BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Hawthorne cop was justified in shooting the dog in the video

Despite no full knowledge of the given video, I still think the shooting of the dog in question was an unethical and unjustifiable action. The killing of a dog must always be a last resort, and the cop in question had alternatives. He should have used a stick of some sort to either strike the dog in the back of the neck or to block the dog's bite so the second officer could restrain the dog. I think it unlikely that the suspect would flee, after all, he would be leaving his dog behind. The officer jumped to the last resort without even seeing what the owner's experienced solution would be. For this reason, I believe the cop was unjustified in his actions. Awaiting your response, Duncan
The Hawthorne cop was justified in shooting the dog in the video

There's a version you can watch on this forum. http://www.debate.org... The audio is really bad on any video I can find on this incident, but what seems to be going on is the man is in someway obstructing justice, by verbally accusing the police of being racist or video taping their crime scene or blaring his stereo, those are the three theories out there, I can't tell because of the audio. Anyway, the police arrest the guy, but beforehand the owner of the dog puts the dog in the car, but leaves the windows down. Then as they're handcuffing the guy, they surround him and start to what looks to me like a pat down or they may be searching him, I don't know. I can't tell. But what does happen, is that the dog jumps out of the window and lunges at one of the cops. The cop shoots the dog 3 times I think, the dog doesn't die and limps off a few feet. The video ends here, but there are some who say that the cop then shot the dog again to put it out of it's misery. That's not shown here and I can't prove that so don't hold me to it. Anyways, I believe the cop was justified in shooting the dog because he was provoked by the dog and acted in self defence.
Should religion be integrated into schools?.

DefinitionsReligion: A particular system of faith and worship.[1]Integrated: Past tense of integrate.Integrate: Bring (people or groups with particular characteristics or needs) into equal participation in or membership of a social group or institution.[2]Should: Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions.[3]Schools: Plural of a school.School: an institution for educating children.[4] Educating: The adverb form of educate.Educate: give intellectual, moral, and social instruction to (someone), typically at a school or university.[5]If you believe that schools should ensure their students do not remain ignorant to others' beliefs and values, you must integrate religion, in some manner, into the school. Whether blatantly via Religions Education (R.E.) Or subtly as a topic within Physical, Social, Citizenship and Health Education (P.S.H.C.E.) there is a way to integrate religion into school without being dogmatic about which one they believe. You merely have to tell them that despite you educating them on religion, and having religion as an integrated part of the school's education system, it doesn't, in the slightest bit, mean they have to follow one or believe that it is true, merely that they should be aware of what others have claimed to believe strongly in. This shall be the main contention for my side of this debate, I look forward to a good challenge from the Con.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[5] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Should religion be integrated into schools?.

Schools have had religion forced upon them this means certain 'state schools' are becoming closed to the diverse society we now find our dwellings in. Schools are often Christian in Britain, as their is often only one school for a community it shouldn't be allowed to single a religion into its system. Education is indifferent to those who take it up, CON will rebuke that they can opt out and that they re undenominating but should a child face the hummiliation of sitting out in their own school.
Your a big fat meany butt head who isn't even good at minecraft you noob

if a turd and a fart had a kid you'd be it. go fart in a hole you rum-guzzling pirate. my mom is wonder woman and she will make you spill all your secrets to the whole world. suck on that you spazomaniac. I'm a high functioning sociopath you turd. go poop in a cherry pie.
Your a big fat meany butt head who isn't even good at minecraft you noob

Yeah well i can hack and i will so dot tempt me i will make you weep with envy. I will make you drink the blood of your fAze plane friends so suck on a cows fur. Your a knuckle head mcspaze matron. You probably don't even like the wonder pets you firkin nerd. Go to heck you heckler. Ok my mom is a clown she will scare you and my dad is superman he will end your puny life in the slowest most painful way possible.
Your a big fat meany butt head who isn't even good at minecraft you noob

Well, your mother is dead. You out of all people should know that, Bobby. Also, you can't destroy my New 3DS XL with Amiibo support. I've thrown it on the ground multiple times. Those things are invincible! And, I eat raw eggs and shells in my OJ everyone morning, and it doesn't hurt. If you even try to come near me, I will claim war on your Minecraft clan, and I am part of the FaZe clan, so I will 360 noscope the heck out of you, you hecking meanie. Also, you are probably the fat 10 yearold that eats McDonalds every day, so don't even try me. My dad works for Mojang, so I can get you banned.
Your a big fat meany butt head who isn't even good at minecraft you noob

I bet you haven't even gotten Elytra legit, you are so bad, I bet you haven't gotten to the outer realms of the infinite Minecraft world. you fool. you absolute buffoon. you think you can challenge me in my own realm? you think you can rebel against my authority? you dare come into my house and upturn my dining chairs and spill coffee grounds in my Keurig? you thought you were safe in your chain mail armor behind that screen of yours. I will take these laminate wood floor boards and destroy you. I didn"t want war. but i didn"t start it. I bet you havent defeated the ender dragon along with 3 whithers at the same time, you noob. don't challenge me again, I will destroy you.
Negative impact of cinema

You have made some points that are not linked to today's world, here are examples:1: 'cinema is made primarily for making quick bucks.' Well isn't every company that exists today trying to make profit? Even schools want to make profit. We are (like it or not) living in an age of capitalism.2: 'Viewers are exposed to romance,rivalry, grief, vengeance, savage fighting , cheap comedy and many other features in 2-3 hours.' Look at games, for example GTAV. You are exposed to even more emotions then that in that game and it can be featured for way more than 2-3 hours and GTAV is much more gruesome than any movie I've ever seen in my life. Now to simply awnser the question, whilst you are exposed to seperate emotions, please be aware that the more violent the movie gets, the more age restricted it will be and most of the exposure in cinemas are visible in our lives anyway.
Negative impact of cinema

Is it desirable to subject people to so many type emotions in a short span of 2-3 hours? cinema is made primarily for making quick bucks. In the process the producers are not worried about the negative impact on people. Attracting people to watch the movies by some gimmicks or the other is the mod-us operand i of movie makers. In fact cinema is the greatest distraction taking people away from reality. Still I expect some psychologists to respond the query.
Negative impact of cinema

To begin with, here all of the keywords: Cinema-a theatre where films are shown for public entertainment. Film-a theatre where films are shown for public entertainment. To begin with, why should a form of public entertainment that have no negative effects on anyone be negative. Secondly, linking to that point, it's a form of entertainment that can be afforded by everyone in the society. It's a nice place to take kids on a holiday to, or maybe a date. I know lots of different alternatives to cinema but these can get boring very quickly.
Negative impact of cinema

Now cinema is considered by many as an indispensable entertainment. But the negative impact of cinema is not given adequate propaganda. In a peirod of 2-3 hours, people are made to undergo a variety of emotions. In this type of story telling. multiple emotions are packed in a short duration. Viewers are exposed to romance,rivalry, grief, vengeance, savage fighting , cheap comedy and many other features in 2-3 hours. Is this desirable from psychological point of view. Let some psychologists and psychiatrists answer.
Nick Foles deserves MVP recognition in the NFL.

He doesn't deserve it because he's only had success because no team has really played against him and they don't know how he plays and stuff like that. Like Colin Kaepernick last year. He was good only because he never started before. He's worse this year because teams know how to play against him. It will be the same case with Foles, He might be relatively good this year, but next year he will suck. There are better players who deserve recognition. Tom Brady with him having to get used to new receivers and still having a good record. Manning, Rodgers, Wilson. Just to name a few.
Nick Foles deserves MVP recognition in the NFL.

To begin with, Nick Foles deserves MVP recognition in the National Football League (NFL), because he has willed the lowly Philadelphia Eagles out of a slump. The Eagles looked like they had another bad season coming (like last year), especially after Michael Vick was hurt and the team had a 3-5 record. This record doesn't even break .500. Well, after Nick Foles started to play in the last few games, the team has a four game winning streak. They have improved their record to 7-5 and may even reach the playoffs after this amazing stretch. They are currently tied for 1st in their division (the NFC East), which I know may not be much, but they just defeated the Arizona Cardinals who were on a great streak including a win over the 8-4 Indianapolis Colts. Against the strong Cardinals' defense, Foles completed 21-34 in passes and had a low 118.0 passer rating. He is averaging 128.0. Nick Foles deserves MVP recognition in the NFL because he has thrown 19 touchdowns and 0 interceptions this whole season (he has only played in 7 games). Peyton Manning, who by many people is the front runner for MVP, had 25 touchdowns and 3 interceptions by this time (7 games). Foles has not even played fully in each of the games, but has earned his starting spot over the great Michael Vick. Foles is only in his second year and by the time that this year is over, he will have become even more experienced. He will most likely, at this rate, put the Eagles into a postseason spot. Who knows, unless someone is clairvoyant, the Eagles might even make it to the Super Bowl and win their first championship. This is why I stand in firm affirmation on this topic: That Nick Foles deserves MVP recognition in the NFL.
Genetically modified food should be labeled.

Industries, factories, and any other company that manufactures GMO products could lose money and go out of business by consumers not buying their products (1). There are other individuals that cannot tell nor define what a GMO is and still consume the items that are GMO. The way they see it, is food that gives them the energy that they need to do the tasks they need to do (1). It is understandable that there are people who "practice a certain religion or are vegans and vegetarians", but if they are not, then there does not necessarily need to be a label as it would only cause confusion to some who do not understand the term. GMO's are neither healthy or unhealthy (2). There is no good evidence that supports unhealthiness within the food that can harm a person (2) (3), so therefore, adding a label would cause others to believe a terrible substance is in the product they might purchase and oppose buying, driving companies to lose major profit and go out of business. Sources (1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2) https://authoritynutrition.com... (3) https://www.scientificamerican.com...
Genetically modified food should be labeled.

Every one has the right to know what is in their food or how it was made. There are those who practice a certain religion or are vegans and vegetarians and need to know where their food came from and how it was made. Especially if GMOs use animal dna at times. Even if you are not any of those people named all of us have a riggt to know. For the well being of everybody involved, genetically modified foods should be labeled. http://agbioforum.org...(source)...
Gun control

So you're expecting an "up-rise" from the government? Assuming you're implying attempted tyranny, why would you assume that? We've got the best government worldwide, any such event could not happen for a very long time. Also, why would you think that it would destroy the first amendment? There's no affiliation. About the bullets, those laws can and should be changed if they're as restrictive as you say. The minimum maximum :) should be around 24 (except for highway patrol). I truly used to believe what you said about hunting, but starvation is not an American problem. Hunting may help some individuals, but is not required for their survival (in America). As I said before, Guns aren't necessary for hunting. Bows and arrows and traps are effective enough. You have provided no reliable sources or evidence. I would like to conclude by reminding you that even if guns are effective for defense and prevent gun violence (which they haven't, look at the recent shootings), that they cause many accidental deaths and injuries. Guns are weapons designed to kill, and if they do anything, that's what it will be. Guns have no other purpose. My grandmother keeps a handgun around, and nearly shot her husband one day due to her excessive paranoia. Guns can cause much trouble, but can they stop it? I believe I've shown good reasons otherwise.
Gun control

My opponent here has rarely used his own argument, he has pulled so much info from other sites. Gun Control won't make US a better place to live. The only way to take over the country is to take away one most important thing that protects us from the uprising of the government. If you take the guns away, we won"t have any way of defending ourselves. As Hitler said, the only way to take over a country is to take away their guns. Plus, if you take away our guns you will take away our first amendment. We might as well burn The Bill of Rights. As the first amendment, pertains to all our other rights. We might as well become a communist country. Guns are one of the top priorities in keeping our country free. Gun control has been a total fail in some countries. Let"s take a look at the police officers; they will only be able to carry only so many bullets. Let"s say they are only aloud six. Well he goes to protect himself or others, what happens if there are 10 people who attack him, guess what? He has no way of protecting himself or in that matter of fact your life. Also hunting, some families depend on the food they hunt to survive, you take the guns away, they starve and die.
Gun control

Thanks for accepting. Just so you know, most of these are arguments I've heard before. You did not address the majority of my argument, and simply refuting my my arguments does not prove your own point of view. If the criminal doesn't have a gun, It shouldn't be too hard to hold him off or scare him away while the police are on their way. Guns used in defense frequently injure or kill innocent bystanders. The primary source of the mafia's power is firearms. When a person is murdered, it's usually with a gun (according to the FBI, 60% of murders are with a gun). Guns are dangerous, one mistake can be fatal. For example: "A guy had a S&W 629 (44 Mag.) that he wanted to dispose of after a mishap at the range. He said there was a loud bang when he tested his new ammo, (Chinese made), and the gun smacked him in the forehead, leaving a nice gash." "Jenn" 23 June 2010 Snopes.com, fortunately, this man didn't die, but he was rushed to the hospital and could have; the magazine exploded and could have easilly killed him and multiple bystanders. "for every burglar who is halted by the sight of a handgun, four innocent people are killed by handgun accidents" Nan Desuka faculty.mdc.edu As this person also states, People will be much more likely to escape a murder attempt if it is done with a knife or club. 90% of burglaries are committed while no-one is at home, but if someone were home, he/she would not be expecting to grab a gun in defense, but the criminal would likely already have one in-hand, so guns for personal home defense aren't effective. If someone were to show aggression towards you in the street, the time and warning it would take to draw your gun, turn off the safety, and possibly load would be enough for the aggressor to subdue you whatever his weapon may be, so guns for personal defense in the public wouldn't be effective either. P.S Usually those who oppose gun freedom call themselves "liberal"... go figure!
Gun control

To let everybody know I’m against gun control, so I’m for the right to bear arms. “Good chance that the criminal won't harm anyone until the police arrive”No, criminals will shoot you no matter what. They are not going to stay and wait for the police. “Robberies would nearly cease: imagine a man trying to rob a bank with baseball bat.”Once again robbers are criminals; criminals do not follow the law. Now these are the point’s I’m going to debate in the next following rounds.1. What are the pros of owning guns?2. Second amendment.3. Criminals?4. How effective has some states have been with gun control?5. Comparing to other countries.6. No guns?Thank you for challenging me to this debate. As this is my first round, I shall only post the attack of my opponent’s argument and the points I will be debating. I will also attack my opponent’s points and arguments along the way. Good luck!
Gun control

Gun's are easily available to children because of irresponsible adults. Multiple times, these children have killed someone, sometimes adults, sometimes fellow children. The first thing an escaped convict is going to get is a gun, even if he has to kill for it, and he's NOT going to use it for deer hunting. People who politically support gun freedom are usually not trustworthy; they have gun or ammo shops or manufacturers, own shooting ranges, etc., or they own guns and would like to keep them no matter the cost to our country. Guns are dangerous, too much so to leave in the hands of our people. If criminals don't have guns, then why would anyone else need them? Hunting is the only answer, and hunting does not require guns. Most hunting injuries have been caused by guns. Even if someone attacked without a gun, there are cops, and a good chance that the criminal won't harm anyone until the police arrive. Robberies would nearly cease: imagine a man trying to rob a bank with baseball bat. P.S. In case I confused you, I really am for gun freedom, I just want to practice defending it.
RETURNING WAR DEBATE: United States of America vs. Chosen Nation

Hello everyone! I'm back! On a new account! Most of you other war debaters know me as Gabe1e. I am back with another war debate! I am currently 3 and 1 in my past war debates! RULES:1. Use all military information/statistics from this source only: http://www.globalfirepower.com...Any other statistics you need, such as debt or politics related can be used with any source.2. You are defending3. NO NUCLEAR WARFARE. Period. 4. We must set up a background to why we are fighting. We can't just say, "we declare war on each other because we feel like it!" No, we have to have a story behind it, to make it realistic.5. Morale is a key factor, it will drop your men's ability to fight, so try to bring the other country's morale down.6. I suggest making maps to represent what you are doing, it would be easier.7. Your turns are within a 1 to 3 month period. You can't win the war in one turn, basically. For example: Debator A basically sends his whole army to the United States, takes over the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast in one turn, and Debator B has nothing to do. That would take at least a year or two... maybe even longer. But, nevertheless, I'm not defending.8. If I liberate/destroy your capital, I have to defend the capital, the war isn't over. However, if the debate ends and I still have your capital, you lose. Another way you could lose is me liberating all your land completely.9. I have challenged Dynasty2468, my next choice is Iannan if Dynasty does not want to.10. You may have ONE minor ally. Minor ally meaning that they aren't a superpower. They may fight with you and supply you with troops. If so, I would need to conquer that ally as well. My minor ally would be Turey, because based on the superpower list I am going off, Turkey is not on the top 10 superpowers, therefore, they are my minor ally. Good luck!I want this to be a great returning debate for me! I hope for a good one!
One Personal Finance Credit Should Be Required In High School

I regret that my opponent was unavailable last round. Unfortunately, this is my last round, so I will not be able to respond to any of his arguments against my second round. Therefore, I would like to refer anyone reading this debate to my second round for detailed arguments. I doubt you want to read all that again. Finally, I will briefly reiterate my points. America is in a recession. This recession is being caused by issues with finance management, which leads to home foreclosures and reduced consumer spending. I have presented logical arguments saying that a personal finance class would help people apply sound fiscal principles to their own lives and that it will not interfere with current curriculums. I have also shown that similar approaches have had positive effects in the past, most notably in relieving the worst of The Great Depression. This class will not only be beneficial on a national scale, but will also improve the individual lives of those who might otherwise have experienced detrimental financial difficulties. It is a necessary and effective measure, and I thus encourage a Pro vote. Thank you to Higgins for taking me up on this; not many people want to talk about finance when the debate over, say, personal freedoms in wartime is so much more emotional and exciting. Thank you to anyone who reads this debate. I appreciate feedback of any sort. And with that, farewell (for now).