions in emissions.[2]   [1] Nast Conde, “Why a Cap-And Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax.” Portfolio.com 19/04/2007 http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2007/04/19/why-a-cap-and-trade-system-beats-a-carbon-tax [2] Nast Conde, “Why a Cap-And Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax.” Portfolio.com 19/04/2007 http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2007/04/19/why-a-cap-and-trade-system-beats-a-carbon-tax