BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School uniforms should be required

School uniforms themselves don't reduce the crime and violence in schools, it is the strict discipline and the way the school operates. Uniforms are simply a band-aid on school violence. Long Board simply has a better program and ways to keep the kids in order and motivate them. Along with uniforms, the school also developed new policies and regulations in order to bring the violence down. Also, what was the violence like before uniforms? It's not impressive that it dropped 90% if there was little bullying in the first place. To conclude, uniforms prevent kids from expressing themselves, it limits their options of what to wear and can affect their decision making skills later in life. Uniforms can cost a lot depending on what school it is. Uniforms can be uncomfortable, and therefore can limit student's attention span and learning ability. And lastly, it's just plain boring, seeing the same clothes over and over, being just like everyone else. Weren't we taught that being exactly the same is bad? That we should stand out?
School uniforms should be required

"So uniforms are really only good for making a school look god, and who is going to know unless they walk into the school?" To answer your question, not only people who walk into the school will see the uniforms. There is a school website, and many programs that may be advertised on the county education television station. The average person spends about $600 a year on new clothes. Even if you are the type of person that enjoys the finer things in life and prefer to only buy clothes that have a designer name tag, you are bound to spend more than $600 a year. Many of these designers will charge their customers over $100 per piece but usually, it is a lot more than that. (http://www.angrywhiteboyinc.com...) School uniform pants can cost anywhere from $8-$25 depending on the size and brand. The cost of school uniform shirts can be between $7 and $20. This is for the whole year & far more cheaper than without uniforms. (http://www.howmuchisit.org...) Now, to bring up a new issue: The largest and most prominent example of a school uniform policy experiment in the United States is that of the Long Beach Unified School District, the third largest school district in California having 97,000 students in 90 public school programs, with 46 different languages spoken by local students: "The quantitative outcomes of the policy have been remarkable. Crime report summaries are now available for the five-year post-uniform policy period and reflect that school crime overall has dropped approximately 86%, even though K-8 student enrollment increased 14%. The five categories of school crime where comparisons can be made between 1993 levels and 1999 levels are as follows: (a) sex offenses down 93% (from 57 to 4 offenses); (b) robbery/extortion down 85% (from 34 to 5 cases); " selling or using chemical substances down 48% (from 71 to 37 cases); (d) weapons or look-a-likes down 75% (from 145 to 36 cases); and (e) dangerous devices down 96% (from 46 to 2 cases; LBUSD, 1999). " Analysis of attendance figures has also provided interesting outcomes for the uniform initiative. In the fourth year that school uniforms have been required in K-8 grades, the percent of actual attendance reached almost 95%, noted as the highest point in the 18 years that the district has maintained statistics. Middle schools also registered comparable improvements in student attendance reaching almost 95% (LBUSD, 2002)." (http://factspluslogic.com...)
School uniforms should be required

I appreciate the fact that it minimizes kids from having to deal with fitting in, but clothing isn't a big factor nowadays. Most kids in my experience determine popularity and such by religion, sexuality, physical features, athleticism, and intelligence. Kids don't look at clothes and judge; kids simply don't have to worry about that anymore. What about the fact that uniform prices can be out of range for some families? The Department of Education website says, "School uniform and other items that must be purchased in accordance with school rules can be expensive, particularly for low income and large families. " (. http://education.gov.uk...) I come from a family of 13, so we are fortunate to not have to pay for uniforms. A lot of people in the area in which I live are poor and have to resort to free or reduced lunches at school. They definitely can't afford uniforms. As for results possibly being better, in 2007 it was noted that more than 40 academies with uniforms failed to reach the goal of 30% of students with 5 A's-C's. (. http://www.guardian.co.uk... ) David Brunsma, an academic, studied this for 8 years, seeing that though the numbers looked promising, "Uniforms do not make our schools better. " So uniforms are really only good for making a school look god, and who is going to know unless they walk into the school?
School uniforms should be required

I hope our debate goes well, and thank you for bringing up this topic. I appreciate you sharing your personal opinions on school uniforms, but I have to disagree with you. Clothing may be one of the best ways for students to express themselves, but even you, yourself stated that it is not the only way. "students are able to be themselves without being distracting" The above comment is a direct comment posted by yourself. With girls being forced to call home for a change of clothes, and boys yanking up their pants to prevent "sagging" every day, the dress code is being violated every single day, despite the strict rules put before us. All of these violations are distractions towards other students. A study recently released found school uniform policies helped to improve school safety and student achievement, including grades and test scores, in three diverse public school districts. In light of the increased emphasis on student achievement since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, "Implementing a School Uniform Policy: A Case Study of Three Districts" provides additional evidence that school uniform policies can be beneficial to student learning. Five key and consistent findings emerged in "Implementing a School Uniform Policy", which focused on the Denver Public Schools in Denver, Colorado; the Aldine Independent School District outside of Houston, Texas; and District of Baltimore City Public Schools: 1) Regular use of uniforms can help to improve school safety; 2) Regular use of uniforms can help to improve students' classroom behavior; 3) The affordability of school uniforms versus everyday clothing contributes to wide acceptance of the adoption of such a policy; 4) Uniforms can help to reduce student competition and concerns about "fitting in"; 5) Uniforms may contribute to improved student outcomes, including grades and test scores.
Peta

PETA terrorize this man named Jerry Greenwalt a man that saves 63 thousand animals a year! dose he have to kill some? yes just like PETA "puts them to sleep forever" in this video he also says "but they also busts their balls to increase adoptions and educate pet owners on spading and neutering something PETA doesn't mention." then they say if they follow what peta says and releases the animals, even the aggressive ones then it's just going to be their fault again. all peta wants is for animals to live lives and be free and happy. this ain't Disney, it just doesn't work that way. they try to do all this by threatening, harassing, and give money to people who would blow a building up with a bomb. really? you actually want a terrorist group that would risk a human life or kill a human life for animals to be around? and you can't even have pets! and also peta should be around because there are laws for abusing animals blowing up buildings won't help your insanity isn't helping. and they say animals are todays slave! people around the world are still slaves and also we have it in our history you wanna compare that to a puppy? and they really want to compare the holocaust to animals! so how we treat animals today is the way nazis treated jews!?!?!? that is litterally insane so whatever happens to a chicken is the same as what a jew went through in the holocaust? of course not. i do not have enough time to finish this so i will resume in comments
Peta

My opponent should note that I do not support PETA, I am merely advocating that they be allowed to exist. An organization is simply a group of people with similar goals or ideologies. These may be positive or negative ideologies. The members that perform illegal acts should be reprimanded to the fullest extent of the law. While PETA may have odd, and even stupid ways of accomplishing goals barring their existance is unconstitutional. I will now point you to the KKK, an organization that has done much worse but are still allowed to exist. This is because of the first amendment. These people may do things that you don't like, but that's no reason to abolish them. In the eyes of the law actions matter. It is indiiduals, not organizations that perform actions.
Existence of God

You bring up the fact of the Native Americans and Jews. I myself am both. My father is Native American and my mother is Jewish. God gave us all free will. We choose each day to use it, whether it is choosing a food or a route to work. God allows us to do this. As with all things, free will can be abused. You can abuse it by taking others' free will away or by taking someone's life for example. God gives us the power to do as we choose. No matter your religion or faith, we all are here in this universe together. We must make decisions on what to do and not do. To say that God does not exist plainly on the fact of no evidence is in fact a theory. Science has many many theories which people believe. Gravity, for instance, is what almost everyone believes. We know how it works but do we know why? Same with God, we know he gives us free will but do we know why? Do we know why he doesn't step in? No, but we do know he isn't. The same as two friends getting into an argument, a parent won't step in because the two friends are the only ones who can fix the problem. We have many problems on Earth and God allows us to change them. It would be very easy for him to come down and say, "Hey", but he doesn't. He wants us to faith that there is something better on and also to give us the ability to change the world around us. He tests us just as a teacher does his/her students. Each student then tries their best and hopes for a good grade. We must make changes in this world so that it is a better place. This is a merit above all others and it is what God hopes for. If we can only work together like the students do so they can do better on their test.
Existence of God

If you haven't noticed, all religions lead to a higher being. All religions explain it differently. We shall never know until we die and then we will know. Religion is not supposed to be for correctness and if any religion does claim it to be, then they are missing the purpose of living a full and meaningful life. As for evolution, it is an explanation of HOW and not WHY. We know how so many things work in the universe yet we don't know WHY. Science is the explanation of HOW but religion and beliefs are the possible explanation of WHY. By saying all religions are wrong and science is correct is ignorant. Just as religion changes over the years, so does science. Many principals we see in science form the past, we laugh at. At one time we thought the world was flat. Now we know for certain that the planet is round. We don't know why it is round, but we do know it is. The same idea is in beliefs. We know something had to start this whole universe and life, but we don't know why. Looking in a hopeful and positive view is the point of humanity and religion. If we continue to fight over things and continue to be negative, then we are missing the point of life as a whole. We should work together and be positive and try to change our world.
Existence of God

Can I claim that Greek gods exist as well? What about the gods from other religions? What I'd like to know is what BASIS a person has for attaching "god" to the unknown. If religions can't even give a reason why their belief is better than another, then its all worthless. Also, explain to me what you think of evolution. Some religious people think that God created humans, in SPITE of countless hours of effort and research by REAL scientists proving that our DNA is similar to other primates, and that any "missing links" are consistently being found, disproving their arguments more and more. Finally, why doesn't god show himself? Or, at least, give a single hint of evidence that he exists? If I say, think, or want a chair to fly across the room to prove his existence, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN! Any report of direct evidence from God is sketchy, unreliable, and was most likely made up for attention. Unlike the blind men, we don't have a piece of the God to hold. You should not compare us to blind men each holding a different piece of the elephant, you should compare us to blind men speculating about the creatures of the Earth.
Existence of God

The existence of God is definitely true. No person in the world can describe Him/Her/It because we have not seen the higher power. We are like blind men and women trying to describe an elephant. One may feel the leg and say that there is no animal here. Another may grab the trunk and say in fear that it is a snake. Yet another may touch the body and say that it is just a wall. A fourth walks up and feels the horns and says that it is a unicorn. The only way they would know that the elephant is an elephant is if they were a seeing person. This seeing person represents a person in the afterlife. We can finally without and doubt tell what God is, whether that is a person, being, or nothing. The point in a higher power is to try and make us better people. If we miss the point and fight over it, then we have failed. We must live our lives good and hope then that we will be rewarded, just as the blind men were when they could finally see.
Our Country is overpopulated.

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited his last and probably most important round. I have shown how his arguments do not meet the proof requirements of the given definition (Which he did not argue over.) I have given him questions that could make or break his arguments, that he could not answer. He has only told us that the government must be able to support the beggars, but has given no evidence as to what they should actually do to help them. He has not proven that our country is furnished to heavily for our resources to bear. He has not proven that on July 4th, 2009 the United States of America was overpopulated. Resolution NEGATED.
Our Country is overpopulated.

Because the only thing you have told me is that we are overpopulated because of beggars, i ask you to answer a few questions. 1. How do you know all these beggars did not have a chance at an education? 2. Is it not the choices that they have made that have made them a "beggar"? 3. If our country is still alive and okay today, then how were we overpopulated on july 4th approx 11 pm? Considering in the definition it says more than the resources can bear, if it was more than the resources could bear 5 days ago, surely we would still not be in the same state today? But we should be worse yeah? 4. What do you expect the government to do about beggars? Visit a third world country back east, they are overpopulated and under resourced. Then come back to America and try to tell me we are over-populated.
Our Country is overpopulated.

How can they afford sending their son or daughter to school if they are just beggars begging in the street very pathetic?! Do you think that beggars will easily be absorbed as a worker? Oh,that's impossible. ============= If we have enough resources, all of us now could benefit it. We can now get what we want or do what is good for our lives and society. But the problem is we are lack of those things. Because of that, beggars are very rampant in our society that makes our country overpopulated. Because they were very rampant, our official government cannot support all the beggars in our society by giving them the right thing like education, food and shelter which all of us should have. ============= Yes, not everyone will be successful but everyone must not also stocked beside the streets begging.
Our Country is overpopulated.

There are always opportunities to go to school, get good grades and go to college which will lead to a good job. Nobody is going to whisk you into their company and make you a manager. you have to work to get there. Which beggars are not doing. My opponent says that if not everyone has a good job and a happy family then we are overpopulated. This is incorrect, in the definition it says that if we have more people than the resources can bear. Not everyone has to be successful, only that we must have enough resources to survive. Which we do. Resolution negated.
Our Country is overpopulated.

My opponent seems misinterpreted my argument. I did not said that a man is poor because the government is not handing them food and money. What I want to convey is those beggars who really2x need food and money must be supported for them to survive. ================= My opponent said that, "there will always be those who beg instead of work, out of laziness". My opponent doesn't see the situation of our country. Do you think that there will still be people think to be lazy after what our country now is facing? Beggars has also mind to think that this is not the time of laziness because all must work to survive. Beggars now are trying to find a thing that could make there lives satisfied. But beggars should be helped by the government to find things that could make them live gently. ================= If our country now was not overpopulated yet, there will be no people who will begged in the streets. All must have good education and good job to have a good lifestyle and family. All must also be supported by the government because this will help the progression of our economy and society.
Our Country is overpopulated.

It was a simple analogy. My opponents only argument is that because we have beggars, we are overpopulated. But I must argue that chances are no matter how many people we had in America, there would always be beggars, kinda like the kid in the group at school that never wants to contribute. Anyhow, I will explain the irrelevance of that. You cannot say that a man is poor because the government is not handing them food and money, just like all the wealthy people, and even the middle class citizens had to work for it. Nobody handed them anything. In fact as everyone knows, the government takes our money, they don't give it to us. Freen thinks that because they don't choose to use the resources, that they are non-existent, however on july 4th 2009 approx 11pm we definitely had enough resources, but because we have free will, there will always be those who beg instead of work, out of laziness. (most cases) "In fact, our government must focus first to these problems if how can they help or support their needs than the other businesses where our government was concentrated with." We should dish out money wel never get back instead of in businesses that we will get money back from? Doesn't seem like a good plan to me for a country in crisis. The bottom line is that last night we did HAVE the resources to survive, which negates the resolution. Oh and we have enough resources for the beggars, just nobody gives it to them for free.
Our Country is overpopulated.

My opponent tackled about those animals. I think my opponent, at first, go beyond the topic. People must not be compared to animals because people have different lifestyle compared to animals. ============== Yes, we are now overpopulated because of those beggars begging in the street. If we are not overpopulated, our government could handle this kind of problem or may I say, they can carry this on their shoulders as their priority in a way that they can help or support the needs of all the beggars in this country. So now, we are overpopulated because they cannot support all those beggars. Yes, maybe they had but 50% only of them and the other 50% were neglected. ============== My opponent said, "Then he must prove that there are not enough resources to survive currently". In this case, my opponent didn't get the real main idea and the proof included on that idea. As what I have said for 3 times, "WE ARE ALREADY OVERPOPULATED BECAUSE OF THOSE BEGGARS"! ! My proof their were the beggars. If we have more resources, then all people in this country must have great job. But because we are lack of those resources, people who don't have job and don't have better lifestyle, pushed to begged in the street for them to survive because this is only the way of how they could live long in this world that they are living in. ============== I hope, for this time my opponent will not go beyond the topic anymore and go to the real path where this debate was railed.
Our Country is overpopulated.

Greetings, thank you for the debate and i hope that it will be a good one. Because my opponent has not posted a definition i will do so. "to populate too densely : furnish or provide with more than the environment or market will bear" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Please take notice that my opponent says "we are NOW overpopulated" Then he must prove that there are not enough resources to survive currently. My opponent argues that because we have poverty and beggers that we are overpopulated. This is incorrect, even if you bring this argument to the wild, it still fails. That's like saying because an animal fails to do what they must to survive, and because no one is handing them food and necessities than it is overpopulated. Just like animals must rely on themselves to survive, so must we. Because we DO have the necessities and resources to survive, we are not currently overpopulated. I await the next round, and hearing my opponents response.
Our Country is overpopulated.

I agree that Our country now is overpopulated due to the lack of needs that is very rampant in urban areas. I am referring to America. =============== If we will have a survey of our country, many people is facing poverty because they can't afford those things that are necessary to their lives. Ex. of these are the foods which is very valuable. Because of the impact of the crisis hitting in our country, people who cannot afford were very pathetic begging in the streets to ask some food or money just for them to survive. =============== In short, my point is our country was already overpopulated because of those beggars that our government can't support already their needs 'cause they were rampant nowadays. In fact, our government must focus first to these problems if how can they help or support their needs than the other businesses where our government was concentrated with. Thank You!!
To be selected as a Member of Parliament in India one must atleast be a graduate.

Well to begin with I would state that with education comes rational thinking and the ability to choose between beneficial and detrimental decisions. As you know that to set up a new Law a bill has to be passed in Lok sabha, for which the consent of a simple majority and in some cases 2/3rd majority ( to amend the constitution) is required, now each vote is equally valuable irrespective of the person. Now in most cases what happens is the educated shrewd politicians influence the comparatively less educated politicians from rural India according to their wish. Those less educated rural politicians have been elected by tax paying citizens of India, he is suppose to represent those people, his decision is suppose to concern the people who have elected him, instead what happens is he doesn't have a decision. I would like to consider this as a major set back the basics of Preamble, and question the fact whether Republic of India is Republic at all or not. Hence comes the need for a basic education, in todays fast moving modernized world Graduation degree is not really difficult to obtain, I mentioned Graduation degree just as a benchmark for a nominal educational qualification for those who run the country.