azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

If the cops showed up and picked up where Zimmerman left off and the cop got jumped by Martin and then killed him during the struggle would the cop have been justified in shooting Martin? If you say yes then why wouldn't Zimmerman be justified in doing the same?
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Cops identify themselves as cops and have uniforms. Cops don't stalk and attack people like Zimmerman did.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Cops identify themselves when they have time to do so but criminals get the jump on cops all the time and cops do too follow suspected criminals to see what they might be up to. Sometimes the cops are off duty and are not wearing a uniform. The more we debate this the more it's obvious to me that Martin jumped Zimmerman. The time it took to make a call shows that he could have ran away or run for help if he wanted to.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Zimmerman is the only one who had time to make a phone call. Trayvon was on the phone when Zimmerman attacked him. That would require him to hang up and dial a new number, which would take even more time than you suggest.If a cop attacked someone without declaring that he was a cop, then it would be bad.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

You haven't provided any proof that Zimmerman "attacked" Martin and the evidence supports Zimmerman's claim that it was Martin who attacked him.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

There is absolutely no motive. A kid coming back from buying snacks is not going to just randomly attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman had to have started the conflict because we know that Zimmerman saw Trayvon first. You have provided no proof that Trayvon reached for Zimmerman's gun, which was the justification for shooting him.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Martin told his girlfriend he was being followed. He had drugs in his system. He had been expelled from school for trouble there. He didn't need a motive to attack Zimmerman. He could have been mad at the world and was mad at being followed. This is not much different than a road rage situation where one guy thinks he can teach the other a lesson and ends up dead. I don't need to prove Martin went for the gun because Zimmerman's injuries alone are enough to justify his use of deadly force.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

What would Zimmerman have to do to Trayvon to make it ok for Trayvon to start punching him in self defense?
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

If Zimmerman knocked Martin to the ground and got on top of him and started beating Martins head against the ground, martin would be justified. Oh wait. That's what happened to Zimmerman isn't it.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

So, what you are saying is that Trayvon would be allowed to beat up Zimmerman if Zimmerman was on top of him beating him like Trayvon actually did. Which means you are also saying that Zimmerman was only justified in beating up Trayvon, and not allowed to shoot him. You are now saying that it was more than self defense. You just described second degree murder.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Now you have resorted to twisting my words and trying to be manipulative. You've ignored the fact that there were no injuries to Martin other than the gunshot. That means that Zimmerman was the one taking the beating. Why would he willingly do that if he had a gun? He wouldn't. Martin surprised him. If everything else stayed the same except their roles were reversed and Martin was being straddled by Zimmerman and Martin shot Zimmerman he would be justified too and I personally wouldn't care if Martin used a stolen gun and was a gang member.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Now you have resorted to twisting my words and trying to be manipulative.You resorted to being an asshole that dodges questions. You should have spent more time coming up with a better scenario that couldn't be twisted.Martin surprised him. Zimmerman knew that Martin was there. If he was surprised it was his own damn fault. Should he really be allowed to kill someone because he was so dumb that he got surprised by someone he was sneaking up on?If everything else stayed the same except their roles were reversed and Martin was being straddled by Zimmerman and Martin shot Zimmerman he would be justified too and I personally wouldn't care if Martin used a stolen gun and was a gang member.I believe you.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

It would be a different case all together if it was a cop that involved instead. Cops have the authority to detain suspects, citizens don't. Zimmerman was stepping out of line doing what he did.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Do a quick search and you will see that citizens detain suspects all the time. Where did you get the idea that only cops can do this?
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

People can do it if they see a crime being committed. Zimmerman did not see a crime, he just thought trayvon was shady looking.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Zimmerman also thought that Martin was "on drugs or something" which would be public intox. I agree that it would be foolish for Zimmerman to detain someone for that reason alone. I'm only trying to refute your claim that ordinary citizens can't do that.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

He had not evidence to support such a claim. A cop could preform a breathalyzer test, urine test, or have him follow up for a blood test.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

The truth is both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin are guilty of making horrible choices that ultimately got one of them killed. Had each decided to respect each other rather than play Ultimate Fighter both would be alive today and neither would be in court!These kinds of tragedies can be totally avoided if people would just start being nicer!
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Defense witness: George Zimmerman was in worse shape than Trayvon Martin.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/10/zimmerman-defense-winding-down-case-wednesday/ Apparently better dead than beaten up ;)
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

I don't see how this is a defense. Isn't that saying that softer hits will look more ferocious because Zimmerman is incompetent. Think about it. If you are attacking an MMA fighter and you are really getting him good, then you must be doing A LOT. But if it is just some wimpy guy, slight punches would look like really powerful blows.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

They are not looking at what the thrown punches look like, they are looking at the damage created by thrown punch. The fat around Zimmerman's knuckles protected Trayvon's body from much of the potential damage. Plus, there's not much force behind a punch thrown from the ground while getting your head pounded ;)
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

He's guilty of either second degree murder or manslaughter.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

He will not be convicted. Trayvon was a known, i repeat a KNOWN, criminal. Zimmerman made the mistake of following him but when the scuffle happened Trayvon bashed Zimmermans head into the ground. When he turned to protect himself his gun came into view of Trayvon. Trayvon then reached for the gun but Zimmerman beat him to it and shot him. The shot happened to be fatal and killed the boy. If Zimmerman had shot more then once then he would be guilty but the only shot made makes it self defense. He will not be found guilty of anything and this is not a hate crime just a accident.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

I actually did some research about the whole thing and I agree with you.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Trayvon was never convicted of a criminal offense. Your assertion that he was a "KNOWN, criminal" is simply in your head. Zimmerman claims he didn't follow Martin, you say he did. Apparently you don't agree with Zimmerman's account, which is understandable because he lied to the police over 10 times in his initial interviews. He also says he couldn't remember over 12 vital pieces of information. George Zimmerman had two scrapes on the back of his head. The wounds measured 2cm's and required nothing to stop the bleeding. George Zimmerman claims his head was bashed on concrete more than 25 times for what seemed like "hours" to him. You have zero evidence that Martin ever saw Zimmerman's gun, so this is nothing more than your fantasy. Zimmerman told his friend Trayvon actually grabbed the gun. But DNA indicates this is a lie. Zimmerman told the police that he reached for it, and later that he thought he was going to reach for it. He doesn't even have a consistent claim, yet you claim to know Martin reached for it with zero evidence. The theory that 1 shot indicates self defense and more than one indicates non-self defense has zero bearing on reality and is not in any way supported by any facts. After his single shot Zimmerman claims Martin fell to the ground and spoke. Something that is most likely not possible after being shot in the heart. But Zimmerman lies a lot, so this is consistent with his modus operandi. You claim Martin attacked him and Zimmerman shot him in self defense, then you end your statement saying it was an accident.You don't even have a consistent position. You've done nothing to address whether or not it was a hate crime and simply asserted it at the end of you inconsistent "argument".
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Zimmerman did say that he followed him in his police phone call even though it was suggested that he don't. On the accounts of his wounds he also had a broken nose. DNA will not indicate the Trayvon reached for the gun only fingerprints would and since he never touched the gun how could fingerprints be there. In the law books it say that if you are facing an attacker with possibility of you getting injured you may fire a weapon or fight back with no penalties because the scuffle broke out first Zimmerman had every right to do what he did but if he shot Trayvon through the heart then stood up and continued to shoot him it would have been murder. The death of Trayvon was not intended so therefore it was an accident. THIS WAS NOT A HATE CRIME BEACUSE TRAYVON MARTIN WAS NOT AFRICAN AMERICAN LIKE MANY BELEIVED HIM TO BE?.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

He did follow him. He admitted it, like you state. But then his supporters and his lawyers argued that never happened. He did not have a broken nose. You can see photos of his nose from the same night at the police station. The swelling was gone, no blood, nothing but two pinholes that looked more like scratches. He lied to the police and said his face was ground and pound punched over 25 times and that his head was smashed against concrete for "what felt like hours". He had two scratches on the back of his head measuring less than 2 cm's each. He's a liar. He was never treated for a broken nose. He just bleeds easily like some people do. In fact, if you compare the photos at the police station after the swelling went down, again, from the same night, you'll see that it's about as damaged as Shellie Zimmerman's father after George allegedly punched him in the nose. Neither of them suffered a broken nose. As far as reaching for the gun, which lie of Zimmerman's are you going with here? He told one of his best friends, who later wrote a book, that Trayvon actually grabbed the gun. Then Zimmerman told police that Martin saw the gun and that he thought he was going to reach for it. In court, his lawyers argued that Martin saw it, and did reach for it. I would be embarrassed if I were pedaling such obvious lies as my argument. The law doesn't say what you are saying it says. What law are you referring to? Please source it. I think you are confusing there not being enough evidence to convict Zimmerman with the law saying he was innocent. There is a big difference. That you think a direct shot to the heart is not murder, but that more shots would be murder demonstrates nothing but that you have no understanding of what murder is. How do you know whether or not the death of Martin was intended? Zimmerman admitted to an EMT that he was on an amphetamine and a tranquilizer at the same time that night. His wife wasn't even at home because she said Zimmerman as emotionally abusing her and they fought the night before. She was at her dads place the night he killed Trayvon. This man got in his car with his loaded gun, high off his medications, pissed that his wife walked out on him again, angry because these "fucking punks always get away" (even though he was caught in another lie during his police interview because a "punk" had been arrested in his neighborhood 1 week previous), he claimed he was innocently heading towards a Walmart, but the facts appear to be that he was sitting in his car looking for punks and when he decided he saw one, he followed him in his car, then sat in his car staring at him, then got out and followed him. Do you even have a clue what that would appear like to Trayvon Martin? The kid ran from Zimmerman because he was scared. Zimmerman would tell the police dispatcher that he thought Martin was trying to look tough and intimidate him by reaching for a cigarette. Did you know this? Do you have any idea how insane this sounds? I don't understand the "question" you put in bold. It literally makes no sense.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty and I can't find any proof that he was guilty of anything more than trying to assist the police by observing and by reporting a suspicious person in his neighborhood.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Correct, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the state. Zimmerman was likely defending his life, liberty or property. Local crime watchers don't look to kill people.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Thank you. There are too many things that wouldn't make any sense if Zimmerman was just looking for an excuse to kill someone.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Riiight...but you think that Trayvon Martin decided on a trip back from 7-11 that he was going to go on a murderous rampage in his fathers neighborhood and just kill a random neighbor. That makes a lot of sense (this is Zimmerman's defense by the way).
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Defending his property? From what... a kid with a bag of skittles and a soda? He called the police saying there was a suspicious person walking around outside, rather than wait for the police to show up, he decided to confront Martin himself. Maybe he flashed his gun or he kept following the kid, but I have a feeling that Zimmerman provoked Martin.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Martin was known to cut through private property.Why would Zimmerman provoke a teenage kid? That sounds absurd.Are you accusing Zimmerman of being a vigilante? No basis for that. Eye witness seen Zimmerman with bloody nose. He was attacked.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Martin was known to cut through private property.He was a teenager, I doubt he thought any one would care. Why would Zimmerman provoke a teenage kid? That sounds absurd.But it does happen. It happened to me when I was a teen. You're assuming Zimmerman thinks like you or me. We wouldn't provoke a teenage kid, but there are adults out there who will.Are you accusing Zimmerman of being a vigilante? No basis for that. Eye witness seen Zimmerman with bloody nose. He was attacked.I assume that Zimmerman was following the kid and that spooked Martin. Neither of them made the right decision that night. Zimmerman should have waited for the police and Martin should have taken another route.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Being oblivious of property rights is not an excuse. Honestly, as teenager, I didn't just disrespect property even without knowing property owners or the law.Why does Zimmerman come off as someone who would do that? He was a local crime watchdog. Adults have better things to do than provoke teenagers into confrontations even with a propensity.My guess is that Zimmerman caught him trespassing, and he confronted Martin, Martin left, and Zimmerman followed where Martin retaliated, and Zimmerman defended himself.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Why does Zimmerman come off as someone who would do that? He was a local crime watchdog. Adults have better things to do than provoke teenagers into confrontations even with a propensity.Zimmerman has a violent background. His ex put a restraining order on him for domestic violence and he had to attend a violent offenders course after he pushed a police officer. He's not your typical friendly neighborhood watchdog. He was a wannabe. He felt like he had authority.My guess is that Zimmerman caught him trespassing, and he confronted Martin, Martin left, and Zimmerman followed where Martin retaliated, and Zimmerman defended himself.Does that mean you agree that Zimmerman was provoking Martin?
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Martin is a known teenage juvenile.NO, why would I agree with now if I didn't before. Zimmerman confronted Martin about trespassing, so Martin laughed it off, so he followed given the police didn't do anything, and Martin probably sucker punched him, and he started the fight.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Provoking doesn't just mean starting a fight. It's causing an annoyance. Zimmerman probably continually followed Martin until Martin just had enough. If you listen to the 911 call (or read the transcript), Martin was aware that Zimmerman was watching him during the call. Zimmerman gets nervous as Martin walks toward him with something in his hand (which we later find out is either his snacks or his phone) and then Martin just passes by Zimmerman. So Zimmerman turns and follows him. Then Martin starts running towards the entrance on the other side of the neighborhood (I should note that it was raining at the time). So, it sounds like Zimmerman caught up to Martin before he could leave the neighborhood. Zimmerman watched the kid the enire time he was there and didn't witness any crimes other than trespassing... but is trespassing really that big of a deal if the kid is using it as a shortcut during a rain storm?
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Private property is private property, and trespassing violents ownership. No different than theft of a car, no excuses someone stealing a car because of a storm.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

I learned something about the case that I didn't know before. Martin's father's fiancee lived in the gated community where the incident occured. During the shooting, his father was over at her house. I spoke to someone who has been following the trial and apparently the three of them (Martin, his father, and his father's fiancee) were supposed to be watching a movie at her house. Martin decided to go pick up snacks from the 7-11 down the street. He was on his way back to her house when the incident took place.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Defending his property? From what... a kid with a bag of skittles and a soda? He called the police saying there was a suspicious person walking around outside, rather than wait for the police to show up, he decided to confront Martin himself. Maybe he flashed his gun or he kept following the kid, but I have a feeling that Zimmerman provoked Martin. You rock!
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

FYI, it is the State of Florida vs George Zimmerman.----------
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

I see, and so you believe that Zimmerman, if anything, was guilty of approaching (without the consent of an "authority") a "suspicious person" (a black male with a hood on) in his (Trayvons) neighborhood?
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

We aren't required by law to get permission before approaching someone on the streets and it was Zimmerman's neighborhood too. he was the leader of the local crime watch there.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Except that Zimmerman was told the exact opposite. He was told NOT to check out the kid with the hood.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

That's not true. He was only told by the dispatcher that there was no need for him to follow the suspect. There wasn't a legal obligation to do what the dispatcher says.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

I didn't mean it as a legal obligation. But, now we have to allow a guy to use the self defense explanation when he went to hunt the victim down. That used to be premeditated murder.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

If Zimmerman was hunting the victim down like you said he would not have let Martin get any shots in that could have got himself knocked out and his gun taken away by Martin and used against him. I don't see how he hunted down Martin. He only followed him and possibly confronted him and those are not crimes. You could say the gun made him feel brave and maybe even stupid but that doesn't make him a murderer.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Zimmerman approached a person with intent to "provide safety to the 'neighborhood'", with intent to "protect", this is certain. Trayvon, as we know, did not approach anything, nor anybody, with intent to defend anybody but himself (when Zimmerman came to him). And so, since Zimmerman, voluntarily came to Trayvon with a gun, it is not self defense, since Zimmerman had a gun (it's not what you know it's what you can prove), and Trayvon had nothing. And so, either way, Zimmerman approached an unarmed teen, who was not causing trouble, thus making Trayvon he victim, not Zimmerman. Zimmerman sought trouble, even though he claimed he was trying to stop trouble, this is certain in hindsight. Trayvon did nothing wrong. Zimmerman killed a teenager for no reason.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

That's not right. Zimmerman couldn't have known that Martin was unarmed and Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman had a gun. If Zimmerman had backed off when the dispatcher said to he would have prevented his part in it but what if someone else with a gun picked it up where he left off and got jumped? They would have been justified too.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Zimmerman deserves to be in jail for being beaten up. Yeah, I said it. Zimmerman knew that Treyvon was there. Zimmerman approached someone who did not know that he was there. So, if Zimmerman gets ambushed by a guy who he is trying to ambush, he deserved the beating he was getting. Zimmerman refused to accept the beating that he absolutely deserved, throw him in jail.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

That is ridiculous. The main reason for crime watch organizations is to do exactly what Zimmerman was doing. He was observing and reporting and if martin thought that Zimmerman was out of line, he should have called 911 instead of his girlfriend.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

No, the main reason for crime watch is to do what Zimmerman initially did. He is supposed to be on the look out, then report to police. If he does more than that he is a vigilante. Is vigilantism legal?