BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Forces Clergy to the Same Standard as Average Joe

Unlike some countries, where church and state are one and the same, in the United States, there is a long tradition of separating the two. This is to avoid public officials telling us what to believe. Lately, this separation has become less clear, as government officials have sometimes leaned into religious issues like abortion and marriage. Nonetheless, having the government controlling religion with taxation may hinder freedom of belief. If the current government has a different philosophy than yours, you may be subject to religious persecution if under performing religious groups could not pay the newly instituted tax burden.
Some Emerging Religious Groups do Not Have the Political Connections to Qualify

Many people trust the tax-exempt status of their religion to mean that it has gone through the discipline of financial accountability to earn the government's approval. Removing that status would leave many people clueless about who to trust as official and wise religious leaders. The official and wise religious leaders deserve to have tax exempt status, goes this thinking, because they worked hard to earn it. They must continue to maintain it by adhering to the government's criteria for financial stewardship. The riches go to the winner, and this must hold true for religion as well.
Illuminati Secret Society Influence Permeates Many Organized Religions

Illuminati conflict of interest in religions tends to be strongest in the affluent North American and European theaters. Smaller independent churches and third world groups are less likely to be selling hocus pocus to the herd. Every person can choose to leave their group if it starts to smell foul. The best organizations have humble leaders who share responsibilities with the flock on a low budget. The worst organizations should be obvious. One talking head who governs the flock with a ghost written novel and a slick smile on Sunday.
Leaders Lie to Donors

If you have ever been to church on Sunday morning, you will hear the pitch. "Help us give to those in need in our community." What they do not tell you is 95% of the budget is padding the office salaries of the church or temple staff. They are just emphasizing their effort in the community to get you to give to their own vacation saving fund. This is just human nature, whether or not the human has a clergy collar. Clergy lie to increase the popularity of their organization.
Normal Charities Are More Focused on Their Mission

Churches tend to be all over the map. One week it is all about baptism Sunday. The next week it is the new global vision that the pastor dreamed up while eating a spicy burrito too quickly. Non-profit mission oriented charities get your money to the people who are actually in need of burritos. They feed bellies when churches are feeding egos. Many philanthropists skip giving to a religious organization altogether. They want their money to actually be going to the orphans in Africa, and not the fat kids in the pulpit. Unlike religious groups, which are often financially secretive, non-profit charities are required by law to be more public about their finances. They have to share clearly what they are doing, who they are benefiting. Most charities are founded by people who actually want to do good for their community. Many religious groups were founded by drunks and cowards who could not get a normal job. The quality of the management at the best charities is usually quite high. If it is not, they will get a quick rap on the shoulder from the Feds or the Better Business Bureau. There are also all sorts of options available in the charity realm to pick from. This gives each person some flexibility to decide who they want to be helping. One of the exciting things about giving to a real charity is hearing back from the actual people your donations are touching.
Forces Clergy to the Same Standard as Average Joe

Removing the tax exempt status of churches and religious groups reflects their business-like character. If they are not really serving the community as a whole, they should be held to the same laws that businesses are. The pastor, rabbi, or priest is a CEO. He should pay taxes on his organization to help the Federal Government feed the poor. Particularly if his church is not doing that on its own. There is something wrong when the Federal Government is doing more for the low-income class than the religious groups who bark the loudest about the motivation for doing so. Making them like a normal business in tax world would make sure that they are paying their fair share and not having an unequal market advantage. It would force them to compete better. Churches that are incompetent would fold. Many foolish people would have more time on their hands to actually help their brothers and sisters in their community. Much better than paying your pastor to brainwash you with his interpretation of an ancient religious book he does not really want to obey.
Some Emerging Religious Groups do Not Have the Political Connections to Qualify

An example might be an emerging group that informally meets at someone's home. They do not have the tax benefits that official churches have because they do not have the lobbying power or the time to negotiate a charitable status from the gatekeepers in government. Removing the tax favoritism that most churches enjoy would simply level the playing field and make sure new religious philosophies that are beneficial do not get squished because of political favoritism. Many of the early religious reformers had to flee persecution because they did not have the political mojo of the larger denominations. Removing the larger groups' tax-exempt status would force them to stay relevant and profitable to the community.
Illuminati Secret Society Influence Permeates Many Organized Religions

Although we wish that our clergy were above corruption, many have joined forces secretly with the dark side. If you cannot get money by fair means, why not use sorcery and mind control on the sheep? Many former ritual abuse survivors say that high-level Freemasons often do a day shift as mega church clergy. It is a great cover. Being a bible thumper by day, and a pimp by night. Particularly if you are a member of a large and rich denomination, keep your nose sniffing for strange conflicts of interests that your clergy might have during the week. It is sad to see how many of the big talking heads of religion are playing both sides of the spiritual chess table.
School Uniforms Not Mandatory

Who said that girls school uniforms HAD to be skirts? Just because the Uniform is Formal, doesn't mean it has to be skirts. Boys and girls can wear the dress pants and shirts just that the girls can be specially fitted for girls and girls styles. Also there are study's that say that girls and boys do better in schools while they are in uniforms. The following was taken off of E HOW: A case study from 1999 conducted in Long Beach, California showed that instituting a uniform policy greatly reduced violence and other issues in the school. Crimes, suspensions and sex offenses were all reduced by at least 90 percent and vandalism dropped by almost 70 percent. The following is from president Bill Clinton: "This morning I want to talk with you about what we can do to break hold of gangs and violence in our schools and what we can do to create an atmosphere in our schools that promotes discipline and order and learning ... I believe we should give strong support to school districts that decide to require young students to wear school uniforms. We’ve all seen the tragic headlines screaming of the death of a teenager who was killed for a pair of sneakers or jewelry or a designer jacket. In Detroit, a 15-year old boy was shot for his $86 basketball shoes. In Fort Lauderdale, a 15-year old student was robbed of his jewelry. Just this past December in Oxon Hill, Maryland, a 17-year old honor student was killed at a bus stop, caught in the cross fire during the robbery of another students designer jacket" (Clinton, "Transcript," 1-2). The only reason I would be against School uniforms would be the inability for the student to express him/her self. The other point would be that the dress code might go against a person's religion.
Uniform has practical benefits when students are outside the school building.

Uniform has practical benefits when students are outside the school building. Being readily identified with a particular institution may make students more aware of their behaviour while travelling to and from the school, leading them to act more considerately, e.g. to other passengers on buses or trains. On organised trips away from the school it is much easier for teachers to ensure they haven’t lost anyone and to monitor behaviour, than if students wore their own clothes and blended in with the crowds.
It encourages discipline

Gives more leeway to break rules. A uniform shirt not tucked for example can lead to detention, as can nail polish or grown nails or wearing a hat or getting ink on a tie etc etc. The school staff is then, more focused on correcting/controlling the way students dress than actually teaching. Those with cleaner, well-ironed and at times more visibly expensive( richer students wear designer or custom-made/made-to-fit blouses/pants/skirts etc, not to mention better socks/stockings, shoes, shoe polish etc) uniforms are automated to become teacher favorites and therefore get more attention in class and are thought of as bright only because they are neat and privileged.
School Uniforms Not Mandatory

In my opinion school uniforms should not be mandatory. Students should have the will to express themselves through there clothing. Some girls don't like to wear skirts or can't wear skirts. Boys like to play. they wear t - shirts and shorts so they can move around. Not every boy likes to be dressed up. Then theres also the money problem. Uniforms aren't the cheapest clothing and some familys can barely buy normal clothing. Wearing a uniform does not make kids smarter or beahve better what so ever so there really is no point in wearing uniforms. A Website With Cons: http://kids.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Pros_and_Cons_of_School_Uniforms
Forcing children to wear uniform can ignore their religious and cultural needs.

Forcing children to wear uniform can ignore their religious and cultural needs. For example, Sikh boys, Orthodox Jews and Islamic girls all express their religious beliefs through the way they dress, and uniform stops them doing this. In particular, school uniforms are often not modest enough in covering the female body to suit Muslims. Taking away this freedom of religious expression can also lead parents to choose private faith schools, limiting integration and the mixing of different cultures.
Only a few inner-city schools have had problems with children wearing “gang colours”.

Uniform is a social leveller - it makes all the children at a school equal no matter what their family background or income. If students can choose their own clothes, then the rich kids compete to show off their expensive designer labels and costly sneakers (trainers). Children from poorer families get picked on for not being able to afford lots of pricey outfits.\ Schools in the USA have used uniform to overcome the problem of students wearing “gang colours” if they were allowed to choose their own clothes. Clothes with particular colours or symbols marked rival groups of students out as linked to street gangs. This often led to fighting inside and outside the classroom. If everyone has to wear the same clothes to school, this problem is removed.\
We all have a right to individuality, to make personal choices and to express our personality.

We all have a right to individuality, to make personal choices and to express our personality. This right of free expression includes the way we choose to dress. Making everyone wear the same school uniform infringes on (goes against) our rights and is a misuse of authority. The right to choose what to wear is particularly important for young people, who often have few other ways of expressing their personality or making choices about their lives.
It contributes to the sense of school's unity

Some people wear shorter skirts, kohl/mascara and lip gloss. Stockings,socks, shirts, shoes everything differs in quality. Better schools have nicer uniforms. Poorer students are disadvantaged because they can not afford as many uniforms or uniforms as nice as their richer counterparts. Wearing the same uniform everyday, means extra washing, which in turn equates to a higher probability to fade, wear and tear. Whereas those with three uniforms don't have to wash each uniform regularly and can get uniforms dry-cleaned over the weekend, richer families can afford better detergent that treats clothes with TLC.
Only a few inner-city schools have had problems with children wearing “gang colours”.

Only a few inner-city schools have had problems with children wearing “gang colours”. Many of these have got rid of the problem not by introducing uniform, but by simply having a dress code which bans such gang clothes and symbols. In fact, uniform boosts a “gang state of mind” by marking children out and dividing students from different schools against each other. This can increase conflict between young people outside school, leading to bullying and violence.
Very few countries feel the need to put most of their children in school uniforms.

Very few countries feel the need to put most of their children in school uniforms. Mostly it is a British thing not shared by the rest of the world. Outside Britain, most schools with uniforms are private schools trying to set themselves apart from the state education system. Uniform is almost unknown in European countries, yet their schools often have high standards of behaviour and learning. Until the 1990s uniform was very rare in the USA. Since then some US schools and districts have introduced uniform, but the large majority of schools still do not have it. Some of those which did adopt uniform have since given up on it again.
It contributes to the sense of school's unity

Having pupils not wear a school uniform means that it's impossible to tell who is a student there just by looking at them. By wearing a uniform, pupils are bound together by what they're wearing and will feel closer together. By allowing pupils to wear what they choose, cliques develop based on clothing, and this will disadvantage poorer students as well as teaching children to make judgements on what someone wears. Wouldn't be rather have our young people grow up not being prejudiced against people just because of what clothes they have on?
Uniform is often not practical or pleasant to wear.

Uniform has practical advantages. Students don’t have to waste time thinking what to wear at the start of each school day. The clothes are designed to be comfortable and safe, with no long trailing sleeves, skirts or hoods to catch on dangerous equipment in workshops or science lessons. It is also very helpful on trips as staff can quickly spot all the students from their school, keeping them out of trouble and making sure no one gets lost.
Schools waste a lot of time trying to enforce uniform rules.

Students will always kick against the system, whatever that is. If there is a dress code instead of a uniform, they will try to bend those rules instead. For example, how short a skirt is too short? Are crop-tops allowed? What about hats or hoods which hide the student’s face? Most problems of enforcing uniform rules in the USA are because uniform is voluntary, or students are allowed an opt-out from it. If uniform must be worn by everyone there is much less confusion and enforcing the rules is quicker and simpler.
Creates a sense of equality

There are differences on how many uniforms a student has or how well s/he wears it. the lengths of skirts, sleeves & tops can be customized, as can the fit . Not all uniform shops/stores sell the same quality uniforms. Any white blouse can replace the uniform shirt and certain white blouses are more fashionable than others. The same can be said about accessories such as ties, hair bands, scrunchies, broaches, clips,make-up,hair-gel,hairspray,hair-dye,other hair-products etc. The class divide exists despite uniforms and is visible wearing a uniform, doesn't mean everyone's dressed the same. Uniforms are also all about going to a preppy public-U.K/private-the-rest-the-world school vs an inferior school. Uniforms also create class divides between schools; thus.
Inappropriate

Uniform is appropiate,considering the fact that those school children,come from different backgrounds,Not all of them can afford wearing their own clothes,because one wants to change everyday and doesn't want to be seen in the same clothes,everyday.In the case of badly designed it depends on the designer making it for you,and uniforms are made in large quantities because it is known that there are many learners,even though it's the approximate, if there's shortage more uniforms can be produced.Girls who are forced to wear skirts in winter,can wear winter stockings and leggings,provided that leggings are worn inside the Stockings.Remember that school children did not go to school to advertise their uniform,hence the uniform makes them look equal as students,afterall all they are there for is education and nothing more. Even former scholars can contribute their uniforms to the needy,so that all students are One,and that's how the scholar is recognised,especially in case of some accident happening or any crisis,when no one is there.
Schools waste a lot of time trying to enforce uniform rules.

Schools waste a lot of time trying to enforce uniform rules. Because children don’t like wearing uniform, they fight against it in many clever ways (e.g. shortening skirts, wearing non-regulation shoes and hosiery, tying their ties in funny ways, etc.). Schools in the US often allow parents an “opt-out” from uniform, which means teachers have to check what list a child is on at the start of every lesson.
Personality and Expressing yourself

We do not go to school to express our personality. Schools are instituitions of learning, and are not social clubs. Express yourself on your own time, not during time that should be spent studying. In that regard, I contend that the wearing of casual clothing can actually be a distraction from ones studies- i would spend more time worrying if i'm wearing the right ('cool') clothing than worrying about my my education. I did not enjoy wearing uniforms when i was in school, but on the odd day we were allowed to wear casual clothes, we regarded it as a treat. But just because i did not enjoy wearing uniforms does not mean I think they should not be mandatory.
There is no proper research that shows that introducing uniform cuts crime in schools.

Introducing uniform can reduce crime in schools, especially violence and theft. Headteachers at several US schools report lower levels of violence and crime after uniforms were introduced. This is partly due to better discipline, but also because students no longer come to school wearing desirable designer clothes or $100 trainers (sneakers).\ Uniform also helps makes schools safer as it makes intruders much easier to spot. Anyone not in uniform can easily be seen and reported.
Inappropriate

Often it is uniform that is inappropriate, being too cold in winter or too hot in summer, largely because it is badly designed and cheaply produced in small quantities for a captive market. Girls in particular complain at being forced to wear skirts even in the coldest months, when many would generally wear trousers from choice and some, e.g. Muslims, for cultural reasons. Students will always attempt to subvert any dress code, strict or lenient, requiring staff vigilance in any case.
School Uniforms - Yes

Why do we need the uniforms. It would just cost the school more money and not all kids can get a new clean unifrom in one day. if they wear it once and get it dirty it might take a few days to get it washed. Then if the school were to but two uniforms for the students then it would cost the schools even more money. (Think about how many students are in schools) School uniforms would be a wate of money and time.
Wearing a school uniform is not good preparation for working.

Wearing a uniform helps to prepare students for the world of work, where uniforms are often worn. People like nurses, soldiers, shop assistants, the police and railway staff wear uniform as part of their job. Many other workers are expected to wear suits - really just a grown up sort of uniform, with little choice about it. Just like these adults, students should dress in uniform when they are in school, getting on with work. After all, students and adults can both change into their own casual clothes at the end of the working day, when they are “off duty”.
Personality and Expressing yourself

In my opinion I think that if students wear uniforms it won't show my personality and it won't express who I am. Some students especially girls can't wear uniforms because skirts are uncomfortable for them or maybe just because there not allowed to wear skirts in their religion. Uniforms are really expensive too and you might only get 3 sets which you have to put in the laundry almost everyday. I really like wearing different clothes most of the times because of the latest styles or maybe just because I love different style of clothing. But, it is good wearing uniforms because it shows discipline of the school and if there is a fire drill or lockdown then you can easily recognize a student and say that he/she is not an intruder. But I personally don't like wearing uniforms.
Too much money

The opposition here is living in a dream world... let's start thinking reality here and ask the question this way: Why pay $30 for uniforms, when you can go and buy cheap clothes from a cheap store then go to school come back and complain to your parents that other kids are mocking you for having cheap clothes. After this story your parents (as I'm sure won't leave their kid to be different from the rest if they can afford it) will start buying you clothes from more and more expensive stores where only a pair of trousers costs $30. So yeah...why pay $30 for uniforms when you have no limits and can go all the way to $200-$300 And does it really matter if you don't wear your school clothes outside of the school. I mean come on....no one is asking the lawyers, doctors and policeman if they are ok with wearing a uniform at work, but guess what? It's their duty to do it...and I think duty is the key word in this debate...kids should start thinking about what they have to do in order to do what they want to do in the future...
Wearing a school uniform is not good preparation for working.

Wearing a school uniform is not good preparation for working. Only a few jobs require uniforms, and many of these are low-paid service jobs - not what we want our young people to aim for. After all, their main role-models at school - the teachers - don’t have to wear a uniform. Well-paid jobs used to require a suit, but this has been changing in recent years and smart-casual clothes are much more common now. Even if you have to wear a suit, you still have a huge choice of styles, colour and accessories with which to express your personality. This isn’t true of school uniform.
Self-determination is a fundamental right that must be afforded to a native or national group. The ...

Being part of a minority (in a democracy where the majority rule) is not a substantial enough reason to claim independence. Calls for independence destabilise countries; turmoil is not conducive to the promotion of human rights. If the minority is able to actively take part in a legitimate and representative government (by voting, lobbying, etc.), then self-determination is viewed as an illegitimate claim in International Law. The UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 argues that territorial integrity and stability ‘trump’ claims for self-determination. Nationalism threatens stability, as is evident in Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Palestine, the Basque Country and Sri Lanka. The right to self-determination tends to be framed in the context of de-colonisation, which has long since passed.