BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That give a boost to scientific development in wireless technology

The spirit of survivor give to every living being a boost in development, it’s just a natural behavior that we can see in plants, animals, etc. In humans is not different, just for begining, in fear our body starts a neurobiology process which increase our abilities to fight or flight from the source [[http://bit.ly/a2MuX1]] In the same way, science sponsored by military always run more quickly than civil sponsored investigation. Due to that the matter is to survive against a external threat. Our ability to fly in aircrafts, for example, had its peak of evolution in the 2nd World War, and later, the Cold War moves humans to the space. Also, thanks to a military project, ARPA, internet exist nowadays, and we can communicate each other from all around the world and share photos, comments, feelings and relationships [[http://bit.ly/sxjg]] So, it’s a fact, if with don’t ban remotely controlled weapons, wireless technology and Mechatronic engineering are going to have a lot of improvements in order to create easy, stable and secure protocol to control this kind of weapons, and to make them strong and efficient. This advances are going to be reflected in the civil world with less wire in our house, that reduce the disorder and the dangers related to sparks from a short circuits, and in better machines for our houses and specially in the industry, with better robots for the manufacturing process, making the products cheaper and more accesible.
Ask yourself this...

It is not the same situation because time has passed also there's marginal diminishing utility:You'll get tired of apples/cakes at some point therefore opting for the other. The author of the 'yes' point has signposted successfully, the major topics of such a debate on free will and determinism and for this the author should be highly rewarded. However it should be noted and the author of the previous no point did so only abiguously, that because time progresses or it changes in some way then because of this the situation 'of choosing the cake' at one point can never be repeated. But also on the atomic or quantum scale, the molecular structure of such a space in which you chose the cake has changed i.e. your cells have changed, the particle energies of the cake hath changed. Thus in reality (by reality i merely that world in which we perceive that is not the thought experiment) we can never repeat a situtation and thus we can never prove that if it was repeated one will choose differently. Correct me if my intepretation on your 'individual stance on the issue' is wrong, i feel that basically your argument can be stripped down to two fundamental propositions; 1) Our actions are either determined by our physical self, by external motion 2) after we are determined we could have chosen otherwise. My argument will refute the first proposition, and my agument is such... Imagine the cake situation there are two cakes. The probality of choosing either is 50/50 , now what makes the choice occur i.e. what actual physical occurence or event determines such a choice between two cakes? If the universe does eveything that can happen then that person chooses both in alternate dimensions, therefore probality determined the choice thus the universe needed to fulfill every possibility. If anything but choice determines our actions then our actions essentially mean nothing if the other action is acted our simultaneously. This only occurs when the universe determines our actions. How do we avoid this problem ? we say that it is the mind that chooses. The mind chooses one of the cakes by any criterion, and thus if we assume the mind to be metaphysical then the universe will not have to simulate every possiblity. Thus we can choose otherwise. Thus our actions are products of choice. (this stance is not my stance on the case, i feel that it was an interesting stance to take)
Ask yourself this...

Ask yourself this question "If I was, right now, presented with an apple or a slice of cake, which would I choose?" Now ask yourself that if you were put into EXACTLY the same circumstances (same time, place, mood, etc.- just to stress, in response to the NO comment - exactly the same, so the same TIME and everything else - there is absolutely no difference whatsoever) would you choose the same? My intuition is that I would choose the same, because the circumstances are the same. I will always, when presented with EXACTLY the same situation, choose EXACTLY the same way. The times I have asked this question of other people I have got mixed reactions. Some say the same as me, some say that they could choose otherwise, some say that they simply cannot imagine what they would do in a situation that had absolutely no difference to one they had already made a choice in. Our actions are determined, to some extent, by our bodies, the situation we occupy, our disposition to certain behaviour, etc. This is becoming a difficult position to oppose. What is still under some heavy debate is if that means we are free to act as we wish and so therefore are responsible for our actions, or if it means we are all on a ready-made path, with no 'agency' (capacity to make choices and impose those choices on the world[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28philosophy%29]]). The position I take individually is that we are not 'free' in the sense that our actions are not determined, but we are 'free' in the sense that although I could not have chosen otherwise, I still made the choice and so I am still responsible for my actions. If I choose to kill, I could not have chosen otherwise, but it was still me who made the choice to kill and still me who made all of the choices that led me to that point. We must take responsibility for our choices, even if we feel that we are in some way determined to make those choices. For further, more technical reading, see the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, entries on Free Will[[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/]], Causal Determinism[[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/]] and Moral Responsibility.[[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/]]
Our actions are determined by external factors or by choice

This is a sort of synthesis of the previous discussion above. One can be forced upon by nature or external factors to act e.g. a person pushing you imposed you to move forward which was an act in itself. This means external factors can sometimes determine our actions. One can choose to act in a certain way, i.e. to act badly or to act rightly (things that nature cannot force people to do) , however by choosing to act you have determined yourself to act. (how ironic) Thus all our actions are determined in some way either by choice or by external forces. The argument from 'no, because' has assumed that external factors only determine our actions, i stated external factors or by choice. If choice is internal or external is irrelevant.
You can't choose what you don't want, and want always precedes choice in the chain of causality.

You can't choose what you don't want. But suppose you choose the lemon pie over the apple pie, even though you wanted the apple pie, just to spite this rule. All that has happened is that you suddenly wanted to disprove the rule more than you wanted the apple pie. Another example: you see a man lying face down in the ditch. You want to hurry on your way, but you make a conscious choice to help him. Again, all that has happened is that one desire (to help your fellow man) has overridden another (to have a normal, hassle-free day). Desires often compete, and they can be chaotic and unpredictable, even to the mind hosting them. Want always precedes choice in the chain of causality. But can't you simply decide to like lemon pie instead of apple? Can't you simply choose to want to help your fellow man? Ask yourself this, however: why would you choose that? Why? Because you want to! Any attempt to show that choice occupies the role of ultimate cause only results in infinite regress.
Determined? Yes. Predetermined? No

we all make decisions every day, whether its getting up in the morning or robbing a bank, they are choices that we have made. They may be simple reactions or something you do just do, but these became reactions and the normal off of adecision to do this nature over and over again, whether concious of the decision or not, you made the choice to follow said path. But for an event to be predetermined is just silly. How can we say that in an event such as a courtroom in a murder trial be predetermined. Thats saying that everyone in the jurry will know how they will feel when they are informed of information that they have no idea what it possibly will be. Theres so many emotions and thoughts and beliefs and knowledge that all come boiling together from so many different people that predetermination is impossible. However, how they feel and their thought process creates the decision they make in the end. So determined? Yes. Predetermined? No.
This implies falsely that man operates on pure instinct from which he cannot vary, placing him on the level of animals.

The difference, intellectually and morally, between man and the rest of the animal kingdom is vast. Unlike animals, who are pre-programmed to act in certain ways (we call it "instinct"), man is a creature of self-awareness (conciousness) and thus, unlike animals, is aware of the variety of choices available to him in any situation that requires a choice be made. Therefore, this makes him a creature of volition (free will). The example of a man being prompted to cross the street by a green light in order to prove that man acts as a robotic entity and not as a creature of free will is faulty. What about the person who encounters a red light at an intersection and chooses to ignore it and cross the street anyway? Or, what about the person who encounters the green light, understands that they can now cross the street because the green light says so, but does not do so because a speeding car approaches, which causes that person to decide that it would not be safe to cross the street, and they hold back because the car may not stop but proceed through the intersection instead? In either of these cases, these people had a range of choices. They could have chosen to jay-walk, for example! The "green light" argument above, which attempts to prove that people are not creatures of free will because the person is "determined" to cross the street, is simply faulty. To be "determined" in something is itself an act of volition (free will), and we can choose our level of "determination". We can be somewhat determined or greatly determined to do (or not do) something. One could argue that we do share in common some instincts with animals, such as the instinct towards self-preservation. However, even in this case, we know there are many examples of people who have deliberately ignored their own "instinct" towards self-preservation, and instead deliberately sacrifice themselves for a cause or a person or group of people. An example would be a soldier who deliberately throws himself over a grenade that is about to explode in order to save his comrades from a certain death. Unlike animals, man has surpassed acting on purely instinct, is a creature of awareness, and because of his greatly superior intellect and the ability to choose between actions with understanding of what the possible outcomes could be, makes him a creature of free will.
For democracy to develop, a critical momentum (speed of change) needs to be built up. Moving from a...

If democratic development occurs too quickly, it cannot take root. If democracy is to take root and survive, it cannot emerge rapidly from nowhere. It needs to evolve as part of a process that commands social support. It also needs to benefit from well-designed institutional support (e.g. a free press and media, literate voters, unbiased election officials) which enables it both to begin but also to bed in and survive. Therefore, in moving to a democracy, there is a need for a period when the grounds for democracy are laid. In some circumstances, this will mean that rather than an immediate or rapid change to democracy, it is more appropriate and more desirable for a slower transition which allows for the necessary support to be built up.
For democracy to develop, a critical momentum (speed of change) needs to be built up. Moving from a...

For democracy to develop, a critical momentum (speed of change) needs to be built up. Moving from a non-democratic system to a democratic one is a significant change in a political system. It requires the alteration of often long-standing, well-established arrangements which may well be supported by very-well funded vested interests. Therefore, there may be well-organised and significant institutional resistance to democracy. Given the scale of change involved and the fact that pro-democracy forces may be less well-organised and supported, this can act as a significant barrier to a movement to democracy. It is important in this process that momentum be built up to overcome these vested interests. Breaks in the process give them opportunities to regroup and work against pro-democracy sentiments.
Arguments about democracy being “too fast” ignore the fact that any speed is “too fast”. Some peopl...

Democracy should develop at different paces in different environments. The idea of democracy as a universal good may be characterised as culturally imperialistic. It emphasises ethnocentric notions of good governance over other systems that may be preferred within other cultures. But even if this is not accepted and democracy is indeed thought of as a universal good, it does not follow that it ought to develop at the same pace in different places and at different times. The political and social situation is an important environmental factor in deciding whether democratic change will be successful. Immediately after a war, for example, there may be a security vacuum that various armed groups seek to fill. Democratic development in such circumstances will need to be different to that under a peaceful authoritarian regime. A different but similar example is that different levels of economic development, education or civil society may influence the appropriate shape and size of democracy.
Arguments about democracy being “too fast” ignore the fact that any speed is “too fast”. Some peopl...

Arguments about democracy being “too fast” ignore the fact that any speed is “too fast”. Some people argue that the movement from non-democracy to democracy is a very significant one and so systems ought to be wary of making that move “too quickly”. This ignores the point that the issue is not the speed but the scale of change. The move to democracy is a significant disruption to the status quo that will have wide-reaching and long-ranging effects in any situation. This will be so regardless of whether the transition period is short or long. So to complain that a transition is “too fast” is to confuse the nature of the change with the speed of change, which will always be too fast for many people’s liking.
Democracy offers a universal benefit and so should be embraced everywhere. Democracy is a universal...

Different levels and speeds of democratic development may be desirable in different cultures. Some countries and people are more ready for democracy than others. This is a fact of life. In some countries, there is a tradition of self-sufficiency that means that an over-emphasis on representative democracy will offend cultural standards. Similarly, in some cultures particular ages, genders or classes are viewed as having more right to rule or to direct the rulers than others, and simply applying a blanket definition of democracy will be positively damaging in such countries and in any case is unlikely to succeed. Given that different nations start from different democratic baselines, it will be culturally sensitive to introduce democracy at possibly different speeds depending on local circumstances, whatever the appropriate level of democracy may be determined to be.
Democracy offers a universal benefit and so should be embraced everywhere. Democracy is a universal...

Democracy offers a universal benefit and so should be embraced everywhere. Democracy is a universal good and should be recognised as a universal human right. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that it is good for some societies but not for others. This is a form of cultural elitism, which relied on an unspoken subtext suggesting that some countries lack the ability or willingness to embrace democracy, perhaps because their people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. Such attitudes suit some states which would rather manipulate non-democratic countries through client relationships with authoritarian regimes than through having to engage with populist, democratically elected regimes. This is illustrated in the nature of many of the relationships between the United States, and Central and South American countries over the past two centuries.
Democracy is critical because it acts as a foundation for other desirable social goods. Democracy i...

Too much democracy can encourage ethnic and other divisions. Democracy is majority rule. Any system of majority rule opens up the opportunity for minority oppression. Pro-democracy advocates argue that the system needs to contain an appropriate level of checks and balances to prevent majority abuse of power. However, in some cases this approach will be ineffective. In countries where there are serious ethnic, religious or cultural fault lines, it may well be that a democratic approach simply opens up the door for a systematic abuse of rights by the majority group (which in a multi-ethnic country may be far from an absolute majority). This is the reason given by Uganda's President Museveni for his “no-party democracy”, which he supports by arguing that party-based democracy in the short-term would degenerate into ethnically homogenous parties fighting elections on ethnically divisive grounds.
Democracy is critical because it acts as a foundation for other desirable social goods. Democracy i...

Democracy is critical because it acts as a foundation for other desirable social goods. Democracy is not simply an end but also a means. Democracy represents a stable, accountable foundation for social and economic development. This is recognised by many western countries that protect their own democratic basis. The debate about democracy is sometimes defined narrowly in terms of governance systems, and opponents claim that it would make little practical difference. This argument does not follow. Rather, given that democracy acts to enable a wider range of desirable goals, its importance should not be seen in isolation but instead as part of a much wider movement. For example, democracy makes rulers accountable to their people and raises expectations of good administration - both very important in the fight against corruption. In this light, democracy unarguably becomes a pressing need for development in a country.
There is a serious shortage of organs for transplant in the UK.

There is a serious shortage of organs for transplant in the UK, with about 5,600 people on the transplant waiting list but fewer than 3,000 transplant operations carried out every year. Although about 70% of the public say in surveys that they would be willing for their organs to be used by others after their death, only around 15% have signed the NHS organ donor register. Many organs are therefore buried or cremated when their owners would have wanted them to be used again, if possible. Moving to a system of presumed consent would enable those who object to the use of their organs to have their views respected, while ensuring the maximum possible donation rate from the rest of the population. Similar systems work in Sweden, in Spain (which has a 'soft opt-out' system where the views of close relatives are taken into account) and in Austria (which has a 'hard opt-out' system where relatives’ views are ignored). Spain has a higher number of donors than the UK and is the only country to have sustained a year-on-year increase in organ donation for the last ten years.
Under the current system, the final decision over whether an organ is donated is made by the family

Presuming consent and ignoring the wishes of the potential donor’s family could cause major distress to relatives and partners. This could lead to adverse publicity for the cause of organ donation. Offending the family’s feelings could also adversely affect their trust and respect for the medical profession. At death, the wishes of the victim’s family should be more important than those of the victim - they are, after all, still alive, and have to live with the consequences of any decision taken.
The number of donors in the USA has declined following...

There is no need to adopt this policy in order to achieve an increase in donated organs. In the USA the 'required request' rule makes it mandatory to make enquiries into the possibility of organ donation before a life-support machine is switched off. This makes it less likely that opportunities for donation will be overlooked, but ensures that families continue to be involved in the process. In Spain, where a 'soft opt-out' policy is in force, relatives are always consulted by a trained professional to ensure that they are aware of the possibility and implications of organ donation - this increases relatives’ willingness to allow the use of their loved-one’s organs, and their support for the donation programme.
It will be difficult to opt-out

An organ donation list can hardly be compared to a mailing list. And imagine the stink that would be caused should people not be able to opt-out. You can be sure that the newspapers opposed to the scheme would be the first to learn about problems and would make a huge fuss if any were found. In such instances, the damage to the system would be irreversible and, therefore, it’s hard to imagine any system not explicitly following the requests of anyone not wishing to participate.
several points

-Many people actually support organ donation but never actually opt into it but yet they feel free, when they are in need of an organ, to use an organ donors organs. -You have no use for your organs when your dead. -You should feel happy that even in death you can still save anothers life. -One organ donor can donate a majority of its organs, saving and improving many lives. -If you really don't support organ donation, you can always opt out
Under the current system, the final decision over whether an organ is donated is made by the family

Under the current system, the final decision over whether an organ is donated is made by the potential donor’s family. In many cases, family members may not know their relative’s wishes, and may offer an objection which the donor would not support - for example, they may hold beliefs about the importance of bodily integrity before burial which their relative rejected. Consulting the family is a denial of the donor’s autonomy.
The number of donors in the USA has declined following...

The number of donors in the USA has declined following an initial increase on the introduction of the 'required request' rule. The key point about Spain is that, despite the fact that it routinely consults relatives, it operates an opt-out system and the wishes of the donor are key - it is an example on the proposition side. The only way of ensuring the maximisation of donated organs is to operate a strict opt-out system so that every suitable organ can be used for donation unless the donor specifically objects