BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School uniform should be abolished

Those professions need a varying degree of professionalism. Take the medical profession. A doctor wears scrubs because if he doesn"t he risks causing infection. Depending on the seriousness of the situation this could end in him/her losing their job permanently. This is very different to a school environment. In school, there is no great danger connected to what you are wearing. No one is going to die because of it. Your point is fundamentally the same as the one that you made about the NBA basketball players. As I said; "First off we are talking about school, not professional sports players. That is a different scenario and in that case, it is essential for them to wear a uniform to avoid confusion. However, going to school is not a public spectacle and will not be viewed on live television." I personally live in an area with both a highly regarded fee paying school and a few state schools. I have friends who go to the fee-paying school who have been chased with knives and had water poured on them. These were all random acts. The two victims had no idea who the attackers were. It was a random attack due to the uniform that they wore. With their school logo on it. Yes, bursaries are given out, but there is still a generalisation. That is something that you can"t change unless you remove the thing that separates them in a social environment before and after school hours. This is the uniform. Taking up student"s free time not only means that they are being dress coded but it also gives students an incentive not to wear inappropriate clothes. Taking up the student"s time means that while they could be away with their friends they have to be held back. I never said that you called them "the popular," "the sporty," and "the geeks" that is what I called them. In the first week of school do the rich spoilt kids walk around shouting that they have more money than everyone else? No. This is normally something that is only found out weeks after the term begins. This gives the students a window of opportunity to make friends with these kids. Without this uniform, there is not only a conversation started but, also something that students can have in common. Unfortunately, I can"t cite my sources for my first point as I wrote this when I was 9 years old. I wanted to see if it would stand up to the level of scrutiny on this website. So far I think it has done rather well. I"m also not the one with an issue with this. I don"t mind either way. YOU brought this up in the first place.
School uniform should be abolished

School may not be viewed on live television, but a school uniform is the uniform you wear during class periods as well as the Phys. Ed uniforms and team uniforms that are used to represent the school, everything comes hand in hand. The same goes for uniforms of different professions, are you going to argue that students down the line when they have jobs like doctors, lawyers and police that they should be able to have the option to wear shorts and a t-shirt if they were a doctor? Of course not, uniforms are put in place for the best of the worker and society. If you were in need of serious help and needed a police officer, how would you be able to tell the difference between a regular civilian and a police officer if there was no uniform? If you want to get rid of uniforms in school, you are setting youth up on a path to thinking that their creativity is more important than the task at hand. I attend a uniform school and I have all my life, I have also lived in different countries and I know the way the schools work around the world, by your choice of words I can tell you are from the United Kingdom. (Referring to your use of 'GCSE' and 'posh' and other Brit centred words.) In the United Kingdom, 82 percent of state schools ( public schools for my fellow North Americans) require primary students to wear a uniform, by the end of a child's time in pre university education, 98% of English schools ( State and Independent/ Public and Private ) require a student to wear a uniform. So if we return to your starting statement where you say that: 'When a bully sees a child in a uniform they immediately suspect that they have rich parents that spoil them. Then they then assume this, therefore, means that they have a posh expensive phone. This leads to mugging and then bullying.' This is untrue. State and independent schools have uniforms and most people at these schools aren't in fact 'rich' and 'posh', and even if they went to a fee paying Independent school, in England alone over "850 million of bursaries alone are given each year to young flourishing minds who can't afford the luxury of a fee paying school. (Sources National Registry and the Financial Times) Dress coding does take up time unfortunately, but the way to combat this isn't to take up a students class or free period time. If you want to save time, just enforce uniform rules and be done with it. You stated that I said students split into social groups and that I quoted "the popular," "the sporty," and the "geeks.", I never made any reference to that, and you also say that Uniform has nothing directly to do with friend groups, If a uniform was not enforced and there were richer spoilt kids alongside poorer less spoilt kids, I'm sorry, but the richer spoilt kids who think they're better (Don't try to deny this every school has one) than everybody else, are not going to come and start being friendly towards the less fortunate. Also I still don't see you citing your sources. Next time before you go after me, make sure you are not going to embarrass yourself by still not fixing the same mistake you have an issue with.
School uniform should be abolished

First off we are talking about school, not professional sports players. That is a different scenario and in that case, it is essential for them to wear a uniform to avoid confusion. However, going to school is not a public spectacle and will not be viewed on live television. There are other ways of establishing a sense of spirit in a school community. Take for example my school. There is a specific hymn that we sing and we have our own quirks that you would be unlikely to find elsewhere. None of this is to do with the uniform that we wear. Schools are always telling us (as I said) that we are supposed to be unique. There is also a lot in the news at the moment calling for stereotypes and prejudices to be torn down. The best way " as far as I am concerned " to do this is to bring these children up in an environment where they see others in their own clothes and accept it as normal. The pride in a school can come from many things. These can be things as simple as celebrating other pupil"s achievements. You also stated that dress coding students can take up lots of valuable lesson time. An easy way to combat this would be to only dress code people in free time periods. Having teachers in the hallway as students arrive and them being around during break times. Not only does this make it easier to dress code them but it also enables them to have a greater presence. Even with uniforms students still split into social groups. As with my school and the others surrounding there is a clear split between "the popular," "the sporty," and the "geeks." Uniform has nothing to do with the friend groups that people have. In fact, I believe that if school uniform was removed there would be some groups who became closer due to similar tastes. These other approaches are great although they are already being used yet. If this was so why would 59% of people on this very website feel that school uniforms should be abolished? In answer to what you said about citing my sources; where are yours? You said "researchers suggest," who are these researchers?
School uniform should be abolished

What would happen if a Professional NBA basketball team like the Chicago Bulls and the Toronto Raptors, came onto the court for an NBA game and showed up in mixed and matched clothes? How would people be able to establish senses of right and wrong, how would the players know who to pass to and how would the audience know what was going on? The simple answer is : They wouldn't. School uniforms have been a staple of many school communities across the world since the mid to late 1900's. School uniforms give a sense of a unity among educational institutions because it gives a sense of spirit throughout the school community. Uniforms give students a level playing field which reduces peer pressure and bullying. In general, uniforms save time. You don't need to pick out a new outfit every day, and they are easier to enforce in a dress code compared to no uniform, which saves valuable class time. Before I expand on my arguments, I would like to point out that my opponent didn't cite sources for example my opponent said ' When I was doing my research I found a site that was telling me ', I'd like to request that my opponent cite his/hers sources in the future. Uniforms give a school community a sense of unity. Unity is promoted in schools globally, Uniforms give a sense of unity because Wearing similar clothing lets students feel united as well as brings a sense of pride in their appearance and their school. When students know they are supported by a group of people, they are more inclined to study in their classes and attend school more consistently. Overall, these researchers suggest that these students may become more motivated. Like on the front line of combat. By wearing the flag of the nation you're fighting for you feel more patriotic and that inspires spirit. Bullying and peer pressure is a widespread issue that teachers are trying to tackle, getting rid of the opportunity of kids who aren't as well off as others to feel less self conscious about their clothes. Uniforms are social and economic equalizers, which reduce opportunities for children to criticize others on dress and appearance. The main argument against uniforms stresses the need for young people to express their individuality through the clothes they choose to wear, though that may be a good point, there are other ways for students to express their individuality through things like arts, music and drama. If students want to be able to express themselves and their individuality, they can take it through another approach not just their uniforms.
School uniform should be abolished

Did you know that shockingly every year children are bullied because of their uniform? This is because when a bully sees a child in a uniform they immediately suspect that they have rich parents that spoil them. Then they then assume this, therefore, means that they have a posh expensive phone. This leads to mugging and then bullying. When I was doing my research I found a site that was telling me that some children were being asked to wear black hoodies over their uniform because this was happening. This is not acceptable. Why can"t children wear their own clothes to school? Abolishing uniform would prevent this from even happening. Teachers are always telling us to stand out from the crowd and be confident. But how can this happen when we are all wearing the same. Wearing what you want is an important part of life. If you had to go through life wearing a uniform all the time everyone would be the same. How could black Americans still be used in the slave trade but some people weren"t afraid to stand out from the crowd. Everybody has their own style but how can we show that if we have to wear the same uniform every day. While doing my research I found out that the school that has the top GCSE results don"t have a uniform policy. Doesn"t this show us something? Wearing what you want not only promotes self-confidence but also drives forward academic success. When you are wearing school uniform you are compared to other schools that may have a different colour of style uniform. Also when we play sports fixtures some children are teased because their uniform isn"t the right colour or style. In the end, this results in a lack of confidence.
It is said on Debate.org that Shakespeare is as good as Dean

This poetry by Dean http://www.scribd.com... It is said on this site that Shakespeare is as good as Dean http://www.debate.org... quote "so Dean is just as good as Shakespeare then based on your view You are correct. All art is equal in artistic value. Just because Shakespeare makes me soar and C Dean makes me puke in my mouth a little does not make one objectively better than the other, that's just my reaction." I agree with is view
It is said on Debate.org that Shakespeare is as good as Dean

1; I wonder why you keep usin sonnet in the singular. You do realise that he wrote over 150 sonnets, right? he also wrote over 30 plays. 2; The term anal retentive (also anally retentive), commonly abbreviated to anal,[1] is used to describe a person who pays such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, potentially to the detriment of the anal-retentive person. The term derives from Freudian psychoanalysis. Now, society today does not pay great attention to detail, many of the world's problems in terms of constitutional laws are because of that. There is no obession with detail I may use detail, but that's because I'm an A level English student, and I can properly analyse a poem. Also, it's funny that you would accuse others of bein subjects of Freudian psychoanalysis when you revealed that you were Dean in a Freudian slip. The world sees lust based poems as dirty, because dirty is a term used to describe vulgar or sex oriented things, and you are using an erotic poem, ao the term dirty fits the bill nicely here. And you are not a pioneer Dean. You didn't invent erotic poetry, and you haven't brought in any changes to the way it's view today, unless you count using debate websites to advertise it so people begin to resent it so you can claim you are being oppressed in a debate on the Aesthetics of Incorrectness. You were called out a long time ao Dean. Your self obsessed debates have to stop.
It is said on Debate.org that Shakespeare is as good as Dean

con says "You are comparing the worst of Shakespeare to the best of your own poetry, Dean" gee are you saying Shakespeare's sonnet is his worst work -now thats brave of you as to being a pioneer Dean is one also he is a pioneer in giving groin centred poetry in an age which is anal renttive and sees emotion lust passion as dirty things that makes him more of a pioneer than even Shakespeare
It is said on Debate.org that Shakespeare is as good as Dean

I'd like to call attention to something I've noticed;"it is said"Remember that scene in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" when the Vogon Commander strapped the protagonists to a table and forced them to listen to his terrible poetry or else be thrown out the airlock into space?You, Shakuntala, are that Vogon"but you have said Shakespeare is as good as Deanthus that entailsShakespeare is a Vogon to "Including the grammatical errors, that is you in the comments. But Orogami was callin you a Vogon, not Dean. This means that you are in fact, Dean, by your own confession. You have been using this site to try and promote your own poetry. And failing at it too, since you have a win ratio of 6% now. On the point of pioneers. Shakepeare lived in a time when women could not be actors, were someone showing their shoulders in a portrait was considered scandalous and shameful. His poems were the most emotional of the era. You can't say Galileo was a poor astronomer because he didn't spot as many new galaxies as scientists today have done.Now, on your comparison. You constantly such odd cliches that I've never heard before. His poetry comes across lie a dead fish? Live fish aren't any better at poetry. But I would expect this form the guy who complained that Seamus Heaney, a 74 year old Nobel prizewinner would be "boring in bed". But regardless. Your only reasons behind the two poems are emotion and lyrical value. I'll start with lyrical value. Have you ever read Macbeth? or Julius Caesar? or Romeo and Juliet? or the Tempest? and so on? You have picked one of his two hundred works of poetry to use as a basis for all his poetry. You are comparing the worst of Shakespeare to the best of your own poetry, Dean. And all this proves is that sometimes, on a bad day, after the theatre burns down and the wife is giving out and the children are complaining, on a very bad day, Shakespeare is somewhat comparable to you at you finest with the absinthe loungers singing praises of how you gave them boners. And on a final note about language and lyrical balue. I wouldn't exactly trust the word of someone who doesn't know how to use full stops or capitals through an entire debate abut the "lyrical beauty" of their own poetry. Emotion my a$$, Dean. A good work of art can have lust in it and some foul language. But your poetry is far from a work of art. You appeal to emotion and only ever use one emotion in all of your poems. And I won't sign off on this round like I do with other debaters because I've found out how shallow a poet you are.
It is said on Debate.org that Shakespeare is as good as Dean

I have 2 points I want con tto address 1) con says "He was a pioneer of his time. Dean is not." being a pioneers was not one of your listed criteria for being a good poet you said ""There are measurements of skill in poetry in the form of language, tone and rhythm."" so you now cant change the gaol posts and add another criteria based on your criteria I showed you why Dean is better than Shakespeare by comparing his SONNET 18 with a Dean poem you very obviously ignore that comparison so it can be assumed you cant refute my comparison so I will repeat Shakespeare sonnet 18 first its rhythm and lyrical nature are poor when compared to Dean -when you recite the poem you come across like a dead fish second it is meant to be about love yet its tone is emotionless no passion only clever words compared to Dean thirdly its language is prosaic and commonplace compared to Dean Deans is poem is more lyrical than Shakespeare -when you recite the poem you sing with emotion unlike SONNET 18 this poem has a more passionate/emotional tone-this is a true love song-unlike SONNET 18 the language alive and full of imagery-unlike SONNET 18 point 2) con does not seem to get it con seems to think if a poem has deep ethical meanings then it is a good poem but if it has dirty words or tones of lust it must be bad just because you dont like a poems content does not necessarily make that poem bad just as if you like a poems content does not necessarily makes the poem good con does not seem to understand that
It is said on Debate.org that Shakespeare is as good as Dean

Well, it seems my school subjects just keep coming up. English, Art, oh, and guess what? History is also one of my best subjects. Understand that when Shakespeare first wrote these sonnets, it was scandalous. He was a pioneer of his time. Dean is not. I have seen that on multiple occasions that you use reading it aloud as an argument. Well interpretation is a big thing. If you'd ever been to a poetry recital, you'd know that you can make an airport announcement compelling if you read it right. You reading one in monotone does not justify Dean, but I wouldn't be surprised that you'd think that, considering you thought Heaney was a bad poet because you thought he'd be bad in bed. So, Shakespeare, who wrote sonnets and plays by the hundreds., is and easy target for someone like you. He's done so much that you can find one of the lesser ones and ignore his masterpieces, to try and compare him to a poet you listen to in an absinthe lounge while contemplating sex with a 74 year old Irish poet. As I've said before, emotion is not the sole determinate value of poetry, and if you didn't know that, I recommend repeating school and opening a book. All your poems are from the same erotic site. Scribdr was it? You constantly appeal with emotion, but the only one you offer is lust. Citizen Kane does not get compared to two girls one cup, even if it has more passion than the former. I recommend you buy a decent textbook on poetry available from any bookstore. Duncan.
It is said on Debate.org that Shakespeare is as good as Dean

con says "There are measurements of skill in poetry in the form of language, tone and rhythm." I will show you how much better is Dean on these three criteria take Shakespeare SONNET 18 Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate: Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And summer's lease hath all too short a date: Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dimm'd; And every fair from fair sometime declines, By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd; But thy eternal summer shall not fade Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest; Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade, When in eternal lines to time thou growest: So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, So long lives this and this gives life to thee. first its rhythm and lyrical nature are poor when compared to Dean -when you recite the poem you come across like a dead fish second it is meant to be about love yet its tone is emotionless no passion only clever words compared to Dean thirdly its language is prosaic and commonplace compared to Dean Here is Deans from Gitavesya http://www.scribd.com... To my eyes soft languid sighs come hither In the moonlight tangled web of perfumes and jewels radiant glitter I will love thee on cushions of silken cloth I will love thee midst brocade and wines ruby froth Loiter not while moonlight twinkles o"er terraces and bazaars And mating koels woo to the twinkling of stars Drink deep of my eyes of ravishment Fill thy soul from my poppy lips of enchantment Delight in my angaraga scented limbs Breath the scent of sandal from my gem tangled serpent- like hair Oh nayaka as the elephant to its mate fly to me As the vine to its tree clasp me As lips l ong for lips kiss me Oh nayaka the flames of loves fires sear me this poem is more lyrical than Shakespeare -when you recite the poem you sing with emotion unlike SONNET 18 this poem has a more passionate/emotional tone-this is a true love song-unlike SONNET 18 the language alive and full of imagery-unlike SONNET 18 when con says "The only emotion they feature is lust. The only think they make you feel is your own genitals.' he is only talking of his SUBJECTIVE tastes and likes and dislikes con does not seem to get it just because you dont like a poems content does not necessarily make that poem bad just as if you like a poems content does not necessarily makes the poem good con seems to think if a poem has deep ethical meanings then it is a good poem but if it has dirty words or tones of lust it must be bad con does not seem to understand that
It is said on Debate.org that Shakespeare is as good as Dean

There are measurements of skill in poetry in the form of language, tone and rhythm. In playwrighting, structures of stories and use of themes is measure of worth. Shakespeare is well heeded as a master of these aspects, so much so that his work has survived for hundreds of years. I have already explained in past debates how Dean and all the other erotic poets don't appeal to any of these aspects. The only emotion they feature is lust. The only think they make you feel is your own genitals. Now provide some proof yourself, PROPOSITION. Duncan.