BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Slang has become young peoples main language

Young people’s language is becoming more and more saturated by slang, where it has come to the point where it is unintelligible. They use slang as their main language in their “neighbor hoods”, and tend to forget how to communicate correctly with the rest of the society when needed. I myself use slang when I talk to my friends which is easy to use without having to think about correct grammar, nevertheless I tend to combine a lot of slang without even noticing it when I speak to my professors or when I write a paper, which is not very appropriate. So I do believe that slang prevents young people like me from being able to communicate properly.
Slang prevents young people to become potential employers as well as prepared for the future

Yes and no. Theres so many words out there that are actually slang words, it is rediculous. You can't say someone will be rejected a job for using "cool" or "nice" in the terms of "great" because when you say "hey thats cool" the word 'cool' is slang for great. "Hey thats nice" same thing. http://international.tamu.edu/iss/webfile/living/slang_rev05c05c.pdf theres a nice list of slang words/ phrases you probably use every day!
Slang prevents young people to become potential employers as well as prepared for the future

People want to hire potential employers that are able to communicate unmistakably. How is that going to be possible when slang only prevents young people from conversing clearly and making them ill-equipped for the future? It is going to be hard for young adults that use slang to face the real world, because slang is not prohibited in today’s work setting. It is the contrary, it is obligatory to speak in correct grammar in order to keep a job. The understandings of slang words are so different in every city that it is going to be impossible for them to take care of themselves, unless they decide to stay where they are forever.
Closing the generation gap: hip teaching methods

The problem with our times is in a reversion to pedagogy; after all the complaints about spoon-feeding in schools and the need for independent thinking; we're back to coddling students. Teaching them that work is a party when it isn't. These kids need to grow up and the best way to do it, is to brush up on language skills. Learn the lingo of your elders; speak the language you are taught. There are places where slang is acceptable and there are situations where it is not. For example slang used in the British Public Boys' schools would never be tolerated in a public boys' school test or exam or speech for that matter. [[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884113,00.html]]
Closing the generation gap: hip teaching methods

Sometimes to close the generation gap an understanding of the language of the times is necessary. In our zeitgeist; parents and teachers are encouraged to speak the language of the children to better understand their issues and problems. Learning text-talk or slang could be the answer to closing the generation gap or relieving the discomfort that comes from formal dialogue/dialog. Not everything can be best related in formal or perfect English/Urdu/Swahili/any-language. Sometimes slang improves the quality of communication because it is accessible to the people having the conversation. [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/15/teenglish-students-language-book]]
slang did not prevent William shakespeare to communicate properly.

As long as people are able to separate social life with business life thru adapting and restricting the use of slang in a professional capacity there is no harm. I would like to believe that everyone have their own way of talking to their friends and families, and that they use slang. However when it comes down to being at a work place they have a tendency to control their use of slang, and adapt to the environment that they are in. Many well known men used slang. William Shakespeare was a man that used a lot of slang in his plays, words such as nervy, puke and assassination were included, nevertheless he was not seen as a man that could not communicate, but a man that had a talent for it.
It depends on the person. If they begin to use slang in real life situations where slang shouldn't be used. They're stupid anyway.

Slang's fine if you just use it because you're feeling relaxed and just wanna talk to someone without thinking about grammar and everything.. But if you go into an English exam and start using slang, it's stupid.. and you're stupid because you clearly haven't realised that this is an English exam and the point of an English exam is to test your English knowledge... You shouldn't be worth a job if you can't tell the difference between when you should use slang and when you shouldn't. xxxxx ^^^ PERFECTLY SAID AND STATED! this
Time are changing and so is every generation. Slang is becoming part of everyday life, therefore everyone, employers included understand it.

If the whole of a country or a town uses particular slang words, then what is the problem using it in everyday life, even when conversing with employers, teachers, peers, etc. We seem to want to hold on to the dictionary defined English yet people forget that new words are added to the dictionary all the time. Maybe its time slang words were recognised as part of the English Language.
We should weigh the happiness pennies could give

No. We should give our loose change to charities which support the homeless, help them find jobs and give them a place to stay. Giving money to the homeless is like trying to treat the symptom of a disease when in actual fact you need to tackle the cause. Why should we be giving up the money we work for all day long to some those on the streets that just sit, begging all day long. Don't you want to know if you're money you are giving away is really going to a good cause? That is why it is more precise to buy food or gift cards to grocery stores. Otherwise, just put forth your money to a charity that directly helps support this cause.
It is better than giving money to organised charities.

When you give the money to an organised charity you know that the money will be spent wisely. Yes, street fund raisers get paid, but that is money well spent if they get even a small number of people signing up to a direct debit scheme. So the £10 you give could be invested into these fundraisers and your money will help sign up 3 direct debits from people who could make monthly payments from £5 to £20. So your donation could be tripled in effect. In addition to this, when you give money directly to beggars, you have no idea as to what they will spend that money on. You have no idea whether they really are homeless. An organised charity eliminates all these doubts. They will spend the money on shelters and food, not alcohol and cigarettes. They will ensure that the money is distributed amongst the most needy. All this taken into account, giving to an organisation instead of one beggar is far more helpful.
They will spend the money on drugs or alcohol

Everybody who’s homeless is homeless for a reason, but is simply not accurate to say most have spent all their money on drugs and alcohol – and if that is true for some people it’s not true to say they still continue to take drugs now. Many people, women especially, are on the streets because of sexual abuse. Many men are ex-servicemen who can’t cope with civilian life. Many people who used to use drugs are now clean but can’t get a job because they have no CV (and of course are homeless). So the vicious circle exists and can be increased. Though it’s more likely to be increased if you don’t give than do.
Encourages others to follow suit.

Yes because if you do instead of feeling guilty you feel encouraging and happy. Adding to this the opposition makes living on the street and begging to be an easy thing and a choice. A lot of people on the street especially now are on the street because of events outside there control. The people who beg on the street live hard lives and while it would be naive to suggest that some of them are not milking the system they are still begging through necessity and not because its easy like the opposition suggest. I wonder if the opposition would chose to live on the streets and also wonder if the speaker fell on hard times would the speaker get off the streets as easily as he suggests and secure a job in a environment were the average person finds it hard to do at the minute or if they too would end up "taking the easy way and begging"
No. We give that money to organizations that work on remedying the root cause of homelessness.

If you give money to a homeless person you are just encouraging their behavior. There are many services available to help the homeless get back on their feet. They reject these services and choose to be homeless. Not to mention you have no idea what they could using the money you give them for (drugs). The money you would give them should go to an organization that provides services to the mentally ill homeless. The mentally ill homeless are really the only ones who have a reason to be out on the streets. All the other homeless are just beggars who refuse to work themselves. It’s better to just invest in a nonprofit organization that rehabilitates the mentally ill homeless. Save up your quarters you would give the guy you pass by everyday to work and then mail you accumulated funds as a check to a organizations that helps the disadvantaged!
We should weigh the happiness pennies could give

If you find yourself with a few pennies in your pockets, pennies which are sometimes more of an inconvenience than anything else, why should we not give them to those who are asking for help? Those pennies mean relatively little to the reasonably well off, but they could make a great deal of difference to the homeless. It is a simple matter of weighing happiness. The happiness those pennies would cause a homeless person is a lot more than what those pennies would give to a reasonably well-off person’s pocket or money jar.
It is better than giving money to organised charities.

Regardless how happy the homeless person would be, completing such a direct act of charity will make you a lot happier than merely pledging money, even a more substantial amount, via a large charity. When giving to a large charity a lot of the money gets filtered out by administration. Street fund-raisers are often paid and so are various other administrators. As such, a higher percentage of your money would be going to the actual people who need it rather than to a large organisation.
No. We should be that money to organizations that work on remedying the root cause of homelessness.

If you give money to a homeless person you are just encouraging their behavior. There are many services available to help the homeless get back on their feet. They reject these services and choose to be homeless. Not to mention you have no idea what they could using the money you give them for (drugs). The money you would give them should go to an organization that provides services to the mentally ill homeless. The mentally ill homeless are really the only ones who have a reason to be out on the streets. All the other homeless are just beggars who refuse to work themselves. It's better to just invest in a nonprofit organization that rehabilitates the mentally ill homeless. Save up your quarters you would give the guy you pass by everyday to work and then mail you accumulated funds as a check to a organizations that helps the disadvantaged!
Encourages others to follow suit.

Easy money is an extreme attraction for the lazy; sitting around all day collecting spare money off of passers by. With such an easy living to be made there where is the motivation for such a person to get themselves off of the street and into a secure job. By giving money to these sorts of people, far from helping them you are encouraging them to be lazy. Not only are you encouraging those who are homeless to stay on the streets, but you are encouraging others to do the same. People who think they have no where to go will think that there is a place on the streets for them. They will think they can live on the streets before trying to sort their own problems out properly.
they are not all beggars and homeless

my ex sister in law used to give money to a begger that lived in a town outside Boots chemist, it was later revealed that he had more money than all of us and a better house etc and put all of us to shame. Beggars are just the people that have the guts to scrounge from others. A man on the street actually put on a sign "ITS MY B-DAY GIVE ME BEAR!"
Manned space programmes have resulted in huge funding of the scientific community which has produced...

Manned space programmes have resulted in huge funding of the scientific community which has produced a vast range of spin-offs. These include the Teflon found on non-stick frying pans, new ways of testing aerodynamics which have improved planes, huge improvements in computing power and software, etc. The need to make this equipment ‘fail-safe’ because of its role in keeping humans alive in space means that the level of funding and testing is necessarily higher than for non-manned missions. Robotic missions have also benefited from the manned programme through more reliable rockets for example. In future they may well become more and more reliant on manned programmes; as scientists want to send their unmanned probes further, they want to send more equipment on each probe because of the years it takes to reach the edges of the solar system and future interstellar probes are likely to be larger again because of the propulsion systems that they need to travel billions of miles. The extra weight and size of such craft will make it all but impossible to construct them at a reasonable cost on the Earth; instead they will need to be constructed in sub-orbital space just as the ISS has been. The engineering skills and techniques used to build manned space stations are exactly what will be used to build unmanned missions in the future.
While space travel pushed for primarily political reasons is not necessarily a bad thing (as shown a...

While space travel pushed for primarily political reasons is not necessarily a bad thing (as shown above), the nature of multinational manned space programmes actually makes it a force for good in international relations. Since the “historic handshake in space” when a US Apollo and Soviet Soyuz capsules docked in 1975, the two countries have grown increasingly close. This relationship involves sharing technology (which is almost all ‘dual use’ i.e. it could be used for military purposes as well as civilian, thus requiring a high degree of trust), scientific knowledge and working side-by-side to build and support the ISS. With the involvement of the 11 member states of the European Space Agency as well as Canada, Japan and Brazil in the project, space is one of the few spheres where governments have been able to put aside their differences in pursuit of something more fundamentally important to humanity – surely something that we should continue.
There is a significant long-term risk to the human race of only being able to live on Earth. The po...

There is a significant long-term risk to the human race of only being able to live on Earth. The potential damage done by an asteroid or comet that collides with the Earth could range from the impact of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima to the complete destruction of all life on the planet. A manned mission might be necessary to destroy or divert such an object before it reaches our planet. There is also the potential for other terrible damage to be done to the Earth (whether through climate change, warfare or overcrowding), which could mean that as a race we would have no choice but to leave the planet. In that situation, high levels of knowledge about human space travel and the ability to colonise Mars or other planets would be essential.
Humankind has always pushed boundaries and tried to go further, higher and faster. While the privat...

Even if humans want to explore that is not necessarily a reason to look to space. Rather than probing Mars for life, we should be looking to the 95% of the world’s oceans that have yet to be explored and where we are constantly finding new forms of life and new scientific discoveries. For example, bacteria have been found which survive not by using sunlight as an energy source, but volcanic vents on the ocean floor – a discovery which made scientists looking for life on Mars totally change their approach. And with individuals constantly in the news for attempts to traverse the globe in rowing boats, hot air balloons and tied to gliders, there are clearly enough ‘boundaries’ on this planet to keep even our keenest explorers happy. Furthermore, even with a budget of $16.5bn for 2006, NASA expects it will take more than a decade to return to the moon and has no date for Mars. The cost of really pushing the boundaries of human exploration is too high even for the big-spending Bush administration, so surely we need to examine the scientific and technological returns of the space programme as it really is rather than how it appears in Star Trek.
Some scientific experiments and exploration can be done exclusively or more effectively by a manned ...

The scientific benefits of manned space programmes are severely overstated; NASA spends over a third of its budget simply keeping the ISS manned and the Space Shuttle working. The vast majority of its spending on scientific research comes through ground based research, telescopes and unmanned missions. China has made no claims that there is a scientific benefit to its manned mission and nor has Russia in recent years. It is clear that there are few experiments that are so important that they can justify the huge cost needed to allow them to be carried out by humans in zero gravity. NASA made a lot of noise about growing zero-gravity protein crystals as a potential cure for cancer when it was trying to justify building the ISS but has since dropped the claims as experiments have shown the claims were overstated. Similarly the argument that humans need to be in space in order to find out the effects of being in space should be treated with caution; it is essentially a circular argument as with no manned missions, there would be no need to find out the impact of space on humans. As for the idea that humans are simply better than robots, the fact that unmanned missions are relatively inexpensive means that several missions, each equipped to respond to information gathered by previous missions can be sent for the cost of a single manned mission. This is exactly the policy with Mars – orbiting missions like the Mars Observer collect data and photograph the planet, helping to inform missions to the surface like the Mars Exploration Rovers. With increasingly advanced robotics, it is reasonable to expect that the flexibility of future missions will only increase.
A second reason why manned experiments and exploration would be more effective is that any manned mi...

If there is really a lack of political will to fund unmanned missions of a sufficient size, complexity and cost for a scientific goal (such as collecting 382kg of lunar rock) then it is likely that other scientific missions are also being vetoed. Even a manned programme on the scale of Apollo would not be able to carry the payload or spare the time on the lunar surface for all these missions to be carried out. Furthermore, even if NASA is unwilling to fund a particular project does not mean it cannot take place – the Beagle 2 project to search for life on Mars was organised by British scientist Professor Colin Pillinger and raised a significant amount of its £50m cost from private sources and sponsorship. The Beagle 2 never responded from the surface of the Red Planet but the principle of scientific communities being able to raise sufficient capital for small unmanned missions has been proven.
Manned space programmes have resulted in huge funding of the scientific community which has produced...

Some spin-off technology will come from unmanned space travel as easily as from manned space travel (e.g. rocket technology, robotics, computing power etc.), and one should bear in mind that most manned space programmes are centred on under-funded programmes using old technology due to budgetary constraints (Russia), low technological development (China) or focused on repetitive operations (USA) which do not involve significant funding into new technologies. As a result of space programmes often being closely linked to the military (in China it is a division of the military), the spin-offs that are sought are usually for military rather than consumer products, and more likely to be kept secret for exactly that reason. However, the problem with the spin-off argument in principle is that investing in developing a non-stick frying pan would surely be cheaper than investing in a manned space programme which produces Teflon as a side-effect. Where there are truly significant problems and areas in need of technological advances either the state should fund research (as it does in many ways through research grants, support for universities etc.) or the free market will step in and exploit a market for a new technological solution to a problem.
While space travel pushed for primarily political reasons is not necessarily a bad thing (as shown a...

Sending humans into space or to other planets so that they can erect the flag of a particular nation is a distinctly nationalistic act and one that is likely to create aggressive 'races' in the future just as it has before. China’s manned programme is openly intended to challenge the US dominance of space for the Communist regime’s huge propaganda benefit. George W. Bush’s pledge to boost spending on NASA and to restart the manned mission to Mars programme was a direct response. This is damaging not only because of the potential for space race conflicts to escalate into greater international hostility, but also because of the way such races could result in the militarization of space (as several Chinese hawks have called on the leadership to do), thereby turning something which should be preserved for the common good of humankind into a neo-colonial battlefield.
There is a significant long-term risk to the human race of only being able to live on Earth. The po...

The risk of us being wiped out by an asteroid like the dinosaurs is very very small. In any case unmanned missions (missiles, satellite mounted lasers etc.) would probably be as effective as any manned attempt to divert an asteroid despite what films like Armageddon and Deep Impact might suggest. As for the potential for us to mess up the Earth sufficiently to require us to leave the planet, perhaps we should work harder at looking after this planet rather than looking for another one to damage. In any case, what better way to colonise space than to leave it to the private market to develop the space tourism market to include space hotels and moon bases? The success of the $10m X Prize at attracting interest and private investment in private space programmes has shown that there is no need for the state to be involved in space travel on the non-science side. Given suitable international safety standards (as were agreed on air travel in the inter-war period) it would transfer the investment and risk away from the taxpayer as well as producing the sort of space travel that would really inspire the human race – the sort that tens of thousands of people would actually get a chance to take part in.