Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Input: There are a few ways to go about disproving a literary theory. For instance if the story was written before Star Trek was a thing. You could look for whether red has a stronger connection to something else, or if it's colors in general.    Just make a stronger argument. "It's coincidence" is basically the null hypothesis and it doesn't make for great discussion because you can assume that about any claim, but it can still be accurate. You just need to have an argument for *why* you think it's coincidence. You put in the work to show exactly how the evidence provided is flimsy or the connection weak.    >it's really hard to prove them wrong, even if they don't have any evidence or compelling reason.     If the argument and evidence is really that weak it shouldn't be all that difficult to demonstrate it. Tell them *why* the evidence is weak. Is the color Red used elsewhere besides shirts? Was the story written before Star Trek was a thing, etc.     Part of literary analysis is being able to articulate arguments against other theories and supposing your own.
Output:
no