BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Inexperience? No, lack of maturity.

However, according to the brain researchers in the National Institute of Health, they have discovered that the executive branch of a teenage brain, which is the part that weighs risks, makes judgements, and controls impulsive behaviour, is not fully developed until after the teen years. Therefore an 18-year-old driver would be more developed than a 16-year-old driver. Also, there are studies that show that 16-year-old have more car crashes than 18-year-olds.
should the driving age be raised to 18

not exactly true because it's not only teens that are demonstrating wreck-less driving. My mom is a very cautious driver and the other day we were going home and our light was green and we didn't go right away but before we got a chance to go a truck ran the light and was going at least 65-80 mph. and when you looked at the driver it was someone who was at least 30 years old.
The number of serious or fatal road accidents in the UK will be reduced

The numbers speak for themselves. Statistics have shown that 15% of all accident deaths on UK roads involve drivers under the age of 21. Research shows that 17 to 20 year olds are about seven times more likely to be killed or injured in an accident (per mile of driving). This is illustrated by the fact that 135 teenage drivers were killed on UK roads during 2007, with many more injured. Raising the minimum driving age to 18 would dramatically decrease deaths and injuries.
no it shouldn't

The driving age should not be raised to 18 because driving takes training and sitting on your butt for two more years is not going to put any more expirence in you. No matter what age you start driving, you will be inexperience. So you minds well start out at 16 where you are still in high school and are not going to college or start working. I'll gradutate high school at 17, so it would be nice to have a license before I graduate, so I dont have to worry about learning how to drive and take the test, when I am on my own. Plus, the only way to know how to drive in the winter, know the speed limit, where pot holes are, and how to handle sharp turns is to get out on the road and drive.
Raising the driving age to 21 would be a much better idea.

The difference between 17 and 18 is insignificant, if you want to make a real difference to accidents cause by inexperienced, immature and unimaginative drivers then a more radical change is necessary. It would be possible to offer free or heavily subsidised travel on public transport for young people up to the age of 21 which would encourage more environmentally friendly attitudes in the next generation.
Inexperience? No, lack of maturity.

Young drivers cause the most crashes because of inexperience not lack of maturity. No matter at what age people start driving, they will have accidents because they have little experience. This question only arises because young people are easy to blame. An adult who has just started to drive has as many crashes statistically as a young person.It is not ALL teens that are dangerous just a small percent. Did you know men are 77% more likely to kill someone while driving then women so does that mean we need to only let women drive? this is the same thing you are stereo typing teens unfairly! In addition to that what if 18 year olds got their lisense at 16 wich totally disproves your point,when you said studies show that 16 year olds have more car crashes thent 18 year olds! Than wouldnt the brain of a 21 year old be more developed than an 18 year old's? And think about it but most of the hoons on the road are in their 20's not their teens.
The accidents may just be delayed by one year

Only by carrying out the change will we be able to see if it works or not. The age has a lot to do with driving. When they are 15-17 and still in high school the pressure with school, friends, and daily emotions at that age can distract the young drivers to the point of an accident. Yes, "Only by carrying out the change will we be able to see if it works or not" is a poor idea but with the statistics of many young drivers and accidents, it proves that the age should rise up. People will never know unless they try.
17 year olds are simply not mature enough to cope with the skills required for driving

Everybody is different. To say that someone at the age of seventeen is not mentally mature is a sweeping generalisation. Some people by the age of 18 may well not have reached what the proposition cite as "full mental maturity". Some people may never reach "full mental maturity". We mature at different rates, and therefore we have safeguards to ensure that those driving have sufficient "mental maturity", and it's called "the driving test". If you haven't passed, you can't legally drive without a person who has held a full clean licence for three years with you. Doing so is breaking the law and is punished. Raising the age to 18 would have no effect whatsoever because the driving test is there to ensure the "mental maturity" of the driver before he is fully qualified. Peole are going to be the same no matter how old they are! There are some people that are 20 years old and above that are still not mature. It so depends on what type of person you are. People need to grow up sometime. Im 17 years old, didnt take drivers ed, took ten questions for my written drivers test (in oklahoma), failed my behind the seat drivers test, went back got a hundred, have yet to be pulled over, and get a ticket. Never got in a wreck, dont talk on my cell phone, can drive in cities like LA and San Francisco no problem. And see many many many horrible drivers everywhere i go. I dont think the age limit should be raised, i think if you mess up once you lose your privilege to drive period. Stupid biased point. I'm a female from the u.k and disagree that 17 year olds are immature. Some are but not all of us it's mainly "boy racers" that crash not everybody else. Adults are also liable to crash. So don't raise the age because It's pointless waste of time and money.
Kid bullies gone unnoticed

1-Often bullying occurs without any teachers, parents, or faculty noticing 2-Children who are being bullied are affriad to speak out and tell someone who can help them. They are often affraid of telling people that they are being bullied and need help. If the teacher or supervisor has noknowledge of the bullying situation they may only add to the problem by giving the child being bullied and the bully themselves time together being unsupervised. 3-According to an organization directed towards preventing bullying with children and adults which has a website called bullystatistics.org chidren who are bullied can have many problems. Often their school work suffers aswell as they are stunted socially and emotionally. In some serious cases they can have sevre depression and attempted suicide. 4-It can be hard for children who are being bullied to get help Each child that has been bullied has low self-esteem along with other issues as well. Often they already face enough attacks and they do not want to be labled a tatle tail, snitch, or rat. A child may need help to escape being bullied and by punishing thoose bullies it will make it easier to escape the attacks of a bully. If a child wants to speak out and let others know about the bully situation the thought of the bully being expelled would lead to the right amount of comfort and safety for them to speak up and let somebody know what is going on.
Expelling a child will make them worse.

A child who is expelled from school has no way to learn how to behave properly. They won't receive a basic education so that they have any hope of having a good job in the future. They won't receive any help for their problems, they'll either disappear off the system so they can commit crimes or they will be put in a reform school or given ASBOs so they will be treated like criminals and be motivated to become one. You can't track whether a child is bullying another child if they aren't in an ordered environment such as a school where you can watch them and get someone to keep track of them outside school, quite often the parents are unco-operative.
Retribution: an eye for an eye

Bullies are especially good at lying, they are afraid that someone they've bullied may squeal on them and so: 1) They bully that person out of that fear. E.g wife beaters, beat their wives even more than before, because they're afraid of being reported to the police. School bullies give you a shiner for telling your parents or the principal. 2) They lie and play the victim card. "Miss, s/he's distracting me" "Miss, I can't help throwing chalk at her/him, s/he's distracting me. What did I do? Oh, right I'm to blame because I'm the boy/girl" Or I never did anything to her/him, s/he's nuts/demented or some other equivalent, or "His giant red head gives me convulsions" or"I don't know who punched him in the face, he punched me in the face, so what if I'm thick-skinned? He probably punched himself in the face." Sometimes it's impossible to tell who's telling the truth. In addition there is the time honoured counter to an eye for an eye that it makes the world blind.
Second Chance

Being expelled from school at the very start may seem harsh. Really it is not. You may think they should get a second chance, but really they don't need one. What if the bully breaks a kids arm, leg, or even both. What would you do then? You would have to expell them or they might do it again. Say you don't expell them and they do something even worse like bring pot, or some other drug type thing into school, then would you expell them?
Harmful to others around them

Yes, persistent bullies should be expelled from school because they are very harmful to others around them. Bullying in the classroom is a horrific problem. Children that are bullied can have long term affects and disturb them in various way. According to bullyingstatistics.org children that are bullied will begin to see abusive relationships as normal and will even begin to change their self image. This can seriously lead to ruining a child’s future. This problem presented is usually how people that are abused daily in their life get use to it. Actions must be taken at a young age in order to show that there are consequences with all of their actions If the bully is not expelled then the bully will see no consequence. Thus, leading to a life that will only lead to abuse and violence.
Bullies will not understand only if you talk to them, you need actions!

If you just talk to them they will just listen through one ear and go out through the other ear, & if you do something about it their actually going to be scared & stop or maybe if you expel them, when they go to a new school they will actually stop. Teachers are bullies too as well, sometimes they talk about students culture, like saying "This part of the city is ugly, it smells, this & that" without knowing you have students from that place -__- Also, students are worst! You can NEVER make them happy If your over weight "F***ing fatass" If your skinny "Anorexic" If your a girl & have lots of guyfriends "Ho*" If you don't have friends "loner" If your smart "NERD" If not "stupid" So what's the deal, what do they want you to be? You can never make these kids happy.
reform schools (modern day military schools) just like jails are breeding grounds for criminals

Bunch a lot of bad eggs together and they will teach each other tricks of the trade. The better bullies will bully the novices and ultimately to survive, kids will have to work towards being one of the big dogs. What these kids need is incentive to better themselves not to be taught that abuse and revenge is the way of their world. Not all bullies are equal. Hypersensitive kids could have tantrums over being told to shut up, whereas kids who are trying to always keep it together won't even squeal about a rape(and possibly commit suicide two decades later or lose his/her head or the possibilities are endless). 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" but the reaction can either be subdivided into a major or minor chain reaction, the intensity of the act is not always in direct proportion to the damage done. And there's always the possibility of being wrongly accused.
Retribution: an eye for an eye

Consequences are the best way to teach people to change certain antisocial behavioral characteristics. *One reason is that if a bully gets away with it, s/he has no incentive to change (no defamation, no giving up things; nothing): "I did it 'cause I could" *Another reason is that the bully begins to identify with being a bully, as if that who s/he is, guilt factors in pressuring the bully to believe that this is his/her calling:"I can't change who I am." *It becomes a habit, and habits are hard to get rid of: "I know It's bad, but I can't help it, this is what I do, I've done it all my life. I can't stop now."
Second Chance

The consequence of being expelled from school is too harsh of a punishment for bullying. The time children spend in school is when they learn how to behave and function socially with teachers and other students. Most children fit into the different identities they achieve and are ascribed to during their years in school. Expelling a student is the ultimate punishment which is a consequence for a horrible crime or behavior act. There are different degrees of bullying and the punishment does not fit the crime in many scenarios. In some cases if the bullying was really extreme or intense then the punishment of being expelled would fit and those bullies should be expelled. But in general expelling a bully is to harsh a punishment and is unfair to those kids labeled as bullies. Children who are expelled from school often see getting in trouble as part of their identity and continue to break rules until they are adults and end up in jail. Expelling a child from school is the first step in this path to incarceration. Kids deserve a second chance and expelling them from school is to harsh of a punishment for bullying.
cause physical damage

Yes, persistent bullies should be expelled because they can seriously injure people on various levels. When children are younger and begin to bully in school they can be a bit too harsh sometimes. This can lead to fights and other actions that may hurt other people. To been seen on a larger scale, domestic violence really emphasizes why it is bad. The men that are usually beating their wives were bullies in school and only learned to a bully over time. This is not good because results like husbands beating their wives or women hitting children is all they ever learned. If children see their fathers beating their mother, or if hit by parents they can too turn into bullies. This just regenerates the cycle and passes it along. This is why persistent bullies should be expelled.
Bully is a compulsive need

Expulsion may not be the answer as it doesn't really address the behaviour. Maybe mom and dad are punitive and are the cause of the problem. Bullies don't always pick on the loner: being vulnerable, shy, being well-liked, easy going, attractive, fair (something the bully lacks - fairness and honesty). Having a quality the bully wants but feels lacking in is a major incentive to someone who is inclined to bully. Bullies want power and control. Making someone else feel bad makes them feel better but it is short lived so they need to do it again and again. Girls especially bully other girls whom they are jealous of. In order to change the behaviour they need to learn emphathic skills which expulsion does not do and they need to be held accountable. Bullying is a serious issue that does cause major physical and emotional damage. The bullies in school today become future bullies in offices and in their families tomorrow.
sympathy for bullies

Wnile sympathy is needed for dealing with all students whether bullies or not there is a point where sympathy can go too far and can be counter productive in that it can give bullies a feeling that they can get away with behaviour that is harmful. Expelling a bully would be doing great hurt but if that bully is doing greater hurt to a person whether physically or mentally to a person and they have been warned or punished earlier about their behaviour. Expelling people can be a tragedy but some times it takes a lesser tragedy to avoid an even greater one.
Kid bullies gone unnoticed

1) The proposal is that bullying does sufficient harm to warrant the expulsion of repeat offenders. 2) To the contrary, expulsion is unecessary and the educational setback to the child being expelled is excessive punishment. 3) Services like behavioral therapy and parent education would successfully resolve this situation. 4) Because children who bully are still children and are highly malleable, their behavior can be influenced and modes of thinking changed. 5) If you simply expel them without effecting a change in behavior they will suffer the consequences of their actions through setbacks in education and other members of society will likely have to deal with their unchecked aggression in adulthood.
teachers are bullies too

Yes, all persistent bullies should be expelled. Bullies are commonly thought of as students who pick on other students. However, bullies can also be teachers and they need to be expelled also. Teachers that humiliate students or use their power to their benefit need to be terminated. They can lead to various situations that may danger a person’s health physically or more commonly, mentally. In some schools it is known that children are hit with rulers. This is not acceptable though because it can really hurt children. Also teachers who shout grades out loud are bullies. If a teacher tells a student’s grade out loud with intent to embarrass them, then they are bullying the student. It is not fair and can lead to a cycle of people bullying one another.
The effects of bullying can not be measured in absolute terms.

Kids who commit suicide usually have problems outside of bullies. Bullies pick on kids who stand out, either by being very good at something or very bad, either way victims tend to be loners. Victims tend not to fit in. In sum, bullies pick on kids with preexisting problems. Often times bullies were bullied in the past or fit the same criteria. A bully could be a teacher's pet or a jock just as a victim can be either. The question of the source of damage can be impossible to solve. Only about one eighth of all abuse victims become abusers themselves but almost every abuser was a victim. Bullies and victims(the demarcation between the two is not exactly defined) should be counseled to arrive at the root of the problem. Since both victims and bullies tend to already be damaged or at least odd, the question of how much of damage can be attributed directly to a bully is unanswerable.
Nobody's sacrosanct

There is no definite demarcation between bullies and non-bullies. How many kids report on their bullies? Report on a bully and s/he'll come back at you worse than ever(a victim of your wrath). The worst crimes are not only traumatic but also embarrassing for victims. How many people in general, would go to the police or in this case principal's office to report molestation,beating or rape? Sadly, very few self-conscious teenagers actually report on this, they live with the guilt and suffer . Point being, the major bullies will get off easy (because if they are 'persistent') their victims would not want to talk about the experience, while name-callers and the like, or rather those 'accused' of name calling and/or any other minor truancy will be punished (as is already the case). Everyone calls people names, and people don't shout for no reason. How persistent is persistent?
The right not to vote

Voting holds a special place in a democracy; it is the very foundation of the mandate our elected representatives hold. To turn it into something everyone over the age of 18 must do would take away something from that. A non-vote (i.e. staying at home) sends a more powerful signal of apathy than does a spoilt ballot or abstention vote; a non-vote says that the citizen is dissatisfied with the entire process, that politics do not address any concern she has. A spoilt ballot or abstention vote in a compulsory election, however, merely expresses dissatisfaction with the particular candidates in the constituency, and hides the deeper malaise that may be there. Compulsory voting merely sweeps under the carpet the legitimate dissatisfaction many people feel with politics, and will not lead to the regeneration of politics that its proponents suggest. Many people will merely vote at random, because 'they have to', rather than expressing their apathy. A person who conciously elects, in their own mind, that they do not wish to participate in an election process, for whatever reason(s) they may have, should not be legally obliged to vote or in any way participate if they choose not to do so.
Compulsory Voting Does not enhance democracy

Only where the ballot offers a "none of the above" option can compulsory voting being truly democratic. However, where this is the case if the "none of the above" option achieves over 50% of the vote does democracy simply fail and the state fall into anarchy? that would be truly democratic, although, hardly pragmatic. Consider that in most British elections the majority is not in fact the winning party, but in fact, the non-voters.
What's the point of voting as politicians don't listen to the public anyways

There really is no point voting a lot of the time anyways because they always promise to do this promise to do that but then once they are in office they do what ever the hell they want anyways. It is always promises that are broken you can't trust politicians they are all bred to lie and miss lead in the end. ------------------------------------------------- Actually promises are more likely to be broken, because it will dilute interested, informed voters with uninterested, uninformed voters.
Civic duty to vote

Voting is not a duty but a right, and as with all rights, people must retain the ability not to exercise it. A 40% abstention vote would be more embarrassing to the winning party than a 60% turnout, because it highlights further the dissatisfaction of the public with the politics of the day. Paying taxes is a duty because everyone uses the services the government provides, such as roads, schools, hospitals and so on, regardless of whether they vote or not, and regardless of which party they voted for. It is not hypocrisy because we still offer the democratic process, holding free and fair general elections no later than every 5 years. Hypocrisy would be to export democracy while eroding it at home, removing the right to vote and so on. This is simply not the case.
Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution

Simply changing the day elections are held doesn't make it any more attractive for people to vote. Those people who don't care won't care any more now that an election is on a Saturday, regardless of how much easier it is for them. Just as people have better things (in their opinion) to do during the week, they will have alternative activities for the weekend. Compulsory voting addresses the fact that people simply don't turn up to vote, which weekend voting doesn't.
Persuasion is more effective than coercion

As noted elsewhere, forced attendance would lead to increased political awareness, and an abstention option would offer a 'none of the above'/'I don't mind or care' choice instead of forcing people to choose a candidate randomly. Because the number of voters would increase, politicians would have to be active in engaging with the public and therefore become "more deserving of the public's trust" as you suggest. Citizenship classes are irrelevant here; having them doesn't negate the need for compulsory voting.