azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

Jo, Jace, and Al all knew that there were rioters that engaged with police in DC. Not what I said .... You’re having a rough time today I have corrected you , Nom has , Excon , and Al face it mate you’re one thick cuntThey were able to respond to this debate like normal aware people. Excon isn't in this debate.Read above See, I didn't blame anyone for vagueness, I demonstrated that this title is not vague. You didn’t which is why in a fury you amended your debate and are sulking like a child that you were called on your vaguenessYou have nothing but Burrito's accusations to repeat.I made my own ......What authority did you consult to determine Nom would be a good one to follow?None , unlike you as in the 7 you cited on your failed gun debate and your 9 on your failed defence of Trump as in “ he did nothing wrong sir “I know what’s coming next you will start bragging again you own “ loads of guns “ and your “ slut has mace “ ......please don’t shoot me I didn’t mean it 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣You’re having a rough time today I have corrected you , Nom has , Excon , and Al face it mate you’re one thick cunt
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

This debate is exactly as originally posted. I removed the "clarifying" videos since those were so obviously a petty jab at yours and Noms stupidity. You seemed to think that only Jace understood perfectly clearly what this debate was, so I listed the others. Not surprisingly, you got confused by that. Kinda vague I suppose.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

This debate is exactly as originally posted. It’s not and you know it .....please don’t shoot me 🤣removed the "clarifying" videos since those were so obviously a petty jab at yours and Noms stupidity.You removed your video because you were called on it  You seemed to think that only Jace understood perfectly clearly what this debate was,Why don’t you suck his cock? You must be thrilled someone takes you seriously  so I listed the others. Not surprisingly, you got confused by that. Kinda vague I suppose.Yes you specialise in vagueness you’ve posted 31 times now saying otherwise .......”the lady doth protest to much “ .......
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

Why don’t you suck his cock? You must be thrilled someone takes you seriouslyJace pretty much comes with a t-shirt which says, "Desperate To Be Mistaken For An Intellectual. Will Give Serious Answers To Ridiculous Questions."
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

🤣🤣🤣 You cannot ask Jace or Amarel a question without getting a long winded piece of utter bullshit ......I better not say to much about Amarel as he keeps telling me he owns “ loads of guns “ and his bitch “always carries mace “ together they must form a very “scary “ double act ......not 🤣
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

You cannot ask Jace or Amarel a question without getting a long winded piece of utter bullshit ......That is 100 percent true.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

I said my wife doesn't often carry mace. I have never threatened anyone and would certainly not talk tough to someone over the internet. I jump on people's case for that.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

I said my wife doesn't often carry mace.Yes she has gun in reserve I know I have never threatened anyone and would certainly not talk tough to someone over the internet. Right ,which is why you boasted "I own loads of guns " I'm not impressed why do Jack asses like you always think everyone is terrified because you keep saying " I own loads of guns " I jump on people's case for that.No you don't you never stop glorifying guns and gun culture Europeans laugh at this juvenile typical American bravado which is all wind and piss .......a " superpower " that got thrashed in Vietnam by emaciated rice farmers and who won one war in Grenada which is the size of my back garden ......Yes Amarel you're Rambo we are all terrified:"15mins ago
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

I believe I said I have 6, not loads. That's not bravado, it's a matter of fact. It's not a threat. Guns aren't tough, they just are. And yeah I talk up guns and gun ownership. That's not internet tough talk. I jump on people for making physical threats over the internet. Or trying to be physically intimidating online. It's well and good to criticize American Military when your own country remained neutral in world war 2. "Nazism? We'll take it or leave it, just let us know who's ass to kiss when it's over"
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

I believe I said I have 6, not loads. Sure 😀That's not bravado, it's a matter of fact.Sure sounds like it  It's not a threatIt sure is when you keep telling everyone about it you want everyone to say " wow ! best not fuck with Amarel he owns 6 guns ". guns aren't tough, they just are. And yeah I talk up guns and gun ownership. Constantly boasting about them you presume makes you tough ...it doesn't That's not internet tough talk.Yet here you are talking guns up as you concede   I jump on people for making physical threats over the internet. Or trying to be physically intimidating online.Of course do , most likely by mentioning you have 6 guns it's well and good to criticize American Military when your own country remained neutral in world war 2. If you had a basic education you would know the whysWe'll take it or leave it, just let us know who's ass to kiss when it's over"Yet Americans put Hitler on the front page of time magazine at one stage 😂Moving forwards Americans of your type cheered like demented clowns when your hero Trump signed a 330 billion arms deal with the king of Saudi a country that has the worst human rights history in the world ....I guess it's an American thing
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

It sure is when you keep telling everyone about it you want everyone to say " wow ! best not fuck with Amarel he owns 6 guns "We were talking about guns dumbass. The fact that they scare you is not my problem. The fact that you'd like me not to have them is reason enough to throw it in your face.If you had a basic education you would know the whysThere's always an excuse. But the reason is that all the Irishmen worth a damn are Americans now.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

We were talking about guns dumbass.No , you’re bragging about guns Rambo  The fact that they scare you is not my problem. Seem to scare Americans also which is why you need armed guards in your schools The fact that you'd like me not to have them is reason enough to throw it in your face.More threats , how very American There's always an excuse. But the reason is that all the Irishmen worth a damn are Americans now.Well I wouldn’t expect any more from an ignoramus like you who only respects people who are white , wealthy and religious
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

No , you’re bragging about gunsYeah, and gun statistics. I was bragging about relative causes of accidental death too. Then I bragged about suicide around the world. I'm such a braggart. I even boast in the vaguest possible terms about whatever this debate topic might possibly be about, we may never know! LolMore threats , how very AmericanJesus christ everything is a threat to you! Is this space unsafe? Do Irish snowflakes produce yellow snow?Well I wouldn’t expect any more from an ignoramus like you who only respects people who are white , wealthy and religiousYou just pull bullshit out of thin air don't you. I insulted secular white you for being Irish and you pretend that's an extension of classism, racism, and religiosity. Ok get why you follow burrito, his shit posts at least maintain the appearance of relevance. Fuckin idiot. Well, this is getting kind of boring. I think I'll ban you now.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

Jo, Jace, and Al all knew that there were rioters that engaged with police in DC. They were able to respond to this debate like normal aware people.Normal aware people who you happen to also believe are both mind readers and qualified legal experts. Mind readers with full access to subsequent investigations which are still ongoing, and legal experts able to navigate the maze of legislation in the United States to make a definitive ruling about the legality or non-legality of an event they were not even present at. Good one, retard. Good one.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

I guess they are mind readers. They knew from a few vague words that I was referring to the only situation nowhere the DC Police shot and killed a rioter. Weird.That's a lot of pressure for a little website with a few anonymous users. With so much riding on it, we really outhjt to mind what we discuss here
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

You got called , you lost , move on .....please don’t shoot I know you have “loads of guns “ as you keep telling us ......hows your bitch regards mace has she enough ? You never answered ?
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

"According to Amarel"You still can't figure out that the clips are of the same shooting? Lol ok.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

Yeah, it's not vague.Lol. You laughably retarded nincompoop. You asked us to make a legal judgement about an incident you gave us no information about. You gave us no information about the incident you are asking us to judge, and no information about how US law works in the circumstances specific to that incident. You're so stupid and irrational it really gets on my nerves.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

What information was needed in the title for you to know what I was referring to?
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

you're the only one who found this topic vague. Jody just follows suit.You're the only one who found this topic coherent . Gender issues Jace just follows suit.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

Keep going.The Washington Post is a subscription only site in the UK. I can't view it.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

I added a YouTube link to the debate. You may need to.log in. Or you can check out the video you posted in your debate on how bad the riot was. It's at minute marker 6:09.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

In your riot debate video, the windows are busted up, and then ripped out. In the video you know to be the shooting, the windows are cleared out. Like I said, you saw the same shooting from a different angle and got confused. It happens.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

In your riot debate video, the windows are busted up, and then ripped out. In the video you know to be the shooting, the windows are cleared out.Amarel, you are doing your usual trick of hoping the point gets lost somewhere in your pseudo-babble. None of that footage is sufficient on its own to determine whether the shooting was legal.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

The point of that particular post was to further demonstrate where you got confused about the video. The larger about legality is something you don't feel equipped to discuss given you're not a legal expert.Unless your opinion on the legal matter is that these videos are inconclusive as to whether the officer was justified.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

The point of that particular post was to further demonstrate where you got confused about the video.No, the point is that you are desperately projecting your own responsibility to provide context onto me because you have a serious narcissistic personality disorder which inhibits you from addressing any form of legitimate criticism.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

The master of vagueness posts up a vague question ...............
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Minute marker 6:09 on the video nom posted in his debate about how bad the riots were. You participated in that debate.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

based upon the footage, the person did not reasonably pose a clear and immediate danger to another person. unless the footage is seriously misleading or the law is different on capitol grounds or concerning federal officials (which it may well be), then the shoot does not appear lawful.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

My understanding is that this was the last barrier between rioters calling for blood and representatives. Congressman were in the room behind the officers who fired.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

My understanding is that this was the last barrier between rioters calling for blood and representatives. Congressman were in the room behind the officers who fired.Stop it Amarel. You jumped to a conclusion and it was wrong again. Even if you'd been right it still doesn't excuse asking such a vague question, providing no accompanying context, and then acting like it's my responsibility to provide that context.The rioter who died was shot because she was climbing through an open window.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

You're jumping into a thread where the person knew exactly what I was talking about to tell me that I was wrong to be vague. All because you didn't know that you had already posted the relevant video to this supposedly vague topic, providing the context ahead of time.I fixed the debate for you by the way.Don't interrupt my thread with Jace
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

based upon the footage these particular protesters do not appear to have been making explicit threats against the well-being or lives of the congressional representatives. nor do they appear to be armed. there is an implicit threat of violence against the officers on the door by one individual asking them to step aside (which im not confident would have been audible though the doors), but that individual is not the one who was breaching the door. given my understanding of the usual legal parameters for justified use of lethal force, this seems like an unlawful shot to me.that being said, ive already acknowledge that i don't know whether the law is different when the jurisdiction is the congressional grounds and where the defense of federal elected officials is concerned. the threshold for lethal force may well be lower than would otherwise be the case. my familiarity also concerns isolated individuals in confrontation with law enforcement, rather than groups of individuals in confrontation with law enforcement. so it's possible im missing something there as well.regardless of the legality, i do not think the action was necessarily unreasonable. certainly, it was entirely predictable. idfk what they thought was going to happen. you attempt to infiltrate a secure facility by force amongst people calling for blood and it doesn't matter how white or female you are. bunch of fucking surprised pikachus.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Everything here sounds reasonable to me. I'm also jnfsmt with special lethal force issues on the capital.I would say the large, aggressive crowd is a relevant factor. That woman wasn't working alone. Alone, she could be apprehended with ease. But if they tried to apprehend here, they would be overrun by the mob which is a lethal threat. I also don't know what other police experienced and communicated leading up to this. The man at the door said he saw ugly things outside and warned the officers away. If those ugly things included the fatal beating of an officer, then comms should have conveyed the threat to others.On the other hand, there is the question of whet a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would take lethal action. There were other officers there, but only one fired and only one time.In the end, even if cleared of charges, the officer is probably in out of a job.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

i would imagine that the mob factors in, but as i said i have no good idea as to how it factors in legally. id just be speculating wildly at this point.capitol police may have been under a general order not to draw or use their firearms on protestors (idk if that has been confirmed). this would explain the officers on the side of the door with the protestors not using lethal force. presumably, capitol police on the last line of defense will have had different orders. the officers on the side of the door with the protestors also would have been in serious danger had they opened fire, as they were seriously outnumbered and had no barrier between themselves and the crowd. which could also explain why they moved aside under duress but without shooting. it also makes the shooting officer's decision to shoot all the more complicated; presuming that they did believe the protestors to pose a threat then they made that shot knowing they were further endangering the other officers. that can't have been an easy decision, and i dont envy them their position at all (though its a position they put themselves in by taking the job). i rather doubt that the officer will be charged at all, much less let go. the protestors have been broadly labeled as domestic terrorists engaged in violent sedition. there is likely little political interest in seeing this officer prosecuted by most anyone other than an extreme right faction which is not liable to be appeased by the gesture anyways. and, lawful or not, that shot appears to have held the line until the evacuation was complete. i see this officer being shuffled around agencies as a valuable asset well before seeing them retired altogether.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

If the mob was a factor in the officers decision, then it would factor into the case. He needs to show that his actions were an appropriate response to what a reasonable person would perceive as a lethal threat. It's reasonable to me that the mob acting in concert makes any breach of the chambers a lethal threat. I think the office r has a good argument. Though can also see where investigators could find probable cause to charge him.I read that DCP were told not to use lethal force. If that's true, who ever put out that order should be fired. You can't know ahead of time whether a lethal force situation will arise. Telling officers ahead of time that lethal force is off the table can get officers killed. In this case it may have.It may be that the shooting officer won't be charged. The political climate does seem in his favor. Even so, Darren Wilson (Ferguson) was cleared of any wrongdoing by multiple investigations at the highest level. But I believe his career is over.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

You’re on a roll Poirot , it’s done and dusted congrats...... puff your chest out and tell the wife it’s sorted you might even get the leg over 😎
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

i think there is a case to be made of the order against lethal force. the officers were completely outnumbered by a crowd of people whose members were broadly known to be 2A proponents. opening fire into an armed crowd that outnumbers you is a good way to get yourself killed. wilson is a disanalogous case and im not interested in revisiting it now.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

If getting killed isn't an issue, then firing your gun is usually not an option. But if you are ordered not to use it at all, then failing to use it when necessary gets people killed. It's not an appropriate order when future circumstances cannot be known. If that order is sincere, how can you justify having the police armed at all? It needs to be an option non the table.On the other hand, if capital buildings allow for lethal force in defense not specific property, they could reasonably issue an order against that.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

i imagine the idea is that it would get fewer people killed, which it arguably did. one officer was killed by rioters. i can easily imagine that death toll having been higher had an officer opened fire into those rioters. not only might it have provoked return fire, but it would likely have incited even more people to violence (while also discouraging the counter-violence protestors who interceded). a higher civilian death toll due to officer shootings would also be more likely to further radicalize individuals and galvanize extremist militias. this would be particularly the case if protestors (not rioters) were caught in any kind of crossfire. it would also be exacerbated if the shootings occurred where the msm were present. additionally, the shooting which transpired on a last line of defense has already raised questions about the legality of the shoot; a shooting which transpired on the outside capitol grounds, potentially involving strictly legit 1A protestors, would be far more controversial. so there's also optics and its practical implications to consider.finally, officers using lethal force away from the last line of defense and among larger numbers of people could have endangered legitimate 1A folks whom law enforcement are sworn to protect and serve. endangering those individuals would be questionable and the officers also commit to risking their lives for the well-being of those individuals as part of the job. im dubious that this factored seriously, but i think it would be one of the more plausible defenses of the order.i don't think the order being sincere illegitimates having them armed. the order can be changed as circumstances change, over coms. that may even have been what transpired. if they are not armed, then the order cannot be changed and adaptive commanding is removed from the table.