BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon

Cases like Drew Barrymore’s are rare, and many young performers have happy and successful careers. All young people are likely to be exposed to adult experiences at some point in their childhood, and it should be left to parents and teachers to educate children of the dangers of alcohol, drugs, etc., no matter what activities the child takes part in outside of school or the home. For many of the areas that involve child performers, there are also laws in place to ensure children are not exposed to age-inappropriate situations. For example, in North America and other countries laws exist to ensure children in the entertainment industry are not “put at risk physically (no dangerous stunts),” “exposed to morally compromising situations,” or ever allowed to “be nude or partially nude,” or “be engaged in overt sexual acts”.[1] [1] Moore, ‘Protecting Child Stars: Laws and Regulations’
Child performers are necessary for roles in some films, television shows, etc., and for the survival of some sports

In a lot of films, television shows, and stage productions, it is possible to have young adult actors playing child roles. For example, in the popular American television show The O.C., the main characters were played by young adults ranging from 18 to 29 years of age but all portraying teenagers.[1] Sports needn’t suffer either: the minimum age of competition for gymnastics has already been raised,[2][3] and others can surely follow their example without suffering from it. If professional leagues are not allowed to roster athletes below the age of 18, for example, children will compete in amateur and educational leagues where the pressure and commitment is lower, but where they can still train for the professional arena. [1] IMDB, ‘The O.C.’ [2] Hanley, ‘Gymnastics – Minimum age will soon rise to 16.’ [3] The Telegraph, London 2012 Olympics: artistic gymnastics guide
The government has no right to prevent children from doing what they enjoy and are good at

Children might feel as if their rights are being taken away, but there is a reason why children are not given free reign over the way they live their lives. Governments have already stepped in to prevent children from endangering their health by consuming too much junk food,[1][2]and indeed from working in non-performance fields. So too must they take charge in this issue and act so as to prevent children from becoming susceptible to the emotional and physical risks involved in being a child performer. [1] BBC News, ‘Junk food banned in school meals’ [2] Harris, ‘A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of Schools’
Being a performer limits a child’s formal education

Spending so much time either performing or training limits the amount of formal education the child can receive. For example, in the UK and other countries, child performers are only required to be educated for three hours each day.[1] Additionally, the focus on the specialised skill of the child (e.g., acting, dancing, etc.) may detract from their family’s or their own interest in formal education. [1] The Children’s Legal Centre, ‘What are the hours that a child performer may work?’   improve this
The State cannot control what its people want.

In the same way that theatres stay open because the public vote with their feet, languages stay alive because people vote with their tongue.  The Scottish language (Gaelic) is very rarely spoken for the same reasons that Welsh is so heavily protected; necessity and desire to use it. As Gaelic is spoken in the Highlands where the population is low it remains a rare language. If, like Welsh, it were spoken by a high population and used in the spheres of business and commerce in the main cities, it would have survived better. Franglais is similarly surviving due to necessity- it economises the effort of translating modern English terms that refer to technology, etc. into French and out of desire; the French clearly enjoy this playful fusion of their language with that of their historical rival. If the French Government and Défense de la langue française seek to influence which words people may and may not use, this is censorship and is wholly wrong.
Protection of language is protection of national identity. Society reflects language and language reflects society.

But these two nations DO have shared history and these Anglicisms in the French language are only a reflection on this. For example, the British call a particular brass instrument a French horn, but the French call it un cor anglais, in translation, an English horn. Certainly, how a people see the world is encased and reflected in the language they use, and their history and their relations with other nations is not separable from this vision of the world. Au contraire, it is integral to it. It is unlikely that historical events embedded so deep in memory that are reflected through language are likely to disappear just because certain words are deemed unacceptable by a certain body like Défense de la langue française.
There are official french alternatives

Language is spontaneous; our choice of words is subconscious and word association is derived from the individual’s own experiences and vision of the world. No two people’s choice of words will ever be identical. To impose upon the individual the words they may use is futile- people’s choice of words varies from person to person and speakers furthermore have the freedom to choose their own vocabulary. Moreover, to actively create new terminology in the manner of Defense de la langue française is not easy, but a very time and effort consuming process. For example, an attempt at merging the Serbian and Croat languages took place in 1850, when the ‘Literary Agreement’ was signed in Vienna on 28th March of that year. Linguists “engaged in compiling dictionaries, grammars, handbooks and orthographic manuals”[1] but they could not even agree on a name of the newly unified language! It was euphemistically named Năs jezik (trans. our language). [1] Greenberg, R., ‘Language, Nationalism and the Yugoslav Successor States’, in O’Reilly, Camille C. ed., Language, Ethnicity and the State, Volume 2, Palgrave Macmillan, 5 September 2001, page 20
The French Language has always absorbed and embraced the influence of foreign languages

A language and use of that language both exercise influence on other languages. This is not to be confused by one language’s complete and utter absorption by another. Latin is a base language from which many others are derived; The Latin fragilem was adopted by the French and the English languages to form the word fragile, still common to both. Similarly, the Latin hospitalem was adopted by both the English and French languages to form the words hospital and hôpital respectively.[1]      In order to prevent the French language being completely absorbed by English, furthered protection of it is required, as is the politicising of this language protection issue. [1] Lodge, R. Anthony, Exploring the French language, John Wiley and Sons, 1997, page 45
Anglophones use French terminology as well.

No; This is not entirely a mirror image of both languages influencing one another. English language influences in the French language –Franglais- are so prevalent due to the former being the language of computers, technology and the internet. The unstoppable rise of technology and the Internet communication age is only going to bring with it even more Anglophone influences on French and more and more Franglais. The Gallicisms used by Anglophones are older and established. They are not constantly coming thick and fast to invade the English language in the same way that English is the French one. This means the French language needs strengthened protection against Franglais.
It is not the English language that is taking over French language, it is English products.

Howsoever incurred, Anglicisms must not be allowed to prevail over the French language, and product names having a noun in an official language is disagreeable. The argument alongside does not justify the reason, it only explains the reason why Franglais has gathered so much momentum: English is the language of technology and these new products come from the English-speaking world. If anything, the argument alongside demonstrates the brainwashing power of advertising and consumerism: product brand names become nouns in the language such as a hoover  for vacuum cleaner, a tampax for a tampon, a biro for a pen, Kleenex for tissues and sellotape for sticky tape. If the French can stop product placement penetrating their language, this is to be commended and other languages should follow suite.
Protection of language is protection of national identity. Society reflects language and language reflects society.

How a people see the world is encased in the words they use to communicate with each other and the words they use to write songs, poems and stories about their people’s history and experiences. Culture is inseparable from language. For example, the ‘e’ on the end of a word that is silent in everyday speech becomes pronounced in French poetry and song when it figures on the end of a line, thus adding an extra syllable to that line, and so “femme” on the end of a line of poetry would not be pronounced “fam”, but “fam-mer”, and so an extra syllable results. This principal also helps to create more rhymes within the poetry and song. Therefore, in order to keep the French culture alive, we must too protect its home language from falling to the globally dominant language of English. This is why we need an increased awareness and presence of francophone art; higher quotas of Francophone songs on the radio and the same of Francophone programmes on television. These two examples demonstrate how the culture itself can be better protected when the language is better upheld.
There are official french alternatives

The French often call the use of Franglais “Anglo snobberie” and those who use it as opposed to the standard version of their mother tongue “Anglo snobs”. This is why the organisation Defense de la langue française (DLF)[1] exists – to invent terminology that prevents the French language from embracing yet more Franglais. The movement supports the use of such words as un balladeur as opposed to un walkman. Défense de la langue française also regulates the quota of Francophone songs that must be played at peak listening hours on French radio stations.  Public opinion must be taken into account; the French DO express opposition to the anglicising of their language and so the Défense de la langue française must be brought into effect, for this is the purpose it seeks to serve and it exists to solve these very problems. [1] Défense de la langue française, Home page
The French Language has always absorbed and embraced the influence of foreign languages

Previously, foreign languages have even been used in France instead of French. As explained in Exploring the French language, “from the fourteenth century onwards the dialect spoken by the King and his court gradually acquired greater prestige and began to replace Latin as the language of writing, government and education.”[1] Up to this point, Latin was used in France as the language of the legal courts and education establishments. The fact that foreign languages continue to have a high profile in France is because it has always been the case.  [1] Lodge, R. Anthony, Exploring the French language, John Wiley and Sons, 1997, page 44
Anglophones use French terminology as well.

This borrowing the two languages works both ways. As a hangover from the Norman Invasion, there are often more than one English words that pertain to the same concept and for each of these, one option is of French origin. For example to ‘ask’ and to ‘demand’; the latter is derived from the French noun demander (seen here in the infinitive) meaning to ask. Moreover, it is commonplace for Anglophones to use Gallicisms (French terminology); je ne sais quoi, cul de sac, pour encourager des autres, au contraire, en route, têtê à têtê, rendez-vous are all French terms fully understood to an Anglophone’s ear and in regular use. The French language is not being victimised by its speakers’ use of Franglais, it is a natural occurrence; as a result of shared Anglo-Franco history, the nations now adopt phraseology from each other’s language. No governmental measures can ever change or affect this natural linguistic activity and so political intervention on this issue is a waste of time.
Protection of identity

There is a need for a progression in attitudes. The past and political history should not impinge on our freedom to choose our own words in the modern day, particularly when those political divisions no longer exist.  An example is that the English call a certain flower a sweet William, but the Scots name it a stinking Billy as a result of the king who oppressed the Scots in favour of the English. However, England and Scotland have been unified for some three hundred years. Scotland has not elected independence, although such a party exists. Therefore, the memory remains, reflected by and encased in this use of language, but the original emotion does not.   Previous negative connotations of using Franglais or English to be rude to the French happened in the past where they belong. Surely, if the French use English themselves, they reclaim, take back, and use in defiance a language structure that has previously been used impertinently towards them.
It is not the English language that is taking over French language, it is English products.

Newly invented products from the English-speaking world give rise to Franglais, for the Franglais terms tend to be for newly invented products. Therefore, it is not Anglicisms taking over the French language, but products from the English-speaking world. The French would never rename Toyota or Mitsubishi, so it is merely sensible to refer to foreign products in their original language.
Franglais interferes with the four established levels of the French language.

Quod semper (as it always was). French has previously relaxed the formality of its language and has always changed by absorbing foreign influences.  Latin was the language of the legal courts and of schools and universities until the fifteenth century, when French became acceptable in these settings. Until then, French was used as the medium in less prestigious contexts. As explained in Exploring the French language, “we can say that the core of French vocabulary comes from Latin.”[1] However, this is not the only foreign influence; “from the eighth century BC and for about 1000 years, the inhabitants of Gaul spoke a Celtic language (Gaulish)…As the Gauls shifted language, it appears that they brought over into their Latin a Gaulish ‘accent’ and a certain number of Gaulish words have remained in the (French) language ever since e.g. carrum> char dunam> dune”. Similarly, Germanic languages have also given rise to words in the French language.  To protect French in the face of Franglais is to arrest the natural development of the French language and foreign-infused changes that have always occurred therein. No governing language body would be able to affect the natural way in which language and word meanings change and develop, and so protection of the French language seems futile and unrealistic. [1] Lodge, R. Anthony, Exploring the French language, John Wiley and Sons, 1997, (Page 42)
The French language is still increasing in relevance through the European Union

English is a valid language in the European Union. If M. Chirac, M. Sarkozy or any French leader wish to express him/herself in this language in order to improve diplomacy with their neighbours across the Channel, they have that very right. European leaders falling out is a very real problem. In his book My style of government: The Thatcher years, Nicholas Ridley remembers the “difficult patches in her (Margaret Thatcher’s) relationships with some of the European leaders.”[1] It is highly likely that M. Chirac wanted to address the European Union in English in order to improve or maintain good relations with his Anglophone neighbours across the Channel. This choice, made by a Frenchman himself, is not to be assumed anti-Francophone, rather tactful. Therefore, in the case of EU relations, French does not necessarily deserve more recognition nor protection in the face Anglophone influences. In the EU, both languages are relevant and acceptable and sensitivity should not have the power to enable one language to be taken over by another. [1] Ridley, Nicholas, My style of government: The Thatcher years, Hutchinson, 1991, page 159
The stereotype that the French are resistant to English and Anglophone influences is nothing but Francophobic scaremongering driven by British tabloids.

French should still exist in its own right. Even if France DOES become an officially bilingual country, French must still be spoken there, for the words diglossia and bilingualism both mean TWO languages. As explained in Exploring the French language, “Throughout the Middle Ages (ninth century-fifteenth century) France was a diglossic society, with Latin performing the H[igh] functions and Old French the L[ow] functions”.[1] A diglossic society recognises two languages coexisting. If France becomes officially bilingual, French must still be spoken there in order to prevent it from dying out completely. It must be respected as the indigenous language otherwise it may fall to English influence too much and cease to be in its home country. This means protection of the French language against Franglais by government measures. [1] Lodge, R. Anthony, Exploring the French language, John Wiley and Sons, 1997,  page 45
The State cannot control what its people want.

This view ignores the fact the State has an important duty to protect its identity. The Government must be able to protect its own country’s culture and identity so that it can survive throughout history. They must uphold education of the history of that culture and so that younger and future generations know how their homeland and culture evolved. Similarly, ceremonial traditions such as the reopening of Parliament and remembrance days must also be respected for the same reason.  Language protection is vital to and inseparable from this. To this end, the State has every right to impose language laws in order to moderate language use and by extension speech. This is known as language politics and is a very real, highly important consideration for any Government and is the very reason for the creation of the Défense de la langue française, a government body.
Protection of identity

Franglais has connotations of English and French conflict such as the Norman conquest and the Hundred Years’ War and is a mark of disrespect and impertinence towards the French.  Therefore, for the French culture to be immersed in this is ridiculous and immoral and the French people deserve to have their language protected against it. For example, as explained by Nicholas Ridley, Winston Churchill addressed General de Gaulle during the Second World War with an unrefined Franglias-ridden threat; “Monsieur le General, markez vous mes mots. Si vous me doublecrosserez, je vous liquidaterai”[1] (sic!) In this quotation, (which is not standard French) Winston Churchill made up the ‘French’ words and phraseology by taking English words and applying French grammar endings thereto in order to be rude; He was using Franglais to embarrass the French. Therefore, the increased protection of the French language is necessary so that the English terminology that carries with it connotations of derision against the French be dissolved. [1] Ridley, Nicholas, My style of government: The Thatcher years, Hutchinson, 1991, page 159
Franglais interferes with the four established levels of the French language.

There are four levels of French language. In descending order of formality these are; Précieux (snobby, poetic), Soutenu (literary, written), Courant (public, administrative), Familier (informal language, non-standard popular terms), Argotique (very informal language, offensive if used in the wrong context or said to a stranger).[1] “the Middle Ages (ninth century – fifteenth century)…[saw] the emergence of a new standard language, replacing Latin.”[2] Since French - if not began, at least ‘grew up’- it has functioned with these four levels of formality. Franglais is not standard French, although many Franglais nouns (un post-it, un walkman) would be acceptable in a formal context, and its presence, uprising and prevalence threatens the use and survival of the more formal versions of the language. It is important that the French people are not seduced by the English language but instead know their mother tongue properly and can appreciate and understand these four levels. The acceptance of Franglais and Anglicisms within the French language means there could well be a whole generation of French whose mother tongue is punctuated and littered with Anglicisms. If English influences are allowed to prevail in the French language, then soon any linguist who writes about the French language will only be able to see it in relation to the English language that influences it; and not as a language in its own right with those four differing levels of formality. If the French language is protected, it will not only be protected against English but against becoming degraded into a language littered with wrong usage; good French will be upheld and defended against bad French. [1] Lodge, R. Anthony, Exploring the French language, John Wiley and Sons, 1997, (page 28) [2] Lodge, R. Anthony, Exploring the French language, John Wiley and Sons, 1997, (page 44)
The French language is still increasing in relevance through the European Union

The French language cannot realistically survive if is not upheld as a relevant and respected language in official contexts. It is a very emotive and sensitive issue for the French people. The EU was founded by a Frenchman, Robert Schuman, France and Germany were two of the five founding members, the Union was created to ally France with Germany and before Britain joined, the French vetoed Britain’s entry. Now, the French feel their part is Europe is becoming diluted by the use of English. By forcing them to accept the English language in the context of an EU meeting only opens the gate to making them accept the same rules as other nations; if their own language is silenced, so too is their voice of expression and opposition. The following example demonstrates the reality of the threat to the French language being used correctly in formal contexts. In March, 2005, the then French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac shocked and appalled his people by making an address to the European Union in English. French representatives present walked out in protest. The Times reported in Franglais and somewhat comically on the predominance of English in the Union; "Ils s’adresseraint l’Union Européenne cinq fois every day en franglais" (sic!).[1] When translated from Franglais into English, it reads They address the European Union every day in Franglais. The article implies that Franglais has overtaken standard français as the accepted means of French communication within the European Union. It is time for more language protection through active measures by the French Government and Défense de la langue française took the matter of defending the French language seriously, and so the measures of increased exposure to French language songs, television shows and films is necessary, as are more French –sounding nouns for referring to modern inventions which are generally just known by their English names in France. [1] The Times, Saturday, 25th March, 2005