BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cultural artefacts are enriched when displayed in the context from which they originated

The artefacts' place of origin has more often than not changed dramatically since they were in situ there. It is therefore unconvincing to argue that the context of modern Orthodox Greece aids visitors’ appreciation of an ancient pagan relic. Too much has changed physically and culturally over the centuries for artefacts to speak more clearly in their country of origin than they do in museums, where they can be compared to large assemblies of objects from a wide variety of cultures. Similarly, a great many cultural treasures relate to religions and cultures which no longer survive and there can be no such claim for their return. Technology has also evolved to the point that Ancient Greece can be just as accurately evoked virtually as it could be in modern Greece[1]. Countries with cultural heritage retain the attraction of being the original locations of historical events or places of interest even without all the artefacts in place. The sanctuaries of Olympia and Delphi in Greece are a good example of this; they are not filled with artefacts, but continue to attract visitors because the sites are interesting in themselves. In 2009 2,813,548 people visited Athens, with 5,970,483 visiting archaeological sites across Greece[2], even without the Parthenon marbles. Also, people who have seen an artefact in a foreign museum may then be drawn to visit the area it originated from. It is the tourist trade of the nations where these artefacts are held (mostly northern European nations, like Britain and France) which would suffer if they were repatriated. Lacking the climate and natural amenities of other tourist destinations they rely on their cultural offerings in order to attract visitors [1] Young Explorers, ‘A brief history of…’ The British Museum. [2] AFP, ‘New Acropolis Museum leads rise in Greek Museum visitor numbers for 2009’, Elginism, June 8th 2010. (Breakdown of visitor figures according to major destinations.)
Retaining artefacts is a relic of imperialist attitudes to non-occidental cultures

For whatever reason the treasures were first collected, we should not rewrite history. There is no reason to politicise this argument; museums have no 'political' agenda but merely wish to preserve historical objects for their intrinsic value. Their reasons for keeping these items may be financial, or in the interests of keeping the artefacts safe and accessible to the public; whatever they may be, they are not political. Don’t the nations who have expended resources protecting and preserving these artefacts deserve in return the right to display them? Additionally, not all artefacts held outside their country of origin are the result of imperial or exploitative relationships. The original Medieval Crown of England is held in Munich[1]. Artistic exchange has nothing to do with politics anymore. [1] Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, ‘Treasury (Schatzkammer)'
Many artefacts resting in western museums were acquired illegally. Western states have a duty to retain them.

Although some treasures may have been acquired illegally, the evidence for this is often ambiguous. Experts agree that Greece could mount no court case because Elgin was granted permission by what was then Greece's ruling government. Lord Elgin’s bribes were the common way of facilitating any business in the Ottoman Empire, and do not undermine Britain’s solid legal claim to the Parthenon marbles, based upon a written contract made by the internationally-recognised authorities in Athens at the time. The veracity of the document can never be fully dismissed as it is a translation. And while some Benin bronzes were undoubtedly looted, other “colonial trophies” were freely sold to the imperial powers, indeed some were made specifically for the European market.
Developing countries are able to guard and preserve their own cultural treasures

In the case of the Parthenon marbles, Lord Elgin’s action in removing them was an act of rescue as the Parthenon was being used as a quarry by the local population.[1] The Parthenon had already been destroyed by an explosion in 1687.[2] Having been removed the result was that the British protected them between 1821 and 1833 during the Greek War of Independence was occurring and the Acropolis was besieged twice.[3]Furthermore, if they had been returned upon Greek independence in 1830, the heavily polluted air of Athens would have caused extensive damage to such artefacts that would be open to the elements and Greek attempts at restoration in 1898 were as damaging as the British.[4] Today economic austerity lends new uncertainty to Greece’s commitment to financing culture. Similar problems face the return of artefacts to African museums; wooden figures would decay in the humid atmosphere. Artefacts in Northern Africa are at risk because of the recent revolts and civil wars[5]. Wealthier countries sometimes simply have better resources to protect, preserve and restore historical artefacts than their country of origin. Our moral obligation is to preserve the artefact for future generations, and if this is best achieved by remaining in a foreign country then that must be the course of action. [1] Beard, Mary, ‘Lord Elgin - Saviour or Vandal?’, BBC History, 17 February 2011. [2] Mommsen, Theodor E., ‘The Venetian in Athens and the Destruction of the Parthenon in 1687’, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol 45, No. 4, Oct-Dec 1941, pp. 544-556.  [3] Christopher Hitchens, The Elgin Marbles: Should They Be Returned to Greece?, 1998,p.viii, ISBN 1-85984-220-8 [4] Hadingham, Evan, ‘Unlocking Mysteries of the Parthenon’ Smithsonian Magazine, February 2008. [5] Parker, Nick ‘Raiders of the Lost Mubarak’, , The Sun, 1st Feburary 2011.
Artefacts should be made accessible to the largest possible number of visitors

Many people from an artefact's country of origin never get to see them because they cannot afford to travel to a foreign museum; as such the cost of access to that museum is a very small part of the total cost. These artefacts are part of their cultural history and national identity, and it is important that local people are given the opportunity to see them. It is not all about quantity of visitors; those closest to the artefacts have the greatest right to see them. For others, it should be a privilege not a right.
It is the state’s duty to protect its community

A great deal of health care and prevention of diseases is information and an informed decision. The United Kingdom does not have a system of compulsory health care, but disease outbreaks are still prevented due to the voluntary uptake of immunizations. The pediatrician Miriam Fine-Goulden explains: “The risk of contracting these infections is only so low at present because the voluntary uptake of immunizations has been high enough (in most cases) to reduce the chance of contact with those organisms through the process of herd immunity.”[1] Also it can be argued that measles, mumps and rubella (one of the diseases vaccine against) are far from harmful. They are relatively minor illnesses[2]. Measles causes a rash and high fever. Mumps causes swollen glands, headache and fever. Rubella is usually mild and can go unnoticed. Just because medical advance has been made in vaccinations it does not mean that we have to be immunized against every little disease known to man. Bearing in mind the cost of such jabs on the heavily burdened NHS, surely it would be better to not make the MMR jab compulsory. This way we keep parents happy and the NHS budget can be stretched further. Researches also show that alternative approaches towards diseases such as better nutrition, homeopathy, etc. give very positive results. Healthier populations would not need vaccines to fight a disease. High profits that are now reserved only for the pharmaceutical industry would be spread to other areas of the economy, such as agriculture and the service sector, and more people would gain. [1] Miriam Fine-Goulden: Should childhood vaccinations be compulsory in the UK ?, University College London,  http://www.ucl.ac.uk/opticon1826/archive/issue8/articles/Article_Biomed_Sc_-_Fine-Goulden__Vaccination_Publish.pdf, accessed 05/29/2011 [2] BBC News, Should the MMR vaccine be compulsory, 03/02/2002,   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2088426.stm, accessed 05/29/2011
Duty to protect the child

Compulsory vaccination is an example of the tyranny of the majority even if it is made by a democratic government. And in a community that praises itself as democratic and respectful to wishes of others it is in no way acceptable that the rights of some get abused by the wishes of others.  John Stuart Mill has set philosophical basics: “the majority… the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power… In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.[1] The state (or the majority) can only dictate to the individual is if that individual’s actions adversely affect the collective. Therefore the question is ‘what is the purpose of the vaccination?’ if it is to provide individuals with their own protection then autonomy of decision-making and individual liberty should predominate as guiding principles. Under these circumstances there can be little justification of any coercion on the part of public health officials, in particular the use of mandatory vaccination legislation. If it is more based upon public harm i.e. the more chance of the virus infecting from one human to another then the less this defense can be used.[2] [1] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999. www.bartleby.com/130/. 2nd October, 2009, Chapter 1, paragraph 9 [2] University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Medical ethics experts identify, address key issues in H1N1 pandemic, FirstScience News 23rd September 2009 http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/breaking-news-all-topics/medical-ethics-experts-identify-address-key-issues-in-h1n1-pandemic-page-3-1_71059.html, accessed 05/29/2011
It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child

An adult vaccine refusal and a parental vaccine refusal are not the same. Parents do not have absolute right to put their child at a risk even if they themselves are willing to accept such a risk for him or herself. Minors have a right to be protected against infectious diseases and society has the responsibility to ensure welfare of children who may be harmed by their parents’ decisions. Counseling should form an integral part of any such legislation, as often it is not conviction but laziness of the parents in taking their child to the clinic for immunization or the parents’ inability to make an informed decision.[1] Also the state has already protected children in cases, when their functioning later as an adult could be compromised due to parental actions. For instance: in order to promote culturally prescribed norms, parents may seek to remove their child from school, or have their daughter undergo clitoridectomy; yet the state may claim that such a decision violates the parents' trustee relationship on grounds that the state has a compelling interest in securing the full citizenship capacities and rights of each of its citizens. As trustee, the parent has a limited right to exclusivity in determining the child's life over the course of childhood, but this determination is to be aimed at shaping the child into (for instance) a productive citizen and community member. [2] The LSU Law center also explains: “The more difficult problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose immunizations. These groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their neighborhoods, schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the larger community. By providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can defeat the general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons mix with members of the larger community, they will expose those who are susceptible to contagion.”[3] As seen not to vaccine children can represent a danger for their future, there should be no ultimate power of parents to prevent vaccine jabs.  [1] Lahariya C, Mandatory vaccination: is it the future reality ?, Singapore medical journal (editorial) 2008,  http://smj.sma.org.sg/4909/4909e1.pdf, accessed 05/25/2011 [2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/, accessed 05/28/2011 [3]Louisiana State University (LSU), Compulsory Immunization, http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/books/lbb/x790.htm, accessed 05/29/2011
It is the state’s duty to protect its community

If an age group is protected, that results in a better health conditions for the whole society. In an industrialized country such as the USA, those choosing exemption from statutorily compulsory vaccination were 35-times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated persons; in developing countries where these viruses are still endemic, the risk would be considerably higher[1]. Those who wish to opt-out of vaccination (often on behalf of their children, who have no say in the matter) are classic free riders, hoping to benefit from the more responsible behavior of the rest of society. As it is assumed that most of society see it as a responsibility and a duty to protect others. After a scare about possible side effects of the MMR jab, in 2008 there was a drop in voluntary vaccinations in a part of London (Lewisham). In that part of London only 64.3 % of children were vaccine and in that year the district accounted one third of all south-east London measles cases. Unless there is a 95 % vaccination, there is a great threat to public health of infection outbreaks.[2] It is therefore the role of the state to understand these issues and possible treats and provide a duty of protection and care, in this case, in the form of immunization. Another example of the need to protect is also given by the example of voluntary vaccination against the flu, because of its impacts on the whole population is given by Pediatric studies: ”In several studies, results indicated that a 100% vaccination rate among health care personnel in acute care settings triggered a 43% decline in risk of influenza among patients. This decrease appeared even higher — 60% — among nursing home patients.”[3]     So by giving up some of the individuals freedoms and the feeling of duty to protection, the community is much more protected and benefits from the vaccination of the community. [1] Vaccination Critics & Opponents. http://www.neurodiversity.com/anti_vaccination.html [2] BBC News, Experts warn of measles outbreaks, 03/18/2008  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7291248.stm, a [3] Talbot TR. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol., Two medical societies back mandatory flu vaccination for health care workers, published 2010, http://www.pediatricsupersite.com/view.aspx?rid=68173, accessed 05/27/2011 ccessed 05/25/2011
Duty to protect the child

As article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “State parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health services.”[1] Each year millions of children worldwide die of preventable diseases before the age of five. The argument presented here is that the state needs to protect the child and immunize him or her from preventable diseases as obviously the child does not have the capabilities at this stage to make informed decisions of their own. The United Nations Right to Liberty and Security of the Person treaty, article 6.2 supports this view - State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.[2] It is up to the State to decide if a child is to be immunized, as overall it will be the State who would benefit from having the vast majority of its citizens vaccinated, and it will be the State who will have to pay for any treatment needed to treat a preventable disease. Whilst a child’s parents have to a certain degree the right to decide what is best for their child’s future, poor decision making in this area could result in serious medical issues for the nation. In this extremely important area, the State must have authority over the rights of the parent. [1] Convention on the Rights of the Child.  http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm [2] Right to Liberty and Security of Person. http://www.unfpa.org/rights/language/right8.htm
Compulsory vaccines are a financial relief on the health system

Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5 billion.[1] Another aspect is also, that productivity rates remain high and less money is earmarked for social and health transfers because people are healthier. This is also supported by a WHO study, that claims: “We calculate that the average percentage increase in income for the children whose immunization coverage increases through will rise from 0.78 per cent in 2005 to 2.39 per cent by 2020. This equates to an increase in annual earnings per child of $14 by 2020. The total increase in income per year once the vaccinated cohort of children start earning will rise from $410 million in 2005 to $1.34 billion by 2020 (at a cost of $638 million in 2005 and $748 million in 2020).”[2] This study based on economic and health indicators is part of the world immunization program GAVI. [1] Wikipedia. Vaccine Controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy [2] David Bloom, David Canning and Mark Weston, The value of immunization, World Economics, July – September 2005  http://www.who.int/immunization_supply/financing/value_vaccination_bloom_canning_weston.pdf, accessed 05/28/2011
Compulsory vaccination violates the individuals’ right to bodily integrity

In most countries and declarations, one of the most basic human rights is the one to bodily integrity. It sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your body without consent. The NHS (National Health Service) explains: “You must give your consent (permission) before you receive any type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding to donate your organs after your death. If you refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected.” This comes from the principle, that if a person has the capacity to consent to treatment and is making an informed decision (based on pros and cons of the treatment), the decision must be respected. The NHS explains further on: “If you have enough capacity and make a voluntary and informed decision to refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected. This applies even if your decision would result in your death, or the death of your unborn child.”[1] In the case of vaccination this principle should be also applied. Even though we recognize that children are not able to fully comprehend the consequences a refusal would have, the parents should be there to decide on behalf of children over such decisions. The state has no right to stick a needle into a child just because they see fit doing so. It might be contested that in case of life endangering illnesses, the state should override the individuals’ rights. But rejection of vaccinations is not life endangering. So it is the judgment of the individual that is important and should not under any case be violated, just because someone might get an illness that in today’s modern world is easily curable.  [1] National Health Service (NHS), Do I have a right to refuse treatment ?, http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/899.aspx?categoryid=68&subcategoryid=156, accessed 29/05/2011
It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child

Through birth, the child and the parent have a binding agreement that is supported within the society. This agreement involves a set of rights and duties aimed at, and justified by, the welfare of the child. Through that (according to texts from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): parents owe their children an “open future,” understood as one where they become adults capable of choosing their own conception of the good. As custodian, the parent is under a limited obligation to work and organize his or her life around the welfare and development of the child, for the child's sake. Concomitantly, the parent is endowed with a special kind of authority over the child.[1] It therefore is the courtesy of a parent to decide what the best possible outcome is for a child. If the parent believes the child will be safer and better off in society without being given vaccine it is the parent’s right to decide not to give vaccination to the child. Also the American Academy of Pediatrics reports, that refusing the immunization might not put children at risk, as long as they live in a well immunized community and can benefit from the “herd immunity”. They state: “Even in a community with high immunization rates, the risk assumed by an unimmunized child is likely to be greater than the risks associated with immunization. However, the risk remains low, and in most cases the parent who refuses immunizations on behalf of his or her child living in a well-immunized community does not place the child at substantial risk of serious harm.”[2] [1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/, accessed 05/28/2011 [2] Diekema Douglas, Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1428.full, accessed 05/28/2011