BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spelling reform would save money over time. At the moment many children need extra support to help ...

Spelling reform would save money over time. At the moment many children need extra support to help them with reading, writing and spelling. This costs money and time that could be better spent on other parts of their education. And more children would leave school with good reading and writing skills, giving them the chance to get better jobs and earn more money. At present 20% of adults in Britain cannot read and write easily – a much larger number than in countries like Sweden that have easier spelling systems. This represents a lot of wasted ability and holds our economy back.
Spelling reform is quite possible. In the last forty years Britain changed its currency from the tr...

Spelling reform is quite possible. In the last forty years Britain changed its currency from the traditional pounds, shillings and pence (with 4 farthings to the penny, 12 pennies to a shilling and 20 shillings to a pound). This was a complicated system that made learning mathematics very difficult for children. It was replaced with the modern system with 100 pennies to a pound. Around the same time the old imperial system of measurements (inches, feet, yards, furlongs, miles; ounces, pounds, stones, hundredweights and tons, etc.) was also changed to the simpler modern metric system. If big changes like these have been made already, it should not be too hard to reform English spelling too. All it needs is some government strength of mind.
It is difficult for non-English speakers to learn English as a second language. Students can never ...

It is difficult for non-English speakers to learn English as a second language. Students can never be sure from reading a word how it is pronounced. They have to hear it aloud at the same time as seeing it written down. Then they have to learn by heart the many difficult spelling rules and exceptions to them. If English is to hold its own as a global language it must become easier to learn.
Spelling reform would help to break down the barriers that still exist in British society. “Correct...

Spelling reform would help to break down the barriers that still exist in British society. “Correct” spelling is so difficult that it is used as a means of entry into the educated upper classes. Those who cannot spell so well are looked down upon as “ignorant” and “thick”. No matter how good the ideas are in anything they write, if it is not correctly spelled then it is rejected as worthless. So people with certain types of memory or education are more likely to get into good colleges or get top jobs, even if they are not so able in other ways. And there is still a lot of unfairness towards dyslexic people who find spelling very difficult.
Globalisation has intensified global and national inequality. There is an increased economic and so...

Globalisation has increased world prosperity and organisational efforts to stabilise the world economy have significantly improved. By historical standards global poverty has fallen more in the last 50 years than in the past 500, and the welfare of people in almost all regions has improved significantly over the past few decades. Globalisation will bring about the end of the ‘Third World’.LEDC’s fall in their share of world trade can be attributed to the internal economic, social and political conditions in individual countries.
Increased global integration means that poorer countries become more vulnerable to world financial m...

Globalisation has brought about huge benefits. The emergence of a single global market, the principles of free trade, capital mobility and global competition has allowed the diffusion of prosperity, wealth and power and these aspects of globalisation are the harbingers of modernisation and development. New opportunities and possibilities have been opened up. On the contrary, globalisation was the very force that led to the successful development of Eastern Asia and its ‘economic miracle’.Far from making LEDCs more vulnerable, increasing global integration means that there are better organisational structures in place to deal with world political, economic and social problems including those associated with natural hazards.
Globalisation has intensified global and national inequality. There is an increased economic and so...

Globalisation has intensified global and national inequality. There is an increased economic and social gap within countries and between countries, the richer are becoming richer and the poorer are becoming poorer. Globalisation is an uneven process causing world fragmentation. There has been increasing inequality in trade too, resulting in the amplification of the trade gap. Through increasing globalisation the value of world trade is 17 times greater than 50 years ago, but Latin America’s share has fallen from 11% to 5% and Africa’s from 8% to 2%. The terms of trade have increasingly moved against LEDCs and their poor.
Increased global integration means that poorer countries become more vulnerable to world financial m...

Increased global integration means that poorer countries become more vulnerable to world financial markets. The East Asian Crisis was a direct result of globalisation and resulted in intensifying poverty. The crisis shows that even the strongest developing states are at the mercy of global economic forces that serve the interest of the dominant capitalist powers. Globalisation also meant that there was a speedy transition of the crisis to the other East Asian countries - the ‘contagion effect’ - having devastating human consequences.The benefits of the global market accrue to a relatively small proportion of the world’s population. The stronger become stronger and the weak become weaker.
Absolutely!

Firstly, the statistics show that knife and gun crime are over represented in the news. There is a moral panic in which people think if they are attacked it will be by a knife wielding maniac. This is simply not true. There is more chance that you will be in a car accident than be attacked on the street. Secondly, if you arm the police, it will only serve in arming the criminals to a higher level as well. Look at Japan, the police are trained in hand to hand combat and carry no weapons. The criminals carry no firearms, partly because of the tight gun control laws and enforcement. Thirdly, arming the police will normalise guns and make them seem less threatening. This will encourage people to have them as they become 'desensitised' to guns. Fourthly, the police already have an armed response unit set aside for the rare occasions when firearms officers are needed. Having every police officer trained to use a firearm will increase training time and cost.
Arming the police will do more harm than good

Sending police out armed with firearms will only induce gangs to purchase more weapons of their own in response and increase the likelihood of gunfire exchange with whole communities caught in the middle. The only way people can be made to feel safer is for there to be fewer guns on the street, not more. People do not feel reassured seeing armed police, instead feeling less safe, so the counterpoint falls down. Because we are usef to the police not having guns armed police make us feel less safe. If your community has armed police then obviously something very bad is happening![[http://www.metro.co.uk/news/830381-armed-police-would-make-brits-feel-threatened-according-to-poll]]
It is hypocritical and will not benefit civilians

The police in the UK should be armed. The events of the rioting in the summer of 2011 proved that they were powerless to protect the public.Recommendations ahve already been made by senior police officers that this is what should happen. I live in Calgary now and the police here are armed. It is a far far safer city. Criminals know if they attack an officer they will be shot ndin some case they have been shot and killed. The police here are real police. When I lived in the UK people kept saying the British Police are the envy of the world, since I emigrated, I can tell you they are not. They are laughed at and people I speak to here cannot believe the UK police are not armed. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear - only the criminals. The criminals have guns and so should the police. To say this will increase gun crime is wrong. Gun crime has been on the increase for years in the UK. A police officer in the town where I lived turned up to a bank robbery and the thieves turned round and shot the officer. The police need to be able to repsond. Its time the UK woke up, kicked out political correctness and civil liberties and brought in common sense and justice. I feel very safe in my adopted city knowing the police have the upper hand.
It is hypocritical and will not benefit civilians

It is expressly illegal to own a gun in the UK unless it is a hunting rifle, and even then you need a license. What kind of example are the police setting if they can use guns, but we can't? Policemen are still citizens! They have the same rights as anyone else, they aren't in some way 'immune' to charges! Besides, what happens if some hopeless police officer lets his gun out of his sight for a minute and it gets in the wrong hands? This will not prevent crime, if anything it will provoke an increase in gun crime. Gun crime is low in the UK, and we should keep it that way.
Protecting communities

Statistics from the British Crime Survey not only show that gun crime is very rare throughout in the UK, but also that it is decreasing year on year. The reason communities are so afraid is that an over-zealous media continually hype up individual incidences of gun crime to attract more readers. Introducing guns onto the streets, even in a legal and good intentioned manner is a trigger for increasing the number of guns gangs and organised crime groups bring onto the street.
It waters down the meaning of ideas with emotion instead of content and limits people's vocabulary, destroys life.

(This is entering the realm of the nature of reality, so prepare for some paradigm shifting turbulence) Every act has a cause. Every curse/swear has a cause and an effect. The cause and effect must be acknowledged when using these expressions. To swear is to utter obscenities, WordWeb's definition. An obscenity is offensive or indecent expression. An indecent expression does not meet the standards of what is right/good, for a reason It is wrong/bad because it both comes from (is associated with) an ill cause and causes an ill effect. The ill cause that leads to the swearing is the will to death/impotence as opposed to the will to life/power (to use partly from the philosophy of Nietzsche). Using a swear/curse word admits to a lack for a better choice of words, also a lack of meaning. Why not use a more accurate vocabulary/expression to communicate ideas? Why leave people to wonder what the meaning of your words is? Ill cause: hurt, lack of vocabulary or meaning, hate, anger, nothing good Ill effect: Expressing the causes above in not the best way, confusion, hurt, other ills.
Crime defined

-Threat to society -Public wrong -Morally reprehensible conduct -Wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his/her sub ordinates (Austin) -Wrongs whose sanction and is in no way remissible by the crown alone et cetera( and the rest) Is swearing a threat to society? Well, yes it takes away the respect that fellow residents/citizens should have for each other. It creates a sort of resentful familiarity and familiarity breeds contempt. Most offices/schools/libraries have stringent rules of etiquette keeping people from swearing. It is a public wrong? Well no one in the public would say swearing is a public right, eh?
Not arrested but a ticket.

Really you should not be arrested for swearing. The least they should do is fine your for some money. Really swearing is one of the things you wont be able to stop in a few weeks, it will take years to make a dent. Think about how many people there are in the U.S and about half or more of them have used a swear word. It would be to many people in the jails and there might be protests against the law so just give the people a ticket and be on your way. It should be illegal, but around little kids who will be influenced by what they see, since swearing is commonly associated with violence.
No, people are entitled to their free speech!

Swearing should be in no way illegal. I believe that people are entitled to their free speech, and if people are putting a law against that what happened to our rights? I feel that people are allowed to swear as long as they aren't hurting someone and targeting them with the swear word, however even if they do this they shouldn't be charged. Everyone should be entitled their own freedom of speech, and making it illegal to swear takes away from this. Even though swearing is rude, trashy and a sin people should be entitled and be able to say things they want to, but only if it's not harassing and bullying. Almost everyone swears if something goes wrong, they get hurt, or something just happens and a little swear words pops out, and if we put a law against this i think a lot of drama would happen, when you discuss this topic. In conclusion i feel that people should be able to say what they want when they want, and making swearing illegal would take away from this.
Too common

Wife beating is common [[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,926135,00.html]] [[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-08-22/bangalore/27250512_1_wife-beating-police-stations-vanitha-sahaya-vani]] , gang shoot-outs are common, knife crime is common[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/knifecrime]] , there's a painstakingly long list of things that are very very common but very very wrong. A crime is not defined by it's commonality but the degree of it that should be tolerated. The emphasis being on 'should be' rather than is. This 'should' is contingent upon the diabolical nature and effect of such an act. If the effect is tremendously negative, and the nature/intention(mens rea) of the act can only be interpreted as negative and nothing else; then in my books it is criminal and must be made punitive. Abusive language serves to hurt, demoralize and demean victims, therefore fits the effect and intention criterion for being a crime. This whole argument is stupid... It's like saying that long hair is illegal, who determines what length hair has to be before it becomes offensive. Who determines what an offensive word is. It can't be defined, what words would actually be considered a "Swear" word.
The positive aspects of swearing.

It wouldn't make sense to ban swearing because it is how humans work now. People just say it now because they are used to it. If you do ban it imagine what the future would be like, there would be more police officers around everywhere and giving people tickets for just simply saying s***! Why would you want to give a $40 ticket to basically everyone on this planet? Why wouldn't you want to have officers where you need them like; bad places where people get mugged or catching someone for doing drugs in their home. Already police officers today sit in a hiding place with a gun and check how fast some people are going, and if they're speeding then he/she would give them a ticket for being 5 km'h the limit? Why wouldn't you want that same police officer chasing down a speeding car that just killed someone? It wouldn't make sense to ban swearing just because it is too common for people, and that is how people are these days. Actually I can hurt someone even harder without swearing at all. By telling how ugly, useless, incompetent they are... If there was a such a law. I believe that some people will get that frustrated by not being able to swear, so instead of swearing they will be beating someone.
It waters down the meaning of ideas with emotion instead of content and limits people's vocabulary, destroys life.

I'm sorry, but I don't exactly understand your argument here. You think that swearing should be illegal because it causes a watered down vocabulary and makes it difficult to communicate? There are many flaws in that thinking pattern. First off, if you think realistically, how would one be charged for swearing? Would it only be in public? or also in the privacy of your own home? What would the penalty be? Does this not infringe upon freedom of speech? What about the studies that prove swearing helps increase pain tolerance in people? Swearing is a cultural phenomenon. A society collectively agrees that a certain set of words are considered "bad" or "Harmful". They are just words. I understand certain words have a history of being derogatory towards certain ethnic groups, but if I slam my finger in a drawer and yell "Sh**!" Then that is just an expression of pain. It isn't harming anyone. When people are offended by a single word, said in no context, that is their problem.
Free right

Swearing is a public right, and a way to express your anger without actually hurting anyone, physically. Will saying a swear to someone is mean and could the hurt person depending on who it is, but it much less painful then punching him/her and also swearing is not different then saying to a person "Hey your wearing an ugly shirt". Swearing is basically like that just in 1 word. Making swearing will not get rid of bullying but will just make it more annoying. Also people don't always swear at people sometimes when someone is angry, or just got in trouble he / she will sometimes say something like " OH S***!" There is nothing wrong with that since he is not offending anyone. Besides it should be a right to say what you want to say you are a human being and if you are angry you should be able to express it, all swearing is a word which holds a bigger meaning. for example once again if your angry, you won't see someone yelling "Oh my god im in anger!". they will probably say something like "Oh snap!" or a bad word. it is just the way people are, not just in swearing. For example when someone is hungry they don't say "oh I am in the mood to eat" instead they will simply say "I'm Hungry". Its just the way we humans are so why take away the right to express your feelings.
Waste of Police Time

This argument is something of a straw man argument. On this basis, we would never add anything to the criminal law statue books! The police are public servants, and exist wholly to enforce the codified set of rights and responsibilities determined by the people, that we term 'the law'. If the people believe that swearing should be illegal, then of course the Police should enforce the law - they are servants of the people, and it is society that are the arbiters of what is right and wrong. In a nutshell, if society believe it's wrong then it cannot possibly be a 'waste' of police time for them to enforce it.
Too common

Swearing is an integral part of every society in the world. Policing something that is so ingrained in a low-minded global culture, is excessive and undesirable. People who want to control a bad habit should be able to police themselves, albeit there are certain points in one's life when it is absolutely positively necessary to swear. If you're stringent about never saying a bad word or flipping out or acting erratic then hats off to you, but know this: people who keep their rage bottled up inside are at the greatest risk for a Pandora's box of mental problems. There are greater, actual crimes that need attention, adding swearing to a list of illicit commonalities would be a waste of taxpayer money, police time and just plain absurd. Abusive language is too ubiquitous to be criminalized, just as roaming about topless in certain African/South-American-tribes cannot be dubbed illicit indecent exposure and making marijuana illegal has only further popularized pot-smoking; the world over. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanity#Statistics]]
The positive aspects of swearing.

It allows you to vent your anger without actually harming anyone. It is an honest, down-to-earth expression of how you feel. Many 'swear words' are the original words for things before being replaced by a loan word and actually less harmful in literal meaning. To ban swearing would make society more formal and make it less comfortable to be in - we need to ban swearing on TV or films made for very young children, but it would be stifling to apply the same rules to everyday life.
Most co-curricular activities are physically active, getting the student out from behind their desk ...

Most co-curricular activities are physically active, getting the student out from behind their desk and making them try new things. This is healthy and ensures that students are exposed to practical tasks, not just what is taught in class. The outcome of giving the co-curriculum the same status as the curriculum will therefore be well balanced individuals. Future politicians, for example, will not only thrive on law or social studies, but will also become fluent in multiple languages, learn to tango and perform several calculus operations simultaneously, while also experiencing service through community work. Such are the more profound benefits of the co-curriculum being integrated into the syllabus.
Having a wide range of experiences prepares people better for the future, especially in today’s unce...

Having a wide range of experiences prepares people better for the future, especially in today’s uncertain world. The broad education that the co-curriculum can provide is better preparation for life in a society where an individual may change career several times in their life. Students must therefore have a fundamental grasp of multiple skills. For instance, athletes who had their career cut short due to mishaps might venture into business, having had co-curricular experience of entrepreneurship as part of their education. Speech and debate clubs might give a doctor or engineer the communication skills to move into broadcasting, teaching, or even politics. Placing more emphasis on the co-curriculum thus ensures a variety of possibilities for young people to choose from instead of being sidelined.
Students have a right to a broad education. Why should a science student have to give up music, or ...

Students have a right to a broad education. Why should a science student have to give up music, or a social studies major not get opportunities for sport? Many children have talents in all sorts of different areas, and it is wrong to force them to specialise too early. A career is not the only part of an adult’s life – school needs to make sure they have interests and skills that will help them in their family and leisure lives too. Through equal balancing of academic and co-curriculum, however, the students have the chance to exercise their rights and the opportunity to be multi-talented. Lopsided individuals are not the key to the future, instead by recognising each individual by their talents there exists a higher possibility for young people to learn and to grow in their studies.
Many students do not take advantage of the extra-curricular opportunities they are currently offered...

Many students do not take advantage of the extra-curricular opportunities they are currently offered. They may instead waste their time lazing around, or maybe even making trouble. These young people do not know what they are missing; if they could be made to try other activities they would surely enjoy them and gain a lot of benefit. If the co-curriculum was given formal importance, with students required to undertake at least one activity, then more people would try new things, and discover they like them.