BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parental supervision is crucial

Of course it is, but who's going to supervise the parents? Kids with adult privileges don't exactly have effectively vigilant parents. Stricter policies will not make a different, if you create laws that are bound to be broken, you're only saying you want more kids in juvenile prison. If Facebook starts requiring I.D card numbers or other more stringent means of identification, the most vulnerable kids will steal this information from their parents. It's like making drugs illegal, it doesn't work.
Parental control, privacy settings and look at Myspace/Youtube

It is absurd to suggest that a parent would let a child under 13 use the internet unsupervised. To have a Facebook account, one needs an email account. Check your spam folder in any public free access email account (be it Gmail, yahoo , AOL, hotmail ) and you will find Viagra , pudendum enlarging advertisements, and other emails with adult content. To allow a child exposure to such rubbish is the act of a very irresponsible parent, so responsible parents, will use their own email accounts to make their kids' Facebook accounts and will thus be able to supervise everything that goes on in their child's Facebook. The problem with Myspace and MSN chatrooms was/is that these children had/have Hotmail accounts. The same issue arises with youtube, children who have unsupervised youtube accounts, also have unsupervised email accounts. [[http://www.internetsafety101.org/news.htm?id=64]] Facebook unlike a closed chatroom is also largely public, if a friend request is accepted it's not just on the sender/acceptor's wall, it's also on the home page: your mom's homepage. [[http://myparentsjoinedfacebook.com/]] [[http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/moms-on-facebook/1253700/[]] privacy on Facebook is a really old joke that people will never tire of telling. ;)[[http://www.facebook.com/circleofmoms]]
no

No kids should not have Facebook because it is very dangerous to give out information to Facebook because other people can see it. Kids also add random people that might stalk them so there is the danger of being stalked by a stranger. Kids can get cyber bullied online by their friends form school or stranger. There is the risk that anyone can see your profile and all you picture and do something with those pictures of you. I think that the age you should have Facebook is at age 11 and on, because i think you are old enough to know all the dangers of online accounts. There are way more examples i can give, but these are a few that are the most important. so i think that kids should not have Facebook accounts. For safety reasons.KA
Well...yes and no

I do think that kids should have facebook accounts but that's what I think, most parents will say no but they only say that for your own good. Facebook is really insecure. I mean I wish I had a facebook account but I can't because my parents say no and I know I might be missing out on somethings but I really want to be safe, and not get myself into bad situtions. I think that kids should get facebook accounts when there about 18 years old because there more mature and they make more better choices about what there next moves are.
The smallest bit of information could be harmful

Kids are young and so are their minds. They don't always know the right answers and though we need to let them learn that hard way sometimes, this might not be something you'd want to risk. I've known teenagers who have posted stupid things on Facebook that have lead to horrid outcomes. One person just stated their family was going on vacation and a facebook "friend" broke into their house and robbed them. Facebook is also defaulted to give away the "round-about" location on where you are posting from. It may not be exact, but its something. This isn't a punishment for a child, it's a simple precaution.
Parental supervision is crucial

Facebook is harmful for children of all ages.They are unaware of its dangers and can easily become prey. Also, children might unwilingly or unknowingly diclose information about their lives and this could result in physical harassment.Parents try to protect their children from explicit contents and on facebook that is impossible.I am aware that children are exposed to all sorts of inappropriate behavior on a daily basis, both through media and Internet.Unfortunately, that cannot be controlled, but their access to facebook can.Many children already have accounts, some even with parental permission.I believe that if children must have accounts it should be with maximum parental supervision.I am not a parent, but I have used Internet since I was six and have been a facebook user since the age of 13. I have had unpleasant experiences with many social networks and chat rooms(surely you must think those aren't places for children, but I was curious, as any child is) I must say the idea of facebook is fantastic, but facebook itself is often abused and children are the weakest and most easily influenced members of society.Therefore, we should be protect them where protection is needed and possible.Facebook may be available to them today, but why not force this great social network to change this and have a more strict privacy and access policy.
Facebook cannot monitor all users nor validate user information

Once Facebook promotes it's no child on Facebook policy, Facebook and Zuck have done all they can. [[http://sebatasinfo.co.cc/zuck-says-letting-tweens-on-facebook-not-a-priority.html]] The baton now rests with parents. But if Facebook removes its pre-teen ban then Facebook will have to monitor users. You don't child proof wine, precisely because kids shouldn't be drinking alcohol; the onus of keeping kids from drinking rests with the parents.
Facebook will become another web-based venue for sexual predators fishing for jailbait

Most things in facebook are largely public; parents aware of who's on their kids' friends' list, what's written on their wall and access to their kids' account privacy settings. Kids under 13 do not have their own laptops or P.Cs and sexual predators tend to prowl for girls/boys who are 13 or older. Usually 15 year old girls. [[http://www.pcsndreams.com/Pages/News_Archives.htm]]
Kids already do have accounts, along with pets and imaginary people

Kids, along with pets and imaginary people already do have accounts. I've taught eighth graders who have Facebook accounts and simply lie about their age. There are many school activity groups (including debate sports) that only have people born after 2011 in them. There are also groups/pages like sesame street or Miley Cyrus, which are again populated almost entirely by those under 13. [[http://www.facebook.com/pages/FACEBOOK-KIDS/124227537598647]] [[http://www.facebook.com/SesameStreet]] Making a Facebook account is child's play. Surely it would be better to allow children to have these accounts, to post their real ages and to allow for parental controls. Kids do not respond well to being wrapped in cotton wool and despite what the media say incidences of 'predetors' are actually quite small. It is only by being open with children and alerting them to the potential pitfalls of online life that we can truely protect them from the few out there that are out to prey on them.
The three-strikes laws are, in effect, ex post facto laws: that is, criminal sentences can take into...

The three-strikes laws are, in effect, ex post facto laws: that is, criminal sentences can take into account - as first and second strikes - crimes that were committed before the law was passed. Moreover, the imposition of mandatory maximum sentences because of past history constitutes 'double jeopardy': criminals are being punished again for crimes for which they already served time.
One effect of mandatory sentencing, and of three-strikes laws in particular, is the rapid growth of ...

One effect of mandatory sentencing, and of three-strikes laws in particular, is the rapid growth of the prison population. The United States now locks up a higher proportion of its population than any comparable developed nation, yet many of those imprisoned for a great many years are non-violent offenders convicted of relatively minor drug offences. All of this comes at a very high cost to the taxpayer.
One effect of mandatory sentencing, and of three-strikes laws in particular, is the rapid growth of ...

The growth of the prison population has occurred alongside the decline in the crime rate; the two are clearly linked. Because those imprisoned under three-strikes laws are habitual criminals, the extra cost of holding them in prison has to balanced against the economic savings to society from fewer robberies, burglaries, vandalism, violent crime (resulting in expensive hospital treatment), drug addicts, etc.
One of the fundamental principles of criminal justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. ...

One of the fundamental principles of criminal justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. That principle is abandoned when a life sentence is automatically imposed for a third felony - whether that felony is serious and violent, or minor and non-violent. Because there is only one sentence possible for many kinds of crimes, it follows that the sentence does not necessarily correspond to the seriousness of the offence.
Historically, judges have had discretionary powers when sentencing criminals; this practice recogniz...

Historically, judges have had discretionary powers when sentencing criminals; this practice recognizes that sentencing should take into account the circumstances of the crime, the character of the criminal, and the amount of harm caused by the crime. Mandatory sentences rob judges of those discretionary powers that are properly theirs. Indeed, mandatory sentences are imposed, in effect, by the politicians of the legislative branch of government - thus violating the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
Forces people to rush and go for jobs they genuinely can’t do.

The reason people turn jobs down isn’t always due to laziness or fraud. Sometimes the job genuinely isn’t suitable or even possible for them - it is in a location they can’t travel to, it involves a type of work they can’t do because of a health condition etc. Many job adverts are unclear and if you don’t have all the information you need when applying for a job, you might apply for a job without realising it is impossible for you to take it. People’s situations can also change and if you change address while you apply for a job and are no longer close enough to travel there, you shouldn’t be penalised. This is especially a worry when combined with the current Jobseeker’s Agreements where one has to apply for a set number of jobs per week. When there genuinely isn’t enough work, people are pushed into applying for unsuitable jobs in order to meet quota.
Treats the long term unemployed like criminals.

The talk of compulsory programmes, sanctions, community service and uniforms sounds like a prison sentence! Unemployment isn’t a crime. Not every long term unemployed person is doing it on purpose - many are in very desperate circumstances. They may be disabled, illiterate, underage or single parents without proper support. They are already going to be heavily stigmatised and live in shame and persecution. Giving people the impression that they are criminals and can be treated as such will make the situation worse for them. They are a vulnerable group that need protecting, not punishing. If it is made more and more difficult for people to stay on benefits when they genuinely can’t find work, they may turn to actual crime so that they can make enough money to live on while avoiding the hassle of benefits.
Undermines graduates and other potentially skilled employees.

Many people who are highly intelligent and skilled, suitable for higher-up jobs such as in the civil service, cannot get jobs because of specific circumstances such as disability, lack of employability skills or unpopular degree choice. If they are forced to take any job considered within their capacity and pressured into finding work fast, they will end up with a job far below them. The environment of unskilled work will be oppressive for them and they will be victimised, as well as being highly demoralised and humiliated.
Deters people from deliberately staying on benefits

There is something very wrong if people actually want to be on benefits. Being on benefits makes you the lowest social class in the country and the constant scapegoat of the media. It is major cause of depression. Furthermore, benefits is not enough to live comfortably on, it is only just enough to live a normal life if you live cheaply, as long as you can claim maximum benefits, which many can’t because it is a minefield of aggressive bureaucracy for the rest of your life, unless you genuinely need that much support. How will the new measures stop people from languishing on Income Support?
Forces people to go on work training courses.

This could be counterproductive if the work training programmes aren’t that good, as the current work placement/new deal schemes aren’t - one of the reasons why Jobseeker’s Allowance isn’t working. If the training programmes aren’t that good, they will simply waste the jobseeker’s time. Actually applying for work takes up a great deal of time already and jobseekers are entitled to at least a rudimentary life outside looking for work - they may want to pursue activities such as voluntary work and hobbies that can be potentially done for money that will probably be more worthwhile than a work scheme that they only attend to satisfy bureaucrats.
People should be matched to the jobs they are most fitted for, not just anything they can do.

If people are given any job they can conceivably be capable of, then everyone will probably have a job. However, it won’t be an optimal workforce because people still won’t be doing the right jobs. They will be doing jobs unsuited to their personalities and individual skill sets. They will not be as motivated and capable as people who are truly destined to do that job and enjoy it.
Very few people are completely gay or completely straight

Dr Alfred Kinsey reported that 37% of men had experienced sex with other men to the point of orgasm and that half had experienced mental attraction or arousal towards other men. Anthropologists have found tribes where all young men engage in a homosexual relationship for a certain period of time before becoming heterosexual again. Boys in boarding school and men in prison turn gay for a while. All this evidence points to the fact that sexuality is fluid; that most of us could be attracted to members of the same sex and that the only things which stop us are cultural conditioning, opportunity or need. counter: None of these statistics mean anything since they represent sample data and the sample size has not been revealed. obviously n>50 but how much greater; surely everyone wasn't asked about her/his sexual leanings/preferences. The other problem is; most people lie about these things ; choosing not to be-judged/come-out-of-the-closet. Using confidence intervals; it would be erroneous to claim one out of every ten people has had a homosexual experience. You can only say with a fraction of confidence(depending on the interval taken) that the claim is not false. Not that the idea is 100% fact.
Society has a very narrow view of gay and straight

We tend to assume that gay people are the ones who sleep with members of their own sex exclusively. We make no account for people who fantasise about gay sex, have one gay experience, or who enter into a short-term relationship with a member of the same sex. If we broaden the definition to include them then we can see that a great many people, maybe even most, flirt with the idea of same-sex sex even if they subsequently return to sleeping with the opposite sex.
Historical Homosexuality

In Ancient Civilizations such as Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Ancient Egypt, there were no such terms as homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality. Indeed, based upon primary and secondary sources, it seems that it was normal and accepted in such civilizations to be bisexual. As Abrahamic (and even some Eastern) religions became more prevalent in Europe, preaching only opposite-sex intercourse, bisexuality was socially repressed. Indeed, now that religion is slowly dying in the Western world, we are beginning to return to our natural feelings and more and more of society is acknowledging bisexuality of varying degrees.
Society has a very narrow view of gay and straight

One gay experience does not a gay person make. The media portrays images of gay people so often it is natural for people to wonder what gay sex is like. They may even experiment with gay sex, but if they ultimately return to straight sex then they must be straight, not gay. If you broaden the definition of gay, then of course you can included within it whatever you want. It is all about identity. If you decide to take into account the "not practicing gays" then you've got to take into account the men and women who take part in homosexual activity, but don't consider themselves gay.
Most animals do not identify themselves as exclusively gay or straight

Dogs mount other dogs for reasons of dominance, not sex. We can hardly assume to understand the reasons of any other gay sexual behaviour/behavior witnessed in the animal kingdom. We also don’t know the response of other animals to homosexual behaviour. We don’t know if they are shunned by the pack or not chosen to mate with. We enter into a strange world when we project our behaviour onto animals. Most animals do not identify themselves, full stop. animals prance about naked; don't walk erectly, do not get married(though there much confusion over this; certain animals spend their entire lives with their mate), the black-widow spider eats any male who impregnates her, dolphins reportedly gang rape their women; are you saying that all these things should be made acceptable in human society??
Sexual anatomy

Anal sex in a man stimulates the area around the prostrate, which creates sexual pleasure only achievable through sex with another man (or simulation of such). The most sensitive part of the female genitalia is the clitoris, which is not directly stimulated through vaginal intercourse with a man. Sex with another woman is more likely to stimulate the clitoris, and create sexual pleasure. Our human biology is designed for sex between people of both sexes. We are made to be bisexual.
The simple continuation of mankind proves the heterosexuality is predominant

People can have homosexual and heterosexual relationships, if not at the same time then one after the other. Clearly the drive to reproduce is one of the strongest drives we possess. But to suggest this drive can only exist to the exclusion of homosexuality is absurd. This again is a product of the thinking that people are either one way or the other. They are either gay or straight. When the truth is they can be both. People can have sex for pleasure and non-reproductive purposes. The debate is not saying "most people are gay". It is saying "most people are bisexual", meaning they can have sex with people of the same sex while still procreating with the opposite sex. Please read the topic properly. In fact bisexuality, especially between women, makes people more fertile, therefore helping continuation of mankind MORE than just heterosexuality.
National level: Both Britain and Russia overstretched

Russia was not the only nation causing the overstretch for Britain. Germany was determined to get compensation for any colonial changes: Holstein “in case England seized Portuguese territory, for instance Delagoa Bay, our chauvinists would make a furious attack on any policy by which Germany received compensation in China and not in the Portuguese African possessions as well.”[[ Holstein to Paul von Hatzfeldt 12 April 1897, Rich, Correspondence, p24]] While this was ongoing the Russian and French fleets looked much less dangerous. The Franco Russian alliance was directed against Germany and Austria not Britain making their fleets less threatening.
National level: Boer War

Russia had however backed up attempts to create a continental league, Tsar Nicholas wrote “I do like knowing that it lies entirely with me to decide the ultimate course of the war in South Africa” by mobilising troops to threaten India.[[quoted in Taylor, Struggle, p388]] Germany has been historically close to Russia and Russia had often figured in any anti-British designs. France on the other hand was the historic enemy of Britain, even if there had been the entente cordiale in 1904. Not surprisingly therefore Russia and France were however not first choice but the USA was still isolationist and Germany demanded too high a price.[[Kennedy, Diplomacy, p116]]
Bureaucratic Politics: India Office against

Reforms however allowed the Foreign Office officials much more power, as did Grey’s inexperience in Foreign policy and greater workload due to sitting in the commons. Almost all the Foreign Office staff, from Sir Charles Hardinge the head of the Foreign Office staff down were pro French after 1906 and therefore for a agreement with Russia over Germany.[[Lyle A McGeoch, ‘On the Road to War: British Foreign Policy in Transition, 1905-1906’, The Review of Politics, Vol. 35, No. 2, (Apr., 1973), pp.204-218. p212]] This was important, as it was the British Foreign Office that worked out the substance of the agreements, making the drafts and working out how to get around sticking points,[[Steiner, Hardinge, p418]] necessary as the Russian Government could not be the side to take the initiative.
Bureaucratic politics and Great Men Thesis: Introduction

In Allison’s model of bureaucratic politics foreign policy decisions result from negotiation between various governmental bureaucracies, to identify the cause of foreign policy the players, coalitions, bargains and compromises must be identified.[[Brian Ripley, ‘Cognition, Culture and Bureaucratic Politics’, in Laura Neack, Jeanne A.K. Hey and Patrick J. Haney eds., Foreign Policy Analysis, Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation, Englewood Cliffs, 1995, pp.85-91, p88]] On the contrary some argue the policies of a country cannot be explained without knowing the personal goals and beliefs of the leaders of a country. These individuals also affect the reactions of other states. This is the Great Men theory of history with an emphasis on the individual level of analysis. Byman and Pollack have four basic hypotheses. It is individuals who set the intentions of the state; they can transform them or magnify already latent intentions. The competence of its individuals counts towards a states influence and military power; they build alliances, perceive threats, and create military strategy. Individuals decide how a state’s resources will be used in pursuit of the goals they have created; it is individuals, on one side at least, who decide whether to go to war or negotiate. And finally individuals affect how an opposing state will react; they can either be charismatic and persuasive or bullying and aggressive, the opposing state’s individuals will respond based upon the attitudes of the first state’s individuals towards them.[[Daniel L. Byman & Kenneth M. Pollack, ‘Let us now Praise Great Men, Bringing the Statesmen Back In’, International Security, vol. 25, No. 4, (Spring, 2001), pp.107-146, pp.108-9, 134-5.]]
International level: Structure of the International System

The structure of International relations as the primary level of analysis dominates neo-realist theory. In neo-realism the international systems structure is decentralised and anarchic, the states are rational unitary actors in which they act individualistically, selfishly to keep as many options open as possible.[[Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International politics, New York, 1979, pp.88, 91.]] If realism or neo-realism is the correct then the state will respond rationally to changes in the balance of power by balancing the rising power.