BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sources

Round 2: [1] Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)[2] Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D. “No Basis: What the Studies Don’t tell us about Same-Sex Parenting,” Marriage Law Project, Washington, D.C. (January 2001)[3] Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker “Do Moms and Dads matter? Evidence from the social sciences on family structure and the best interests of the child,” Margins Law Journal, (2004)[4] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)[5] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)Round 3: [1] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012) [2] Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey “Getting it Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality” Family Research Council, 2004 [3] http://www.childtrends.org... [4] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010) [5] Douglass W. Allen “An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 29, (June 2006)
To Say that God, Is a Scientist is NOT, then, to Say He is Not, Spiritual!..

I'm Ready for the, Totally "Repeating-my-argument", "Phase".. To Suggest that Creation exists suggests that some force Created It as nothing Has, in fact, been found that is In Existence withOut Creation.. The "Usual", Definition of "Creator" of Creation is, at least in Christian "Language"; "God".. Or Allah, etc. etc.. I Would Firmly contest that Creation "Exists"; my Senses do NOT Deceive me and I have "Woken-up" to a Brand New Day for 41x365 days (approx) and been able to "Identify", "Creation" in Each and Every One of Them! So I am, "Confident" that Creation Exists and would, EmPhatically put the "Usual" "Term" of Creator of Creation as the Pronoun "God"?!.. People who are "Sure" that Creation does, NOT, in Fact, "Exist" Cannot Vote, therefore, for God as the "Usual", "Applied" Creator of Creation!.. Dad often asks, Who Created God, then?! My answer is that God Created the (Venn Diagram), Universal Set and then placed himself "Within" This Set around the moment of Universal Creation. But this is not the Entire point of my argument, ANYway.. I am Terming, for the sake of this argument the term "God" and shall place Him as Creator of Creation (which he IS) but for the terms of THIS Debate the argument is that, THIS, Creator is BOTH Scientific and Spiritual (referring to my initial post as God defined as Creator of Creation).. To Sum up the Vote is, in fact, whether the Originator of Creation (which I, firmly, Term as God) IS, in fact, both Spiritual as MUCH as Scientific so the Vote depends on an acceptance of both a place for Science AND Faith within the Creation-(God)-Initiation of Creation. Is this Clear?!.. To Vote for me, you Simply have to accept that God (termed as THE Creator) IS, Both a matter of FAITH and "With" an Element of Science.. THAT is All!.. I Am simply ploughing for a Vote for God as Both a God of Faith And Science and Embracer of Both and Other Philosophies, too!... Ok?!..
To Say that God, Is a Scientist is NOT, then, to Say He is Not, Spiritual!..

Losing The "Plot", a little, Here?!.. I Guess this is More, someone, basically, with MONEY who is taking up "Con"?!.. I would've, thought that the argument was stated effectively, enough, NOT to warrant this Response?!.. I'll read the comments now and see if anyone has, appropriately, Sensible contribution to this Debate?!.. I'll, Welcome your opinions as to whether my Case is really something that questionable?!.. I, Still, would've thought the Above was "Fair comment" to The Majority?!.. More Opinions; are people, "Talking" about This a little?!..
To Say that God, Is a Scientist is NOT, then, to Say He is Not, Spiritual!..

I dONt KNow whAt LANGUAgE tHE PRO is trying TO SpEAK in......... I DOnt Know Why HIs GRAMmar and CApiTALIZatiON is SO BAd, RigHT NoW IM typing WiTH mY LITTle BroTHer HittING THe CapS LOCK key WHIle I tYPe...... BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd, BIg blOCK of TEXT you WOnt ReAd. I WIll NOw saY A LOt of worDS likE the Pro SAid thAT arE Not CoHerant OR ReLAtEd In AnY WAy GOD, JaPANese SusHI, ChilEAN MIners, KONy 2012, Mitt ROMney MAsturbATES to His MONey, RIck SanTORUM HAT es GAys, NEWt GINgriCH is A MAn whoRE, COMmon SenSe, SPIRituAL, MEAN girLS WAs a GReat movIE, CHarlIE ShEeN is WInninG, SCientOLOgY, GoD, ThirD TESticle, WIkiPeDIa LIeS, ThE PRo MAKeS BAd DEBateS, VOte Con!
To Say that God, Is a Scientist is NOT, then, to Say He is Not, Spiritual!..

Well, I'm expecting the Argument to be Simple that God is ALL; There is an, Awful lot of Science so God IS a Scientist and NO Scientist can, enTirely explain All The events of the Chilean Miners' of 2010; thereby evidencing God as something, TRULY Spiritual?!.. However, the Con arguer will, presumably, NOT accept that God exIsts in the First Place so should I include a caveat that defines God in this case as the Creation-power of The Universe; thereby "Encompassing" the Argument stated above... Either way, the gnit-picking of this Site will, presumably, TOTally Not allow me to state the bleeding obvious point that is Clearly Set out in The Title.. So Ho, Hum... Make your OWN Minds up about a V. Simple Statement?!..
Should the social media age be lowered to 10

Ok... Your point is Legit. All right let's heed to your point. Let's raise the age limit to 30 (for an example). Do you think that this is going to stop them from signing up? No and as far as I know the facts will be facts and nothing is going to change. People will still remain on What's app, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter and on Mobile at least 1/4th of the day irrespective of age restriction on sns . My point being. Raising the age limit will or keeping it above 10 will not change anything. Moreover, let's talk about lowering the age limit to 10 (for example). If this happens, then people will have a mindset that the right age to go on social sites is 10. Therefore, by the age of 10 they will have access to social media and what's happening around them. But as I mentioned before, it has to be monitored by their parents. This gives them the "RIGHT TO ACCESS." This means we are giving them their rights instead of stealing them by restricting age. Just imagine if your brother who is 1 year older than you gets a smartphone by your dad but you don't get it just because you are 9 years and he is 10. You ought to feel abandoned and weak because you are less regarded. Now if your dad gives both of you, there is EQUALITY and JUSTICE. Same thing with SNS, Everyone must have Access to Everything in a Controlled Manner, this will give you self-importance and self-esteem in your own eyes and also boost up your morale. I agree to the fact that these social sites are tempting and are attracting a lot of people who spend 1/4th of their day messaging. Now, that's human nature. We get addicted. Be it social media, video games, origami, poker, pool, bets, drugs, alcohol etc. We humans get addicted to many things and the only way to stop them is to stop their supply. So talking on a general view even adults get addicted like kids. So what is the difference between an adult and a kid if they can't control their emotions? Thereore the question of limiting the age is pure bs and makes no sense. So now, the only way to stop this social addiction is to bring it down. Is this what you want? Or is this what anyone would want? I don't think so. Only if people could control their emotions, then people would say "How Godly this invention is". We are so blinded by it's disadvantages that we do not realize the power of this invention. This invention must be available to ALL. It should not be age RESTRICTED. What should be restricted. IS YOUR INTENTION AND YOUR ETHICS. Once you control them.... You will see this as a MASSIVE BOON for EVERYONE. And one more thing... We humans want to make our life easier. So, what's the harm in replacing a mobile phone with a watch in case of luxury?
Should the social media age be lowered to 10

I agree with you when you state that we shoudln't punish social media. In order for us not to punish the invention of social media we can't allow 10 year olds to be on social media. My third contention is that we don’t need more kids being attached to social media. Kids 13-17 spend at least 3 hours a day on social networking websites. 39,757 years of time have been spent on social media. Teenagers use social media 20% more than adults. The average American spends ¼ of their day using social networking sites. It’s bad enough that teenagers are already addicted to social media. Therefore, if we lower the age restriction we are passing on social media addiction to younger children. Teenagers have the average of 7.4 social networking apps on their cell phones. 18% of teenagers can not go for more than a few hours without checking their cell phones and 24% of teenagers check their twitter feed before getting up in the morning. Why are we allowing social media addiction to now begin in younger ages? Cell phones have replaced watches, clocks, and news. We shouldn’t let it replace our close friends and family. I hope all of you see that this has gone to far and kids under 13 can not use social media.
Should the social media age be lowered to 10

My second contention is that Cyberbullying is an obvious and serious issue for children under the age of 13.. Rebecca Ann Sedwick, the 12-year-old who jumped to her death after enduring a year of cyberbullying from two girls, ages 12 and 14, is a painful example. Rebecca and one of the two bullies were under the minimum age required to use the social media sites (Facebook, Ask.fm, Kik and Instagram) where some of the bullying took place. 20% of kids under the age of 13 who are cyberbullied commit suicide. 1 of 10 attempt suicide. 81% of kids say that bullying online is an easy way to release hatred. 21 per cent of children had posted negative comments, starting from an average age of 11, and 26 per cent had 'hijacked' another person's account and posted without permission. A Pew Center survey found that 15% of teens between 12 and 17 said they’d been harassed on a social network site in the last 12 months, and, because “Facebook dominates teen social media usage,” as Pew put it, it’s safe to say that a lot of the harassment happened there. According to Intel online security programs, 50% of teens with social media have posted something they have later regretted. A survey was taken and this year 50% more kids have admitted to seeing cyberbullying online. 43% of teens have reported to being a victim of cyberbullying this year. 20% of cyberbullying victims have said that somebody posed as someone else online. We should take a stand to not allow kids to have to be faced with this.. We need to grant them a gift to protect them
Should the social media age be lowered to 10

Open debate to all. Feel free to affirm. My first contention for round one is that Children under 13 don’t have the hardware upstairs to make smart decisions online. Just because kids seem to be good at technology at younger ages, doesn’t necessarily mean that their brains are learning at the same rate as their digital interest. Research on children's brains shows that it takes children about 12 years to fully develop the structures that enable them to engage in ethical thinking. Studies show that for kids under the age of 12, it’s difficult for a child to fully grasp the impact of their actions upon others, online or in person. Young children are now often joining social networking sites, sometimes even putting themselves in harm’s way, by becoming victims of online harassment, solicitation, and cyber-bullying before they are ready to respond appropriately. Studies now show that brains aren’t done developing until a person is 25 years old. Stanford professor Clifford Nass surveyed about 3,500 girls ages 8 to 12 and found that the girls who used online media a lot felt badly about their friendships more so than other girls their age and had more friends that their parents considered a bad influence. Kids can’t make the right decision yet and when younger kids use social media it can cause damage to their future.
According to the Bible, ghosts are not real.

When people died, their spirits doesn't travel around places here on Earth. Spirits returns to God, therefore spirits can't just wander around anywhere they want. Ecclesiastes 12:7 " Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. " Spirits are in God's hand and in God's control, so why would God make those spirits walk around in places? The spirits that people are getting scared about aren't the dead person's spirit, but it's the demons that are scaring people.
Should the government put a taxon junk food

Excise tax are not uncommon, gas, aviation, however, taxes such as this get labeled "sin" taxes simply to demean the usefulness, or purpose of the tax. The reason for the tax is to raise revenue to offset the additional costs to our society, with an ancillary benefit of discouraging the harmful activity. Taxing something is not removing liberty, or interfering with free-markets. It is a method to pay for a shared societal cost.
That communities in the united states have the right to supress pornography

Pornography - The depiction of erotic behavior intended to Cause sexual excitementSuppress - To keep from public knowledge, prevent the development or expression of.Community - A sort of instituition made up of families in a small adea that instruct children in values and tradition of a particular culture.Intro:The community is essential to the upbringing of children and a successful life. Individuals voluntarily give up some measure of their personal freedom to come together with other people for the purpose of pursuing their objectives. All just governments contain only the only the authority granted by individuals who contract together to produce that authority. Since I do not believe in government nor in laws what I do believe in is the community with the ability to enforce rules so that rights like freedom and equality are not violated and people do not infringe on others rights. Individuals give up some of their rights for the purpose of establishing order and security. A community exists simply to satisfy the general will the responsibility of community is determined by what citizens as a whole desire. Generally the general will of the people includes the protection of life, liberty, and property but it also includes much more, when that's the case the communities obligation is to see that the general will is carried out.C1 -Freedom where it is inconsisten with the views of the community is a movement toward egoistic pleasure at the expense of morality and the general will (if it is to suppress pornography). The golden rule in the community is respect and uphold societies moral order as you would have society uphold your autonomy. If the community knows that you are a sexual deviant and disapproves of you that have every right to make you leave. If it's more basic like the community finds out that you have pornography and don't approve the community has every right to make you throw away the porn; however if the community doesn't know that you have pornography then no harm no foul.C2 - While it seems the community itself is like a tyrant it is not the people living in a community make the general will. If the community believes that the Internet is a constant porn spammer and the general will is to put blocks on sites the community has that right. Once you enter into a community you have conceded to it's terms and to abide by it's rules.In the course of this debate let's not get to caught up in examples.
The government should recognize same-Sex marriages

Acknowledging: the U.S. government gives tax benefits to married couples. The sole reason for these tax benefits is to encourage monogamous relationships which prevent venereal disease, as well as encourage procreation which ensures a future tax base. Acknowledging: same sex couples contradict the incentive for which these tax benefits are given, and so to validate these couples as sex partners would be a waste of government funds in terms of the tax benefits given. Arguing: The state is an entity which should only involve itself in certain matters, and such matters are not the personal endeavors of citizens. Marriage is one such endeavor. Nowhere is it outlined that it is the U.S. government's responsibility to ensure the prevention of any hazardous disease which might be spread through sexual endeavor. Nowhere is it outlined that it is the U.S. government's responsibility to ensure that a future tax base be secured through an incentive for procreation. The U.S. government, aesthetically, should not turn personal matters into matters of state. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue, denying the validation of sex partners to one type while granting that same validation to another, is akin to denying women the right to vote, while granting men that same right. Bringing up tax incentive as the main reasoning for the denial of this validation is akin to the denial of women the right to vote due to traditional patriarchal outlooks. The opposing platform is one in defense of tradition validated by government action. History has proven time and time again that tradition becomes obsolete, "traditional" marriage is one such tradition. The United States is not a nation that should hinder freedoms such as the validity of sex partners from its citizens. Such action would better suit more comparably radical nations like the Holy Roman Empire.
bible christians - if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

If I were a Christian living before Christ (in the old testament), following the commandments laid out for me by God I would not have to condone stoning, or participate in stoning. The commandments (Leviticus 20:1-27) say put to death, except for in two, one where they say burn the other where they say stone. I don't believe God would say put to death in all then say stone in one if stoning was acceptable for everything. Now if we look at your first verse Matthew 15:3-4 "Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, "Honor your father and mother" and "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."' Jesus is supporting the the laws put in place by Moses. Then look at my verse John 8:3-11 Where Jesus does not stone the adulterous woman. Why? Because stoning was not meant for all circumstances. People took tradition and let it get way out of hand, as I pointed out in my first argument. Now you are right in saying if we debated the fact that "If people disobeyed the commandments I would participate or support them being put to death". HOWEVER you specified stoning. I feel I have successfully proved that: People took traditions to far pertaining to stoning I would not have to participate in stoning and I would not have to support stoning. Thank you to Pro for the great debate, and thank you to the judges for taking the time to read and rate this debate. Jessica
bible christians - if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

the main point of the death, is that the bible says someone should be put to death. perhaps it should be stoning, perhaps not, but the point is they should be put to death. would you do the deed and or support it? you'd almost have to if you say all that old testament stuff is true. i would tend to think jesus changed the law from stoning to not stoning. we have direct commands that people should be put to death. and then we have jesus saying something else? note, if i were to argue like con, id say it's just stoning that shouldn't happen. but the person in question could and perhaps should still be put to death. im jumping around on techncialities with that argument, but i don't believe it. i'm just arguing like con. bottom line, the point is they should be put to death. would you do the deed and or support it? you'd almost have to if you say all that old testament stuff is true.
bible christians - if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

Leviticus 19 states 16 “‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord." 18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." Even in the old testament before God told us the punishment he said love, and forgive. Leviticus 20:1-27 does give you the sin and consequences put it says will be without children, will be cut off from those they love or will be put to death, it does not say how death shall occur other then 2 exceptions: verse 14 a man who marries a woman and her mother- shall burn in flames verse 27 mediums and people who contact spirits shall be stoned (I think you should have gone a little further with choosing your example, I'm not saying that to be rude but as a note to help you improve.) Now why would God say put to death in all of them but specify stoned in only one? Its simple, because stoning was not meant to be the punishment for everything. Just like I demonstrated in my first example, the people took something and over used it, they misinterpreted. So instead of being an effective punishment it became cruel and uncalled for. Going back to one of your original verses Matthew 15:3 "Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" God commanded "put to death" the people made stoning a tradition. I would like to refer you to John 8:3-11 where in an adulterous woman was brought before Jesus because the Pharisees waned to stone her. Now what did Jesus, who is the embodiment of God, do? He replied "let he without sin throw the first stone." Everyone went away and Jesus, who was completely sin free, said you are forgiven. Clearly stoning was not meant for every situation. Therefore if someone was being wrongly stoned I would not have to participate or support it. I would still be able to see it as an act of vengeance and murder , not commanded by the Lord my God. Love your neighbour as yourself came before put to death, I would choose love.