BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Police carrying guns all the time

You want the British police force to be more like Americas? It makes sense for American cops to carry guns because guns are legal in America and the average citizen can carry one with a permit. This means criminals are able to obtain a gun easily which increases gun crime, therefore the police need guns to combat guns. However, guns are illegal in Britain and this means that gun crime is almost non-existent, so British police wouldn't need to combat guns. Despite the fact that some people deserve to be shot, I would argue that using non-lethal methods are better for enforcing justice, it's better for a court room to decide the fate of an Islamic drugged up beer bottle bandit than a potentially racist, self-righteous, crusading police recruit who wants to combat the Muslim species through blood and violence. In Britain there is an armed response unit, so if a gun man is rampaging, there are guns to combat him. The question is, do we need guns to combat our currant crime? Which mainly involves knife attacks. Do we also want to run the risk of accidental shootings or these guns getting into the hands of criminals through corruption or theft? For pro to win this they'd need to show that the British police force has a need to carry fire-arms. Pro would also have to show why the current armed response unit is not enough to combat any reasons bought up.
DNA Database

having a dna database can help prevent certain diseases exploredna.co.uk says that we are now able to tell if people are at an increased risk for heart disease. This is because they have found telomeres that are only found on people with an increased risk of the disease. If they had a database they could be able to tell who would be at increased risk and thereby tell them how to try to make sure they do not get heart disease. This would be a more effective way than waiting until they get heart disease and telling them which medications to take. abc.net.au says that a massive dna database has generated a map of switches that cause many things from hair loss to cancer. This has opened the door to revolutionary treatment for many diseases. If we had a dna database of everyone in the world we might be able to treat all the diseases we have on earth. This would make it so we could focus more on things like clean energy and space travel pulsenet.com states that using a dna database they have been able to detect and define outbreaks. Because they are able to define the outbreaks they are better able to try to find a cure. If we can predict a disease before it starts many, many lives could be saved
DNA Database

Like everything you have ever owned, there is a large price tag for DNA data basing. As a form of globalization of having a DNA database, the topic takes the price of the United Kingdom database. Home Office figures state that the cost of running the national DNA database has doubled since 2002-03. Meg Hillier MP, said that in 2002-03, the cost of DNA database services was "774,300 ($1,294,939). That service and IT development delivery costs for 2008-09 were predicted to be "1.77m ($2,960,148). In 2006-07, that amount reached "2.04m ($3,411,696), but it dropped to "1.6m ($2,675,034) last year. Hillier said that the numbers from 2006-07 and years after are higher, because the database's costs have been separated from the Forensic Science Service. This also caused another increase in money because of the high demand of forensic suppliers required extra spending on accreditation and monitoring. Supplier accreditation rose from "321,000 ($536,679) in 2002-03 to an estimated "750,000 ($1,253,922) in 2008-09. The total cost of the database for the current financial year is planned to reach "2.52m ($4,213,179) compared to "1.09m ($1,822,367) in 2002-03. Hiller also revealed that in April this year that the database had almost 350,000 sample DNA from children and teens aged 10 to 17. "There are more profiles than individuals, due to DNA samples being taken from some individuals on more than one occasion," she said. "It is estimated that the current rate of profile replication is about 13.3%." Because of the constant collection of data, the costs will continue to rise and will be harder to keep up with.
DNA Database

It can identify people according to the missing person"s bureau dna can be extracted from either an unidentified person or the remains of said person and run them through the database of missing persons dna to see who it is. If this is done it is easier to tell where someone went. And you could call the family to tell them where to pick them up or to stop worrying because they are dead. Bode technology says that having a dna database can be used to identify victims of a disaster. This could put someone"s mind at ease because they don"t have to worry about the persons help. If a certain person is not one of the dead then the family would know if the person is alive or just not found yet. It can also identify a person"s parents according to dna-testing-advisor.com. This could help adoptees identify their families and keep in contact with them. It would also help them to figure out why their families gave them up which could give them self-worth
DNA Database

Like many issues in this world, the expansion of DNA data basing has its social repercussions. One of the major social problems is that it may deepen racial bias in the criminal justice system. Leading to the distrust of minorities towards law enforcement. Minority groups in the US are afraid that disparate arrests will lead to a lot of minorities being forced into the data base. The forensic method could worsen an already existing racial bias in the system, said Rori Rohlfs, a statistical geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley. Because the database contains proportionately more DNA from African-Americans and Latinos, this causes more law enforcement to attack those races because of bias. In other words, "That raises the possibility that police would subject people of color to more scrutiny than those in the white population." Said Rori. http://news.yahoo.com...
DNA Database

it is incredibly accurate according to alrc.gov.au as long as you have good quality and quantity dna they are very accurate. This doesn"t mean you need all of the dna. You just need enough good quality dna to match it to the person. As long as the criminal doesn"t have an identical twin or the authorities have lots of good quality dna the right person will be punished. according to justice.gov many cases have been solved using dna database. This would have to mean that the dna is accurate because if it wasn"t and the government kept arresting the wrong people they would eventually stop. The whole point of the police is to keep us safe and if the database didn"t work it wouldn"t keep us safe and so they would stop using it. according to forensicscience.gov there is only a one tenth of a percent chance that the database will get it wrong. Nothing is perfect and so this will not always get it right but there is such a slim chance it is almost 100 percent accurate. Also blood banks sometimes give AIDS infected blood but for the most part it is accurate and so we don"t worry about that.
DNA Database

Accuracy on things these days, like tests and how much money your friend owes you is important in this world. So would keeping accuracy on comparing DNA and keeping track of the DNA gain be important too? In Arizona of 2001, Kathryn Troyer, a crime lab analyzer, ran tests on Arizona"s DNA database when she saw genes of two felons that almost matched. They matched 9 out of the 13 locations on a chromosomes, or loci. Loci are usually used to compare DNA because they are easily distinguishable. The FBI estimated the odds of finding unrelated people having similar genetic loci to be 1 in 113 billion. Troyer found the felons were unrelated and of different races. Troyer has found dozens of similar "matches," showing that the accuracy of the base isn"t as clear as thought. When Troyer discovered this, many states looked for only 9 or fewer loci when looking for suspects (most try to compare 13 loci when evidence is reasonable). Troyer and her colleagues believed that a 9-locus match could mislead investigators to finding the wrong person. "We felt it was interesting and just wanted people to understand it could happen," Troyer explained. "If you"re going to search at nine loci, you need to be aware of what it means. It"s not necessarily absolutely the guy," added Troyer"s colleague, Phoenix Lab Director, Todd Griffith. Inspired by these findings, defense attorney Bicka Barlow sought to find out if there might be other matches in a DNA database. She started a new search of the Arizona database, she found that there was 122 individuals that matched at the same 9 of the 13 loci with 20 people that matched 10 out of 65,000 felons. So it can"t be all that secure if many of the flaws are getting through. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
DNA Database

It could herald in a new age of medicine according to bbc.com we could use it to avoid drugs known to be toxic to people with similar dna. This could potentially be life saving as drugs that do harm to people can kill them. If a doctor wants to prescribe medicine he could go into the database to see if there would be any drugs that could negatively affect them. This could insure that they do not harm the person and helps them according to Sir John Bell it would be almost impossible to go into the personalized medicine agenda without this database. It would make it easier to take care of yourself if you were sick. It would also tell you which drugs would cause harm. This makes it easier for those who distrust hospitals to take care of themselves. ctvnews.ca says you can use the databases to identify mysterious disorders. This would help people like Barb Williams, whose son Noah is not able to talk or walk to identify the disorders and maybe see how to deal with it. This would possible put people minds at ease if it was non-life threatening or it could tell you how many years they have left if it is life threatening
DNA Database

As privacy becomes a large issue in the DNA database argument, thoughts like "How is my DNA being secured?" appear. As a growing mass of people begin to agree with DNA data basing, another popular group is people who believe it infringes the human right. However, both groups have one thing in common neither group has security over their DNA after it"s released. As easy as it may be to gain DNA samples in a lab, it is also easy to gain samples in a normal work day. A common technique used by the FBI to gain DNA samples is to follow the possible suspect around for many days and collect eligible samples to analyze. This is common to find if a family member is a criminal as opposed to the person being follow being the actual criminal. When a person throws away a cup of coffee or a tissue, an investigator will retrieve and preserve the evidence until in the lab. Once the evidence is gathered, compared to DNA already available from the suspect at the crime scene, there is a verdict of relationship. Is the person an undercover FBI man is following, a spouse, parent, child or other terms of relation connected to the suspect? This long process raises questions of how secure a home, family and life may actually be. George Church, a Harvard geneticist, stated to an interviewer that the DNA database can be broken. As more and more genes are added to the genetic library, more and more people will want to access secrets kept tight. Along with the desire to unlock the vaults combination, the combination becomes easier to read. "If you believe you can just encrypt terabytes of data or anonymize them, there will always be people who hack through that." http://www.ihealthbeat.org... http://www.brighthub.com...
DNA Database

it helps solve crimes according to ehow.com it is like matching fingerprints except fingerprinting takes judgment, skill and training. Having a dna database makes it easier for anyone to identify who is innocent or guilty. If it is easier for people to identify the perpetrator then more people will be thrown in jail which would make the world that much safer councilofresponsiblegenetics.org states that having a dna database can be used to bring in new suspects or reveal suspects. So if the police think only four people committed the crime if they run all the dna in the database they could find out they were one off. This would make sure that the police are not letting one person go accidentally according to nin.gov having a dna database can draw authorities away from unproductive cases. This would make sure that there are police who are ready to help with any case. If police are working on unproductive cases they aren"t helping anyone with anything including the victims of the unproductive case.
DNA Database

In Maryland of 2009, Alonzo King was pulled over for a possible DUI, having a DNA sample taken upon arrest. Later on, after he was released with misdemeanor, was again imprisoned for the felony of rape. How did they know he was a criminal of a rape case? According to King's attorney, the police who had arrested him had taken a sample of DNA. The National Institute of Justice claims that Maryland has to have judicial determination of probable cause, warrant, formal indictment or arraignment prior to collection of analysis. The police had none of the listed requirements but had taken samples upon arrest. Another factor is that the only way to know King was a suspect of this case was if the DNA sample taken was put into a database instead of disposing of the sample. The National Institute of Justice also stated that Maryland has to have a required, state-initiated expunge of DNA. The evidence used was enough to say the DNA was not admissible. This is not the only way to find the government can take your DNA without consent and keep it for further uses. Biological samples like blood, tissue, and organ donations. The DNA in those samples can be analyzed without knowledge. This can cause the DNA to database to continue growing with clueless donors.
technology is not being used properly in schools

This world would not work if we did not know how to put pen to paper and write. We can't stop teaching that, even if we greatly reduce teaching it. Technology is used the right amount in schools. Essays ARE typed, and ICT is a common enough subject. But Paper and pen can't be completely taken out of the equation. My argument revolves around the fact technology is used to the right level - Why? It has to be used where it can afford to be used, and that is what schools who have the money are doing, or at least in the UK. If we were to only type that is also basically teaching the next generation money grows on trees. It doesn't, and people need to know that. Education has to be at least a bit of a compromise.
technology is not being used properly in schools

Writing is a very buggy skill as well. Half the people can't read my handwriting. Thousands of trees are wasted for those handwriting practice books. Smart boards have replaced white boards, but still the stylus is not used for writing work. Phone typing is very fast. I just have to flip the cover, open the app and start typing. But for writing, I will first get paper, then a pen, and if it is out of ink then again. Bad handwriting can become a serious problem. Electric registers? Not yet used widely I guess. Essay were put through special machines, but there are apps for that. Lots of trees and machinery could have been saved if those essays were soft-copies. Plagiarism detector soft wares are free and many. 'The problem was that the printers were constantly braking down, the computers kept on crashing and cyber-attacks were hard to keep out.' Who needs printouts? Upload on google drive or something else. Computers crashing may be due to a bad model or not deletion of useless data, or not clearing the recycle bin, which would increase memory and cause crashes. As for cyber-attacks, that isn't really common and there is nothing an anti-virus software won't stop, anyways you won't be dealing with pro hackers you are just a student. Loud typing is a result of improper typing, and also many offices use many computers, they don't get bugged. And the touch-keyboard has been invented already, please get a touch laptop there is the on-screen keyboard. For eye-hurting, put on screen savers that reduce the impact of the rays and reduce that full brightness. 'This is probably, bar developing technology, one of the most tech-heavy jobs you can get, but I couldn't of got this far without learning about reading and writing.' Reading doesn't count as e-books, websites etc. are far more resourceful than normal books.
technology is not being used properly in schools

I accept; Writing is fundamental skill. If someone tells you a date when something is happening you may need to turn on your phone, start up the app and type up the date, of course after that very long and awkward wait a phone does come into it's own, but it is often better to just write it down and then put it on your phone when you have time. Schools do use technology properly anyway. Smart boards have long replaced whiteboards, and the primary schools I went to started using electric registers in year 1. I then went to a very prestigious secondary school from year 7 onwards. essays were thread through special machines that recognised copyrighted phrases, saving the school millions of pounds, and basically everything that could be stored in a laptop folder was. The problem was that the printers were constantly braking down, the computers kept on crashing and cyberattacks were hard to keep out. If you spend 8 hours on a screen your eyes hurt, and it is actually damaging. The utterly ridiculous school hours in the US, that means I woke up at the same time as students in the US (I lived 30km from school, I lived in central London), just mean your eyes get hurt more. Typing is loud, there have been no 'silent keyboard' inventions yet, or at least, none that allow you to touch type. If everyone was typing down notes in a lesson the teacher has to shout. One day I want to be an architect, to be specific, a neofuturistic one. This is probably, bar developing technology, one of the most tech-heavy jobs you can get, but I couldn't of got this far without learning about reading and writing.
Born-Again Christians can have demons in them.

"The debate is not on the existence of demons, but the reality of the ability it has to enter a vessel the has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. Now I understand you believe none of the things I have stated in the first sentence, but as I established in round one the source is the Word of God otherwise known as the Christian Bible. If I must the reality of the soul [1] is clear in Scripture as well as the existence of demons.[2]1http://www.biblegateway.com......2http://www.biblegateway.com......Now that we have established the reality of the soul and demons let us take a look at why can they enter anyone including born-again Christians.I will give you one argument of the many I have to start. There is a doctrine in the Body of Christ that states a Christian cannot have a demon in them. There are no clear implications of this in Scripture, and even if there was the reality is if there is a promise from the Lord in Scripture it is not automatically manifested into reality. So even the things that are true academically in Scripture are not always fulfilled yet in experience."Pro uses The Bible as a valid source for his possesion arguments but gives no verses that back up such claim. Even if he does give verses that support his claims, his resolution is still a fallacy...... All 66 books in every version of The Holy Bible present verses that revolve around circular reasoning. Which is a fallacy, Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted. So if The Bible says Lev 20:13, If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.This does not make it true, it's as if saying: "Wellington is in New Zealand.Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand" Every verse in the Bible is not backed up with reasoning, only circular logic.Therefore any claims about possesion in The Bible can not be conclusive because it's circular logic.Now for the second part of my opponents argument- Pro claims that the concept against the existence of the soul is not automatically manifested in reality. Then he goes onto claim that if it is not true academically in Scripture are not always fulfilled yet in experience.My opponent has contradicted himself, he makes a claim that the logical argument against the existence of a soul isn't always manifested in reality or fulfilled yet in experience. Even though he makes the assumption that every other verse that makes a claim against my argument is logical. One problem, the Bible isn't manifested in reality....... It's filled with countless contradictions, red herrings, logical fallacies and circular logic and is definitely not manifested in reality. I still await my opponent...............I can not present my own arguments until he presents the BOP.......
Born-Again Christians can have demons in them.

Thank you for your response!This debate is not on the existence of demons, but the the Bible says about it. As we see in R1 the debate is based out of what the Scripture says about demons. According to the Bible they are real. Now this debate is not on the reliability of the source, but what the source actually says about the topic. As you agreed to debate according to the rules of R1 your requirement of demonic existence, at least for this debate, is not valid.Hope to hear back soon!
Born-Again Christians can have demons in them.

The debate is not on the existence of demons, but the reality of the ability it has to enter a vessel the has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. Now I understand you believe none of the things I have stated in the first sentence, but as I established in round one the source is the Word of God otherwise known as the Christian Bible. If I must the reality of the soul [1] is clear in Scripture as well as the existence of demons.[2]1http://www.biblegateway.com...2http://www.biblegateway.com...Now that we have established the reality of the soul and demons let us take a look at why can they enter anyone including born-again Christians.I will give you one argument of the many I have to start. There is a doctrine in the Body of Christ that states a Christian cannot have a demon in them. There are no clear implications of this in Scripture, and even if there was the reality is if there is a promise from the Lord in Scripture it is not automatically manifested into reality. So even the things that are true academically in Scripture are not always fulfilled yet in experience.
Born-Again Christians can have demons in them.

I have heard it said that a Christian cannot be demon-possessed, which I also agree with. The debate here is not one of possession, but of the simple fact that a demon can be in a vessel that has the Holy Spirit living inside of them as well. The word possession denotes complete control which is out of the question for a born-again believer. I am here to challenge any takers to debate me on the reality of demons being in Christians as well as the validity of deliverance ministry. I would prefer to debate someone who in real life opposes my views, but it is not necessary. The rules are I will clearly show through Scripture that a Christian can in fact have a demon/unclean spirit in them. You must through the Word of God refute my position.