BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Zimmerman verdict was just.

Okay, let's begin. I'm going to go through each aspect of the case one by one.1. Self DefenseThe witness that the prosecution brought onto the stand testified that it looked like Trayvon was on top, as seen here (http://www.lasvegassun.com...) Zimmerman had multiple injuries to the back of his head as well as a hurt nose, as seen in these pictures:(http://abcnews.go.com...)(http://www.theblaze.com...)The injuries on the back the head are especially important. The only way these injuries could have occuried was if Trayvon attacked him from behind, or if George Zimmerman was thrown towards the ground. The latter theory is much more likely and substantiated by the previously given witness testimony.In Florida, Stand your Ground indicate that you have no duty to retreat, and that you can use lethal force if necessary. Even normal self defense laws only say that you must retreat only if it is safe for you to do so. Since Trayvon was on top of him, and was actively attacking George Zimmerman while he screamed for help, it was more than reasonable for George Zimmerman to use his gun not only to protect himself, but to protect other individuals in his neighborhood from a child willing to pummel a man for 45 seconds while he screamed for help.2. Lack of EvidenceThere is a lack of evidence. Constitutionally, George Zimmerman must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Their is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case. Nobody know's when George shot him. The only eyewittness besides the accused indicated that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. Their is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin when he followed him, and following somebody is not a crime. BOP must be on Con in this case because George Zimmerman is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt according to the U.S constitution.3. EmpathyWhat would the jurors have done in Zimmermans shoes? You are the neighborhood watch captain, their is a tall boy in a hoodie wondering around in the rain, and you are concerned about your community. You decide to follow him and ask him what he is doing. He doesn't respond and walks away from you, which makes him look suspicious. All of a sudden, he punches you in the nose. You fistfight, and he has you down on the ground, pummeling you. You are yelling for help, but nobody answers. You are still getting your head pounded, and feel yourself bleeding. Adreniline runs through your veins. You have a Fight or Flight response, but cannot Flight because you are held on the ground. Would you shoot him? It's important to note that Trayvon was shot once. This means that George, in all likeihood, did not intend to kill him, and did not realize that he was dying.
The Zimmerman verdict was just.

ConclusionIn a fight where there is no clear aggressor one would assume that both combatants have the collective right to self defense. Which is in more simpler terms Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon Martin while Martin had the right to injure Zimmerman. Such a notion is complete rubbish and only justifies the poor judgement of both men. Zimmerman took an unnecessary risk when he pursued Trayvon Martin despite the Police Dispatch advising otherwise. That risk was further shown when he and Martin engaged in a scuffle. To make matters worse the media coverage of the case was separated along partisan lines with liberal and conservative media attempting to one up each other in a media circus messing up the facts. Zimmerman's recklessness warrants manslaughter charges since his poor judgement and certain misperceptions led to the death of Trayvon Martin. However, if Trayvon Martin were alive, we can surmise that he would have been placed under arrest on the charges of battery or assault.RequestI would like to request that the voters judge not with their pre-set notions regarding the case, but with an open mind judging the content of the debate itself. Also when writing the reasons for decision please place constructive criticism to allow myself and Fictional Truth to improve on future debates. Otherwise you will be doing the two of us a grave disservice. Thank you and have a good time skimming the other debates.
The Zimmerman verdict was just.

Thank you Fictional Truth, for clarifying in your response that this is a debate about Zimmerman's innocence rather than protecting the verdict. Thus, I now know what I must do in this debate. Which is to continue to defend the proposed alternative verdict and systematically attack Zimmerman's credibility unstead of the Juror's decision of not guilty. On the offense 1. False accusation of Circular LogicPro accuses me of circular logic when I exclaimed that George Zimmerman's actions the night of Trayvon Martin fit the definition of culpable negligence. Instead of enquiring why I would dare accuse Zimmerman of culpable negligence, Pro instead resorted to a straw man of my counterremark with the Dispatch. Thus I am compelled to disclose the source that led me to that conclusion. The source is Melbourne, Florida's Neighborhood Watch Handbook. While the Handbook is not from Sanford, Florida's Neighborhood watch manuals generally provide the same information regarding the responsibilities of the Neighborhood watch.According to the Neighborhood Watch Handbook, the Neighborhood watch is a joint effort to reduce crime in one's neighborhood. It also states on Page 4 that, "You should never attempt to apprehend a suspect. This is the law enforcement officer's job." (http://www.flgov.com...)2. Culpable Negligence Now that you know that the Neighborhood Watch is a joint effort between community and law enforcement, and that one should never attempt to apprehend a suspect. We can note how Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence in seven simple points.i. George Zimmerman spots Trayvon Martinii. Zimmerman calls 911iii. Dispatcher requests that Zimmerman not follow Martin and says that a law enforcement officer is already enroute. iv. Zimmerman pursues Martin after ending callv. Zimmerman confronts Martin and then gets engaged in a scuffle.v. At one point during the scuffle Martin inflicts several injuries on Zimmerman's headvi. Zimmerman then pulls out and shoots Martin with his Kel-Tec 9mm pistol at point blank range.vii. Martin bleeds to death before law enforcement personnel arrive on scene. Points iv and v reflect Zimmerman's disregard for his own life, while point vi shows Zimmerman's disregard for Martin's life. 3. One Shot"One defensive shot to keep himself from being injured further is not excessive force if Zimmerman legitimately believed it was necessary. This is in accordance with the very same statute. "One shot to the chest is sufficient to kill someone in a span of a few minutes due to excessive blood loss. Since Zimmerman qualified for a concealed weapons permit it is natural to assume that Zimmerman understood the consequences and responsibilities of owning a sidearm.ConclusionZimmerman acted with Culpable negligence the night of Martin's death and is guilty of manslaughter.
should you be able to get married at the age of 15

As my opponent has once again forfeited this round, I do not have much I would wish to add. Therefore I shall conclude this debate very briefly. As it is the age of marriage is already quite low and wishing to lower it further is both ludicrous and very ridiculous. I urge you all to vote for me the opposition for several reasons. I believe it is fair too suggest that many people support me in this argument before hearing the arguments made and I believe that I made many good points, all of which I backed up with evidence, although I didn't feel the need to reference anything. I would like to ask you all to vote for wisely and if you haven't already, please read the points that I made. Thanks
should you be able to get married at the age of 15

I would first of all like to state that I hereby completely disagree with the statement that you should be allowed to be married at the age of 15. I shall be making several points on why it is wrong, immoral and should not be allowed to happen in this first round of three. The first point that I would like to make is the point that the current age of consent for marriage, both in the United Kingdom and in many American States , is 16 years old. Even then you must have parental and judicial approval before you can legally be married. Also it is important to note that the majority of teenagers have never been in a relationship for more than 4 years maximum. So, would it really be worthwhile lowering the age of which a person can get married? Another very important point that I wish to make is the fact that the age before a child can have sex is 16. It is very important to realise that sex is a large factor in any relationship. Sex is a subject that must be discussed in any relationship, long before the prospect of marriage is even considered. My biggest fear is that lower the age limit for marriage will promote more young people to have sex at an age when they are not ready too. I also fear that it will cause children to make rushed decisions about marriage, and not only end up regretting it but also end up in divorce. Another point that I would like to make is one of deep concern. In my honourable opponents first point, he says "they should be able to because when they have a baby they can not care for it if they are not married." This statement makes me worry severely that children as young as 15 are having children. If a woman under the legal age of consent has sex with her boyfriend, even if he is also under age and has consented, he will be charged in a court of law. The boyfriend could be charged with statutory rape which would mean his name going onto the sex offenders register. There it is also always the possibility that the boyfriend would have to serve a sentence in a jail. It is also deeply concerning that my opponent thinks that marriage means that adequate care can be provided. Just because two people decide to marry each other does NOT mean underage circumstances that they will be able to provide for a child. Never mind that, a 15 year old should never be in a position where she is pregnant, not only because it is illegal but also because it is wrong. Nor is marriage something that as many people think about in this current economic depression that we are, slowly but surely recovering from. It is imperative that the age in which marriage is allowed stays at the age of 16. If anything I believe that the age that someone can get married is raised to a more suitable age such as 18. Then you are not a child, under the eyes of the law, and would not require any consent from parents or a judge.
tellytubbies is a heap of sexual inuendoes!

My opponent has said that the vaccum cleaner Noo Noo nly to suck up dust. My argument is that why would there be some sort of vaccum cleaner doing a normal job when there are tellytubbies who have 'alien penises' that can be sucked. That is why the created a vaccum cleaner character, as well to clean up the tellytubbies cream they will discharge. My opponent also said 'they are only colourful blobs of love whose only true calling is to provide love and care and bouncy television viewing. ' If it is just to provide love and care why would they have huge penises on their heads? Also there is a naked baby in the clouds which is probablys made to be some sort of nudist God that spys on the NAKED tellytubbies.
tellytubbies is a heap of sexual inuendoes!

Firstly the tellytubbies have specific names that should not be interpretted in any sublime sexual mannar thus like you have assumed. And to respond to Kinky_Doctor_Who_Slut, your interlect is clearly lacking as Noo Noo was a vacuum/monster hybrid meaning that his job was to suck dust. .. like the german SuBsagen (dust sucker). Not any colourful blob peni. On to my second arguement, the Tellytubbies are unisex creatures who do not have physical genitalia, they are only colourful blobs of love whose only true calling is to provide love and care and bouncy television viewing. I am awaiting you response.
tellytubbies is a heap of sexual inuendoes!

The page has informed that that i must: "...check your grammar and spelling, otherwise you may be penalized by the voters." Therefore i must argue that your spelling is slightly incorrect. Thus meaning that the penalty of Geekness must atire upon thou. And back to my argument... yes the tellytubbies was a house of sexual activities and inuendoes you are totally correct :( i do like the new jingle though
Border wall between USA and Mexico.

r2 Rebuttals1. We could stop illegal immigrants better with more boots on the ground [1]We need more border patrols. That is the more effective answer. 2. Drug smuggling would increase.Inherently building a huge wall between the USA and Mexico would make drugs more forbidden, increasing demand, and thus increasing drug trafficking. 3. Security from Mexican criminals.Your 3rd link didn't work. Nevertheless I will address this issue. The issue is drug dealers connect to terrorist groups. "And some of the Islamic terror groups have ties to Latin American drug cartels and gangs, including MS-13. The combination of terrorists' desire to infiltrate the border and gangs' know-how could prove dangerous to American security, say experts." [4]By lower the demand for illegal drugs in the USA via decriminalization and legalization of pot we lower the amount of drug dealers and thus terrorists. Thanks for debating. Sources4. http://www.foxnews.com...
Border wall between USA and Mexico.

A border wall between US and Mexico could produce great results for the United States. I had to hurry up so my arguments might have been typed a little too quick but here are the main points: 1. Influx of illegal immigrants travelling on land from Mexico and Central America will decrease. According to a 2015 report by Government Accountability Office, more than 331,000 illegal entrants were apprehended by DHS at the southwest border (1). This doesn't count the number of illegal entrants that absconded from the border patrols. 2. Drug smuggling would decrease. According to The Heritage Foundation, drug cartels and violent gangs from Mexico all the way to the South impose a big problem to the Americans living at the southern border (2). It will be hard for gang members living in Mexico and the US to personally communicate if there is a wall and drug smugglers have to think more creative ways in bringing in drugs. 3. Security from Mexican criminals. With a wall, terrorists coming from the US-Mexico border would decrease. According to Politifact, there are Mexican terrorists going through the border (3), though it is not a big issue. SOURCES: (1) http://www.gao.gov... (2) http://www.heritage.org... (3) http://www.politifact.com...-/
Border wall between USA and Mexico.

A border wall between the USA and Mexico terrifies me. [0] Walls work in two ways.A. To keep people out.B. To keep people in. I feel if we put up a large wall between the USA and Mexico, that the USA will be officially a police state. I don't fear the immigrants getting in, but I do fear the walls keeping U.S. citizens from escaping. Most of the problem between the USA and Mexico is the drug gangs. Instead, we need to legalize pot and decriminalize some of the other drugs. This would give less incentive for criminals to cross the borders. As seen in this article a border wall just simply won't work. [1] Claim 0: USA has a drug problem in lieu of MexicoWarrant: "We condemn Mexico for exporting drugs while ignoring the inverse dynamic — we are importing the drugs. We are the ones bringing in 20 tons of heroin, 110 tons of methamphetamine, 330 tons of cocaine and literally countless tons of marijuana annually." [2]Impact: We need to stop seeing Mexico as the enemy and see our culture and laws as the problem. We are enabling criminals just like we did with prohibition and Al Capone. [3] Prohibition failed, just a wall will fail. The only solution is a combination of decriminalization and legalization of various drugs. The USA needs to stop blaming Mexico for its problems and take a good long hard look at ourselves and ask "are we the ones with the drug problem?"Sources0. http://www.ontheissues.org...1. http://www.nytimes.com...2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...3. https://www.chicagohs.org...
An STD can form from 2 unaffected people.

Thanks! lol, based on the quotations around the word "form" it doesn't seem like you believe your friend's argument either. First, I'd ask for a source to substantiate this claim. Second, I don't know many people who engage in rubbing the penis against the clitoris repeatedly. That's just weird. If you don't believe me, "During intercourse the penis does not contact the clitoris directly." http://www.atihealthnet.com... If you still don't believe me, maybe you and your friend should try it and find out for sure. ;) you're welcome. Tell her that I said she can't prove her argument until she does this. Lastly, if there is bacteria that is transferred, the woman already had the bacteria to begin with, so it was transmitted, sexually.
An STD can form from 2 unaffected people.

Thanks OHL! I'll bite . . . let's see where this is going. STD - sexually transmitted disease. "sexually transmitted" - transmitted via sex-acts From the US National Library of Medicine: "Disease" is "A definite pathologic process with a characteristic set of signs and symptoms." http://www.definitions.net... I sincerely hope my opponent doesn't argue that "life is a sexually transmitted disease." As we learned with the development of micro-biology, pathogens are either viruses or bacteria. If a host does not contain a virus or bacteria for the STD, then the STD cannot spontaneously form, unless you believe in spontaneous generation. If my opponent does argue this, I'll refute it in the next round. Okay... I await my opponent's case.
Man will never know reality unless he's dead.

"I have evidences and I stated them in my last argument. I said "The philosophies of Rene Descartes, Jean Paul Sartre and St. Thomas Aquinas are the bases of my argument.". I got it from books about philosophy of man. Books about philosophy of man contains various philosophers and handpicked three of them. If you want to see my evidence you could either find a philosophy of man book, since it is most likely to contain the ideas of the famous philosophers or research the philosophies of the three philosophers I mentioned."How could I even begin to discuss this? What you provided was a list of three philosophers and then called it evidence, this isn't exactly a very rigorous, detailed, or even clear argument. What you could have actually done is taken their arguments, claims, evidences, etc., and perhaps quoted them here so I could reference them and we could discuss them on their merits. Instead, you've given me what is essentially an open ended wild-goose chase wherein I would have to read dozens of works without knowing what exactly is relevant and what specifically supports your argument. This isn't a very honest way to go about debating.I think it's quite clear that pro has completely failed to make any sort of clear case that I could even begin to argue against. I asked him to present evidence that demonstrated his (often unstated) premises, and instead all I got was three names and the titles to a few books. He started with the claim that "Reality is behind death's door" and then you make some vague assertions about maybe there is a soul and maybe its possible that the mind survives brain death, but you have provided no actual claims or arguments, and not one single piece of supporting evidence to substantiate some of the vague claims you did make.All I can say in response is you have not demonstrated your case clearly, and have not demonstrated that it has any merit at all, and therefore you have failed to meet your burden of proof.
Man will never know reality unless he's dead.

"There isn't much for me to rebut, so all I can say is provide me with some evidence and I'd be happy to respond to it, otherwise you have to admit you are believing such a claim based on false/spurious premises." I have evidences and I stated them in my last argument. I said "The philosophies of Rene Descartes, Jean Paul Sartre and St. Thomas Aquinas are the bases of my argument.". I got it from books about philosophy of man. Books about philosophy of man contains various philosophers and handpicked three of them. If you want to see my evidence you could either find a philosophy of man book, since it is most likely to contain the ideas of the famous philosophers or research the philosophies of the three philosophers I mentioned. Just because I did not show you websites or links it doesn't mean I have no evidence. I based my idea of soul from how Rene Descartes and Thomas Aquinas defined man. I can't show you links because I think some sites are inaccurate and unreliable because the internet is editable. Wikipedia, is an example of an unreliable since it's just a bunch of people who post there about a lot of things and you can't know which of those people are the real professionals because some might just be people who are trolling or people twisting some truths just to prove something. That's why I believe that a book is much MORE accurate since books (scientific and professional) are written by professionals and are checked by editors and publishers word by word but anyone can just post anything in the internet. Sources: The Human Person by Eddie Babor Philosophy of Man by Corazon L. Cruz Philosophy of Man: Selected Reading by Manuel Dy Jr. http://www.bbc.co.uk... .. here is a proof of how inaccurate the internet is. This is real evidence since it is shown in TV and has been researched before showing in public.
Man will never know reality unless he's dead.

"I don't quite agree on because it's only the brain that died, not automatically the mind. It is possible that a SOUL in the form of mind exists and it is the one giving function to the brain."I won't say that it's impossible, but in order to demonstrate even a basic plausibility you're going to need to provide some sort of evidence supporting this idea."Consciousness after death is something humans cannot observe but it doesn't mean that consciousness after death is impossible since you can't prove anything. It might be that if a person dies, that is the point when the body and the soul separates and IF that's true, then the person is still conscious even after death and has a shot to know what reality is." In my opinion, we have no business making assertions about things we have no evidence for. IF something such as a soul existed you'd need to demonstrate this concept is even remotely possible in order to make a next step. If it is something that we couldn't ever observe or have evidence for, we shouldn't hold it as true and use it as a premise in other discourse."I know that my philosophy about reality is really questionable simply because it's supposed to be that way since I believe that reality comes after death but what I'm trying to prove is the viability of my theory and also that man can never know reality as long as he is still breathing in this world and he can only have a chance to know if he's dead." I agree about the questionability of this theory - you are basing your contention exclusively on undemonstrated and perhaps indemonstrable premises. You haven't provided any evidence for me to review, all you've done is make assertions that, honestly, don't make much sense to me. There isn't much for me to rebut, so all I can say is provide me with some evidence and I'd be happy to respond to it, otherwise you have to admit you are believing such a claim based on false/spurious premises.