BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Some people find maths hard

We recognise that not everyone should do every subject, but for practical reasons we have to ask them to give it a try up to a certain level. Apart from anything else, this is the most reliable way to tell whether or not the subject is right for them – how can you know that if you haven’t ever tried it? There are many different ways to set this level, and we feel that the current standard is the minimum which will give children a realistic idea of what the subject is like.
If we don’t teach maths we can teach other things instead

It is undeniable that education is a trade-off between different subjects. However, we contend that maths is one which we want to protect. It is a fundamental subject which is of use in many others, as well as teaching children how to think about problems. (Debating lessons are a great idea, but should replace something else, like Art.) Teaching maths as part of science just wastes time, as all different science subjects need the same maths. All this will do is add to the burden on teachers, as they will have to coordinate with each other to make sure the class has covered the right maths for that point in the course. Moreover, this will never be as effective as having a whole class for maths.
Maths is an important subject

Many children find science interesting, 12% consider it their favourite subject, and will choose it when given an option.[1] These children will be happy to take maths lessons even if they’re not compulsory. The only ones who won’t take them will be the ones who have no interest in science in any case, for whom there is no benefit for doing maths. It’s also worth pointing out that this argument seeks to match the educational system to the desires of companies. We feel this is wrong: it should be designed with the interests of the children in mind. That means giving them the opportunity to choose maths and science, but not necessarily forcing it on them. [1] Kiefer, Heather Mason, ‘Math = Teens’ Favorite School Subject’, Gallup, 15 June 2004, http://www.gallup.com/poll/12007/Math-Teens-Favorite-School-Subject.aspx
How this would work

This policy involves an active disclosure campaign, through websites and the newspapers, where a sex offender has their name, their photo, their address and the nature of their crime published on a website, or in the local media. It may include poster campaigns about individuals for particularly serious crimes, with the aim of both informing people and causing shame. It may be sensible to allow the police to not disclose the information in the following circumstances; 1) where a significant risk of vigilantism exists, 2) where it is against the wishes of the victim, and 3) where it may jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation. Early studies showed that Megan's law in the United States had high rates of voluntary compliance, between 70 and 80% and rising, proving that the policy is practical1. 1 Simpson, Rachel, ''Megan's law' and other forms of sex-offender registration', NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, Briefing Paper NBo. 22/99, November 1999, improve this
The state has a duty to maximise freedoms.

All states in some way limit individual freedoms, by requiring them to follow laws and enforcing these laws with the coercive power of the state. However, such limits can be justified in so far as they advance others freedoms; limiting Person A's freedom to kill enhances Person B's freedom to live. States therefore derive their legitimacy to deny freedoms from their advancement of overall freedom. This policy enhances the freedom of people to defend themselves and their family by providing them with information about offenders (see Argument Three), and allows them to determine for themselves the importance of that information1. 1 law.jrank.org, 'Sex Offences improve this
Allowing the population to know where sex offenders are would encourage vigilantism.

Vigilantism is a real threat to those publicised as sexual offenders, especially those whose sexual offences involve children. For example, in the UK a vigilante published a database naming almost 10,000 paedophiles1, and some misdirected vigilante attacks have been committed against those with no criminal convictions, such as a paediatrician2. Therefore, there is the possibility of harm occurring in that offenders who have served the punishment the justice system feels is adequate being subjected to further punishment and violence. Furthermore, there is the possibility of mistakes being made and people being subject to violence for no reason. 1 The Telegraph, "Internet vigilante publishes database naming 10,000 paedophiles", November 2010, 2 The Independent, "Vigilante mob attacks home of paediatrician", August 2000, improve this
The harms of stigmatization and alienation.

This harm mainly refers to the possibility of re-offending, which occurs in approximately 30% of cases over a six-year period (although note that the figure is for committing any other offence, not another sexual offence)1. When society labels such people in a very public way as criminals, it may be difficult for them to reintegrate in society. This is because people who know of their crimes will be less willing to engage with them, whether they knew them previously or not. Specifically, it will be very difficult for businesses to employ them if they are publically known to have been convicted of a sexual offence, because of the possible public outrage this would cause. Previous offenders are therefore likely to be distanced from society, shunned by old friends, likely to have difficulty in making new friends, and likely to find it difficult to find employment. It may further encourage them to make friends with those with similar backgrounds. This makes them feel outside society, less constrained by its moral norms, and therefore more likely to commit offences. Furthermore, the difficulty of access to employment may make them turn to crime to survive. Finally, academic literature on stigmatization suggests that for a stigma to prevent reoffending, the stigma needs to be easy to scale up for subsequent offences2; given the blanket nature of this policy, this does not seem possible. 1 Home Office, "Reconviction Rates of Serious Offenders and Assessment of their Risk", 2002,  2 Rasmusen, E., "Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality", September 1996, improve this
Expense.

As alluded to in Counterargument Four above, sexual offences are typically committed within relationships, or by someone the victim knows; around 80% according to some studies1. These proportions are also probably larger, in that rape by an acquaintance is less likely to be reported, as a victim is better able to normalise the incident as a misunderstood sexual interaction. This indicates that a deterrent effect is less likely to work, because of the lower chance of the offence being reported, and the relative power within any such relationship. The offender is less likely to respond to that deterrent, as they perceive it as so unlikely to occur to them. 1 National Center for Victims of Crime, "Acquaintance Rape", 2008,
This acts as a deterrent.

Firstly, within relationships; a person looking to commit such an offence is unlikely to be deterred because they expect that, because of the existence of the relationship, they will not be convicted of such an offence. Also, sexual offences against a partner are often an expression of a dominating power within a relationship. In such a case, the offender does not expect the offence to be reported due to the control (s)he holds over the victim. As such, the size of the penalty is less important, as they do not expect to receive it. The second circumstance such offences are committed is against a stranger, typically in public. When a person is willing to act in breach of such clear moral norms, they are less likely to be concerned about this being published broadly, and so the deterrent will be weaker.   These are exacerbated by the fact that many sexual offences are committed in times of passion, where a person’s decision making is focused heavily on the short-term – and so the possibility of a future shaming is not taken into account, and deterrence does not occur. Finally, it is unrealistic to claim prison is a weak deterrent; the removal of liberty matters to almost everyone, and the difficult conditions of prison are well-known, particularly amongst repeat offenders. improve this
This helps people protect themselves and their families

Those same studies suggest that individuals do little extra to protect themselves, as they consider sexual offences to be suitably rare that they can plausibly tell themselves it won't happen to them. This is exacerbated by the fact that most sexual offences are committed by someone who the victim knows. If they already know the person, they are likely to consider them a limited threat, as the popular perception of sexual offences is still one of an offence committed by a stranger. Furthermore, people tend to be highly trusting of their own impression of people. Finally, the harms from never engaging with former sex offenders in a community are set out at Opposition Argument TWO. improve this
The state has a duty to maximise freedoms.

Freedom is not an absolute good; only something that typically advances overall utility, as we understand that people are normally better placed to maximise their utility, being the only ones with knowledge of their desires and values. This, however, is not such a case – as the opposition arguments below suggest, this causes harmful consequences that outweigh any claimed benefits of utility. Furthermore, this area seems to be one where the police are better placed to determine the importance of the information, given their expertise in offending and re-offending , and especially given the tendency on behalf of the public to panic, and place more importance on past convictions than it factually requires. improve this
Allowing the population to know where sex offenders are would encourage vigilantism.

Clearly, vigilantism is a problem; however, the proviso in the policy should act to limit this, as where there is a threat of harm the information will not be released. Furthermore, it will be possible to offer people under threat police protection. Finally, a strong justice system is likely to limit vigilantism, as people perceive justice as being done, and are therefore less likely to resort to acts of individual violence. improve this
The harms of stigmatization and alienation.

Firstly, given the low % of offenders who commit serious crimes within 6 years is around 10%1, this seems like it may be a marginal issue.   Furthermore, it seems unlikely that people who already know someone will stop associating with them merely because of their stigmatization. Family, for example, tend to be very forgiving, as are close friends, who are likely to believe their long-term view of somebody is more accurate and to forgive a mistake. Such people will be able to ensure a person is not alienated from all society.   This may also be a benefit; if an offender has a tendency to commit sexual offences within relationships, it may be useful to limit his relationships (or at least warn their partner of such a tendency), such that this is not likely to occur again. Finally, it can be shown that if this policy does increase the deterrent effect to first-time offenders, this may be more important. This is because some people will be prevented from ever being imprisoned, associating with other prisoners, and acquiring a criminal record improve this
This acts as a deterrent.

Knowing that, if they commit an offence, their name, photograph, and a description of their crimes will be widely published deters people from committing the offence in the first place and equally of reoffending. Firstly, this is because there are strong moral norms preventing such behaviour; this policy acts not only to reinforce those moral norms (by clearly designating people who commit such an offence as being worthy of shaming), it also increases the consequences of breaching such norms. Specifically, potential offenders will realise the harm this may cause to their personal relationships, and any future relationships – these are typically things people value, and so people will act to minimise this harm. Further, if someone is willing to commit a sexual offence, it is reasonable to assume they value sexual encounters. Such publication may limit their opportunity to access such encounters in the future, and therefore the policy aims to operate such as to minimise what a person desires should they commit a crime. It is perhaps useful to compare this deterrent to the deterrent offered by prison. It can be argued that the deterrent of prison is a weak one, because there is an information problem – people do not know how bad prison is. This is exacerbated by media narratives that suggest prison is a soft touch, even the Prison Officers Association in the UK claims jail is too soft.[1] This may be especially true for those of the socioeconomic background who are more likely to commit criminal offences; they are probabilistically poorer and less likely to have a job, so the harms of prison (loss of freedom, harming job prospects) may seem less important. [1] Knapton, 2008
This helps people protect themselves and their families

People can use the information about the offenders in their area to ensure this. It is especially useful to have a modus operandi; if a local offender is known for typically abducting people walking on their own at night, people can alter their behaviour to ensure they always have company, or get a taxi after dark. More direct measures can be taken, by avoiding contact with that person, or avoiding entering into a close relationship with them. Furthermore, more general measures can be taken to be more vigilant, install better locks, and avoid leaving vulnerable people alone. Some studies1 suggest that there is an increase in measures taken to protect other people where this information is given. 1 Zgoba, K., "Megan's Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy", December 2008, improve this
Democratic rule of law is the best ground for political stability and growth

In order for a society to develop economically, it needs a stable political framework and dictatorships are often less stable. A dictator will have to prioritize the retention of power. As repression is inevitable, a dictator will not necessarily be entirely popular. There will regularly be a doubt about the future and sustainability of a dictatorship.  Bearing in mind the messy collapses of some dictatorships, a democracy may be a more stable form of government over the long term[1]. Only democracies can create a stable legal framework. The rule of law ensures all of society has access to justice and the government acts within the law. Free and fair elections act as a bulwark against social unrest and violence. Economic freedoms and human rights protection also have positive effects on economies. Private property rights, for example, encourage productivity and innovation so that one has control of the fruits of their labour. It has been argued by Acemolgu and Robinson in their book Why Nations Fail? The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that inclusive political institutions and pluralistic systems that protect individual rights are necessary preconditions for economic development[2]. If these political institutions exist then the economic institutions necessary for growth will be created, as a result economic growth will be more likely. [1] See for example the work of Huntington, S, P., (1991), The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, University of Oklahoma Press, http://books.google.ch/books?id=6REC58gdt2sC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false [2] Acemolgu, D., and Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. London: Profile Books.
Dictatorships are more effective than democracies at mobilizing resources for investment.

This makes the assumption that dictators are rational, wise and seek to encourage development, rather than operate as kleptocrats. This is why dictatorship usually does not benefit development; the very concentration of power means when they make poor decisions the effect on the country is much greater. There is a similar result with corruption, a lack of checks and balances mean that decisions can be taken and implemented quickly but this same lack also means there is little to prevent corruption. Corruption is often rife in non-democratic societies. For example, in Cuba the healthcare system is largely reliant on bribery and is often under-resourced. One US diplomatic cable points out “[i]n one Cuban hospital, patients had to bring their own light bulbs. In another, the staff used "a primitive manual vacuum" on a woman who had miscarried. In others, Cuban patients pay bribes to obtain better treatment.”[1] [1] ‘Wikileaks cables highlight Cuba’s health care issues’, McClatchyDC, 29 December 2010, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/29/105902/wikileaks-cables-highlight-cubas.html
Dictatorships assure low cost political stability

In addition to the moral concerns, it is not proven that dictatorships are sustainable in the long term. There will always be groups seeking a democratic government, which could lead to revolution. There is a particular issue with handovers of power in dictatorships, especially those with personality cults – for example the transition to democracy after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, or the collapse and disintegration of Yugoslavia in to ethnic conflict following the death of Tito. Many authoritarian regimes require a lot of upkeep in terms of propaganda which counterbalances the cost of elections[1]. An election may be costly but it is also a good indicator of the performance of a government, providing a mechanism of monitoring the performance of the “social contract”. Democratic governments are accountable to their people at the ballot box, which gives those in power an incentive to perform well. If the government is not performing well they will be thrown out. In an authoritarian country if the government performs badly the people have no way to remove them and so change policies to ones that work. Dictatorships have a different problem with political stability and that is on a smaller scale; it is difficult to know if an investment is safe because the government is arbitrary not bound by the rule of law. The results of this may not be the sweeping changes in economic policy found in democracies but can be more significant locally such as demands for high payments to operate, confiscation, or preferential treatment for competitors. [1] Marquand, Robert, ‘N. Korea escalates ‘cult of Kim’ to counter West’s influence’, The Christian Science Monitor, 3 January 2007 http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0103/p01s04-woap.html
Dictatorships can prevent social unrest

Dictatorships generally focus only on supporting one element of society, which means that there are often opposition groups from other demographics ready to oppose them. When the repression fails, the state will no longer be stable. Even if a dictatorship can create economic growth, it will not necessarily permeate through all elements of society, making them more likely to object to the government. If a dictatorship manages to create an inclusive economy, demands for an inclusive political system will follow. While a dictatorship may work in the short term, political change will then result from this very success as shown by the countries like South Korea and Taiwan that grew rapidly as autocracies before having democratic revolutions. According to Adam Smith, ““[c]ommerce and manufactures can seldom ﬂourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property, in which the faith of contracts is not supported by law, and in which the authority of the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay. Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom ﬂourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of conﬁdence in the justice of government”[1]. [1] Smith, A. (2009). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Digireads.com. [1776]. p. 546
Democracy acts in the interest of the general population, which is good for development

Those cases show that the dictatorship helped the economy. Even if it did not trigger the growth, it laid the ground work for it. In Spain’s case it was a dictator who was able to change to the necessary free market policies while in South Korea it was the previous autocrats that launched the country’s miracle. While economic policy is more important than political freedoms, dictatorships are better at implementing such a framework of policies.
Development is about more than economic growth

Certain economic standards have to be met to genuinely satisfy individual autonomy and freedom. If economic growth is a necessity for democracy, dictatorships are better at gaining the required growth. If dictatorships grow faster while not redistributing wealth then at least there will be more wealth to redistribute when the state does eventually start to do so. It might therefore be considered once again that it is the autocratic state that sets the conditions for democracies to take over and increase development in the non-economic areas.
Democratic rule of law is the best ground for political stability and growth

Economic development is not exclusively bound up with regimes or institutions. Natural factors such as rivers for transport, potential land use and natural resources are key to explaining why some countries are more prosperous than others. Many countries with higher economic growth are authoritarian or unstable democracies[1]. These may have the necessary economic conditions for growth even without these inclusive political institutions. [1] GDP growth on an annual basis adjusted for inflation and expressed as a percent, CIA World Facbook, 2013. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html
Dictatorships are more effective than democracies at mobilizing resources for investment.

Dictatorships are superior to democracies in that they can make decisions and implement policies quicker. They can easily modify institutional and legal frameworks towards development goals, as there is no need for a political consensus behind their actions. This also insulates government from special interests that must be reconciled with in democracies. This allows dictatorships to create a pro-investment legal, economic and institutional framework such as low taxes, exchange rate manipulations and import tariffs, without facing political opposition. For example, fracking, a technique used to extract hard to obtain gas, has generated widespread opposition in the West, leading to it being banned in France[1]. An autocratic government would find it easier to allow cheap access to this energy, boosting industry, as it could disregard this opposition. Dictatorships can also control resources to allow for better health and education services, by determining curricula, salaries and supplies. Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, with more doctors per capita than much of the Western world[2], and in 2009 Shanghai came first in the PISA test[3]. [1] Castelvecchi, Davide, ‘France becomes first country to ban extraction of natural gas by fracking’, Scientific American, 30 June 2011, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/30/france-becomes-first-country-to-ban-extraction-of-natural-gas-by-fracking/ [2] The Economist, ‘Reshoring manufacturing: Coming Home’, 19 January 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21569570-growing-number-american-companies-are-moving-their-manufacturing-back-united [3] Brouwer, Steve, ‘The Cuban Revolutionary Doctor: The Ultimate Weapon of Solidarity’, Monthly Review, Vol.60 No.8, January 2009, http://www.monthlyreview.org/090112brouwer.php