BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The North Vietnamese authorities violated the Geneva agreement first by failing to allow those of it...

The North Vietnamese authorities violated the Geneva agreement first by failing to allow those of its citizens not wishing to live under its rule to peaceably depart and begin new lives in the South. Therefore, the US-sanctioned failure to observe direct elections for South Vietnam agreed at Geneva is legitimate – the accord had already broken down. Many of those that would have made up the electorate were being killed, tortured or at least prevented from leaving the North – so what kind of election would it have been, anyway?
South Vietnam possessed considerable strategic value: control of the Straits of Malacca, regional ke...

South Vietnam possessed considerable strategic value: control of the Straits of Malacca, regional key for transport in both peace and war, was in the balance. That this control wasn’t abused by united Communist Vietnam after 1975 is a result of two things – exhaustion from the fight (and from the subsequent incursions into Cambodia and Laos), and secondly the fact that as global relations swung to and fro, China and Russia exerted pressure on all their client states not to ‘play up’. This responsible and disciplined approach on the part of the Communists could never have been predicted or budgeted for by the USA in planning its treatment of Vietnam (or any other regional conflict).
All the suffering US personnel underwent is only an opposition to the war if one believes that the w...

All the suffering US personnel underwent is only an opposition to the war if one believes that the war (or US involvement in it) was unjust, and we don’t accept that. The war was worth fighting – and wars always involve suffering; we’ve just got better at identifying it. War involves death. Not everything in war is clean and fair. Often things that should not happen, do happen. But ‘we sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.’
The Domino Theory, initially propounded by President Eisenhower, suggested that one nation becoming ...

The interference in another nation’s sovereign affairs was a violation of international law – hence the absurd refusal to call the conflict in Vietnam a ‘war’. It is only legitimate to attack another nation if they attack you, or possibly if you genuinely think they are about to: nobody would ever suggest that the North Vietnamese threatened the American people in any way whatsoever. Once involved, the USA bombed Cambodia and Laos, too – breaking more laws, with even less justification. These violations of the law undermined the western bloc’s claim to moral superiority, as the USA killed thousands of civilians and bombed Cambodia. Furthermore, history shows the domino theory to have been wrong, since the only nation Vietnam threatened after its eventual unification was Cambodia – which was already Communist. This was predominantly a civil war, one that would have been over far more quickly and with much less bloodshed had the USA not interfered. (There isn’t a single example of an occasion in which it’s been a good idea to get involved in someone else’s civil war.)
If the US hadn’t participated, the non-Communist peoples of South Vietnam would have been persecuted...

Claiming that US involvement reduced suffering is little short of bizarre. It is so obvious that it seems trite to point it out, but it seems that we must: millions of people died in this conflict, and much of that suffering could have been entirely avoided. It is true that some suffering and some death would inevitably have occurred in the war that was going to take place anyway between the North and South Vietnamese after the unsatisfactory post-French war ‘solution’ of Geneva. But the incredible trauma involved in a civilised nation setting out to ‘bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age’ would never have occurred. The estimated 3.2 million Vietnamese people that perished in the conflict would not have died.
As Britain did in the Falklands, the USA acted in Vietnam not only to protect those directly involve...

Even from the hawk’s point of view, the willingness of the USA to indulge in a colonial fight that was really a French affair, should hardly be thought of as a successful part of the Cold War strategy. The economic cost of this lost fight was huge: capital and energy that could have been better spent on enlarging the arsenal of nuclear weaponry to pressure Soviet collapse, if not on the lives and societies of America’s citizens who gave up all that money to so little effect.
There may be a few people like Bill Gates and others who have made it, in spite of their drop-out ba...

If you look into a directory of successful people who are doctors, engineers and IT professionals, then you will notice that many of them dream to be employed by people like Bill Gates or Richard Branson, who are prosperous despite not having college degrees. In other words, prosperity does not depend upon academic qualifications but upon opportunities provided by entrepreneurs who may not be necessarily be highly educated. Successful entrepreneurs even benefit from not having academic qualifications, because going to college and taking examinations forces people to learn and think like millions of other graduates. This actually makes it less likely that they will come up with the truly mould-breaking insights and “disruptive” ideas on which successful innovations and new business models are built.
There may be a few people like Bill Gates and others who have made it, in spite of their drop-out ba...

There may be a few people like Bill Gates and others who have made it, in spite of their drop-out background and lack of academic qualifications, but can this be generalized? Should I tell my child to leave schooling because if Bill Gates can do it they can also do it? A few exceptions cannot be taken as a general rule. \ And even for those few high-profile people who have made it without academic qualifications, let’s ask a simple question - if you look at a global directory of successful people you might find a few hundred like Bill Gates, but what about those millions of doctors, engineers, IT professionals, lawyers, and advocates who rely upon their formal education? Can you run a country without them? And could even Bill Gates have prospered without the skills of these IT professionals and engineers?
We spend ten years of schooling and several more years of our precious life in college, and then one...

Unfortunately the materialistic world has changed the concept of success. It has become a rat-race where every student chases grades and therefore the entire perception of success and prosperity has changed. Rather than studying to reach our full potential, we do it because we think it is necessary for a successful career. So we spend ten years in school and a few more years of our precious life in college to get educated, then more time is passed in hunting for jobs. Even after that we may find ourselves in the wrong profession and lacking job satisfaction. And then recession comes along, when we are told that our wealth has been blown away by the foolishness of expensive fat-salaried CEOs. Now comes a time when we go to work with a constant fear of losing the job we don’t enjoy. Is this the correct understanding of prosperity? So now the definition of success is changed. If you are able to save your job then you are successful!
We spend ten years of schooling and several more years of our precious life in college, and then one...

We spend ten years of schooling and several more years of our precious life in college, and then one fine morning someone comes and says that this is not required for success. When asked for proof, they say 'look at Bill Gates!' But success isn’t a just matter of building a huge firm from scratch and making billions of dollars – by that definition, only a tiny number of people in the world could be considered successful. No, success is about making the most of your talents and abilities, and that requires dedication and study in academic institutions that will stretch you intellectually.
An academic education gives people a rounded experience of life, with opportunities to meet people f...

Can academic qualification stop us from becoming a civilization of drunkards, rapists and war-mongers, marked by broken families, domestic violence and crime? If you look at countries where the largest number of people have higher academic qualifications, they are the ones most affected by social breakdown. And would you call the conduct of the US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan a successful example of the superiority of the US economy and society? In fact true success is shown in having the moral courage to speak out against atrocities and injustice, showing generosity towards the poor, and respecting our parents. These are characteristics which are found in people from all social and educational backgrounds, but often absent in many educated Americans and Europeans, in spite of the universities they have been to and the grades they have achieved.
An academic education gives people a rounded experience of life, with opportunities to meet people f...

An academic education gives people a rounded experience of life, with opportunities to meet people from a wide range of backgrounds and to consider the importance in life of values and culture. These are necessary things required to label a person successful in all aspects of life. More broadly, widespread further education makes us a civilized nation. It uplifts our morals and ethics by exposing us to the great thinkers of the past. It makes us aware of our rights and liberties, and helps entrench a liberal democracy with active citizens and a lively media.
Academic qualifications may not be enough on their own to ensure success, but they indicate that the...

Often academic qualifications have no real relevance to the jobs graduates are employed to do. A few decades ago employers in areas such as banking, engineering, management and government service recruited people straight from school at the age of 15 or 16, training them on the job and promoting them to higher levels of responsibility according to their ability. Today none of these jobs has changed very much, but all now require applicants have a university degree. Why has this changed? One reason is that the upper and middle classes are trying to protect their own jobs – demanding new recruits have expensive academic qualifications excludes many talented young people from poorer backgrounds.
Academic qualifications may not be enough on their own to ensure success, but they indicate that the...

Academic qualifications may not be enough on their own to ensure success, but they indicate that their possessor has got what it takes. Imagine a new world order in education, where people don't study but join their business or look for jobs straight from school, with no qualifications to prove their worth. How would employers choose between them? Academic grades are important, because in order to gain good exam grades or a degree, students have to work hard, master demanding skills and learn a great deal of specialist knowledge. These are valuable attributes for success in any field of endeavour, which is why employers value academic qualifications. Simply getting into a good college indicates to a future employer that the student is out of the ordinary.
Whether one is proposing marriage, applying for a job or looking for a new business partner, the fir...

Success never depends upon grades. If success and opportunities were measured by grades then the corporate world and potential marriage partners would not ask for biodata in résumés, where other qualifications are also mentioned. Nor would they interview the prospects in order to find out what they are like as people, rather they would give a blind appointment to the people with the best paper qualifications. So qualifications alone are never enough, success depends upon physical characteristics, personality, and a willingness to work hard.
Whether one is proposing marriage, applying for a job or looking for a new business partner, the fir...

Whether one is proposing marriage, applying for a job or looking for a new business partner, the first thing people ask is, 'what do you do?' In other words they judge you by your academic qualifications. No bio-data résumé or curriculum vitae is acceptable without the inclusion of education qualifications. Therefore it is an unannounced rule of both the corporate world and the social world that a man's acquisition of academic qualifications is a giant leap towards opportunities in every walk of life.
Academic qualifications ensure you have the basics in learning. If your basic grounding in Maths, Sc...

Success is not getting a grade or a degree, if that was it then why aren't all the graduates from Harvard, Oxford or Cambridge uniformly successful? The rule of success is hard work and destiny of course. If a student of engineering gets good grades but he is not practically effective in relationship-buildings and solving crises or proper planning, even though he may be successful in getting a job but it will not lead him far. On the way he is sure to fade out.
Academic qualifications ensure you have the basics in learning. If your basic grounding in Maths, Sc...

Academic qualifications ensure you have the basics in learning. If your basic grounding in Maths, Science and Languages is strong, you can get success in life because mastering these subjects allows you to calculate, to innovate and to communicate. These essentials for success cannot be learned without professional help – in schools and colleges. And in order to prove that someone has acquired this knowledge, they are tested. If their learning is satisfactory, then they are given a certificate to indicate their competence – an academic qualification.
Despite more international cooperation, people everywhere prize their distinct identities. The bigg...

Despite more international cooperation, people everywhere prize their distinct identities. The biggest threat to many modern states is not losing power to world bodies like the United Nations. Instead it is the desire of minorities within many trans-national countries to break away and set up small nation states of their own. From Kosovo to Scotland, and from the Basque country to Kurdistan, such nationalist movements seek self-determination for their people. So change is likely to mean more nation states, not less.
Globalisation has some benefits, but people do not wish to lose their own cultures. Literature, poe...

Globalisation has some benefits, but people do not wish to lose their own cultures. Literature, poetry, drama, music, food and other arts are closely linked to language and history. If these are washed away by the flood of globalisation, we will all be poorer for it. The nation state is best placed to protect this heritage because it is founded on a shared identity. And citizens will continue to identify most with their nation state because they also see it as essential protector of their unique way of life.
Nation states are not more warlike than any others. Pride in a national identity doesn’t lead to vi...

Nation states are not more warlike than any others. Pride in a national identity doesn’t lead to violence against other states. Most wars in the past were personal – launched by kings and dictators for their own glory rather than for nationalist reasons. Today most nation states are democratic, and democracies are usually peaceful by nature as citizens seldom vote to send their sons to die abroad.
The nation state is the best way to promote democracy and good government. The idea that people wit...

The nation state is the best way to promote democracy and good government. The idea that people with a shared identity should be able to have their own state links logically to the idea that the people should have a say in how that state is run. Small regions or micro-states are too little to have strong economies and effective governments. They are unable to protect their people from outside threats and economic change. Huge international federations or unions are too distant from their citizens and cannot easily be held to account. The nation state is the best way to combine effective government with democratic accountability.
Nation states are the most natural kind of political institution. They have developed over many cen...

Nation states are the most natural kind of political institution. They have developed over many centuries as like-minded groups of people have banded together for protection and common support. From families, clans, and tribes, nations have come together to build political systems. This natural development adds great strength to nation states, as their people have great loyalty for their country, and its institutions have grown over time to reflect their unique character.
Seeing the world as a collection of separate nation states is still a meaningful way of understandin...

In the near future the present framework of nation states will be replaced with loose groupings of countries, regional organisations, enormous transnational corporations, and international organisations. The European Union shows the way here, with groupings like NAFTA, ASEAN, and Mercosur increasingly important in the lives of many millions of people. Politics based on national identity died when technology, mass migration and economic changes created a new sense of global society. Globalisation is too strong to resist, and any nation that tries to do so will be pushed to the margins of the world order.
Globalisation has some benefits, but people do not wish to lose their own cultures. Literature, poe...

Globalisation is getting stronger and creating a common world culture. Trade means people all over the world now depend on each other for prosperity. Like-minded people now club together online. Everyone, everywhere buys the same brands, listens to the same music, and watches the same films. English is more and more spoken to aid communication, and many of the brightest young people choose to study abroad. This means nationalism is becoming less and less relevant. When your interests are so bound together, it makes sense to give more power to international bodies such as the United Nations which can take a truly global view.
Nation states are not more warlike than any others. Pride in a national identity doesn’t lead to vi...

The system of nation states is outdated. It leads to conflict and cannot guarantee global order. The whole idea of the nation state is that one group of people is different from another, and that they cannot live together. Fear of the “other” leads to conflict for territory, resources, national glory, etc. It also leads to wars as nation states seek to expand in order to include all those who share their language, even if they are living happily as minority groups within a neighbouring state. In these ways it justifies violence in the name of the nation and so undermines humanity’s goals of global peace and security.
The nation state is the best way to promote democracy and good government. The idea that people wit...

The idea of the nation state is bad for democracy and human rights. By linking the state to a particular culture, it gives greater importance to those who share that identity. Those who do not are often not allowed to play an equal part in politics and may be given fewer rights. They may even be seen as a threat and ill-treated. In extreme cases “ethnic cleansing” and genocide take place. And even those who share the national identity may suffer, because “protecting the fatherland” is seen as more important than the rights of any individual citizen.
Nation states are the most natural kind of political institution. They have developed over many cen...

6. There is nothing natural about nation states, which are a fairly recent historical development. When you look closely, all so-called nations are less united than they first appear. Most are split by differences in religion, variations in language and culture, economic interests, etc. Often a national identity has been imposed from above on a range of different groups by a ruler keen to strengthen their own power. For example a British identity was created in the eighteenth century after the union of England and Scotland. If national identity can be created in these ways, it can change again in the future – there is nothing special about it which deserves protection.
Seeing the world as a collection of separate nation states is still a meaningful way of understandin...

Seeing the world as a collection of separate nation states is still a meaningful way of understanding global affairs. Nation states remain powerful and will be able to resist the tide of globalisation for centuries. Human nature makes people want to stay separate and equal, keeping an identity and marking and defending a certain territory. No amount of internationalism can destroy the system that has worked successfully for almost 400 years.
digital media is replacing the old media in other areas

Not all digital media completely replaces its older versions. A lot of the time they coexist.Although people own digital cameras they still like to print their images (the good ones anyway). When reports are generated in computer packages they are still printed out for meetings etc. Books are a very long lasting medium. If you are on holiday and lying by the pool or lying on the beach you wouldn't want some expensive reading screen device. A £3 paperback is so much better. Also, there has been a recent increase in record sales to people of all ages. Many music stores are finding that the younger generation is actually getting into records, and the generations that originally experienced records want to re-live the old days. This means that the "pattern" of replacing old media with digital media is being turned on its head.
cheaper and easier to share information

Sharing can occur via a physical book. This can be done without the risk of virus infection which can cost you the price of a new laptop if left untreated. As to students, when the material is on the computer screen it is almost impossible to write notes in and around the wording like you can do with physical books. Highlighting is an extremely mechanical task online and sometimes does not show up enough to suit purpose. It is much more time effective to highlight a book with a highlighting pen and then to write notes in the margin. It is for these reasons that books will not be replaced by digital media versions. Sharing e-books brings up issues of copyright infringement, and may become illegal if it becomes a popular habit. If people have to pay more money in copyright lawsuits, sharing e-books would not be cheaper for anyone.
much easier to search for information

This is an argument truly from a person cultivated into laziness through our age of technology. Yes, it is easier to search information; it is much quicker, but this is not necessarily a good thing. It means that students no longer need to be as dedicated in order to get good university degrees. As students are getting better grades for doing less work, employers are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable employees from the hundreds with the same degree classification. It used to be an achievement to get a 2:1, nowadays as searching information becomes easier, a 2:1 is a sign of mediocrity. Students are no longer taught the ability of time organisation via their degree. Research takes minimal time compared to before the age of technology. With a generation of 2:1 bearing doofus's in the making, perhaps the easiness of searching reading material will result in a reverting to the use of physical books to get the nation thinking once more.