BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
PMCs are not held to the same standards and thus should not be hired by the US government.

"PMFs lie outside national military controls and structures, so clients must also worry about how they can replace such services if things go awry or should the firm or its employees refuse to carry out orders in the midst of a crisis. Contractors exist within a business and even though they are doing military jobs, they are not in the military. Business is a civilian realm that falls outside the military chain of command and justice system." [[Fred Schreier and Marina Caparini, http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/Special%20Reports/Defense%20Contractors/Privatising%20Security%20-%20Law,%20Practice%20and%20Governance.pdf, March 2005]] "Private contractors also threaten the state’s monopoly on the use of force because they frequently operate outside the control of any national laws. It remains unclear, for example, whether private contractors hired by the United States are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), as are members of the national armed forces... Private contractors employed in Iraq were also granted immunity from Iraqi laws by the Coalition Provisional Authority's Order 17. Even where they are not exempt from local law, however, the situation on the ground in many of the states where private contractors operate is too unstable to guarantee any real accountability." [[Zoe Salzman, Private Military Contractors and the Taint of a Mercenary Reputation, http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_international_law_and_politics/documents/documents/ecm_pro_058877.pdf%5D%5D
PMCs have historically helped with resolving conflicts and aiding countries in winning conflicts.

"PMCs could be deployed as 'force multipliers' by governments who cannot tip the balance to their favour in an armed conflict and who cannot obtain the help needed from outsiders. PMCs could 'multiply' local forces quite literally by operating together with them, by training locals and/or by taking over non-military tasks, hence freeing up local troops for military operations. To illustrate how PMCs might play such roles, the reference point is the 'successes' of the South African firm Executive Outcomes (EO) (closed in 1998) in ending the cruel and costly (in terms of human lives and limbs) conflicts in Angola and in Sierra Leone. (the article goes on to explain the specific situations)" [[Anna Leander, "The Market for Force and Public Security: The Destabilizing Consequences of Private Military Companies," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 42 No. 5, Sept 2005, pp. 605-622]]
PMCs violate basic human rights and international agreements in its pursuit of victory and success.

If those who work for PMCs actually do commit human rights violations, there is no reason they cannot be brought to justice, just like any other criminal. "Although prosecuting private contractors for their misdemeanours is often compromised by the difficulty of collecting evidence, they can be held accountable for their actions in US courts." [[http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/8943,news-comment,news-politics,pros-and-cons-of-private-security-firms#ixzz0tJTearAC]]
The United States relies heavily on PMCs and would to be able to successfully carry out its foreign missions without them.

"In lieu of the 20,000 private military contractors sent to Iraq, the U.S. would have had to either expand the regular force deployed, call up even more national guard and reserve troops, or have made tough political compromises with allies or the UN. Instead, it avoided these decisions by using contractors. Such a choice importantly also came with the positive externality of contractor casualties largely staying out of the news. Indeed, the American media made a major news story in the late summer of 2004 that casualties had passed the 1000 killed in action mark, thus putting a great deal of pressure on the Bush Administration. However, they missed the fact that such a figure had long been passed, when one counted the contractor deaths." [[Fred Schreier and Marina Caparini, http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/Special%20Reports/Defense%20Contractors/Privatising%20Security%20-%20Law,%20Practice%20and%20Governance.pdf, March 2005]]
Monarchy is a child's creation

I read my history in college. And there's no doubt that there were a lot of childish games being played out around the world since the beginning. We are much more capable of being an intelligence above these games. But the modern day "children" in politics have a status quo that justifies the existence of a monarch. At least in their own eyes. I for one think a monarch is still a childish game that sucks a society dry of much higher potential for quality of life for the entire population.
The effect on morale.

To abolish the Monarchy would be to change the atmosphere in the UK. It would ruin a tradition that many feel is part of their national identity and are comforted by it still being the same. It would not be welcomed - the national character of England is one very much set in its ways and even the smallest rituals are important. Many would see it is a ploy to replace the Queen with something more sinister or at the very least empty of meaning. This is no time to reduce overall morale.
The Monarchy is backward and prejudiced

The monarchy represents tradition and ceremony which is unique and well loved amongst the nation. In 2007 in a BBC poll 80% of the people asked said they wanted to retain the monarchy. For many people it is a strong and even an emotive issue, we can take the example of the Save the Pound campaign in reaction to the Euro. The Queen's head on the pound represents the national identity and national pride. Many of these things could be improved by minor changes, in 1980 the Swedish Monarchy adopted equal primogeniture replacing its previous agnatic primogeniture system allowing the eldest child regardless of gender to inherit. Similarly the Act of Succession couold be modified to allowing the marriage of Catholics but not the sucession of Catholics to the Throne itself (due to the implications it would have for the Church of England).
We shouldn't reduce matters of constitutional importance to 'tourist revenue'.

If you ant to make the world more liberal equal and essentially meritocratic then you need to look further into the British system than the mere monarchy who are only one family. Look to inherited wealth, the old school tie network, the Oxbridge mentality. Just like you said, we should not reduce the problem of the monarchy to a merely financial argument; we should not limit the sight of our fight for liberty on the basis of a redundant monarchy.
Monarchy is a child's creation

To say that monarchy or government is a childish game seems to be to belittle the political history of most of the world for most of the period up until the 20th Century. Simply put until the acceptance of democracy, and more particularly modern communications allowing democracy monarchy was probably the best system for a large state to have. You imply that the US is more grown up than Britain, or Norway, or Japan etc. simply because it has a president? The systems are simply different rather than one being better than the other as the monarchical part is pretty much irrelevent politically in all of these states.
They bring in a lot of revenue through tourism

If you choose to holiday in either Tunisia or Morocco, would you really be wooed by Mohammed VI being on the throne? And does anyone TRULY believe Americans go up the Peak District because Charles Windsor is going to take over the firm when his mother dies? Would the Chinese stop taking photos of our capital if they thought Camilla Parker Bowles wasn't going to be the next Queen of England? Despite its bias to London, and the consequential failure to properly promote British coastlines, the tourist board never uses Monarchy in any of its promotional materials. This is because they know Britain has an image problem abroad. Some nations percieve Britain to be stuffy because of traditions like Monarchy. This is why considerably more people visit Legoland Windsor than Windsor Castle. Most British landmarks has little or no reference to Monarchy, and where they do, there is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the ludicrous claim those tourist came here to catch a glimpse of Liz Windsor peaking out of her curtains. If there is anything the tourism argument DOES prove, it proves Monarchists are prepared to use cheap arguments to support a supposedly majesterial institution that is supposed to be above it all. In both France and Germany people still visit palaces such as Versailles and Charlottenburg, despite the fact that neither country have a monarchy any more. Not having a monarch would not stop people from visiting the royal palaces. In fact it would allow them to open up more of the rooms in the palaces making them more visitor friendly & create the necessary jobs & revenue. The changing guards would probably still continue in a British Republic, as it does in Greece.
The effect on morale.

This is utter nonsense. To begin with, the Queen’s heritage stems from Germany. In addition, Britain has always been a coloniser; it has taken over states and ran their countries. This is historical. This is why Britain is such a multicultural nation. What Britain most signifies is the mixing of races and religions. We are still working out how to do this, but there is steady progress. The monarchy does not represent this feeling of unity. Much to the contrary, they stand as a stark reminder that Britain used to rule other countries in subordinate ways. Integration and therefore morale in Britain would be much improved with the abolition of the monarchy.
Monarchies improve social equality

"Never in the field of human existence has so much been taken from so many, by so few." The royals have been collecting other peoples wealth for generations. In the British isles the queen owns the crown estate - almost 120,000 hectares of seized agricultural land, dating from 1066 at an estimated value of £7,300,000,000 in 2010. This wealth must be returned to the citizens of the country.
The Monarchy is backward and prejudiced

The succession to the monarchy puts sons before daughters which is primitive & backwards in modern times of gender equality. Sons inherit before daughters, even if the daughter is older. This principle is called male primogeniture. This could be changed by an Act of Parliament. Some constitutional experts believe this could put the role of the monarch at risk. The Act of Settlement restricts anyone from succession who is not a member of the Church of England, this restricts the royal family from marrying a Catholic. The most recent victim to this sinister law was Autumn Kelly, who in 2002 renounced her Catholic faith so she could marry Elizabeth Windsor's eldest grandson. Republicans tend to argue the only way to establish what 61 million people think is to ask 61 million people as opposed to cheap media polls. They would have still been spirited to see in a 2009 BBC/ICM poll, 81% want to see reformation, the very same reformations constitutional experts fear will jeopardise the role of Monarchy. In another 2009 poll by YouGov, 54% wanted to see Monarchy reformed or abolished. No other establishment would be able to to discriminate along these lines in a lawful manner. The outdated laws reflect how out of touch British Monarchy is. The monarchy is obviously not democratic, the people have no say whatsoever which is unfair, because of the hereditary nature of the monarchy it means that the best person can never be picked for the job.
The monarchy has no real power

The Queen may have the power to sign off all legislation before it becomes law but she does not decide whether or not to pass laws. She is obliged to say yes to any law brought before her by the Prime Minister as the parliament who have proposed it have been elected by the people, whereas she has has not. The Crown creates also creates all peerages and awards other honours, but peerages and most other honours are granted on the advice of the Prime Minister. Foreign dignitaries may come to visit the Queen on trips to the UK, but these visits are usually no more than photo opportunities, the Queen has no influence over foreign policy decisions. Gordon Brown had to go and ask the queen to dissolve parliament before announcing the date of the general election, but this action was purely ceremonial. The Queen would not refuse to dissolve parliament and most people had been predicting a May 6th election for a long time before the Prime Minister emerged from Buckingham Palace on Tuesday.
It is costing the tax payers money which could be better spent

The British tax payer pays about £75,000,000 a year to support the royal family. The royal family is one of the richest families in Britain and although no real figures exist for their wealth Forbes estimated that they are worth $650 million. The money we waste funding the monarchy could be used to provide free university education for the poorest students or to build affordable housing, something Britain is seriously lacking at present. During harsh economic times such as these people who are struggling to keep their jobs should not be paying taxes to maintain the life of luxury that the royal family live in.
The Monarchy contrasts the meaning of Democracy

A system of inherited authority reduces the democratic system in the UK to a secondary or, if you separate the House of Lords from the Monarchy, tertiary tier of authority. This may be symbolic but it reinforces the belief in this country that voting wont change anything. The Monarchy represent the glass ceiling. Symbolically this country's system does not support the idea of freedom of collective determination which we call democracy and so many have fought and died to preserve or spread The existence of royalty automatically creates sub classes among the general population. This promotion of class division runs counter to a meritocracy - by skewing socio economic progress in favour of who you know rather on what you know. We now have a kleptocracy with the rich taking from the poor (eg taxpayer bailouts). On any metric (other than wealth) the monarchy is not elite and should be abolished without delay. Unfortunately - the aristocracy - those to whom power and wealth accrue - depend on the presence of the royal 'benchmark' at the top of this obscenely unfair state of affairs for their survival - if the monarchy goes so could they.
The use of a DNA fingerprint can scarcely be regarded as an affront to civil liberties. The procedur...

The use of a DNA fingerprint can scarcely be regarded as an affront to civil liberties. The procedure for taking a sample of DNA is less invasive than that required for the removal of blood.The police already possess a vast volume of information relating to the citizenry. The National Crime Information Center Computer in the United States contains files relating to thirty two million Americans and receives approximately two million queries each day.The availability of a DNA fingerprint to the police should be seen in the context of the personal information that is already held by outside agencies. Insurance brokers commonly require an extensive medical history of their clients. Mortgage lenders usually demand a full credit record of each applicant. Employers subject their employees to random urine tests for drug and alcohol consumption. If we are prepared to place our personal information in the private sector, why can we not trust it to the public authority of the police ? The DNA will only be utilised in the detection of crime. In short, the innocent citizen should have nothing to fear.
The creation of a DNA database would not require a disproportionate investment of time or public res...

The creation of a DNA database would not require a disproportionate investment of time or public resources. The requisite computer and laboratory technology is already available. The United States has developed the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).The expense of sampling the entire population of most countries would be substantial. It is unlikely to be offset by any subsequent saving in police resources. Yet the issue is properly the price that we should put on justice. The electoral rhetoric of ‘law and order’ suggests that the public puts a very high premium on protection from crime.
Although overall levels of crime in England and Wales have decreased over the previous decade, the n...

Although overall levels of crime in England and Wales have decreased over the previous decade, the number of violent crimes against the person has markedly increased. These are the offences which raise most grave public concern and which are unlikely to leave conventional fingerprints. The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence estimates that thirty per cent of crime scenes contain the blood, semen, or saliva of the perpetrator. DNA detection will be best equipped to identify the guilty. A full database ought to allow the use of DNA as an investigative tool where no suspect has yet been identified.
A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigation. The database ought to...

A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigation. The database ought to identify the potential suspects, each of whom can then be investigated by more conventional means.There is no possibility of escaping the provision of technical evidence before a court. Doctors, ballistics experts, forensic scientists are already a common feature of the large criminal trial. The jury system is actually a bastion against conviction on account of complicated scientific facts. The British jury is instructed to acquit a defendant where they find reasonable doubt. If the genetic data and associated evidence is insufficiently conclusive, or presented without sufficient clarity, the jury is obliged to find the defendant innocent.O.J. Simpson was acquitted by an American jury of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in spite of compelling DNA evidence linking him to the scene of the crime.
DNA fingerprinting has considerable advantages over conventional means of forensic crime detection. ...

Although DNA detection might have advantages over fingerprint dusting, the test is nevertheless fallible. Environmental factors at the crime scene such as heat, sunlight, or bacteria can corrupt any genetic data. Any DNA evidence must be stored in sterile and temperature controlled conditions. Criminals have been suspected of contaminating samples by swapping saliva.There is room for human error or fraud in comparing samples taken from suspects with those removed from a crime scene. The accuracy of any genetic profile is dependent upon the number of genes examined. Where less than four or five genes can be investigated, the PCR technique serves only to exaggerate any defects or omissions in the sample. In 1995 an 18 month investigation was launched into allegations that the FBI Crime Lab was ‘drylabbing’ or faking results of DNA comparisons.Even a complete DNA profile cannot indicate the length of time a suspect was present at a crime scene or the date in question. The mere creation of a database cannot be the panacea for crime detection.
The use of a DNA fingerprint can scarcely be regarded as an affront to civil liberties. The procedur...

The invasiveness of the database resides in the information being maintained on file, rather than in the procedure for obtaining the genetic data. The decision to pass personal information to mortgage or insurance agencies is governed by individual consent. The provision of DNA would have to be mandatory, for otherwise those liable to commit crime would simply refuse to provide a sample.When the citizen releases information to outside agencies he receives a service in return. In being compelled to give a sample of DNA the innocent citizen would receive the scant benefit of being eliminated from a police investigation.Moreover, medical records are already subject to a significant degree of statutory protection from investigation. The use of genetic tests by insurance companies remains highly controversial. It should be noted that DNA identifies not only the person in question, but also approximately 4,000 different genetic conditions and predispositions to disease. There is considerable potential for abuse of information that is so private, the person giving the sample will probably not know its contents. Finally, there is a subtle yet significant difference in the attitude of government towards the citizen that is conveyed by the creation of a database. Every citizen, some from the moment of their birth, would be treated as a potential criminal.
The creation of a DNA database would not require a disproportionate investment of time or public res...

The initial and continuing expense of a DNA database would be a gross misapplication of finite public resources.Public confidence in the criminal justice system will neither be improved by requiring them to give time and tissue to the police, nor by the creation of a novel bureaucracy dedicated to administering the database.The funds would be better directed towards increased recruitment of police officers and their more regular deployment on foot patrol.
Although overall levels of crime in England and Wales have decreased over the previous decade, the n...

The most serious violent crimes, notably the offences of rape and murder, are most commonly committed by individuals known to the victim. When the suspects for the commission of a crime are obvious, DNA detection is superfluous. Moreover, it is invidious to propagate the belief in the public that crimes can be solved, or criminals deterred, by computer wizardry. Unless the DNA is used to identify a genetic cause for aggression, violent crimes will continue to be committed.
A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigation. The database ought to...

There is a serious risk that genetic evidence will be used to the exclusion of material that might prove the innocence of the suspect. It is likely that more crimes will be prosecuted on account of largely circumstantial evidence. Moreover, there is the possibility that not only the police, but also the jury, will be blinded by science. It seems unlikely that juries will be able to comprehend, or more importantly, to question, the genetic information that is yielded by the database. The irony is that forensic evidence has been instrumental in establishing the miscarriages of British justice in the 1970s, but might now serve to create miscarriages of its own.
The increased use of DNA evidence will minimize the risk of future wrongful convictions. An FBI stu...

The database is immaterial to the acquittal or exclusion of non-offenders. Where a primary suspect has been identified, a DNA profile ought to be created and compared to the crime scene data. Likewise, where suspicions persist concerning the guilt or innocence of a convicted individual, a sample of DNA can be taken. The database has predominant application in ‘non-suspect’ cases, and not the circumstances where the suspect or felon is already identified.
DNA fingerprinting has considerable advantages over conventional means of forensic crime detection. ...

DNA fingerprinting has considerable advantages over conventional means of forensic crime detection. Conventional fingerprints attach only to hard surfaces, can be smeared, or avoided by the use of gloves. Even a clear print requires a significant degree of interpretation by investigating officers. The standard technique of comparing fourteen points between the print taken at the crime scene and the print of the accused has been subject to severe criticism. The novel ‘polymerase chain reaction’ (PCR) amplification technique facilitates an accurate DNA profile from very small amounts of genetic data. The fingerprint can be constructed notwithstanding contamination from oil, water or acid in the crime scene environment.The innocent and the accused should appreciate a novel fingerprinting technique that is both objective and accurate.