BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Domestic Violence Awareness should be increased.

Domestic abuse awareness should not increase because abuse will still continue to occur. According to The Center for Family Justice, "Domestic abuse is a pattern of coercive, controlling behavior that is a pervasive life-threatening crime affecting people in all our communities, regardless of age, gender, economic status, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or education" (1). We can all agree that domestic abuse is immoral and wrong, but by informing people that abuse is happening everywhere, it is not going to stop it from continuing. The action of bringing awareness can backfire in the sense that the perpetrator can become enraged if he or she hears about it and abuse his victim more. Any talk of domestic abuse around an abuser can tick them off and endanger the victim further. As reported by the domestic abuse shelter website, "On average, a woman will leave an abusive relationship seven times before she leaves for good" (2). Awareness can push women to leave their harmful relationships, but it is not always effective because they can easily be persuaded to go back for multiple reasons and before they can leave for good, a tragedy can occur. "Approximately 75% of women who are killed by their batterers are murdered when they attempt to leave or after they have left an abusive relationship" (2). Awareness gives the victim the courage to leave but in many cases, the victim has been isolated and has no resources like family to escape their abuser. These statistics are devastating and heart-wrenching, but what we can see is that bringing awareness to domestic abuse does not always accomplish its goal, rather it has the opposite effect. (1) https://centerforfamilyjustice.org... (2) http://www.domesticabuseshelter.org...
Domestic Violence Awareness should be increased.

Domestic abuse awareness should be increased. Many People are aware of the seriousness of Domestic Violence, yet some still do not think it is a big deal. Men and women suffer through this traumatic experience alone because they feel as if they must go through it alone. Gloria who is an AP interview stated, "More women have been killed by partners since 9/11 than deaths from attacks, ensuing wars." This is an important issue because most people think that domestic violence only happens to women, but it can happen any one literally anyone can be a Domestic violence victim. There are many people who are still living in silence because they are afraid or feel they do not have the proper support system. The fact that more women have died due to abuse by their partners than deaths related to wars, is just ridiculous. This should be eye opening and want us to spread awareness. People don't always feel comfortable simply talking about it with someone. Julie who was a Domestic Violence victim said, "I wanted someone to ask me about the abuse. I couldn't ask for help. I was ashamed." Rather than having support and able to speak up, some victims prefer someone to ask them about it because they're afraid and ashamed to simply come out about it. This continues to make the victims feel at fault for what is happening to them, which means they will continue to remain in silence.
It is more likely than not that George Zimmerman is innocent of the crime he has been accused of

I will do my best to refute my opponents arguments. 1. For the majority of the time, eyewitness accounts are unreliable. "Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses."[1] For the sake of it, i will assume that Trayvon Martin was, indeed, on top of George. You state that George Z was yelling for help, when "Forensic experts have weighed in with what they say is 99 percent accuracy: the screams on the 911 tape are not from George Zimmerman."[2]. Also, the call from GZ says that "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." and "He looks black". If GZ was able to observe these things from a distance in the rain at night, then i am batman. It is obvious that GZ was following TM for some time before the confrontation. How would you feel if you see someone following you at night with a gun? Even if TM was able to get Zimmerman on the ground before he could get his gun, it would be in self defense and fear for his life. 2. Same as above about stalking. 3. If GZ was defending the neighborhood, why did he not confront TM at first, before defying police orders stating not to follow him? Therefore, it can be assumed that it is more likely than not that GZ is not innocent. ========================================================================= Sources: [1]http://www.scientificamerican.com... [2]http://video.ca.msn.com...
It is more likely than not that George Zimmerman is innocent of the crime he has been accused of

I would like to note that burden of proof is shared, due to the nature of the resolution (i. e. , "It is more likely than not. .. "). 1. Witnesses' input:Statement made by witness (wishing to be identified as John): "The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help! ' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911. " [1] The "guy on the bottom," it can be inferred, was George Zimmerman. But who was on top? Continuation of the aforementioned witness' testimony: "And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point. " [1]The "guy who was on top" was Trayvon Martin. And as the witness stated, Trayvon was "beating up" Zimmerman. 2. Wounds:There is surveillance camera footage of Zimmerman going to the Sanford police station. Some well-publicized still-shots of the video clearly how bleeding on the back of Zimmerman's head. [2] Moreover, neighbors claim that Zimmerman wore bandages the day after the incident. [3] Clearly, a physical confrontation did arise that led to Zimmerman's wounds. In accordance with said witness account, it can be inferred, with confidence, that Zimmerman was assaulted before he shot his gun once and killed Martin. 3. MotivesThere is no evidence that George Zimmerman is racist. Personal accounts from his family and friends all indicate that he is not racist. He was actively involved in a protest against the 2010 beating of a black man. [4] Zimmerman was raised in a multiracial family, and, in fact, some of Zimmerman's relatives are black, as stated by Zimmerman's family. [5] Zimmerman, at the time of the shooting, was on community watch; he was playing the role of a defender his gated community. This a more likely explanation to why he called the police and confronted the 17-year-old Martin. Crimes committed at his community in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting, so Zimmerman had reason to be concerned and attentive to the situation. [6]---Evidence suggests that it is far more likely than not that George Zimmerman is not culpable of the crime that he is accused of. Thank you. --- [1] . http://www.myfoxorlando.com...[2] . http://gothamist.com...[3] . http://www.reuters.com...[4] . http://dailycaller.com...[5] . http://www.washingtonpost.com...[6] . http://www.miamiherald.com...
It is more likely than not that George Zimmerman is innocent of the crime he has been accused of

I just wanna say thanks for the debate. 1.So you are assuming that TM tackled GZ when it was not in fear for his life? This makes even less sense, as TM had to be close enough to see the gun when he tackles GZ. TM had no weapons on him. It is very improbable that he would straight-up attack GZ. " If Martin saw the gun from afar and ran, he would have had no reason to stop for a close-up confrontation with the armed man." What if GZ followed him in a car? 3. Yes, but the police call specifically told GZ NOT to pursue TM. Well, anyways, that was a fun debate. Thank you.
It is more likely than not that George Zimmerman is innocent of the crime he has been accused of

1. Even if Zimmerman kept his gun in a holster by his waist, Martin would not have noticed it until the close-up confrontation; it is difficult to see a dark gun in a dark holster from afar in the middle of the night. During the confrontation, if Martin had noticed the gun, he would not have physically tackled Zimmerman, because that is irrational and extremely risky. If Martin ran, Zimmerman would not have caught up if he pursued. Zimmerman is a pudgy, 5'9 guy who is nearing 30 years of age, while Martin was a 17-year-old athlete with a lean, six-foot-tall young man. [1] If Martin saw the gun from afar and ran, he would have had no reason to stop for a close-up confrontation with the armed man. 2. See prior response. 3. Zimmerman took responsibility as the community watchman. He had had to call the police 46 times [2] during his duty as community watchman since 2004. He felt that it was his duty to get involved, so he investigated and certainly made sure that he knew of Martin's whereabouts he walked through the neighborhood during that rainy night. --- My arguments stand. My opponent nitpicked at the established Pro arguments, dropping several, and his refutations have been effectively dismissed. It is, therefore, more likely than not that Zimmerman is innocent of the murder of Martin. The resolution stands. Thank you. [1] http://blogs.chicagotribune.com... [2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
It is more likely than not that George Zimmerman is innocent of the crime he has been accused of

1. "Well, first off, if Trayvon had noticed Zimmerman, there is still no way that Trayvon would have noticed the concealed weapon Zimmerman was carrying." Reports have stated that Zimmerman kept his gun in a holster by his waist. [1] However, about your points about TM attacking an armed man, could it be possible that TM saw a man with a gun following him home, and he decided to run away? When GZ saw him running, he drew the gun, and pursued. TM, in the rain, managed to tackle GZ because of the low visibility, and because he was scared that he would get shot anyways? 2.See above 3.Well, certainly the worry was justified, but after GZ called the police and they said they would come and for GZ to stay put, do you think he would have followed TM?
It is more likely than not that George Zimmerman is innocent of the crime he has been accused of

1. Eyewitness accounts are not as reliable as DNA testing, but due to the absence of contradictory (or any) DNA testing in this situation, we must put some reliance on eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony does have value, since its probability of being accurate is certainly greater than the accuracy of a game of "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe." I did not state that Zimmerman was yelling for help; I simply quoted witness testimony. Although a source has said that it was not Zimmerman, it was not confirmed to be Martin's voice. For all we know, it was a witness' screams. Zimmerman was (justifiably) worried, because his neighborhood had a history of burglaries in the past. Imagine being a community watchman, responsible for the protection of a crime-ridden gated community, and seeing someone walking around the community in the rain (when most people do not take strolls) late at night? Suspicions do arise, and Zimmerman wanted to look into it, because he knew that he bore a responsibility to defend his community. "How would you feel if you see someone following you at night with a gun?" Con asks. Well, first off, if Trayvon had noticed Zimmerman, there is still no way that Trayvon would have noticed the concealed weapon Zimmerman was carrying. If the gun had been out and Zimmerman had the initial intention to kill, then the close-up confrontation (on the ground), in which Zimmerman was wounded, between them would likely have never ensued. The opponent's theory that, possibly, Martin tackled down an armed Zimmerman in self-defense and fear for his life is founded on two assumptions: (1), that Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed and had the intent to use his weapon, and (2), that Martin was willing to physically attack an armed man who had an intent to use his weapon. If (1) is not true, then (2) is irrelevant. But since the opponent assumes (1), (2) must also be assumed. Hence, both (1) and (2) are true or both are false (and (1) being false and (2) being true is a situation that is not germane to the matter at hand.) We find that (2) is illogical, because tackling a man with a gun (and an intent to use it) onto the ground is not something that rational people would do, because this does not null the possibility of the gun being used. Hence, the entire concept (of Martin tackling Zimmerman out of fear for his life, while knowing Zimmerman is armed) is invalid. 2. See above. 3. Zimmerman did not confront Martin before calling the police, because he felt that he wanted to report it and have officers arrive to ensure that the situation is placated. Due to past troubles in the community and the suspicious nature of a person walking through the rain late at night, looking around, Zimmerman was justified to be concerned.
theism and atheism

Response to question 1: There are several reasons why I believe there is a god. 1. We lack knowledge in how the universe begin. It is obviously illogical to assume that the universe had no beginning, because if time went infinitely backwards, time would've never reached where we are now. It is theoretically impossible. Can you enlighten me on how the universe began? 2. The pure obvious design of nature. I know it's just an analogy, but if I shook metal pieces around in a barrel for a billion years, I guarantee I wouldn't end up with a wristwatch. And what our universe has created by what you probably think as random chance is far superior than a basic wristwatch. I will point out some more down the road, but I have a couple of questions for you myself. 1. How did the universe begin? 2. Do you believe objective morals exist? Answer to question 2: That is completely different than the idea of a god for several reasons: No one has claimed that there is, and if they did, they have completely 0 evidence to back it up. At least for the Christians they have a historical figure named Jesus to help back up their story. Along with the Bible, which , correct me if I'm wrong, is amazingly accurate historically. For me, unitarian universalism is like that teacup. They believe it, but have no evidence. Christianity on the other hand, has evidences.
theism and atheism

I will answer the question you meant to ask, as I do not believe there is no God. The term "atheist" implies "a-theist". In other words, without a belief of a divine entity. Atheists by definition do not believe there is no God, they simply don't believe in a God. Therefore, in answer to the question "Why don't I believe in a God":There is no good reason to believe in a God. Question 1So the first question I will ask in response:Are there any rational reasons to believe in a God? Is there any evidence to support these reasons? Can you present a logically consistent argument which gives reason to believe in a God? The burden of proof will be on the Pro to present these reasons, as they are making the positive claim. Question 2The second question I will ask in response:What reasons do you have to not believe(if you don't already believe) that there is a china teapot in an elliptical orbit between the Earth and Mars, so small that it is impossible to observe even with the most powerful telescope? [1]I look forward to your response. Keep in mind, your reason must be rational, preferablly in the form of an argument. (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_teapot
Does evil exist

I will close with this: Our perceptions and feelings towards past events do rightly govern those things we consider to be good, or bad. Evil and heroic. Every action has a positive and a negative outcome no matter how big an impact that action has made. There are good and bad people in the world, and I do not deny this. However I cannot make some out to be truly evil if what he does is out of what he believes to be good for the majority. No evil force acts on any one. I also cannot call any one or any thing evil if we do the things we do out of our base instincts. We are animals in the literal meaning, and not in the metaphorical we all are horrible people pessimistic meaning. We do the things we do out of evolution; the things we believe will further not only ourselves, but the majority as a species. That is not evil, nor is it bad. If any thing it is good. Even if it has a negative impact on the world. We are all good people, even the worst of us.
Does evil exist

In closing, Making a claim "Evil is logically impossible" can be supported with evidence which appeals to the soundness of logic, and how the premise 'evil does not exist' can be connected to the conclusion of "since a is true, evil does not exist". Our thoughts and feelings about historical events and how we perceive the world around us cannot change the truth of the existence of anything, only can we strengthen how we feel about the truth, or lack thereof. I believe Con has not made a valid argument for his claim, as I cannot be led to the conclusion that evil does not exist. On account of Cons recurrent usage of good and evil, in his argument against the existence of evil, I have to wonder if perhaps the argument should be of a different claim.
Does evil exist

I cannot agree with the statement; "The good of the many outweigh the good of the few." Since we are speaking about Evil, we would have to acknowledge the morals and beliefs of the many that would place certain people and things as evil, against the morals and beliefs of the few that would do the same thing. The "good" of the many change on a decadently basis. Less than 200 years ago, Most of white america found black people to be ungodly, unmoral, and evil creatures. They did believe that black men were works of god out of mans evil ways, and to be lesser than the white man. Little less than 50 years ago, its was the same thing, only with less slavery. Today, Gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable where 10 years ago, it wouldn't even be thought of. Today you still see a lot of Americans complaining that Gay marriage is not moral, its wrong, and yes a lot of them use Evil as an argument. People like Martin Luther King, Harvy Milk were people who went against the many. We now know that before the many was wrong, and that Martin Luther King was right. King was the good. The good of the few out weighed the good of the many. Times change and the many's perceptions of what is good and evil change as well. We cannot get a good handle on what is good and evil, because there isn't one. As I said in the last paragraph, the ideas on what is good and evil, change. Evil is the ultimate bad, and there is nothing on this planet, or any other, that is an ultimate bad. Every single one of us have good and bad traits. Dr. King found that Gay's are an abomination, evil, and should never have rights. Most of us do what we believe to be the right thing, and we try to make the world a better place. We have faults though. We do things wrong, and often enough we do things wrong while trying to fix things. Hitler, Manson, even Dr. King were trying to help, but they either had some parts of their philosophy that were misguided, or did the wrong thing when trying to make things better. They knew what they were doing. Having differences in opinion does not make either party evil. Both think that they know what is good for the world. There is no evil there.
Does evil exist

I am glad you acknowledge that claims should have supportive evidence. I do not know if Charles Manson is a good example of a psychopath, however Cons' example is appropriate. Good and evil may be objective of the perception of the individual, however, the good of the many outweigh the good of the individual. The laws of man see to that. And Charles Manson broke several in his writings, for which he is incarcerated. Regardless of how he felt about what he wrote, the incitement of violence is an evil for the many for it brings about destruction, disorder, and harm. His contribution cannot be considered good unless weighed against the evil of essentially peaceful people, which I believe is a hard thing to argue. It can be considered evil for its fruits. I have to challenge as well Cons definition of 'classified and 'wrong' in their usage context. I believe it is meant that jurors or judges or those who have objective cause to consider a person's intent and action need not discuss their moral disposition or character, only render a verdict of guilt or innocence. Whether or not a person can be said to be guilty of evil is not the subject of this debate, only whether or not evil exists. Burden of proof cannot change truth, only our perception of it. The fact that evil exists allows us to understand it and debate it. Without evil we would have no absolute or even remote idea of what evil could be. We can understand a difference between good things and terrible things, so we can believe in evil and good. We do not need to know to believe. One of the biggest arguments of the atheist is for proof that God exists, as if God is an experiment to be concluded upon. Such fallacy only brings one further from the truth. Ad that could be considered evil.
Does evil exist

I will acknowledge the argument made against my original thought. Let us explore the psychopath, and the idea of the opposites. I will have to use another historical example, this one closer to home and more recent, and one who is widely considered to be a psychopath. Charles Manson. Charles Manson is currently serving life in prison, though he did not kill any one, and denies that he had any involvement in any person's death. That is beside the point. He attempted to ignite a racial war between the blacks and the whites because he believed it would leave the world in a better state than the one it was currently in. Most people disagree with his views, and that is mainly because they do not read up on him. A lot of the Charles Manson philosophy does make sense. Not all of it, but he did hit the nail on the head with a lot of the the things he believes. He was wrong for the things he did, and he was wrong for trying to ignite a racial war. Because of these things, most of the world sees him as an evil villain with bad intentions while the rest of us are good heroes with good intentions. Manson's intentions were not bad. He thought that a racial war would leave behind a better world and future for our children. He believed that he was doing the right thing. He also knew that no one agreed with him. In his eyes, he was the hero with good intentions while the rest of the world were the evil villains with bad intentions. There are the opposites, but from two different points of view. Now Manson had good intentions, but his method was bad. The judge that sentenced him also had good intentions, but his method was also bad. Any person who has good intentions but a bad method cannot be classified as evil. It is wrong to do so. It is the equivalent to the employee in the store who was trying to help you find the hot dogs, but led you to the underwear isle instead. His intentions were good, but used a bad method. That employee is not evil. He only made a mistake. Manson knew what he was doing, so I do not claim that he made a mistake. Psychopaths, assassins, and even the men who destroyed the World Trade Center, believed they were doing the world good. That doesn't make them evil. Just wrong in their methods. Depending on what my fellow debater argues in the next round, I will be tackling the idea of those who do have bad intentions, but why they are still not evil.