BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Older People Behind the Wheel Should be Tetsted on Skills

In the next two decades, the number of elderly drivers is predicted to triple in the United States. As age increases, older drivers generally become more conservative on the road. Many mature drivers modify their driving habits (for instance to avoid busy highways or night-time driving) to match their declining capabilities. For years, young adults that are learning to drive take an exam to test their skills to see if they are well- equipped for the road. This examination is a way to monitor the drivers of the road and to insure that the people that drive on a daily basis are safe. Also, the reason for this examination is to show the young adults/ teenagers that driving is a privilege and can be taken away in a moment's notice. Testing the teenagers on their knowledge of the road and their car is a very useful way to monitor the road in being safe. The elderly, however, are also huge risks on the road. For years, the finger has been pointed at young adults/ in-experienced drivers because of the accidents that occur on a daily basis and it is often neglected or put aside the fact that many accident root from elderly people.
Older People Behind the Wheel Should be Tetsted on Skills

Thank you, I thought my sources were quite excellent as well. You are missing the point of this whole debate, though. I am not arguing that the government is spending their money in the wrong places. I am not debating how the government is supposed to fund the testing. I am simply debating that the elderly people should be monitored at such an age for the well-being of other people. You have tried morphing the debate into some type of governmental debate in which does not pertain slightly to the topic of discussion.The sources clearly explain my point of view, but also show other statistics as well, I am aware. Yes, thank you for asking and I am well-informed about unemployment and inflation. That has absolutley nothing to do with the topic of discussion. I am debating that older people behind the wheel DO contribute to driving accidents, therefore, they should be monitored or tested. Frankly, I believe it is quite irresponsible and selfish of an adult (elderly person) to get behind the wheel knowing that they do not have good eyesight or vision. In New York, there is no room for error in which an older person causes an accident behind them and keeps on driving because they didn't know they caused any accident. The older people that gets behind the wheel everyday, knowing that they cannot hear or see that well, should be able to take a step back, with pride without another person intervening and have a more capable person drive. There is something to be said about someone that cannot even walk a straight line without a walker, but they can somehow get behind the wheel. It is not only a danger to other people, but it is a danger to them. It is not only a personal responsibility, but it is also the family's responsibility to step in before someone gets seriously hurt. There should be an end of the road for the elderly people that can no longer drive safely without harming themselves and any one else. The points I make enables me to walk away from this debate firmly believing that older people should definitley have to be given some sort of road test or must be monitored to question their knowledge of the parameters of their driving and the road.
Older People Behind the Wheel Should be Tetsted on Skills

While not beating around the bush: There are thousands of websites, I'm sure, that can tell you what you want. But the issue at hand is testing the elderly because at such an age, their own discretion and judgement is no longer what it used to be. Let's face it... for example: if an elderly person develops neuropathy in their feet or any other extremity for that matter, how can you expect them to drive the way they used to when they were in perfect health. The tests given to the older people will most definitely be beneficial to the remainder of society. It is not putting the elderly under a microscope of any sort, and it will hopefully save lives. The outstanding point here is that elderly people ALONG WITH young drivers, drunk drivers, inexperienced drivers and negligent drivers is that they need to be monitored. I am not saying that drunk driving and young drivers do not contribute to the total number of fatalities from driving. The younger drivers along with older drivers should both be screened and tested equally to insure the safety of other civilians on the road. Pennsylvania does have a "Deficit Reporting law," meaning that if a physician feels the need to screen and report the elderly person to the state, then they should feel free. Some physicians do feel, though, that it can also hurt their relationship with the patient, therefore not making fair judgments on their true ability to drive. Most other states do not require physicians to report psycho-motor, visual, and cognitive deficiencies that may affect driving to licensing agencies. If these two avenues are exhausted, then maybe the crash records can be looked at more closely. The DMV and insurance companies have records of the higher-risk older drivers. These records show that not everyone at that age can handle a vehicle on the road. How can it be a pointless waste of money if people's well beings are being preserved? Here are some websites to consider: http://www.drdriving.org... http://www.usroads.com... http://www.senatormoore.com... http://www.iihs.org...
Older People Behind the Wheel Should be Tetsted on Skills

You still beat around the bush, I will present factual evidence since this argument is currently purely philosophical and will get us no where. http://www.car-accidents.com... Factual evidence shows that Old Age is an overall minor factor, the government has money that must be spend somewhere else. It is pointless to spend it on tests that will not be beneficial. I cite more sources to prove my point. http://bestcars101.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.calculateme.com...
Older People Behind the Wheel Should be Tetsted on Skills

How can you think they the elderly people are not doing any harm to other people. Have you ever driven behind or beside an elderly person behind the wheel? It is actually quite frightening to look over and witness an older person that can hardly see over the wheel swerving...without using signals or any type of sign. I am not saying that ALL of the elderly people are not cautious on the road, but I am simply stating reasons why they should be monitored or tested at such an age, which can be considered debating. If the testing and monitoring of the elderly people would ever come into effect, it would just be an extra precaution and measure taken in order to preserve life and the happiness of other people. Drunk driving and poor judgement DO contiribute to the many deaths that occur on the road, but the "poor judgement" of the elderly people also contribute to the many deaths that happen daily. The older people behind the wheel also have poor judgement... add hearing loss and vision problems to the equation and horrible things can happen because of their own self- interest. In some states, there are mandatory driving tests. For example, California requires retesting for anyone involved in a fatal crash or three or more crashes in one year, requires drivers over 70 to retest if they are involved in two or more crashes in one year. Some may argue that testing the driver's ability because of age is discriminatory, like the AARP group and other lobbying groups as well, but it is for everyone's safety and health measures. There is nothing wrong with just testing a person on their capabilities on the road. The lobbyists argue that a person's chronological age has nothing to do with their driving capabilities; clearly it does have much to do with it. Lobbyists also argue that if they are given tests for the elderly people, then they should be giving tests for middle aged people as well. How can this text be discriminatory if only the new drivers have to take it? Is that not discriminatory? The younger drivers and older drivers should both be screened and tested equally to insure the safety of other civilians on the road.
Is 2k14 better NBA Live 14

The year was 2k14, and Lebron James found himself on the court as the platoon medic for 2nd Platoon, Bravo Company, 1st Battalion of the 14th Infantry - a truly strange place to find a conscientious objector in the early 21st century, as James was deeply religious and completely against basketball. Even though he was against the lakers, he wanted to serve his country and help his fellow citizens. This desire had led him to sign up as an NBA combat medic and leave his hometown of akron to head off to the Miami Heat. On the 9th of February, James' platoon was moving to assist their fellow players from Florida, which had run into an ambush by the enemy and was under intense cover from every black guy known to man. On arriving at the National Championship, the three point-men in James' platoon fell wounded from small arms. Immediately springing into action, Lebron ran through a barrage of incoming balls to assist his brothers, giving them life-saving aid as the enemy did all they could to take him out. Throughout the rest of the first and second halves, James moved all over the court, from one player to the next, treating the wounded and providing comfort in the form of much needed morphine and the occasional free shot. He even dragged the bodies of the fallen players to safety, adhering to the NBA vow, "Never Leave a Fallen Comrade." On the 11th, The Heat again moved to assault the enemy, who was dug into a well-fortified position, and fire rained down on them from an enemy with far superior height. Immediately, five members of the assault team fell wounded, Lebron hustled to their aid, disregarding the heavy balls falling all around him. He treated one of the wounded, then became aware of another far more seriously fouled teammate and attended to his aid, his position on the court far forward of friendly forces. His fellow players then stopped James and told him it was suicide, that he couldn't help that player. Lebron was hearing none of this and leapt forward, with complete disregard for his own safety, to save his teammate. During this attempt, James was mortally fouled. For these incredible, selfless acts of heroism and for saving the games of a dozen seasons, Corporal Lebron James was awarded, posthumously, the Congressional Medal of NBA.
Is 2k14 better NBA Live 14

Stretching at 825 feet and capable of displacing more than 50,000 metric tons, NBA Live 14 was the largest game in the world when it was launched. Seeing this bastard through a pair of binoculars, you'd have to think it was too big to be possible. Not only did it boast eight 15-inch guns (if you're thinking that sounds tiny, understand the shells were 15 inches across) and five dozen smaller armaments, the game's onboard targeting computer was so precise it blew away 2k14, the pride of the Xbox, with one freaking shot. The subsequent destruction of the 2k14 and the loss of almost all its players was considered one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in all of 2014.
I like potatoes

I disagree with the assertion that you like potatoes. As a random person on the internet who has never met you, I feel I am in a privileged position to know what you do and do not like, and you do not like potatoes. I posit instead that you are in fact a lover of quinoa. Since the recent "superfoods" craze that has swept quinoa into dizzying, hipsterish heights, you have become ashamed of your real love and in a reactionary turn have begun touting the humble potato as your food of choice, though this is false. You do not really like potato, but you like what it stands for " simple, wholesome food, that is not tainted by hipsters or band-wagon jumpers, or health-food nutjobs. In an effort to distance yourself from these types of people and return to a state in which you feel comfortable with your dietary identity, you have begun broadcasting your love of potato, though this is done in bad faith. (Here I use the term "bad faith" in the way that Jean-Paul Satre used it, to suggest a sense of self-deception or inauthenticity, in which a person adopts false values under social pressure, disowning their innate freedom). My forthcoming argument will address your thee assertions, that a) you like potatoes, b) potatoes are for everyone, and c) even for me and you. I take your central position to be that of liking potatoes, and I focus on this in deconstructing your further assertions on the suitability of potatoes for the general populace. I instead argue that you like quinoa, that your assertions are based on attempted self-deception or "bad faith," and that potatoes are not for everyone, not even me or you.
religious countries prosper economicly

1. Romans citizens were not religious. They believed in higher beings, however they did not take any actions to please these higher beings. Simply believing, like most romans did, makes them believers, not religious people. To be religious involves being actively engaged in regular rituals to please the higher being(s). The romans citizens did not meet that qaulification. They were not religious, yet they prospered. 2. According to you argument, a country whose religion is no longer in its "original" form or the is "corrupt" does not prosper. The problem with that is that no religion is in its original form. -For example, the romans worshipped their gods. However, their gods were a romanized forms of the greek gods. Unoriginal -Christianity thrives in the US, yet original christians were organized under the papacy after the death of St. Peter. In the US, protestant christians make up the vast majority faith in this country. Protestantism in definatly not the original form of christianity and to many, its even a corrupt form of christianity, yet the US thrives 3. --Islam-- The first split in the Islamic religion occured between the Sunni and the Shi'a not long after the death of Muhammad, when Abu Bakr was named caliph instead of Muhammad's direct descendants. This is the biggest split in the Islamic faith, and it happened long before Islam ever prospered. Now, according to your definition of a "corrupted" religion, a religon is corrupt when it has "1. inter-relignonal feuds and schisms. 2. consistent abuse of power by leadership. 3. teaching of violence and hatred." Islam was majorly split while it prospered and often fought internal wars between different Islamic groups. Caliphs used their power to convince others that the caliph's enemies were evil and that Allah wanted them dead. Thats abuse of power and teaching of violence and hatred. According to your definition, Islam was corrupt while it prospered. --Chrisrianity-- I have already adressed chritianity in a previous paragraph --Judaism-- Judaism is incredibly split up. Judaism is on of the most split up religons in the world. Conservative* Judaism Orthodox* Judaism Reconstructionist Judaism Reform* Judaism Humanistic Judaism and these are only the largest five. 4. You say I cannot make any present day connections because you consider all modern major religions to be corrupt. That in itself destroys your argument. According to you, every major religion is corrupt. According to your argument, If every major religion is corrupt, than almost ever country in the world must be poor an weak. Every country in the world is not poor and weak, however. The christian US thrives. The Christian Europe thrives. Much of the Islamic Indonesia thrives. Buddhist Japan thrives. According to your argument and what you have said , the United States, Europe, Indonesia, and Japan must be unprosperous countries... but they aren't. So what you have said MUST be wrong.
religious countries prosper economicly

As for the rome argument just because the temples were not used by the common people does not indicate that the general population did not believe or behave religiously. it is true that worship was conducted by the upper class, same as egypt but that does not mean that the general population was not religious. another example i could use is ancient greece. I did not say that a theocracy indicated was an indication of a religious state. a secular government and a religious population is still a religious nation. the USSR controlled people through fear and intimidation. they may of been powerful internationally, but the living standards and other domestic areas were extremely week. the reason they seemed to have so much money is because they spent it all on military and space related projects. allow me to expand on my corrupt religion definition. i believe the criteria for determining a corrupt religion is 1. inter-relignonal feuds and schisms. 2. consistent abuse of power by leadership. 3. teaching of violence and hatred. according to my definition most religions that play a major role in out world are corrupt. Islam-split hundreds of years ago and are fighting and killing each other over disputes. i.e. Iraq and Israel. christianity- i think you know plenty of examples. Judaism i believe is not corrupt because they do not fall into any of my categories, one could argue so because of zionism and the state of Israel but i do not. my argument can be expanded to include groups of people and cultures within nations as well. please remember that i am not attempting to draw present day connections because i understand all major religions to be corrupt there is not control group with which to draw conclusions from.
religious countries prosper economicly

Rome was a very secular society. You can argue that they worshipped their gods, but the average citizen never went to a shrine or temple unless something was wrong. They built all those temples because they were rich and rome boasted the largest populated city in the world at the time, not because they were religious. You can build all the churches in the world, but that doesnt mean people use them. The United States started its second religious revival in the mid 1820s' and that lasted until the first shots were fired at fort sumpter. Sounds like the religious aspect didnt help prevent war. The USSR was the second wealthiest nation in the world. Despite the fact that the money was very poorly distributed, the government was wealthy enough to be considered a world superpower. I'll take your ancient China point, but that brings me to my next point which is this. What is the standard for considering a religion to be in its corrupted form? All i see is you pointing at religious regions that happen to be poor, and calling them corrupted as an excuse to meet the frame of your argument. Christianity in the US is at an all time low for attendance. People sell "holy water" on tv. Many christian groups have become dangerously radical. They are intolerant of anyone who isnt christian. Now as I recall, Jesus said to love everyone. Now if some churches (note that i did not say all) are teaching intolerance (and I know they are), isnt that corruption of doctrine? Much of christianity is getting more and more corrupt every year, yet we still thrive. You cant back this argument up unless you can prove that every religion grounded in a poor region is corrupt, and every relgion grounded in a wealthy region is not.
religious countries prosper economicly

i see i apologize i think i was vague. the ancient adjative was referring to islam, china india, rome, egypt. i am too lazy to explain all of these examples so i will summarize all of the societies above were in their prime during their peek religious involvements. none of my examples were referring to modern day examples, so your misguided argument was mostly my fault. rome was extremely religious, do you think they built all those monuments and temples for fun? the united states was not going through a religious revival during the civil war seeing as how the nation was at war. the two largest revivals in the early 1700's and the early 1800's did coincide with large jumps in economic and scientific progress. the USSR was never prosperous. maybe for a few years at the beginning but never, and it was ashiest ancient china was very religious if you count Confucianism and buddhism which are not your conventional religion but they taught religious principles, it was also strong. your argument that all societies were grounded in religion including the poor ones was responded to in my opening argument. i said that when the religion was in it's original or uncorrupted form and i now contend that all religions that any country is based on today is not in such a form. to summarize, all societies were at their economic and scientific peek at the same time they were the most religious.
religious countries prosper economicly

Saying that religious societies prosper is not a well grounded statement at all. There is just as much evidence that being a religious society has absolutely nothing to do with prosperity. 1. Up until the last 100 years or so, there hasnt even been any such thing as a unreligious society. Almost all (if not all) societies before the 20th century were well grounded in some form of religion, both the properous and unprosperous ones. So most of your examples aren't very signifigant. 2. At one point, every one of the societies you have mentioned has also failed. america - suffered from civil war in the middle of a religious rival. ancient islam - is very religious today, and yet is one of the poorest areas in the world china - is almost completely unreligious today and yet is argueably much more economically prosperous than the US rome - was hardly religious until christianity took the empire by storm. Then, just as christianity had sealed its grip on the empire...the empire collapsed israel - this one i dont understand. When has israel ever been prosperous??? Maybe during the Abassid and Umayyad Caliphates but that goes back to ancient Islam egypt - is a powerfully islamic nation today, yet it is not very prosperous 4. There have been a few empires that are not religious that have become prosperous. Again, China has been almost completely unreligious since the founding of the communist government, yet China is competing for the title of world superpower. The Soviet Union was mildly propsperous at one point, yet it murdered people of faith. Europe is at an all time low when it comes to relgious piety, yet they enjoy the second highest standard of living in the world. I do not think religion has much to do with prosperity at all. Every society goes through a cycle of rises and falls. They were religious when they were mighty, and they were religous when they were weak. That, to me, says religion doesnt mean a thing when it comes to prosperity.
religious countries prosper economicly

i am simply speculating using historical evidence and am not yet proposing any present day actions. thought history when the people of a country follow their religion in its original form (that is in a form that is designed to improve the lives of its followers and not control them) willingly the country prospers. a few examples are america, ancient islam, china, india, rome, israel, egypt. all these countries were very religious but not harshly so like many modern day examples, and all were the dominant power on the earth during their time. when religions became corrupted and societies secularized the societies fell and civilizations collapsed. based on the historical evidence when the people of a nation are religious the country prospers.