BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the cop is at no fault whatsoever in ferguson missouri

Well, the Washington Post and Fox News both have reported that Wilson did in fact have a broken eye socket after his altercation with Brown. If he had a broken eye, do you think the "gentle giant" Michael Brown could have possibly been responsible? Remember, multiple bystanders have also said that Brown appeared to be high at the time of the incident. Another fact is that Brown was not mentally as stable as the normal human, he took special education classes in school. Brown was clearly not mentally stable during the incident. He was a danger to the public at the time. Wilson, who was in fact assaulted by Brown, as was the store clerk, was merely acting as any officer would have and should have acted. Brown also assaulted the store clerk. The robbery is actually being classified as a "strong-armed robbery," meaning he physically assaulted the clerk. The number of gunshots is really the only argument that you legitimately have, and that is very suspect. Wilson obviously felt his life was in danger, so he fired his weapon until the threat was gone. The incident happened within seconds, it is not at all unreasonable to fire your weapon multiple times. I'll ask you the question again: what would you have done? For your sake, I hope you are thinking that you would have done the exact same thing as Wilson, because any sane human should be. Wilson did nothing wrong. Had Brown just acted appropriately during his encounter with the police, we would not be having this debate. To go even further, had Brown decided it would be smarter to not rob a convenience store, we would also not be having this debate. I ask you to just think for a moment about the facts of this incident, what you would have done, and then show some respect to this cop who risked his life to keep the public safe to the best of his ability.
the cop is at no fault whatsoever in ferguson missouri

On the contrary, you have the wrong facts. CNN announced on August 21 that Brown DID NOT break Wilson's eye socket. Not everyone agrees Brown assaulted Wilson. I wasn't the first person to call him a gentle giant, his family was. I am not debating according to my feelings, I'm just pointing out the facts. I do admit Brown was partly responsible, but Wilson made some mistakes too. You say Officer Wilson was treated awfully. I do feel bad for him, but think how Brown's family feels right now. What you say Brown did has not been proved, which means they are theories, not facts. If you feel like I am just writing my feelings, do some research. Plus, you didn't say anything about the journalists that were unfairly arrested. I hope both Brown and Wilson's family can get over the incident.
the cop is at no fault whatsoever in ferguson missouri

You seem to be ignoring the witnesses to the situation. All agree that Officer Wilson was first beaten by Brown then shot him when Brown charged him in an attempt to start a second physical altercation. If a special needs, drugged, 300 pound man was charging at you, after he just broke your eye socket, I would love to know what you would have done instead of shooting him until he fell. Wilson verbally warned him many times. Shooting someone one single time often will not do enough damage to stop that individual, especially a man of the size of Brown. The fact that you are making excuses for Brown, a criminal, scares me. You say he is a "gentle giant," yet he broke the eye socket of a man moments after assaulting a store clerk while robbing the store. This sounds like the actions of a criminal to me, not a "gentle giant." Brown obviously did not have the same thoughts of his future when he robbed the store and assaulted an officer. You or I will never know exactly what happened that day, since neither of us was there. But, I am going off the words of witnesses, while you are acting based on feelings. You need to look at actual facts, not how you feel over the situation. I agree the death of Michael Brown was tragic, but I also feel that Officer Wilson acted appropriately. The facts are that the suspect robbed a store, assaulted the clerk and an officer, and was charging the same officer at the time he was shot. As I said before, had this been a black officer or a white suspect then this story would never have even received the coverage it has. You need to stop making excuses for Michael Brown and face the truth, that he was not in fact a "gentle giant," but a danger to the public at the time of his death. I can only hope the awful treatment that Officer Wilson has faced recently due to him just doing his job does not affect him or his family too badly. I would like to hear something other than your "feelings" about why you think Officer Wilson was not merely an officer doing his job who was placed in a tough situation.
the cop is at no fault whatsoever in ferguson missouri

I would also like to say I am not racist in any way. My simple question is: what exactly happened that day? We still don"t know what exactly happened that day. What if Michael Brown was just walking and Officer Darren Wilson just shot him? He says Brown was blocking the traffic. Is that a good reason to shoot someone to death? He also shot Brown more than 6 times. Even if somebody was running full speed at me, I definitely wouldn"t be shooting him 6 times. Why couldn"t Wilson just shoot somewhere else as a warning? While we don"t know what exactly happened, we do know for sure he was shot multiple times. This fact alone proves Wilson was at fault Let"s go over the fact that Brown robbed a convenience store. What"s suspicious is the cops released the video the same day they revealed the cop was Darren Wilson. They purposely released it on the same day because it seems more likely Brown threatened Wilson. Such nice timing! Why did they have to release it on the same day? They could have released it earlier or later but they didn"t. Also, Brown was known to both his family and friends as a "gentle giant." If you were going to college in a few days, you wouldn"t want to threaten a police officer, do you? You want to go to college with a clean record. Why would Brown risk getting thrown to prison when his future is bright? Finally, Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post and Ryan Reilley of the Huffington Post were arrested for no reason and no information was given to them. If Officer Darren Wilson was truly innocent, why would the police interfere with the freedom of the press?
Wearing a clip-on tie on a t-shirt

You have no evidence to support that Google is a reliable source for fashion and clothing trends. If you search up "fashion" on Google it shows ridiculous outfits that I'm sure you haven't seen anyone wear in public. Secondly, The reason you haven't seen anyone wearing a clip-on tie on a t-shirt is because you waste your time looking through Google Images just to prove a small, Insignificant point, Which barely has any evidence to support it. Most people usually don't examine random people's outfits when they're in a public place. This maybe the reason you haven't seen people wearing clip-on ties on t-shirts. You're also not going to see everyone in public or on Google wearing clip-on ties, Because there are countless other outfits to wear. However, This does not mean wearing a clip-on tie on a t-shirt is not fashionable; there are just other outfits more popular than it.
Wearing a clip-on tie on a t-shirt

No, The reason I haven't heard or seen a girl give a guy her number isn't because most don't wear clip-on ties on their shirt. It is because it doesn't happen often. From what you said, You have absolutely no evidence/proof that the reason the girl gave you her number was because of the tie and shirt. And yes, I can use Google as a reliable source for fashion, Because almost every single fashion website on earth has their photos there. I looked for 20 minutes, Scrolling through countless pages, And didn't see a single person wearing a clip-on tie with a t-shirt, And i didn't even see anyone mention it once, Except for this debate. I have never even heard of this "trend" until i saw this open debate. I think it is pretty safe to say that wearing a clip-on tie with a t-shirt isn't a good style choice.
Wearing a clip-on tie on a t-shirt

Just because you saw someone wearing a clip-on tie with a t-shirt once doesn't mean anything. I have personally never seen anyone wear it, And I can't even find pictures on Google of people wearing it. Regarding the girl giving you her number, From what you told me, There is no evidence this is about your tie. I have never heard or seen any girl give a guy her number because of his clothes. Personally, If I saw someone wearing a clip-on tie with a t-shirt, I would think they are wearing it as a joke. I don't want to offend you or anything, But that is just my opinion.
Wearing a clip-on tie on a t-shirt

I do realize that T-shirts have collars, But I am talking about a classic collar that you would normally wear with a tie. That is one of the very few types of shirts that should be worn with a tie, But T-shirts aren't one of them. You are called those names because you are wearing two things that should never be worn together. I believe it it wrong for you to be called those names just because of your clothing, And I know style preferences are completely subjective, But there are some basic standards you need to meet in order to look 'fashionable'.
Wearing a clip-on tie on a t-shirt

Whilst you do make a some valid points, T-shirts do actually have collars, Just very small ones. A clip on tie may not be adjustable, But it is a good sized tie for wearing on a t-shirt. It does not go near the bottom of the shirt unlike a normal tie. Furthermore, It is easy and convenient to put on. When wearing a normal tie people described me as "a male stripper" with a clip-on they described me as "an idiot. " Now most would rather be called an idiot. Wearing a clip-on tie on a shirt can make you look semi-formal without too much effort.
Wearing a clip-on tie on a t-shirt

I do actually have evidence to support Google being a reliable fashion source. When I search 'fashion' into Google, There many things that come up that I have seen people wear. Sequin dresses, Camouflage yoga pants, Pencil skirts, You name it. And, If Google isn't a reliable fashion source, What is? Because Google combines pictures from websites around the world, So if Google isn't a reliable fashion source, Doesn't that mean nothing is? You say I don't provide evidence, But you haven't provided any evidence that wearing a clip-on tie with a t-shirt is fashionable. If i'm wrong, Give me the evidence. I have looked on many different fashion websites, Including Fashion Nova, American Eagle, The Mountain, TRUE Links wear, Fortress of Inca, Tucker Blair, Etc. I haven't seen a single website mention a clip-on tie with a t-shirt is fashionable, Or even mention it at all. I think if it were stylish, Someone would notice, Right? If you can find ONE fashion website with a picture of someone wearing it, I will back down. I will admit you are right. If not, I will assume it is because it is an unpopular, Unstylish fashion choice. The reason I haven't seen anyone wear a clip-on tie with a t-shirt isn't because I'm not paying attention. Trust me, If I see someone wearing that, I would know. I don't think you should cling on to only one of my many points on why I think you are wrong. It makes it seem like you know i'm right, And have nothing to come back with. That is just a tip on debating in general.
Polygamy should be legal in the United States

Polygamy should be legal in the United States. Definitions-Polygamy is a legally entered into marriage between more than 2 people. For the purposes of this debate "civil unions" not referred to as marriage but containing the exact same benefits will count as a marriage, marriage in this debate related to the legal benefits that it entails rather than any other meaning of marriage. Argument 1 From a standpoint of the law emotional and cultural ideas about what "marriage" is supposed to mean are irrelevant and if so important then we should just rename all "marriage" "civil union" and let religion culture emotion and spirituality have the word "marriage". Many people felt that and still feel that marriage is between a man and a woman. But the issue isn't what marriage is supposed to be the issue from a standpoint of the law is what the law provides for people who are married and whether or not the people involved deserve such benefits. These benefits include childcare tax credits, inheritance rights, immigration, the right to visit people in the hospital, joint tax filing, and spousal immunity to having to testify against their spouse. Polygamy obviously raises some issues with this. Can they claim endless childcare tax credits and how fair is it Nevertheless all these issues can be worked out. Childcare tax credits can be reduced for those who have more employable adults in the marriage. Limits on the number of people who can immigrate through marriage can be enacted. Hospitals can set reasonable occupancy limits on the number of spouses permitted in the room at a single time. Spousal immunity to having to testify could also be limited to a certain number. To prove that this shouldn't be legal my opponent must show why these benefits should be unavailable to people who choose to live a polygamous lifestyle. Argument 2-Protecting Spouses One aspect of marriage benefits is that if there is domestic violence it is easier to get the involvement of court and police services. Should we abandon polygamous families on this one? How much would the status of Mormon polygamist wives improve if they had the rights of marriage? Furthermore, Mormon polygamist wives not being able to legally get married are often stuck having to live with the man's brother when he dies. If legal marriage was available many states have laws requiring inheritance to go to spouses and they would be able to have their own money and live independently.
"In God We Trust" on the currency is unconstitutional and should be removed.

The founding fathers were Christian true enough, however this has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this debate. Deism is not a religion, it is a philosophy. Locke, Hobbs and Jefferson were all Deists. If I win that Deism is a philosophy and that in god we trust is a Deist statement then I win this debate, if you prove me wrong on these two points than I am wrong and you win. Deism is a philosophy not a religion. The Christians that established our government understood two things; first that organized religion and state should not be mixed and that secondly we have fundamentally guaranteed rights from a higher force. Deist statements are not religious statements, and to deny the existence of higher being denies the basis of the bill of rights. So obviously if we deny the existence of a god ( christian, nature, muslim or anything else) we deny the very reason to have the first amendment. So if you win you also are admitting that the first amendment is worthless. The reason I spoke of the declaration of independence was to help explain the reason behind the first amendment and why deism is relevant. Now clearly your strongest argument lies in the fact that a Christian submitted a letter to have the words on it. However even if that was the intention, the actual words do not specify any particular religion. It does not say our god or the Christian god. So despite the original intentions, the word god does not imply any single religion, therefor it does not violate separation of church of state. Even if many Christians claim it to be their god, it simply does not say anything about religion. :) this is my first debate! its fun.
"In God We Trust" on the currency is unconstitutional and should be removed.

To understand this, we must understand what our government was based on. It goes back to (my spelling sucks) gallieo and newton. At that time we learned fundemental truths about how nature worked, and simultaneously people like John Locke, came up with fundemental truths about humans. We have fundemental rights, that are given to us by a supreme being, is what they decided. The founding fathers were from various sects of Christianity. So our American rights are given to us by god, and the people who founded our government were men of god, so we should logically except religion into our government right? WRONG! No. All of the founders especially Jefferson were part of something called deism. Diesm is a philosophy, and not a religion, its the belief that there is something up there, ie nature, or god or what ever. Its that belief that they base our fundemental truths on. One nation under god and in god we trust are just a reflection of the philosophy our government was founded upon and NOT the religion our government was founded upon. In the declaration of independence it says "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", no of the Christian's god, not of the Muslim's god, but of Nature's god. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Seperation of church and state is created by the declaration of indepence. So the existence of god in our government is good, because that is what makes our fundemental rights, fundemental. Such as free speech, trial by jury, and so in the bill of rights. The existence of a Christian god is bad, but it says nothing about the Christian god. So to answer your arguement, no "in god we trust" is not a religious statement, its a deist statement, which is philosophy. The god in, "in god we trust" is just the concept of a higher being, any higher being ranging from nature, to Allah, to the Christian god. Seperation of church and state really means serperation of like the actual church running the state or the other way around.
Getting rid of home schooling in America

Argument Convenience: Some times it is much more convenient for parents and kids to be homeschooled. For example what if a family moves around a lot, for some reason such as one of the parents career. The parents might want their kids to be homeschooled so that they don’t have to change schools so often. If a kid has social problems, mental problems, or physical problems the parents might not want him to go to a school. Or what if a kid has problems that the parents know would cause him to be unpopular and made fun of at school. What if the kid gets bullied a lot and hates his life, and hates going to school. Being home schooled my whole life I have met many other home schoolers. I have met or seen kids with mental or social problems, but I find them to often be happy, and actually liked by others. Finance: If parents don’t want their kid/kids going to a public school, because of what is being taught their or for some other reason, private schools might be too expensive. I have been home schooled my whole life, I am currently in two co-ops. This is my first year in a co-op. The idea that home schooled kids don’t get enough socializing is for the most part bogus. I know and have known lots of home schooled kids and none of them appear to have that problem. Besides if a kid thinks he is not meeting enough other kids, that problem can be easily fixed. He can simply stop being home schooled and go to a school. Or he could join a co-op which are way cheaper than schools and are sometimes even free. Home schooled kids have a good reputation of being smart people. I get mostly B’s or A’s, but for some reason home schoolers generally get good or average grades. Like my sister who is in the honors program at her college :) Of course many kids who go to school get good grades too. But the point is being homeschooled does not mean your education is going not going to be as good.
Getting rid of home schooling in America

Pro will be arguing that home schooling should be gotten rid of in America, and why. Con will be arguing that home schooling should be kept legal, and why. Definitions: (1) Home schooling: Doing school at home. It can be only at home, or both at a co-op and at home. (2) Co-op: A way of doing school for home schoolers when a group of home schooled kids go to a place (could be a church or house) to meet and have classes. Usually it's just once a week that they meet, but you can also join more than one co-op. The classes will usually be taught by parents of the home schoolers, and homework will usually be given out to do during the week. http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: (1) No semantics. (2) Debaters must use proper conduct. No abusive language, rude remarks etc.... (3) Debating will start in round two. First round for acceptance. I look forward to having this debate!
increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA

Firstly, sorry if I offended you with my "off point remarks" I never personally attacked you. I tend to use sarcasm as a point of humor. Typically people understand that, but I'm sorry if you didn't. And as far as "politically feasible" is concerned, all political theories are politically feasible. Even if they're not, this debate isn't about what we're actually going to try and do. You said that you felt that increasing taxes was the ONLY way to solve the budget deficit, and I proved you wrong. Sorry you weren't expecting these "radical" points that a significantly growing portion of the United States populace support and believe. It's called libertarianism and the more you understand these points the more you'll realize they're not just radical philosophies, but actual solutions that will help the country. I gave you sound argumentation supporting my points and you blow them off because you aren't in the mood. Sorry, but I'm not your boyfriend, and I didn't ask for this debate...you did. So put your big girl panties on and step up to the plate. P.S. I'm glad that whoever put you in charge of determining worthy debates feels you're competent, because I'm not seeing it. P.P.S. That's me being offensive, not sarcastic.