azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

That know me of command and control may make sense in a military action, but not a police/civilian interaction. By the time command knows the situation has changed and can in turn adjust, multiple officers (and they were too few), would have already faced the lethal scenario.There was a situation a few years back where a female officer was attacked by a man who overpowered her and beat her head into the pavement. She luckily survived. In the moments she had to decide to use lethal force, she stopped herself, knowing that shooting an unarmed black man would bring a public shit storm to her family and department. The reason I believe this is analogous is because she opted against lethal force when she should not have, much as an officer might do if ordered that lethal force is off-limits. Her status of living is mere luck. (Parta Huff incident)If officers follow orders and it means their own death, that's a bad order. They aren't soldiers at war. Police choose a dangerous profession knowing the risks, but they don't owe their lives to their shift commander. There shouldn't be the potential situation of saving one's own life vs obeying an order.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

disagree. crowd and riot control logistics involve commensurate tactics to small scale military ops. intermediate ranked officers will have been responsible for and trained in monitoring conditions on the ground from the front line. regardless and as i suspected, officers on the ground apparently recognized that lethal force would not have protected them under the circumstances. i presume a co would have recognized that.im not familiar with the huff case and not really interested in familiarizing myself with it. i'll take ur explanation of it on its face. seems like poor decision making to risk ur life to avoid even highly likely non-lethal consequences. regardless, i don't stand with the blue line and don't really care.that's rather simplistic. in some circumstances, any order will likely endanger officers and result in officer fatality. if there is reason to believe that not giving the order would have lead to higher casualties among the officers then the order was a good order. that seems to have been the case here, given that the officers were overwhelmingly outnumbered by a rioting crowd whose members were plausibly presumed to be armed themselves.when u voluntarily and knowingly elect to submit to someone else's orders in potentially life-threatening circumstances then yeah someone else absolutely does own ur life. one of the many reasons that 'service' is daf.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Tactics concerning general response to general crowd movements may be commensurate with small scale military ops, but this does not remove from the officer his right to self defense.If an order unnecessarily puts the officers life on the line, it's not a lawful order and the officer is not obliged to obey said order. Consider that if one of those armed in the crowd decided to start shooting at someone, officers would undoubtedly use lethal force in response. That could cause other issues and it could be against an order, but the police cannot be expected to allow an active shooter without intervening. And no reasonable person would expect them to wait for the CO in the office to tell them to shoot the shooter. That's an individual decision.Due to the nature of the city, DC police are at the top of their class for riot and crowd control. You must have read, as I have, some of these accounts from officers who believes they were in a lethal force situation, but also believed that the use of said force at that moment would not save them. This could be the difference between being on this vs that side of a barrier. That's got to be an individual decision. The officers have the training and need to be trusted to make that decision.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

extra-legally they of course remain autonomous individuals, and under particular circumstances they will act accordingly. legally, however, they have forfeit that autonomy to their cos. although an order may endanger the lives of officers that does not automatically make it unlawful. i have already elaborated at length what that might look like, and why.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

unrelated to the legality and shooting issue, but have you seen the footage of the protestors interposing themselves to protect the second officer (or perhaps the first one who later died?) who was dragged out and beaten. imagine those folks didn't show up expecting to be in that position. same with the scaffolding passers and the orange sweater news defender. those scattered moments of inter-protestor tension and violence were fascinating. some of those folks rolled up and did not know who they were mixing with lol. also the awkward moments b/w the blue line flag protestors and police. lmfao.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

I have heard estimates of the crowd vary from thousands to tens of thousands. I doubt many of them had this in mind. I don't think that fact warrants discussing the matter as mostly peaceful, and I hope that kind of mitigating rhetoric is now understood to be the wrong approach to mob violence.I didn't see the blue line video. You've got to wonder what they are thinking in this moment. I heard that Alex Jones was outside telling rioters to stop. Alex Jones was a voice of reason here? Reasonable Alex Jones and Blue Liners rioting against police?
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

i think describing the protesters as largely peaceful is accurate, not rhetorical. i think describing them as violent when the overwhelming majority were not involved in the violence is rhetorical, and dangerously so because it furthers a pro-state narrative against people exercising their 1A while making militarized extremists seem less remarkable.yeah, id heard about alex jones as well. there were a number of protestors telling the violent rioters to stop. some of them interceded and put their own lives at risk. but there were quite a few blue liners who clearly expected the police to back them and were startled to discover that police belong to and serve the state.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Perhaps it is just better to distinguish between protestors and rioters. And then refrain from conflating them when talking about one or the other. There has been a lot of conflating in the last year for various political reasons.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

i agree. ideally, id distinguish between three groups: protestors, rioters, and terrorists. i would reserve 'protestors' to those peaceably exercising 1A, 'rioters' for those engaging in non-violent destruction (i.e. property damage), and 'terrorists' for those committing or attempting to commit violence against other beings (typically, but not necessarily humans). im not totally set on the particular word choices, but the gist is i want to grade it to three degrees rather than two. i think it's objectionable to cast people smashing windows or even burning down unoccupied buildings as the same as people deliberately seeking out others to murder them. the exaggeration of non-violent crime (literally, in every other circumstance regarded as non-violent) as violent is misleading, polarizing, and serves state and extremist interests. i hate it. i agree that the conflation, and id add exaggeration, has been happening heavily over the past year (at least). and also that it's been happening for various political reasons. the partisanship of these semantic games is fucking infuriating.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Yeah, there's probably a better word than terrorist, as that's got so much other baggage.I spoke to a man from a town that rioted. In his situation, the rioters were regularly intimidating regular folks, even pointing guns at them, though they didn't kill anyone.Where do you categorize people who violently defend their property from property destroyers?
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

any word which would adequately cover violent intent will be loaded with baggage. my primary hesitation in using 'terrorist' is merely that it entails a further intent of meaning to inspire terror in others, which i think is frequently but not always entailed with people who intend violence as a part of a political movement.idk what riot ur talking about and i obviously don't have access to that person's testimony. all of the protests ive been present for and/or watched independent coverage of (on both 'sides') have shown predominantly peaceable people. during blm protests, the only people i observed to be threatening and assaulting others on their private property where the federal forces. during the capitol protest, the only people i observed to be threatening and assaulting others were a minority of those on the protester side of the line and the officer who used lethal force. defending property which is non-essential to one's survival with violence, particularly lethal violence, is indefensible. it's stuff at the end of the day. i wouldn't classify someone using this force under any of the three categories mentioned before because they're not part of a protest. i guess i'd classify them as indefensibly violent, to varying degrees.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

You find any physical defense of property to be indefensible. Do you find the initiated destruction of property under the circumstances of last year to be defensible?
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

no, i find violent physical defense of property which is non-essential to one's survival to be indefensible. those are substantively different positions.i presume u r alluding to the property destruction which transpired during some of the blm protests over the past year. whether i find it defensible depends upon the property in question and the motivations of the particular participants. for instance: destroying a public police station, an international corporation's storefront, and a local business storefront are all quite different acts. i think the first is circumstantially defensible, the second is possibly defensible or else trivially indefensible, and the latter is almost always substantively indefensible.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Are you familiar with the long lasting negative effects that a riot has on local economies? No one wants to do business in a place where riots occur. I don't have a source handy, but from what I recall it takes around ten years to see an area begin to come back economically. I mention this because the destruction of even maga corporate buildings is detrimental to the people in that area. As for violent physical defense of property, I would like clarification. Is it defensible to violently defend your personal business? Your home? Neither?I ask because we got along for centuries with less than a house. If survival is the standard, we need relatively little to accomplish it. And if survival is the standard, then any protection of any property seems out of bounds.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

yeah, im aware of that. im also aware that riots are among the long lasting negative effects of systemic violence and oppression, and im inclined to look upstream as well as downstream. it also matters what gets destroyed and whom is discouraged; the destruction in question primarily targeted state agencies and parasitic multinationals and the like while leaving local businesses intact. so i think the effects are gonna be fairly trivial, and if it ultimately forces decentralized economies and self-sufficient local communities then thats a positive as far as im concerned. regardless, i also don't think any individual is beholden to preserving the local economy or community so it doesn't factor into my considerations of defensibility (i.e. im rather radically anti-collectivist). the relationship of defensibility scales with the relative value a thing has for owns survival. i also construe survival more broadly than most might. id include personal businesses and ur home under most circumstances (i.e. excluding businesses that aren't a significant part of ur livelihood, second homes, etc.). most people don't have the skills to live off the land and would struggle to survive without conventional modern shelter and a livelihood that participates in the local economy, even if their ancestors who were adapted to a different human ecosystem would have been fine.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

It couldn't have been a lawful shoot, She was white ....... and a Trump supporter! Shooting mentally deranged people is NEVER lawful! Not like 12 year-olds with toy guns, or when you shoot some angry guy in the back or some black woman in bed. They, somehow, deserve it! But a healthy QAnon "patriot" attacking our capitol with intentions of killing the VP!? No! NO WAY :-(The right is SO SICK!
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

That's quite a caricature you've painted. I've not seen anyone make that argument. You can stop making yourself sick from your own imagined opposition.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

I feel fine, better, now that I have that off my chest. Now, if the Trumps could somehow die of The Trump Virus ... I think I could live forever. :-)
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

The Trump virus that was born in China and is impacting the whole world? That one? It doesn't kill most of the people who get it, so you'll need some alternative way to kill your political enemies. Ovens? Mass starvation? Idk, your guys will think of something.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

The state of Connecticut has already decided they will no longer use the death penalty. Therefore, it would be cruel and unusual to use the death penalty on inmates who were sentenced before this ban was in place.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

You made an excellent point. I think Connecticut made the right decision.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

How come you only respond to posts on your debates?
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

Why must you torture and torment that innocent , kind hearted individual?!
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

Why do you never actually contribute anything?
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

I could ask you the same thing.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

Nope, you couldn't. I don't think I've ever seen you make an argument that was more than a single snide question or remark. You basically just proved my point.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

Yet again the same thing could be said about you.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

I love it. Once again, proving my point. If you compare our argument histories, you'll see that I usually contribute insight to a debate with more than just a singular, useless comment.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

you'll see that I usually contribute insight to a debate with more than just a singular, useless comment.Except your recent history depicts the opposite.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

I think it's interesting that you never make any effort to show I'm wrong. Obviously my recent history does, I've been busy calling you out! Lol
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

btw your obsession with me is getting creepy. Again.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

I don't think it's anything compared to your obsession with PhxDemocrat. It's amazing how everything you say just stinks of hypocrisy.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

The killing has to stop somewhere. Advocating the death penalty, is advocating murder.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

i've ALWAYS agreed that the death penalty was unconstitutional..it is both cruel and unusual..we are the only "civilized" country left on Earth that still uses it.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

we are the only "civilized" country left on Earth that still uses it.No we aren't plenty of other "civilized" countries still use the death penalty.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

like these?.executions 2007-2012CHINA THOUSANDS IRAN 1,663 SAUDI ARABIA 423 IRAQ 256UNITED STATES 220 PAKISTAN 171 YEMEN 152 KOREA (NORTH) 105 VIETNAM 58 LIBYA 39 amnesty international.sure there are.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

yup all of those countries are civilized.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

how many would you choose to live in?...that is the real test of "civilized", is it not?
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

What? That makes absolutely no sense, what so ever, as a standard for "civilized". There are many "First World", "Western" countries that I would not choose to live in that I am sure you would say are civilized, and there are quite a few "Third World" or "Developing", "Non-Western" nations that I would choose to live in. That says absolutely nothing as to whether or not they are civilized.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

we are not talking about other first world, second world, third world or forth world countries....we are talking about the ones on that list..which one would you rather live in so you can still kill ppl you disagree with?.you say you are opposed, but you keep defending it.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

First, the countries on the list fall into those categories.Second, I would rather like living in India, personally.Third, I have no defended once you complete and utter moron. I have pointed out that people like you hurt the campaign to rid ourselves of such a barbaric practice by using ridiculous, baseless, and illogical arguments that undermine the legitimate ones.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

personal attacks now?.i think we both know who is "hurting" the campaign....the DP has been on the decline due in part to the very type of awareness that i'm bringing to you now..your resistance does more harm to the campaign than anything i could ever do.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

Yes, personal attacks. I feel more strongly about the Death Penalty than almost anyone on this website, as my debate history has proven. Then people like you come along with your arguments that hold no legal or constitutional weight and shitty attitude and undermine everything.But of course if someone is pointing out that your arguments do not hold weight, they must be "resisting", right? Complete nonsense.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

you do not OWN the moral high ground, dude..if you want fancy yourself some kind of Don Quixote figure, that's fine with me... just don't expect me to share in your delusion.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

I never claimed to own the moral high ground, at any point.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

Currently living in America and I have no issue living here. Wouldn't mind living in Japan. China too if it had a better government. Wouldn't mind living in the Middle-east once the civil unrest/terrorism settles down.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

neither do i..but that does not stop me from wanting my country to be BETTER then the other ones on that list.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

The death penalty does not fit the legal standard of cruelty, and considering it has existed for the entirety of U.S. history, it is not in any way unusual. There is a reason that every attempt to rid ourselves of this barbaric practice through the federal courts has failed: because it is constitutional. That being said, it being constitutional obvious does not make it justifiable or moral. The reasons for outlawing the Death Penalty are extra-Constitutional (referring to the Constitution of the United States, not state constitutions), and the methods for outlawing it must be as well.Edit: Oh, and the majority of humanity lives in countries where the Death Penalty is still permitted, so to call them "uncivilized" is incredibly arrogant.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

yeah, we are in GREAT company....executions 2007-2012:.CHINA THOUSANDS IRAN 1,663 SAUDI ARABIA 423 IRAQ 256 UNITED STATES 220 PAKISTAN 171 YEMEN 152 KOREA (NORTH) 105 VIETNAM 58 LIBYA 39 amnesty international.civilized... ha!
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

Again, the majority of humanity lives in countries that have it legalized. India, Pakistan, Thailand, China, Bangladesh, and right there you have a majority of humanity.To refer to the majority of humans as "uncivilized" is absurd, if not downright racist.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

While I am an incredibly strong and vocal opponent of the Death Penalty, I find the legal arguments used by the court to be questionable at best. The standard of "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" is not one that is generally effective when combating the Death Penalty, as one can perform it without a "cruel" method, and, statistically and historically speaking, it is far from unusual. While I agree with the court that "this state's death penalty no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.", said argument does not hold significant legal weight. It is a very good reason for the legislature and the voters to oppose and rid us of said practice, but it seems questionable to me for a court to be using this justification.That being said, the State Supreme Court was wise to clarify that this was done on state grounds, not federal grounds, as all attempts to appeal to the federal Cruel and Unusual Punishment standard have failed.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Disagree

It was my impression that lawmakers already banned the death penalty for new cases and the state Supreme Court was deciding that people currently on death row would be unconstitutionally executed. If that was the case, would you consider that unusual punishment?
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

I would consider the case unusual, but not the punishment itself.
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

Really? Let's say a month after the state declares that they will no longer perform the death penalty they go through with killing someone. My immediate reaction would be "That's weird"
Debate: Death Penalty Gets Killed in CT
Side: I Agree

Like I said, I would find the situation itself to certainly be weird, there's no doubt about that. But the method of punishment itself would hardly be. That said, there's hardly a legal standard as of now regarding how long a punishment has to go unused before it becomes "unusual" (within a legal context), at least to my knowledge.