BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The welfare of the society would be sidelined for the needs of the individual.

Switzerland is the only country in the world that operates with direct democracy at all levels of government. It was the only country in Europe that NEVER fell for any populist or extremist system. The people are far more intelligent and wise than selfish, greedy politicians, whose time horizon is just the next election. Again and again, Swiss voters proved that they were very well informed on every issue and that they were far more tolerant than the media and politicians claimed. Having the right to decide on issues means that people feel concerned by them and they will pay attention. People are only uninformed and ignorant in countries where they feel that their opinion doesn't matter anyway. The people who pay the bill are also far more likely to have a real long-term interest in making good decisions.
It's a lot less work.

Most people do not really want to vote all the time on political issues that don't always affect them, or may require a lot of understanding in order to cast a meaningful vote. Switzerland requires about 10 referenda per year. This is the main criticism of direct democracy from people subject to it. Voting for a representative who agrees with you takes less effort, doesn't require you to do anything about issues that don't concern you and does not require you to learn about complex issues. Complex issues can be sorted out by professionals.
The welfare of the society would be sidelined for the needs of the individual.

The average individual voter would put his or her needs before those of society as a whole. This self-interest is perfectly natural, but if a law that benefits a smaller group does not benefit a larger group (for example, the protection of minority interests) then that law is not likely to be passed. ------------------------------------------------------ BTW, Switzerland voted for a minaret ban. They are just as susceptable to populist nonsense as anyone else.
The principle of marriage has always been to provide a stable home life for the rearing of children....

It is fallacious to presume that marriage as an institution is what provides a stable home environment for a child. What is most important is the relationship between the two parents and their attitudes and relationships individually and together with the child. This is completely uncorrelated with marriage. What’s more a stable co-habitation situation is far better for a child than an unhappy marriage. The heartache, pain, stress and psychological disturbance of a child when their parents break up is not due to the breakdown of marriage but the breakdown of a relationship.
Marriage statistics themselves show that 1 out of 3 marriages are re-marriages. So whilst the divorc...

It is unreasonable to expect couples to stay together for a lifetime in this day and age. There is more social pressure than ever before to be happy - and this outweighs the necessity to make a marriage work regardless. Fidelity is not determined by a marriage certificate and with an ever increasing life expectancy, and the freedom to pursue one’s goals more liberal, it is naïve to believe that there is no possibility of couples either changing or making an original 'mistake' in choosing each other. Society has long accepted that life partners need not be for life anymore. If people want to be together, surely they will. If a couple doesn't want to be together, why should their pain be drawn out unnecessarily by the formal bond of matrimony?
Legally, marriage represents a more solid and protected base for both parties. In addition to protec...

The law incorporates enough protection for couples with “common law marriages” and various jurisdictions over inheritance and ownership. Co-habitation is far more practical, and avoids lengthy, painful, and expensive legal proceedings in the event of a relationship breakdown. The only thing that marriage gains is a socially recognised sense of emotional stability, and divorce rates are indicative of the fact that if a relationship is set to fail, the institution of marriage itself will not save it.
The principle of marriage has always been to provide a stable home life for the rearing of children....

The principle of marriage has always been to provide a stable home life for the rearing of children. Psychologically scientific studies have found that co-habitation does not lend itself to as much psychological stability for a child. Regardless of the level of commitment between a couple, society still recognises marriage as an institution where most stability is gained. This is not to discredit single parent families or divorced parents, but to acknowledge the institute of marriage as the ideal outcome of a loving relationship and desire for a family.
Marriage statistics themselves show that 1 out of 3 marriages are re-marriages. So whilst the divorc...

Marriage statistics themselves show that 1 out of 3 marriages are re-marriages. So whilst the divorce statistics may be at 40%, this does not show a lack of faith in marriage as an institution, merely that divorce is easier and more acceptable, or couples are entering into marriage more freely than before. Just because some marriages may fail does not mean that we should give up on an ideal. We are frequently disillusioned by the criminal justice system when it fails, but this does not mean we do not aspire to the principles it upholds in society. The same can be said for marriage.
driving at age 16

Why are we still living in the past then, for instance, the media does not promote things they used to in the past ( I.e. Cigarettes) Knowledge has furthered so people know how the clogs twist and turn in the minds of teenagers. If we ban driving until eighteen then younger teens will feel compelled to drive just to contradict the law, and therefore lowering opinions on driving for under 18s. This situation is neither win win nor lose lose. Police will disagree ofcourse because they uphold the law, i'm not badmouthing all police officers but if the law were to be changed then would go along with it just fine unless some put their foot down. Whether they like it or not teenagers are the next generation so what can they do to prevent that.
17 year olds are simply not mature enough to cope with the skills required for driving

One reason to show that 18 year olds have a more mature mind then 16 year olds is because of the pressure of college and being on your own. When you are 18 you think about the life ahead of you which stresses you out because one day you will have to pay for everything and also if you are not yet in college you would rather have some money then your parents pay for an accident. This is false because I would like the ability to drive to work because I am turning into a responsible adult. If YOUR parents did not raise you right other people should not suffer for your insolence.
Parents can provide guidance to their teens

While a teenager is still living at home, parents can provide them with guidance and assistance in the process of learning to drive. Parents can supervise them when they are practicing, and teach them certain basic safety rules. At age 18, many are in college and/or living away from home, and do not have access to parental guidance. This may lead them to learn from less experienced drivers such as their peers of the same age, or even attempt to teach themselves without instruction. This is undoubtedly very dangerous and potentially hazardous, as a new driver who has not yet mastered driving may panic and cause tragic accidents. In Australia the legal age to get your learners is 16-17 in most states. During the course where you learn to drive you must complete hours of supervised learning by an instructor or another experience driver such as your parents. If the parents dont have enough time to 'supervise and assist them' are they very good parents? I mean, that is the role of a parent in general right?
It removes the freedom of young people

Surely it's worth restricting the freedom of young people in order to preserve their lives and the lives of others. Freedom is no good to you if you've been paralysed in a car accident or killed your best friend. I agree with this comment. If you do take some freedom from the young teenagers it only helps them to be stronger later on and more maturer. If you give the young teenagers too much freedom, it only causes them to do what ever they want to the point of dissobeying the rules which their parents give and the goverenment. In addition to the comment, "In fact the younger the driver the more they learn." What are they going to learn from, by having an accident from to much freedom or killing someone at a young age? This only gives more trauma to the younger people.
No because younger drivers aren't necessarily dangerous

17 Years of age is a good age to start. Most teens are in there prime from 16 - 26. Those are the best years that they WILL have the best reaction time. In the USA in some states it is 14 to drive. For example, I Iowa they let you drive at the age of 14. That could be bad or good. But the thing is they keep you in a certain area until they reach a certain age. Then you can go across the country. But they don't let anyone under 18 drive anywhere but the home state. So whats the difference in the USA? If an applicant is 17 years of age or younger when they apply for their learner permit, they must hold the learner permit for six months before applying for a driver license. However, if the applicant turns 18 during the holding period, they may apply for their driver license upon turning 18. The six-month learner permit holding requirement does not apply to an applicant who is age 18 or older at the time of application for the learner permit. sources: http://www.2pass.co.uk/ages2.htm http://publicsafety.utah.gov/dld/minor_learner_permits.html
No

18 year olds do not have the peer pressure that high school teens do. It is not the maturiety that matters it is the responsibility of getting behind the wheel of a motorized vehical. If you go by the maturiety then the stakes will go for the girls, then the boys. The rate of accident are higher in boys then girls. (19.4 killed per 100,000 male drivers compared with 11.1 killed per 100,000 female drivers)
It removes the freedom of young people

Without personal mobility, young people are restricted as to where they go and when they go. This not only has implications for the human rights of young people, but may have further reaching impacts such as a hit on the economy if younger people find that their ability to work is constrained. Restrict the freedom of young people? Are you kidding? Freedom is everything to young people. If you take that away then what do they have? Just because someone is young doesn't mean they are incapable of driving safe. In fact the younger the driver the more they learn. If you do this, this may cause more teenagers to drive illegally.
yes they should raise it up. 16 year olds are irresponsible. my friends friend and his buddies were killed in a car wreck they were 16.

I’m sorry but I disagree with you completely. Yes, I agree there are SOME immature sixteen year olds out there who are like that, but you can’t stereotype ALL sixteen year olds because of something idiotic someone else of that age did. I’m sixteen years old and I drive better then half the “adults” on the road I see these days. There are people of ALL ages driving on the road reckless because they think they’re an adult therefore they can get off the hook. I know people who were OLDER then 16 - more like between the ages of 18 − 30 - who’ve been caught drunk driving or even dying but they don’t expect it to happen to them because they’re “responsible drivers” When driving, it’s not the age that mostly matters. What mostly matters is if you’re MATURE and RESPONSIBLE.
No because younger drivers aren't necessarily dangerous

There are just as many people who are careless and inconsiderate drivers who are much older than 17year olds. Some 17 year old drivers are more sensible and cautious than those who have been driving for years. Many more elderly people are dangerous on roads than younger people as they have slower reaction times and can struggle with visibility. Therefore, should older people have to re-take a test to make sure they are still fit to drive? Younger drivers may be less experienced, but doesn't experience come with practice? Therefore why not let people take a test at 17 if they want to? It may make them better drivers as they learnt early and gained practice and experience.
No

18 year olds are not more mature than their fellow teengers just because they have less peer pressure. Some might be but that doesn't go for all, 18 year olds get the news that they're now adults by the government so ofcourse they will act all sophisticated to boost their young 'responsible adult' status but that's not always the case. If you give younger teens a chance to drive then they would drive and some will even make sure not to accidentally run a red light but if they delay until 18 then more said 18 year olds won't bother driving because what would be the point other than location. In conclusion all I'm saying is that 15-17 are revved up to a new experience other than school work.
There are alternatives – such as making tests more rigorous

All of these alternatives have their own pros and cons and should be considered in conjunction with a change in the minimum age. The alternatives to making a test harder is still not a good way to keep the young teenagers from driving reckless. There are many smart teenagers that can pass a test but it is different when getting behind the wheel by themselves or with other passengers. Peoples minds at a young age are very distracted with a lot of information from school, friends, and parents. In addition, there are many pros to raise the age so why don't we try it?
Raising the age limit may do something to promote more environmentally friendly alternatives

People should have the choice as to whether they drive or use other forms of transport. If the government wanted to promote greener transport then it should do it in a way that does not just discriminate against young people. Also not everybody has access to public transport especially young people! This in turn would be a much less effective way for young people to get about as they would become more reliant on others, like their parents, to get them about which is not always practical.
Driving ability should be judged more - why not also a maximum age?!

SENATE PASSES ELDERLY DRIVER RESTRICTIONS MARCH 3, 2010: On Tuesday, the Mass State Senate passed its version of the so-called "Safe Driver" bill (S2290). The bill, which drew a spirited debate amongst Senators from both parties, contains language that would require drivers age 75 and older to undergo a cognitive and physical abilities test in order to renew their license. Section 4 of S2290: (b) Notwithstanding any provision of the first paragraph of section 8, an applicant for a license, or the renewal of a license, age 75 or older shall apply in person. The applicant shall submit an elderly driving assessment form completed by the applicant's health care provider in the health care provider's professional capacity, and the applicant shall submit the assessment form to the registrar. The elderly driving assessment form shall assess the applicant's cognitive and physical ability, including a vision test, and any other condition that might prevent such applicant from operating a motor vehicle. The elderly driving assessment form shall be developed by the registrar in consultation with the medical advisory board established in section 8C. An applicant for a license renewal shall complete the form upon the expiration of 60 months from attainment of the age of 75 years, and every 36 months thereafter. No license shall be issued until the registrar is satisfied that the applicant is a qualified person to receive it. http://www.massretirees.com/special-news/senate-passes-elderly-driver-restrictions.html
yes they should raise it up. 16 year olds are irresponsible. my friends friend and his buddies were killed in a car wreck they were 16.

too many deaths are caused by 16 year old drivers. "oh haha lets get drunk and drive we are cool cuz we are 16!" i dont think so Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among 15- to 20-year-olds. 16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age. 16-year-olds are 3 times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, in 2008: Hand-held cellphone use was highest among 16- to 24-year-olds (8% in 2008, down from 9% in 2007). 37% of male drivers ages 15-20 who were involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time. 55%, or 2,014, of the 3,678 occupants of passenger vehicles ages 16-20 who were killed in crashes were not buckled up. 31% of drivers ages 15-20 who were killed in motor vehicle crashes had been drinking some amount of alcohol; 25% were alcohol-impaired, meaning they had a blood alcohol content of 0.08 grams per deciliter or higher. Statistics show that 16- and 17-year-old driver death rates increase with each additional passenger (IIHS). http://www.rmiia.org/auto/teens/Teen_Driving_Statistics.asp
The assumption that teens lack maturity to drive is highly incorrect

People have this overly assertive position against 16 year old drivers from driving and believe they should take the iniative to raise the legal age to start at 18. Assumptions cannot me made over the general population of teens because of a tiny percentage of other teens who are irresponsible. A lack of maturity does not factor into these situations because learning to drive is gained by experience. As 18 year olds they are not obligated as drivers to have other requirements other than take the driver's test to obtain their licenses. Would you believe an 18 year old with no prior learning experience is more prepared than a 16 year old who has completed all the necessary requirements and above?
age of 18 driving

Many teens under the age of 18 feel more than capable. Some of the maturity levels of teens under the age of 18 are higher than others. raising the age limit will also increase the crime rate oof teens under the age limit commiting offences. Controvesy is the last thing that is needed especially when dealing with teenagers. The current age limit is perhaps one of few things keeping crime rates low. rasing the age limit will increase teen offences.
Other countries are even younger – in America only 16!

Just because other countries have it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is right. The statistics on road deaths in the US reflect those of the UK. America is also considering its stance on minimum driving age at this time. The following chart specifies the age at which one may be fully privileged to drive in a particular American state. Alabama 17 yrs. Alaska 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Arizona 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Arkansas 18 yrs. California 18 yrs., provisional from 16 to 18 Colorado 17 yrs. Connecticut 17 yrs. & 4 mos. (w/ passengers); 18 yrs. @ night Delaware 17 yrs. Florida 18 yrs. Georgia 18 yrs. Hawaii 17 yrs. Idaho 16 yrs. (night); 15 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger) Illinois 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger) Indiana 17 yrs. Iowa 17 yrs. Kansas 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Kentucky 17 yrs. Louisiana 17 yrs. Maine 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Maryland 17 yrs. & 9 mos. (night); 16 yrs. & 11 mos. ( w/ passenger) Massachusetts 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger) Michigan 17 yrs. Minnesota 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger) Mississippi 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Missouri 17 yrs. & 11 mos. Montana 16 yrs. Nebraska 17 yrs. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger) Nevada 16 yrs. & 6 mos. New Hampshire 17 yrs. & 1 mos. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger) New Jersey 18 yrs., provisional at 17 yrs. New Mexico 16 yrs. & 6 mos. New York 17 yrs. w/ drivers ed; 18 yrs. w/o drivers ed North Carolina 16 yrs. & 6 mos. North Dakota 14 yrs. & 6 mos. Ohio 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/passenger) Oklahoma 16 yrs. & 6 mos. w/ drivers ed; 17 yrs. w/o drivers ed Oregon 17 yrs. Pennsylvania 17 yrs. (if crash & conviction free); 18 yrs. otherwise Rhode Island 17 yrs. & 6 mos. South Carolina 16 yrs. & 6 mos. South Dakota 16 yrs. Tennessee 17 yrs. Texas 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Utah 17 yrs. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passneger) Vermont 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Virginia 18 yrs. Washington 18 yrs. West Virginia 17 yrs. Wisconsin 16 yrs. & 9 mos. Wyoming 16 yrs. & 6 mos. w/ drivers ed; 17 yrs. w/o drivers ed Washington DC 18 yrs. http://dmvanswers.com/questions/257/What-is-the-legal-driving-age-in-my-state
The number of serious or fatal road accidents in the UK will be reduced

Raising the age does not guarantee a reduction in deaths. Rather, it would just change the statistics from "17 to 20 year olds" to "18 to 21 year olds". The reason why drivers crash is a lack of experience, and an 18 year old with one year's worth of experience is just as likely to crash as a 17 year old with one year's experience. For that matter, it would be the same with a 35 year old with one year's experience. Raising the age therefore would not dramatically increase deaths and injuries. You may be able to change the age, but you can't change the people! Additionally, one cannot say logically that one must raise the driving age because teenagers are harming others and/or being harmed while driving. For example, a parallel can be found in driving statistics for males versus females. According to studies, males of all ages are 77% more likely to kill someone when driving than females. It would be just as illogical to raise the driving age to 18 as to ban males from driving.it won't help if your sitting on tour butt for two more years doing nothing you might be more mature at 18 but that doesn't mean your mature enough for the road.
no it shouldn't

Yes it will actually help, being 19 i can say that at the age of 16-17 i had no clue how to handle snowy type environments. Considering that we are only taught how to drive in the clear skies of the summer, they never prepare you for the harsh driving conditions. Now being 19, i know many roads, i know the speed limit i know how sharp turns are, i know where pot holes are.... all these things are things that have to be taken in to understand the road. I can also admit to being immature during high school as well as seeing a lot more immature teens. Driving to impress people, driving while angry, texting and driving. It would be very beneficial if we raised the driving age to 18 and to me i think it should be 20.
age of 18 driving

Many people who are younger than an adult are careless and they don't pay attention to the road. They pay attention to their ipod their cell phones, their radio, but not the road. I know some people do, but we need to be more careful. And making the test harder is just as bad as keeping the age of 16 because people will study to get the license. I think that if you raise it to 18 there will be a lesser chance that accidents will occur. Older people will likely to pay more attention to the road then all the new technology people create.
They should undergo a one year 'settling down' process

This has nothing to do with raising the legal driving age. First off there is already a restriction that states that a driver under the age of 18 cannot have more than one non-family member under 18 as a passenger in their car. Get your facts straight. And why should all younger drivers be penalised for the mistakes for a few. As some studies have shown 77% of males of all ages are more likely to kill someone than a female, so should be also ban males from having passengers? Also I thought the 'P' plate process was a 'settling down' process, where PROVISIONAL drivers are watched more closely than open drivers..