BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The police officers weren't justified in thier crowd control tactics at the rainbow gathering july 3

The police officers were justified in their crowd control tactics during the Rainbow Gathering on July 3rd 2008 for 1 major reason: During the Rainbow Gathering nearly 400 people attending the gathering began to overrun the police escorting 2 arrested individuals out of the gathering. The mob began throwing sticks and stones at the police, in which case the police felt as though their lives were in danger, this is why the action was justified. As you can see in this article from the Casper Star Tribune on July 5th 2008 -"The Forest Service's Incident Command Team in Rock Springs issued a press release Friday morning, saying officers were patrolling the main meadow of the gathering Thursday evening when they contacted a man who fled and was later caught. Another Rainbow was detained for physically interfering. Officers began to leave the area with the subjects and were circled by Rainbow participants, according to the news release from Rita Vollmer of the Incident Command Team. Ten officers were escorting the detained subjects when about 400 Rainbows surrounded the squad, and more officers were requested, according to the news release. "The mob began to advance, throwing sticks and rocks at the officers. Crowd control tactics were used to keep moving through the group of Rainbows," the news release said" That specifically states why the action was justified, the link is here - 'http://www.freerepublic.com...' for those who want the actual evidence. Now, the question of whether or not the events at the Rainbow Gathering could be considered a "Riot" which justifies Crowd/Riot Control methods... Performing a simple Google "Define: Riot" search i got these definitions for riot: Definitions of riot on the Web: 1. a public act of violence by an unruly mob 2. rioting: a state of disorder involving group violence The Rainbow Gathering incident matches both of these definitions Definition 1: The Rainbow Gathering event matches definition 1 of riot because simply put, the group of 400 people surrounding the officers was an "Unruly Mob" and they were participating in violence against the officers when they began throwing sticks and stones which could cause bodily injury Definition 2: This is straight forward, the Rainbow Gathering event matches this definition because it was violence from a large (400 person) group of people Now, whether or not the riot at Rainbow Gathering justified riot control measures, first off, yes, in fact, it did justify riot/crowd control measures because the officers' lives were in danger from death from mob (AKA Lynching). The officers could have easily been harmed or even killed from the large group of people. With all of these reasons, i believe that the actions at Rainbow Gathering were justified. Espessially considering that technically, the gathering did not ever have a permit to even be in the Forest it was in. -AJN0592
The police officers weren't justified in thier crowd control tactics at the rainbow gathering july 3

In July of this summer, during the annual rainbow gathering, law enforcement officers aggressively entered kid village to arrest someone. When a lady asked the officers to take their guns out of kid village, they violently detained her as well. Looking to instigate a riot, they prematurely began firing rubber bullets, pepper spray balls, and using tazers on the gatherers. People had welts all over their body from the close range barrage of pepper spray balls. They randomly shot with no discrimination even shooting people who were trying to calm the riot; the people who were holding people back from attacking the officers. This all took place in kid village where kids were everywhere. Kid village is where all the families with kids stay. A little girl was shot in the face with a pepper spray ball. The rainbow gathering is about love and harmony, and they were posing little or no real threat to the officers. People have the full right to exclaim their opinions to officers, and do not deserve to be shot at in response. If anything, their crowd control methods only made the situation more dangerous, rightfully angering the people that they would start a fight in kid village. The police were completely responsible for the riot. If they had done a better job, they would have arrested the man somewhere else than kid village, and they would have quickly and discreetly gone in and out, without starting the riot. -Harlan
Resolved: Muslims will have a better life in the UK than in the USA

If you know about Osama bin Laden, you would know why. Anyway, the Islam population in the UK is growing. Here are the statics as of 2010:UK: 2,869,000 USA:2,595,000 As the math shows, the Uk has more 274000 more Muslims tha America. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: Muslims will have a better life in the UK than in the USA

Ello! As you know, I live in both the UK and the US (I go to the USA for the holidays). There are different people from different races, religion, etc. There are muslims in the UK. I see muslims in both places, and may I say, they are treated RUBBISH in the USA than in the UK. I would like to see con state his/her opinion.
Euthanasia

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. I will now lay out my rebuttals to what he said.RebuttalsI have a few problems with my opponent's arguments. Throughout, he seems to be giving arguments to both sides. His arguments are comprised of two parts: Reasons for euthanasia and reasons against euthanasia. This confused me for a moment. I will simply refute his arguments against legal euthanasia.1. It is opposed by all major religions, inclusing Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and BuddhismThis is true, yes. However, as my opponent mentioned, there is a separation of church and state. He then goes on to argue that this separation is limited, for "we still print “In God we trust” on our money and have “under God” in the pledge." He fails to recognize, however, that it is actually unconstitutional to have these things on money and in the pledge. This can be proved my looking at Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, which says this:"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen." For there is a clear separation of church and state, the fact that religions oppose euthanasia is irrelevant.2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine availableIn this point, my opponent seems to be making an argument for eutnanasia. My opponent gave no arguments against it.3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted.Morality is subjective. This is a fact and it cannot be denied. Ethics are not facts, but merely opinions that cannot be proven. Throughout his explaination, my opponent has given subjective arguments, not objective arguments. In my arguments, I gave arguments that are relevant and objective.4. that it is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath, and Voluntary euthanasia gives power which can be too easily abusedThe Hippocratic Oath does not appertain to this. If there is nothing a doctor can do to save a suffering patient, the only thing that doctor can do is euthanasia. Why would a good doctor let a patient suffer? A good doctor wouldn't. Instead, s/he would do what is possible. If nothing is possible, euthanasia is the only way to relieve a suffering patient.ConclusionI have refuted all of my opponent's arguments correctly and justly. I have shown aspects that my opponent cannot deny. I patiently await his rebuttalsWorks Cited[1]http://www.stephenjaygould.org...[2]http://www.iep.utm.edu...;
Euthanasia

I will begin my arguments. ArgumentsMorality First, I would like to talk about morality. Most people do not like the idea of euthanasia because they say it is immoral. However, I have some problems with that statement: Morality is not objective, so it is not immoral. Morality is very subjective and relative. One cannot successfully use the morality argument. Second, I will talk about my moral standpoint on this: Letting someone suffer is worse then killing them. I would most certainly have a painless death than a painful one, and I am sure my opponent will agree with me on this. Upsides1. Provides a way to relieve immense pain. If someone is in enough pain and was, without a doubt, going to die, there is no reason not to put them out of their misery. If I had been severely burned, for example, and were in terrible, irreversible pain, I would not want to live my life in pain. My opponent wouldn't either.2. Provides relief of pain. Again, pain and suffering is horrible and can, if there is no better way, be relieved.3. Freedom of choice is a beautiful thing. Allow me to share a quote with you:"There is nothing more important to a human than freedom. There is also nothing more perverted by a government than a human's freedom. It pains me to see humans not reaching their full potential by reason of this perversion. " - Jacob McCartneyWhy should the government be able to take away the freedom to live or die. This right is already abridged with the death penalty, but it can be perverted the other way as well.4. "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. "Someone who is suffering should have the right to be able to end their suffering if they desire to. Euthanasia on account of an irreversible comaIf someone is in an irreversible coma, there is simply no reason to keep them alive, hence the word 'irreversible'. It would be a waste of money and resources. Why would we waste these resources on people we cannot save? We shouldn't. There is no point to it. ConclusionI believe I have thoroughly giving reasons towards why euthanasia should be legal. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Works Cited1. . http://www.euthanasia.com...2. . http://euthanasia.procon.org...
Euthanasia

IntroductionThis debate is about euthanasia, the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. I will be on the pro side, meaning I support it. My opponent will be on the con side, meaning s/he does not support it.Rules:1. Proper spelling and grammar must be utilized at all times2. All sources, if any, must be properly cited.Format:Round 1: Acceptance onlyRound 2: Arguments. No rebuttals.Round 3: Rebuttals and any last argumentsRound 4: Final rebuttals and conclusionI look forward to this debate. Please do not accept if you are not going to take it seriously or if you cannot commit to the debate. Thank you.
Best General of WWII

I will now talk about the reasons that Heinz Guderian was a better general.Georgy Zhukov often suffered heavy losses.One of the most obvious examples of this was at the battle of Moscow. Soviet losses during the battle were 1,280,000 while German casualties stood at only 400,000 [1]. At some point in the battle, the Germans were outnumbered by as much as 2:1. Although I would agree that there were certain conditions that required such heavy losses, the often pointless waste of men by Zhukov supports my side of the argument.During Operation Mars (also known as "Zhukov's Greates Defeat"), Soviet forces, led by Georgy Zhukov, suffered around 500,000 casualties along with 1,600 tanks. At the same time, German casualties stood at only 40,000. [2] This is another example of how Zhukov often pointlessely wasted lives.During the battle and eventual siege of Leningrad, Zhukov sacrificed millions (Zhukov was only in command for part of the siege). The Red Army alone suffered around 3 million casualties in the fight for the city. German casualties stood at around 140,000. [3]Most of Georgy Zhukov's victories were largely due to a numerically superior army. I have stated only three such cases but there were others. During Operation Bagration and the battle for Berlin Zhukov outnumbered his enemy. Although Zhukov was a very good general, I would argue that there were some Soviet Marshals who were just as good, if not better than him.The reasons that I believe Heinz Guderian was the better general was because:1) Guderian developed strategies that are used even today.2) Guderian was constantly outnumbered.3) Guderian won staggering victories while suffering small losses.In France, the German army suffered 163,000 casualties while the allies suffered around 2.2 million. [4]Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Best General of WWII

Since you have not shown any issue with my choice, I will continue. Georgy Zhukov was born a peasant, and was later conscripted into the Imperial army, serving with the 106th Cavalry Regiment. Twice in World War I he was awarded the Cross of St. George for bravery on the battlefield, and was promoted to NCO (non-commisioned officer). He served in the Red Army during the October Rebellion and Russian Civil War in the 1st Cavalry Army. He also recieved the Order of the Red Banner (recognizing him for heroism, courage, etc.) for subduing Tambov Rebellion. Finally, he displayed great ingenuity in the battle with Japan's Kwantung Army, utilizing 500 BT-5 and BT-7 tanks supported by 500 fighters and bombers (the first joint Fighter-Bomber operation in the Soviet Union). After flanking the Japanese with two tank brigades, the battle was won and the disputed border of Mongolia and Manchuko was secured by the Soviets. These tactics were later tested and utilized in the later Eastern Front of World War II. Innovations in tank engines (from highly flammable petrol engines to diesel), which later led to the creation of the highly recognized T-34 tank. He also began (on the Eastern Front) to utilize underwater bridges. As well, he mixed experienced veterans with rookies to create a morale boost among the soldiers. After these early conflicts, he served during World War II, and was responsible for numerous successful and some unsuccessful campaigns. After the Allied victory, he continued to serve in the military, until Stalin's (you losing this debate, eh?) death, where he slowly fell from Soviet graces. He later had a short political career as Defense Minister until his retirement.
Best General of WWII

In this debate, me and my opponent will argue who was the best general of WWII. I will be going with Heinz Guderian. My opponent must also choose a general, however since I have chosen a German general, Con can not choose a German general. In addition to this, the general he chooses must be from the European Theater.Rules:1) My opponent and I can only choose a general from the European theater.2) My opponent can not choose a German general since I already chose a German general (he can choose an American, British, Soviet , etc. general).3) No insulting me.Structure of this debate:Round 1: Acceptance. In addition to this, state which general you chose.Round 2: Write a short summary about the general you chose. Focus on his military experiences and successes.Round 3: Me and my opponent will compare generals. I will talk about the reasons that Heinz Guderian was the better general and my opponent will talk about the reasons that the general he chose was better.Round 4: In round 4, we will respond to each others arguments from round three. This round will also be used for conclusions.If you do not accept these terms and conditions, then please do not accept this debate.Lets see how this works. Good luck and have fun.
Life is just a game

My responsibility is to show that life is not like an arcade style game, I will use his three contentions to demonstrate the difference. 1. The goal is to score as many points as possible and/or to reach the highest level. Pros analogy suggests that the result of a person achieving their desires is the equivalent to points in a video game. I will accept this concept, but the major difference between life and a video game is that video games start off with a pre-determined point system and can not be changed because the gamer changes their mind. Pro lists “number of years lived” for example. Some may want to live to be 100, but by the time they reach 80 they no longer desire to live. In this case living longer would gain no additional “points” because it no longer aids in achieving that persons desires. You can not change the point system in a video game just because you decide miw-way through that you don’t like the games direction. 2. There are bosses that need to be defeated. Similar concept to point 1. “Bosses” are defined in real life by those who stand in the way of achieving our desires. However this situation changes frequently. Bosses become our friends, and friends become our bosses. There is no rule to follow. 3. Life has glitches A glitch is defined as a minor malfunction(1). How does Pro suggest that any of his examples are malfunctions? For it to be a malfunction it must go against the intention of the person or entity who created the situation. Who is to say that Pros dog was not intended to eat candles? Pro can certainly say it is not natural, but he can not use nature’s intentions as an argument unless he plans on proving what natures thought process was. (1) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Life is just a game

In this debate I will prove that life is like an arcade-style game. 1. The goal is to score as many points as possible and/or to reach the highest level. This has different meaning from person to person, but the idea is the same--the more points, the better. Depending on the desires of the "player", these points are usually quantified as: -number of years lived -amount of money earned -number of friends made -number of calories taken in -Et cetera 2. There are bosses that need to be defeated. These "bosses" are challenging in nature, and require all of the player's endurance and willpower. In life, these bosses can be: -getting through divorce -getting a job/new job -cooking for an office party of 20 people -not getting caught by the cops while speeding (late for work) -not getting fired when you arrive to work late (the cop slowed you down) -et cetera 3. Life has glitches Just like programmers of arcade games miss a glitch here and there while editing, the "programmer" of life has apparently missed a few glitches. Such examples are: -the platypus -Mystery Spots (look it up--it is difficult to explain) http://www.mysteryspot.com... -the sinful nature of humans (read "Genesis" for more information--first book in Bible) -hiccups (they serve no bodily purpose) -homosexuality -my dog's desire to eat candles -et cetera With these three arguments, I have proved that life is like an arcade-style game. To win the debate, my opponent must prove that the majority of the above reasoning is false. Good luck!
Schools should block YouTube

Since you have no argument, I will address the emplorer21. The idea of a school board monitoring WiFi activity is ludicrous. These are people who have actual jobs to get done, not watch the majority of students who are doing nothing bad online in order to catch the few who stray from what they are doing. High schools have an average of 750 students nowadays (1), and most urban ones have upwards of 1000, so it would be a very tedious task to weed out the few wrongdoers. Also, you can't expect high school students to stay by their word when they say that they won't watch porn or anything bad online while at school, for the very same reason you can't expect a high school student to say that they are 18 when watching community flagged videos on YouTube. 1 http://nces.ed.gov...
Schools should block YouTube

Mike, the main reason that I think YouTube should be blocked is that kids can watch inappropriate content. You claim that age restricted content will stop kids completely. This is false because kids can easily create a fake email address with a fake age and YouTube can do nothing to stop them. Also, there are plenty of bad videos kids can watch that the YouTube community hasn't flagged as inappropriate yet. My son has strayed onto porn multiple times. Also, kids will abuse their free time during school with YouTube when they should be focusing on studying and it will become a distraction. Also, if YouTube is blocked, that won't stop educational videos from being shared. The school doesn't have to block the teacher's computers, so educational videos can still be shown in class. Teachers could also assign watching a YouTube video at home for homework.
Schools should block YouTube

Schools should not block YouTube from students for the following reasons. One, YouTube has educational videos about school subjects, news reports, and educational topics. Two, YouTube can be an entertainment outlet. If you are bored and want to watch so,etching but nothing's on, there are so many funny short skits and you can also buy a movie on YouTube. And finally my third point is you can't watch anything bad because if you actually want to like a video you have to sign in with your email and with your email it will also include your age, so it would ban you from watching inappropriate, and if it too bad they will ban the video completely . I don't understand why anyone would want YouTube blocked when it's educational, entertainment outlet, and has appropriate videos for all ages
Showdown at DDO Corral

action 1: right before he hit the shredder, he pulled out his homemade pipe bomb, and shoves it in Jifpops robo d*ck Action 2, the bomb explodes, causing oil to leak, and blowing up jif pop Action3: Since he killed the king, yomama now rules the cybernetic wrld of DDO Corral, and had some of his body replaces with diamond, and as diamond is naturally invulnerable, yomama will never die, and Yomama rules for all eternity. This was fun Jif, hope to do it again sometime.
Showdown at DDO Corral

Action 1: Jifpop09, right before he dies, pulls out his detonator. He pushes it, dropping the nuke on DDO Corral. [video 1]Action 2: Jifpop09 wakes up 1000 years later, as it turns out, he is a cyborg robot king.Action 3: Jifpop09 brings yomama to the shredder, grinding up his radiated body in a cotton gin http://www.youtube.com...
Showdown at DDO Corral

Action 1: What jifpop didn't realise was that Yomama came prepared with a situation like this, as he was wearing a bullet proff vest! Action 2: Yomam quickly turns rusty toward jifpop, and opened fire, when the horse fell over, jifpop fell over as well, breaking a leg in the process. Action 3: Yomam quickly drew double .45 calibers and aimed straight at jifpop's head. Jifpop: sh*t, you killed (enter name of horse)! Yomama: always be prepared my friend. Jifpop: you haven't seen the last of meee! I will return, and when i do, (BANG) Jifpop falls dead to the ground.
Showdown at DDO Corral

Action 1: Jifpop09, realizing he can not match Yomama's superior drawing hand, runs back to his old gatling gun, Rusty.Yomama: Oh $hit, I'm going to die!!!!Jifpop09: I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it....Action 2: Fires Gatling gun [Video 2]http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Action 3: Jifpop, now satisfied with his assumed killing of Yomama, saddles up and rides out of town.