BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DNA Databases/ Profiling

You asked why it matters if you have your DNA kept and you also stated that the DNA can lead to many leading causes. What kind of causes can be lead to with having your DNA kept by a judge for 30 years? If your DNA is kept for up to 30 years, you can be turned down for jobs, houses you wish to buy, and you cannot carry a concealed weapon. After the DNA is taken, the person is on radar for anything that involves a background check. Do you ever wonder about the government hacking your information or never letting it go? According to pbs.org, the government has access to you DNA as soon as it is put on file. This means that the government will always know who you are based on genetics or who you were accused of being. When the government is allowed to track a person based on genetics, they will control that person and their everyday life. For example, trying out for a job is always hard, right? Now think of it if you had your DNA on file for matching a convicted felon"s DNA. That makes it easier for others to turn the job offer down because you are matched to another person"s crimes worldwide for up to 30 years. The government is aware of their own control, but will keep it from the people in order for the database to thrive. More studies show that mitochondrial DNA should be used since it provides information outside the cell. This means that it can be used and be more precise. Having more precise DNA can lead to less confusion from the government and police trying to prove you guilty of a crime that you did not commit.
DNA Databases/ Profiling

Why is this such a concern? Yes you do have your human rights, but having your DNA could help to some leading causes. Also why does it matter whether or not your DNA is kept after a trial in court. If you do have a gene that pertains to some criminals, why does it matter? Yeah, they might be on the look out for you, but if you know you are not going to have an issue with having it why is it that you would care or anyone else?
DNA Databases/ Profiling

One can argue that the databases can help with solving crimes. I agree that it can help get a lead, but the people are not always guilty and most do not have a say in what the government is taking from them. As mentioned in my argument above, there is a problem with the consent of individuals when their DNA is taken. According to the Hastings Center, the US has the world's largest database for DNA. Most are from criminals, but a lot of the DNA belongs to individual citizens that were held for crimes. In 1988, Colorado became the first state to require DNA from people that were likely to commit a crime. This information was determined by certain genes that would most likely lead to certain people having problems. The DNA is taken, but even if the person is found innocent, their data stays in the database. In 2006, people decided to have consent for any person that was having their DNA taken. The consent of a person is necessary because once you give up your own information, the government has all access. How would you feel if you had to give up your DNA and the government would not release it even after you were proven innocent and did not give consent to what was being asked of you?
DNA Databases/ Profiling

What is DNA database? DNA databases contain many peoples DNA information. This databases can be used in the analysis of genetic diseases, genetic fingerprinting for criminology, or genetic genealogy. With DNA from over 5 million people on the police"s national DNA database, DNA profiling has proved to be valuable tool for solving crimes. Such as finding kids that have been abducted or kidnapped. In England in 2010 your DNA profile is taken whether you are guilty or even if you are found not guilty. With this being said, many people are agreeing to the fact that DNA databases helps with profiling the people of this world.
DNA Databases/ Profiling

DNA databases are used worldwide to keep track of people who have or possibly could commit crimes. The government takes DNA samples from people and their data is kept for up to 30 years. After that time, the police should delete the data but usually do not. This causes ethical problems as well as legal problems. According to Carracedo, Professor Angel, "People can be linked to crimes with no apparent connections because of genetics." There are many ethical and legal problems with DNA profiling and databases. The analysis of the DNA on file can show researched genes that may link a person to a crime although the person may not even know about the crime. People may refuse to have their DNA taken at the scene of a crime. At that point, the person may be seen as guilty for refusing the tests. People have the right to refuse the tests according to the Constitution with human rights. According to the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, which came into effect on September 1, 1994, "the test is allowed without consent of the person when it is at the scene of a crime." How would you feel if that were you being tested for a crime in which you did not commit and you cannot say no? People should have the right to say no according to the Colorado consent law that states that a person must be 16 to give legal consent for medical procedures and testing. Those are some of the legal and ethical problems with DNA databases.
DNA Databases/ Profiling

No, its not overstepping a person's privacy if it helping the world and the medical diseases. Its not overstepping their privacy if it means finding lost relatives that were loved so deeply. Its not overstepping if it helps finding criminals. This can help the world. People could figure out what kind of genes they have. We could find cures to medical diseases. We could find those people that have done wrong. We could find those children who have run away or have been abducted. Why would this be a threat to someone's privacy if it means helping people in this world? Why would it be wrong to use DNA to stop future diseases? If it does this much help, why stop it? We can thrive off this, we need to keep using the DNA databases.
Link from "ocarina of time" would win in a fight against samurai Jack.

Link from "ocarina of time" would win in a fight against samurai Jack. Obviously this isn't a serious debate, I just want to have fun against whoever accepts it But I find it interesting how similar these characters are. They both face tremendous evil. They both have sacred blades. They both travel into the future. But enough on that, let's begin Definition- fight- an armed conflict Win-to kill or incapacitate your opponent Contention 1 Link is smarter and more quick-thought. He was able to train for the encounter with gannon by going through a few temples. In the time of about a week, he was able to collect the first three gems of power, and then in a few weeks, he was able to collect all the sage medallions. All the enemies he fought, he had no training for. Jack's enemies were tired and predictable. But link had to learn the weakness on the battle field. He didn't have time to train, and even without training, he was able to destroy gannon anyway. And all the enemies link fought were different, he couldn't always charge his problems head on, he had to discover a weakness. [3] Contention 2 Link has the help of the 6 sages and the powers of the goddesses. Plus he has the fairy Navi help him through difficult situations. [1] Contention 3 Link has many tools, link is armed for every situation. [1} He has many tools. Even if Jack were to cleave him in two, a fairy would come out and revive him. He is ready for any possible battlefield. While Jack is only armed with a sword. Contention 4 Link is battle-trained. He has fought everything from Fiery flame dragons to gigantic ghosts to twin witches [4]. This gives him the advantage of contention 1. He has slain all his enemies and never failed on a mission. He knows how to use his environment as an advantage. Even when he was at a clear disadvantage, he still managed to pull through. Plus, he killed a giant arachnid with a slingshot and some seeds. [4] Contention 5 Jack's sword is powerless against link. Although it is powerful, it has no special power against one who is righteous.[2]. Jack has no advantage over link, because his blessed sword will not work on link. [1] http://www.zeldawiki.org... [2] http://samuraijack.wikia.com... [3] http://www.zeldawiki.org... [4] http://www.zeldawiki.org...
Link from "ocarina of time" would win in a fight against samurai Jack.

1. Link went to face gannon, and gannon when he was on the brink of death, collapsed his tower, Link escaped AND rescued princess zelda, then went on to slay gannon. As does link, his opponents get stronger everytime As do link, he can effectively cast the power of the gods and is a master archer too. Link has super strength due to the golden gloves. As he can also breathe underwater with the silver scale. 2. Ok, since you seem to be confused, The fairy cannot die, but he only has 2 but when he dies, it will revive him. This means that he can sustain three lives and there is a good possibility that Jack will die in those lives 3. So link and Jack have both fought in different enviorments, when they were not accustomed, however link has always prevailed in his enviornment 4. Link fought the world's ultimate evil. a man with power greater than the god's themselves, he even peirced the sacre realm and pushed good to the brink of death. Link has also fought zombies, and gigantic lava monsters. Link has definatley fought more monsters than Jack 5. So has link, he has done everything jack has done and more, he has defeated numerous soldiers for the dark lord gannon. In conclusion, If samurai Jack and Link, the hero of time were to fight, It would be an epic battle. It would probably rage on for days, but in the end, link would emerge victorious because link has more skill and more quick thoughts. Even if you think that they are equal, then you must cosider that link has three lives, in which jack would become tired and unable to fight, and surely be defeated.
Link from "ocarina of time" would win in a fight against samurai Jack.

For the debate's sake, let's consider that they are just fighting, we don't have a reason why, they just are. Contention 1 Jack may have had the advantage of years of training, but this is disproven to be effective. During episode 1, Jack trained for (let's say ten years, because he looks ten when he starts off and then looks to be in his twenties). And yet, when he comes to face off with aku, aku defeats him by throwing open a portal in time. Jack fell for this. His training didn't prepare him for that. Link has to deal with his opponent evolving. Gannon evolved three times, and link was able to beat all three forms. Contention 2 We are talking about one on one combat. The sages bless link and guide him throughout his jorney, they don't actually fight with him. Neither does the fairy, he just provides (annoying) commentary. Jack has no additional guidence Contention 3 1st the fairy is a tool he uses, when he dies it revives him. That's just clairying. Just in standard form, link has tools for any situation. Plus, she said that Jack has fought through time, Link has fought under water, in volcanos, in a tree, in a fish, in the forest, in the desert and in a city. Link is ready for any battle field, Jack has only fought in two places for extended time. In the city, and in the forest Contention 4 Link fought shadow gannon, and giant robotic beetles is impressive, but what about a giant ghost, and link barely touches the ghost. And he defeats the witches with his sheild! Link has fought theives of the gerudo tribe. Link has done way more than Jack. Contention 5 Let's just assume that for the record they are fighting, but still, link has weapons ready to go for him even if he lost his weapons, then he would still be able to beat jack.
Link from "ocarina of time" would win in a fight against samurai Jack.

This is kind of difficult to debate, considering just the fact that Jack only fights evil, so I have to assume that he's fighting an alternate-universe Link [I don't know the Zelda series very well so I'm gonna try my best here as a huge Samurai Jack fan haha] that's evil or at least somewhat corrupt. Refutation 1 Although Link may be smarter, Jack has gone through years [I'll assume he's in his 20s, so let's say 15-20 years] of training and has much more battle experience. He's proven to be resourceful and observatory without the need for super-intelligence, not that he isn't smart for his time period, but he's not meant to be a genius. Saying Link is more quick-thought is really hard to say for me, since I know the character but not from that specific game. Jack is extremely quick-thought and comes up with excellent plans quickly and always manages to defeat his opponent. Saying Link didn't have to train shows that, once again, Jack has more experience and understanding of the battle. And going against your implications, Jack rarely charged his problems head on [excluding his first episode encounter with Aku, considering that was his first true battle experience]. He's tactical and also has to discover weaknesses of his opponents, shown throughout the series. Refutation 2 Jack has the help of multiple soldiers, sailors, Vikings, robots, and aliens; all of which he encountered and helped throughout the series. However, this argument is whether LINK could defeat JACK, not whether Link & all his helpful companions can defeat Jack. Refutation 3 The fairy healing him argument is refuted in "Refutation 2". Jack, although carries only a very powerful and spiritual sword, has proven capable of using almost anything as a weapon throughout the series. Jack is obviously ready for any battlefield, considering he could battle in his own time period or in a different time period in multiple locations shown (I apologize for repeating this phrase) throughout the series. Refutation 4 And Jack's killed giant robotic beetles with only a wooden stick. Jack is much more battle-experienced and (adding to his original training) battle-trained than Link. He's fought everything from Vikings to robotic bugs to Genndy Tartakovsky's interpretation of a demon (possibly even the devil? His name is Japanese for "evil" but I can't be sure without sources, I promise to have for the next round and apologize for not having any this round). Whether or not Link has done all that, Jack's done it and more, without the help of a fairy to heal him every time he gets hurt. Refutation 5 Like I said, Jack wouldn't be fighting at all if Link was righteous, so I have to assume that Link is not righteous in this situation. Jack's sword may be his primary weapon, but he could grab anything, a piece of wood, a rock, and be able to turn it into a weapon. He is resourceful enough to be able to improvise. (Sorry, no sources right now haha. I'm on a hotel computer and I can only have one window open at a time).
Torching the Stars n' Stripes

If I object to the American government entering Iraq, I could shoot a federal agent as a powerful message of protest. Or better yet, I could write an article in the paper urging Americans to overthrow the current regime. Both of these, like flag burning, are powerful messages. The fact that they are powerful messages does not render them sacrosanct. You're right that Jefferson and other founding fathers committed treason. They committed treason and other unlawful acts to declare their objection. They took every means to protect their voice. But that was THEIR TIME. During Ancient Rome, they liked to crucify their violent criminals, and even though we admired the Romans and their culture, that was THEIR TIME, not ours. In the time of Jefferson, perhaps they did need to commit treason in order to defend the inalienable right to not pay taxes to a government that just fought an expensive war in the colonies at the request of the colonists to defend their right to expand into the territories of Native Americans without fear of retribution or fear of other colonial powers. It was a time where most people were not well educated and the reproduction and dissemination of information difficult. For all different reasons, treason was the only avaliable means by which they could affect democracy in America. But we no longer live in the times of Jefferson. With the mass availability of the internet, with the ease of putting writing into publication and circulation, in a world where people have the means and resources to educate, there is no longer an excuse to burn flags. Burning flags is not an argument, it does not educate, and, once again, it DOES NOT ADD to the health and vitality of American Political Debate. People should not be allowed to burn the flag (the negation of the opening Pro statement: People should be allowed to burn the flag) because it is disloyal, disrespectful, and hurts the American spirit. And even though it technically falls under free speech by our Supreme Court, people still should not be allowed to burn the flag because it does not actually contribute to American Political Debate. For these reasons I am proud to oppose.
Torching the Stars n' Stripes

Your argument is essentially that it is against my citizenly duty to burn the flag. You also agree that flag burning is a matter of freedom of speech and should be regarded as such. You give me no reason that it should be against the law or any reason why the law should be overturned, only that I shouldn't do it on a moral type of ground. Burning the flag is a powerful message of protest. While I don't personally believe in it, it should be allowed as an avenue of expression. It is just as you advocate, a message of objection. In fact, flag burning is the ultimate message of objection. It isn't launching an attack on America, but quite the opposite. To burn the flag in protest is to take the most radical form of free speech. A fundamental principle on which this country was built. Jefferson and the like declared independence, committed treason, and countless other unlawful or unpatriotic acts in a move to declare their objection. To take every means to protect your voice and speak out is to be American. Not every symbol of free speech can be a drawn out discussion. In fact, some of the most powerful messages in the world are symbolic. Think of the swastika you mentioned. Everyone knows what it means, universally. Whether you agree with it or not isn't the question and has never been. Flag burning is a critical and powerful method of displaying objection. If a ciitizen feels they are disheatened to that degree or that their voice is being qualmed to that extreme, they should have the right to envoke any and every right, including perhaps the most sacred. To burn the flag is to take extreme measures in order to voice your cause, which is the very founding principle of America. You have given no reason why we should overturn, only that we shouldn't burn the flag on moral grounds. However, burning the flag should be available as an option. To have it otherwise would be the real attack on the American spirit.
Torching the Stars n' Stripes

Freedom of speech is an important civil liberty that needs protection. That being said, not all "speech" falls under its umbrella protection. Now I'm not going to argue whether or not flag burning is constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on that matter and it has already made a ruling. I will instead argue flag burning should be prohibited. Freedom of speech is important because it allows the constant expression of different CONSTRUCTIVE viewpoints. Of course since it's hard to determine what constitutes constructive, as a society we have often erred on the side of caution, allowing controversial speech just in case it represents a positive force in society. Flag burning however serves no positive purpose in America. If you are against our actions in Iraq, if you are against the estate tax, if you are against the growing powers of special interests, you have every right to make such statements. But what is burning the flag? Is it a rational argument? Does it add health and vitality of American political debate? Flag burning can only express hatred of America. We have enough of that from the rest of the world. It is every loyal American's duty to object if he/she disagrees with American policy and explain the grounds on which he/she objects. IT is not within their rights to launch an attack on America, which Flag Burning is. It's an attack on our spirit, and an attack on our hearts. To burn a Flag in America is to draw a Swastika on a Synagogue, and such actions should not be allowed nor tolerated.
The Personal God Does Not Exist

This debate is about whether the personal god exists. I as the Pro side, will be arguing that the personal god does not exist. The burden of proof is on my side to show that the personal god does not exist."Doge's Debate Rules" are applied to this debate.Doge's Debate Rules:1. All sources that are going to be used in the debate must be submitted in the first round. The only exception is the definitions of words being provided.The same amount of sources are limited on both sides. The maximum amount of sources in this debate is 10.2. The debate is limited to 5,000 characters per round.3. Both parties have 72 hours to respond.4. Any insult utilized will result an automatic forfeit of the debate.5. After the first round neither Pro nor Con can comment in the comment section. If this happens this results in the loss of the conduct point for the party that did this. 6. Any forfeit of a round results an in automatic loss of the debate.7.Debate Structure:-Round 1) Acceptance and sources are submitted.-Round 2)Opening Arguments-Round 3)Rebuttals-Round -Round 4)Closing Arguments. No new evidence is allowed to be presented. Otherwise it is an automatic forfeit of all points.My sources:1. The Origin and Development of Religious Belief by Sabine-Baring Gould2. http://ftp.iza.org...3. http://plato.stanford.edu...4. The Bible5. http://www.christianitytoday.com...6. Also Sprach Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche7. Jenseits von Gut und Böse by Friedrich Nietzsche8.http://www.reasonablefaith.org...9.http://atheism.about.com...10.http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org...Leave a comment in the comments section confirming that you accept the rules of the debate and that you are interested in debating.Explanation of the source rules:The source rules benefit everyone who has read the debate rules so far because you have the chance to formulate your argument based off my sources. I am the party disadvantaged as a result of this not the challenger. It is more than fair for my opponent considering they can develop an argument against me based off the sources I have provided. The source rules are based off the "right of evidence" where evidence must be disclosed in preliminary hearings in court. Therefore the source point will automatically be tied.