azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

There is no proveable racism! In fact there is evidents George was not a racist, he had black friends and once got mad at a cop for being racist! A Hispanic killed a black kid and somehow he is a racist white guy, it doesn't make sence! You pulled the race card!
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

I love how you cons yell "race card" when someone points out obvious ethnocentrism. Yelling "race card" does not make me any less right.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Yeah and it doesn't make you any less wrong ether. Your hole arguement for Zimmerman being guilty is all a bunch of crap.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Maybe because it is obvious he isn't a racist and the fact it is also obvious you are using the race card.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Race is not a card. I do not even use the term racism because my religion teaches that we are all one human race. I use the term ethnocentrism. If you must accuse me of playing a card, accuse me of playing the ethnicity card, thanks.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Race Card. What embarrasses me as a Libertarian is that at one time you considered yourself a Libertarian. Some things that you have said scares me if that were true.In other words, I say it as it is. You, Ma'am, are using the race card to call George Zimmerman a racist.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Ethnocentrist, and it is not ethnocentrist to point out obvious ethnocentrism. Alinsky would be so proud of you using his tactics from rules for radicals. Do me a favor and stop wasting my time. I will never stop fighting for equality.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Or stupidity.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

How is this slavery? If Trayvon was white, this would have neer went to court!
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

So if I told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? He was told by dispatch he didn't need to follow Martin. They never said he couldn't.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Ha ha, okay Mom. .
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

What kind of arguement is that? You can't just accept you've for the most part loss this debate! Just give up. Try again when you have GOOD evidents and see what I have to say.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

I think you need to go live with your mom some more. Because I believe it is way past your bedtime.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Ah nice. The good old fashioned personal attack. I must have hit a nerve.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

As I have said many times, I'm cool as ice water.However, I do love it when you burst out saying, "FUCK YOU" to people that disagree with you.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Leave me alone, you Alinsky wannabe. .
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

You might have cowardly ban me from your debates (like you have done for many others), but I WILL debate you on other debates since you obviously have something stuck up your....
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

No you will not. I am not obligated to speak to you. .
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Yes he killed someone!
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

This fact was never in contention.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

It was in self defense. Self defense is legal in the US, if you disagree with it start a campaign against defending yourself.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

People have been killing each other since the beginning of time.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Like what gives him the right to kill people? "Self defense" you say. Self defense against what?
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Self defense against Trayvon Martin, who was beating the crap out of him.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Yeah, self defense from a 140 pounds skinny black boy with a bottle of Arizona and skittles. Zimmerman had a gun and a 200 pound ass to squish him like a bug. Ha. Self defense. Seriously?
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

200 pound ass to squish him like a bug.Weighing 200 pounds doesn't mean you have the strength to lift 140 pounds off you.Zimmerman had a gun and a 200 pound ass to squish him like a bug.Ha. Self defense. Seriously?So if you were on the ground getting beaten and couldn't push your attacked of but you had a gun would you not use it to get free from your attacker?
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Yes, if the law says killing people is illegal, then what's to question?! He killed someone with no motive..! If I were to kill the queen, then profess that " I felt threatened by her.." Then by the logic used in that trial, I should be let off totally with no charge. I mean what the actual FUCK is with people saying " he has the right to defend his liberty and defend himself..."Oh so I suppose I can defend my liberty by killing small children, because it's a free country and I have the right to defend my liberty, ci? Nein, if you want a law that works, you have to stand by it, you can't go around shooting unarmed civilians and claim " I felt threatened" because that is so not an excuse to kill someone. In actual fact, I rarely find an excuse for killing someone, but Florida law says otherwise...Fact of the matter was, what has it come to if you can go around shooting unarmed teenagers for no reason and consequently be found innocent. Is that a functional judicial system? I think not.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

He killed someone with no motive.Please provide an argument in support of your assertion.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

There was a man walking down a street. There was also another man, who decided to kill him with no acceptable reason. This, according to the law is wrong. Yet he is not found guilty of a crime everyone, even he admits doing.  What proof have we that the man he killed threatened him. His word? Are we supposed to just take his word for it. I suppose you could say Bin laden was angry with the west for what they were doing to his land, so he was totally right to plan out 9/11. Yes? You can't possibly argue not, because he felt threatened by the west, and feeling threatened by someone is enough to retaliate with lethal force, yes?  You know, it's pretty damned scary to see people openly defending a man who has killed someone out of 'self defense'. Although there was no reason to defend himself, as the man posed no threat. But you don't see that.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Although there was no reason to defend himself, as the man posed no threat.If this is true I would agree with you, can you demonstrate that this statement is true?
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Based on evidence gathered, yes. The man was unarmed, and Zimmerman was. Zimmerman was the one posing the threat to the other guy, killed him. But oh wait, what's this? The guy who killed the unarmed civilian actually did nothing wrong..! Amazing how the law works isn't it. I could walk down the street, kill some old bloke in a tall coat ( who would not pose a threat at all) and say " I thought he was hiding a bomb in his coat so I killed him to stop him." You think that would be acceptable. Lets also think for a second, as the blatantly obvious has not yet occurred to you it seems. This man is a racist. He sees a black man and thinks " I fucking hate him." Gets out of the car, kills him based on his prejudices, then tells people that there was a reason for doing so. He tells people there was a reason for doing so, so that he avoids going to jail. That would be the obvious thing to say. But you're arguing on that little sliver of " Maybe the unarmed civilian was going to kill people..."I am saying, if you murder someone in cold blood, that is a crime. Now as of yet you have yet to actually argue otherwise, but from the looks of things, you're arguing that murdering someone in cold blood is not a crime.Again, I am not saying this is what you feel, but you are arguing against me, so I am obliged to assume this.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Based on evidence gathered, yesSaying this, and then asserting that Travon wasn't a threat isn't an argument. Please give me examples of the evidence that support your claim that "there was no reason to defend himself, as the man posed no threat".
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

I will if you give me evidence saying:What proves he is innocentWhat proves that he was right to kill TravonWhat proves Travon was a threat.You seem to like asking questions but have failed to answer any. Answer these and I will get right back to you as fast as I can. And stop quoting me, it's not very productive; it looks like you can't think of anything to argue back, so you waste time dwelling in the past. Which works sometimes, but doesn't always. Anyway, les questions please.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

What proves he is innocentI never claimed he is innocent, I simply don't think the state had enough evidence to support Zimmerman's guilt. You on the other hand are asserting to know that Zimmerman is guilty, I'm just asking you to support your assertion.And stop quoting me, it's not very productiveEvery productive discussion I've had on here has involved quoting the other party. Quoting is important so you know exactly what I'm referring to, this is important to reduce confusion. You don't have to, but I think it is useful.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

I think the law is flawed and simply wrong. But, for people need to follow it. According to the law, and by definition in various law books, he should be guilty for what he did. Yet he is not. And this confuses me. You ignored about 80% of everything else I said too. Don't just quote the bits you feel you can argue, and leave the rest out of it, that shows weakness.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

I think the law is flawed and simply wrong. But, for people need to follow it. According to the law, and by definition in various law books, he should be guilty for what he did. Yet he is not. And this confuses me. Again, all you are doing is asserting your position without demonstrating it. You ignored about 80% of everything else I said too. Don't just quote the bits you feel you can argue, and leave the rest out of it, that shows weaknessI will if you give me evidence saying:What proves he is innocentWhat proves that he was right to kill TravonWhat proves Travon was a threat.You seem to like asking questions but have failed to answer any. Answer these and I will get right back to you as fast as I can.I never claimed he was innocent, so all of this was irrelevant. Because disputing "What proves he is innocent", negate the rest, It was simpler to address the main flaw. And stop quoting me, it's not very productive; it looks like you can't think of anything to argue back, so you waste time dwelling in the past. Which works sometimes, but doesn't always.I addressed this part.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

And what of my previous arguments? You know this is pointless. So let me ask, do you think he is guilty or innocent. And don't drone on like Ben Stein for eight hours on why you think "he is innocent but by conventional judicial practices, one could say that......." blah blah blah.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

If you have a problem with the way I addressed an argument you should have brought that up at the time, feel free to point to a specific one and I will be happy to address it, I think I addressed all the relevant parts of your arguments, but I welcome your input.You have made the claim that Zimmerman is guilty. So far you have only asserted this to be true, you have not presented an argument that demonstrates it. A perfect place for you to post your unsupported personal opinions would be Facebook, people who know you might be interested.My position is I don't know. I don't think the state presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate his guilt, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to changing my mind. That is why I'm on a debate website, asking a person who is participating in a debate about Zimmerman's guilt, what evidence they have to believe he is guilty. That is the point of this website.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

We know for a fact that Zimmerman killed Martin. We also know Martin was unarmed. It is said Zimmerman has said racist things and hinted to racial stereotypes in the past and during the trial too. We know Zimmerman was armed with a gun. We also know he violently abused his ex-fiancee in the past. These all point to guilty. What we don't know is, whether Martin was a real threat or not, whether Zimmerman thought he was doing right or wrong.However, what we don't know about what happened does not go towards him being innocent.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

What we don't know is, whether Martin was a real threat or notThis is the only relevant part, if you don't know if Martin was a threat or not, then you can't determine if it was self defense. If you are just going to say you don't know that is fine, but stop asserting that he is guilty as more than personal opinion.However, what we don't know about what happened does not go towards him being innocent.I'm not interested in determining if he is innocent, only determining his guilt.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

He's suppose to be proven guilty withous a reasonable boubt, not proven innocent with reasonable dobut you shlong hoffer (Made up insult) What proves it wasn't self defence? He has soem scratches and bruises as proof he was attacked. There is plenty of good evidents that it was self defence and I believe it's beter for a guilty man to go free then for a innocent man to be sent to prison!
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Scratches and bruises versus a gunshot wound. Oh yeah, he was totally in the right to kill the kid.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

He was in fear in would get worse. You know, he thought he was going to get killed by Trayvon! Why can't you think rationaly?
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Armed man kills unarmed teenager out of self defense, and you tell me to think rationally?
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Do you think there is any way an armed man can shoot an unarmed person and claim self defense?
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

I am arguing Zimmerman is guilty. And that no, you can't claim self defense if you're the attacker with the gun. You ask me he should have 20 years+ in Jail.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Look guy, he is only guilty if you answered yes to my question, that's why I asked. The law says otherwise, therefore, you are wrong.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Ah so the law is always correct is it? This amazing thing created by God himself. Oh no wait, it was made by ordinary human beings. So I saw Marijuana is good, the law says bad, so I'm wrong. What if they change the law, I'll suddenly be right, and we just accept that.What if the law says " Getting Aids is mandatory." And I say it shouldn't be. Would I still be wrong?I don't want to argue you I just find my self getting displeased by your stubbornness.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

You're the stubborn one. You continually say we need to follow the law, and you continually say we shouldn't follow the law.So I saw Marijuana is good, the law says bad, so I'm wrong.If you say it is legal to smoke it, then yes, you are wrong.What if they change the law, I'll suddenly be right, and we just accept that.Yes, something changed didn't it.What if the law says " Getting Aids is mandatory." And I say it shouldn't be. Would I still be wrong?If you say it shouldn't be, then you would be right, if you say the law says it is ok to be AIDS free, you would be wrong.I hope that straightened everything out for you.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Not at all, I say for people who use the law as an example should follow the law. I mean i follow the law as I have no alternative, but it's still flawed. I and every time you said " If you say that..." Well no, that's not what I'm saying, so don't bend my words.And besides, if I did fluctuate between promoting and criticising the law, that wouldn't be stubbornness.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Since you didn't address my other points, you clearly agree with me, thank you. And besides, if I did fluctuate between promoting and criticising the law, that wouldn't be stubbornness.Sorry, hypocrite.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

The man shot a teenager and pleaded self defense. In Britain, you would be sent to jail for that, as we cannot just take your word for it, as you don't just kill unarmed civilians here.That is my damned argument now argue against that for fucks sake, not these petty little girls issues we seem to be forever squallering in.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

In Britain you are guilty before proven innocent? Sounds like you guys have it backwards. In America we live in the 21st century where people are innocent until proven guilty.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

No, it's called the law. You're still innocent until proven guilty, just here in Britain, if you do commit a crime, and there is evidence to support this, normally you're found guilty. Seems in America, you're innocent regardless. ANYWAY, Zimmerman I think should be sent to jail because the evidence to prove his innocence is less than that of which proves him guilty. If you think what he did was not bad, then you have every right to say he is innocent. I just disagree.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Your evidence that he committed a crime is that he fired a bullet and it killed someone. You have ignored all context and laws and said that he is guilty because you don't like the law. You have a problem. You refuse to admit that it is possible that he did not commit a crime. I think the overall situation Zimmerman did something wrong and should go to jail. But, he was defending himself at the time of the gunshot, so he gets to go free.Obviously he is not guilty though, the jury said so.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

At this point I don't know if your "Obviously he is not guilty though, the jury said so" is intense sarcasm or something you actually believe. I will go with sarcasm. Well yes, you have a bunch of nobodies deciding the fate of a rather important case. Anyone would think they were the fucking pope with their supposed infallibility.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Wasn't sarcasm. In America once you are found not guilty, you are not guilty.I understand your point, but you are a little late to the party. We have already been talking about this for weeks.There is clear evidence that Zimmerman was being attacked by Trayvon (pretty violently, too). Zimmerman shot Trayvon. There is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon while being attacked by Trayvon. If we only look at those facts, I am sorry but the only conclusion we can make is that it was self defense and Zimmerman should go free. You are saying that given just those facts you believe that Zimmerman is guilty, then you are wrong.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Plus we know it was not accidental, when he fired the bullet, he has admitted to this. So no trying to pretend it was manslaughter :P
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: Yes

Manslaughter was only going to happen if the jury really felt they needed to punish him. It probably should be manslaughter because he went to investigate what was going on and through the course of actions "accidentally" killed Martin. He didn't intend to do it, so being forced to kill because he was being attacked is like an accident.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

As a matter of fact I do. Why let yourself get your ass kicked when you have a gun? No he should have told him to "freeze!" or at least just shoot him in the leg but, he didn't have much time to thing and shot him. He could of had ill will in mind but, there is too little proof for this. You would have prisoned a innocent man.
Debate: George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?
Side: No

Even if he didn't threaten him he was sat on his chest (eye witness reports) hitting him in the face. The law of self defence (at least in English law) is subjective. Did he believe he was at risk of being assault? Second question is objective: given the extent of the threat he believed himself to be under, was the force he used reasonable? It seems a pretty clear case of self defence according to the law. The only reason it got to court is because of the media attention.