BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ideas expressed in violent games shouldn´t be surpressed.

BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL: "JUSTICE ALITO has done considerable independent re-search to identify, see post, at 14–15, nn. 13–18, video games in which “the violence is astounding,” post, at 14. “Victims are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire, and chopped into little pieces. . . . Blood gushes, splatters, and pools.” Ibid. JUSTICE ALITO recounts all these disgusting video games in order to disgust us—butdisgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression. [...] JUSTICE ALITO’s argument highlights the precise danger posed by the California Act: that the ideas expressed by speech—whether it be violence, or gore, or racism—and not its objective effects, may be the real reason for governmental proscription."[11]
Violent video games are real danger to young minds.

Paul Boxer. "It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games." NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: "As policy statements from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have made clear, violent media represents a real and compelling risk to the behavioral and mental health of children and adolescents. In fact, research studies have yielded the conclusion that the effect of violent media consumption on aggressive behavior is in the same ballpark statistically as the effect of smoking on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure on children’s intellectual development and the effect of asbestos on laryngeal cancer."
Video game bans fail test of strict scrutiny.

BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL: "Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of pro-tected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that itpasses strict scrutiny, i.e., it is justified by a compelling governmentinterest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 395. California cannot meet that standard. Psy-chological studies purporting to show a connection between exposureto violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demon-strated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects pro-duced by other media."[5]
Ban wrongly alienates video games.

BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL, Opinion of the Court (June 2011): "Califor-nia has singled out the purveyors of video games for disfa-vored treatment—at least when compared to booksellers,cartoonists, and movie producers—and has given no per-suasive reason why."[12]
Banning sale of games to minors is limited infringement.

Justice Alito opinion June 2011: "The California law involved here, by contrast, is limited to the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The California law imposes no restriction on thecreation of violent video games, or on the possession of such games by anyone, whether above or below the age of 18. The California law does not regulate the sale or rental of violent games by adults. And the California law does not prevent parents and certain other close relatives from buying or renting violent games for their children or otheryoung relatives if they see fit. [...] The Court’s opinion distorts the effect of the California law. I certainly agree with the Court that the governmenthas no “free-floating power to restrict the ideas to whichchildren may be exposed,” ante, at 7, but the California law does not exercise such a power. If parents want theirchild to have a violent video game, the California law does not interfere with that parental prerogative. Instead, the California law reinforces parental decisionmaking inexactly the same way as the New York statute upheld in Ginsberg. Under both laws, minors are prevented frompurchasing certain materials; and under both laws, par-ents are free to supply their children with these items if that is their wish."[6]
Violent video games do not increase aggression.

A 2005 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign study found: "Players were not statistically different from the non-playing control group in their beliefs on aggression after playing the game than they were before playing." He added: "Nor was game play a predictor of aggressive behaviors. Compared with the control group, the players neither increased their argumentative behaviors after game play nor were significantly more likely to argue with their friends and partners."[3]
Interaction with violent speech is nothing new.

BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL, Majority Opinion (November, 2010): "California claims that video games present specialproblems because they are “interactive,” in that the playerparticipates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome. The latter feature is nothing new: Sinceat least the publication of The Adventures of You: Sugar-cane Island in 1969, young readers of choose-your-own-adventure stories have been able to make decisions that determine the plot by following instructions about which page to turn to. As for the argument that video games enable participation inthe violent action, that seems to us more a matter of de-gree than of kind. As Judge Posner has observed, all literature is interactive. ´[T]he better it is, the moreinteractive. Literature when it is successful draws the reader into the story, makes him identify with the charac-ters, invites him to judge them and quarrel with them, toexperience their joys and sufferings as the reader’s own.´"[19]
If sex images can be banned for youths, so can violence

Jay Albanese. ¨Albanese: Supreme Court got it wrong on violent video games.¨ Richmond Times Dispatch. July 2nd, 2011: ¨Legal definitions and prosecutions for obscene materials in the United States always have been directed at depictions of sexual conduct. Violence has never been part of that definition, and the Supreme Court continues in its belief that depictions of sex are harmful, but depictions of violence are not. The terms "patently offensive" and "prurient interest" in past court decisions invariably resulted in subjective line-drawing in attempting to distinguish gratuitous depictions of sex from those that have "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Simply stated, the value of adult sex is an elusive concept, difficult to determine in an objective way, which poses a fundamental problem that underlies legislation and court decisions in this area. When sexual conduct is carried out in a tasteless manner, little social interest is involved. This makes it difficult to regulate or prohibit, due to its unclear impact on public health, safety or welfare. Objectively more harmful than gratuitous sex are depictions of gratuitous violence. A significant social concern arises when sex is depicted in a way that involves force against an unwilling victim, against children, or even when unjustified violence without sex is depicted. A similar case can be made for depictions of violence resulting from hate, due to race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.¨
Ban on video games follows long history of similar bans.

The Entertainment Software Association and the Entertainment Merchant Association wrote in a 2011 brief for the US Supreme Court on their consideration of a California ban on violent video games for youths: "The California statute at bar is the latest in a long history of overreactions to new expressive media. In the past, comic books, true-crime novels, movies, rock music, and other new media have all been accused of harming our youth. In each case, the perceived threat later proved unfounded."[14]
People know video game violence is fake.

Cheryl Olson. ¨It’s Perverse, but It’s Also Pretend.¨ The New York Times. June 27, 2011: ¨Many people assume that video game violence is consistently and unspeakably awful, that little Jacob spends most afternoons torturing victims to death. But these people haven’t played many video games. The state drew its examples of depravity almost exclusively from an obscure game called Postal 2, which, surveys show, is rarely played by children or young teens. The game is deliberately outrageous; you can, for example, impale a cat on your gun as a makeshift silencer. A trailer for Postal 3, said to be out later this year, encourages players to ´Tase those annoying hockey moms or shoot them in the face! This may sound disturbing, but it’s also ridiculous. And young people know it: as one 13-year-old said during a study I conducted at Harvard, “With video games, you know it’s fake.”
Violent video games aren't equivalent to fairy tales

Ian Mitroff. "It's a Grim Day for Our Children." Huffington Post. June 30th, 2011: "In equating the violence in the Grimm fairy tales with that of video games, the Court committed a grievous error in arguing that free speech protected the producers of violent video games. In short, the Court's argument is that if we shouldn't ban fairytales because they contain violence, then we shouldn't ban video games, as well. The argument is false, because neither the violence nor the purpose of the two is even remotely the same. Adults generally read fairy tales to young children so that adults both mediate and interpret the violence. Most important of all, unlike in video games, children do not cause the violence themselves. The Grimm brothers did not invent, but brought together and embellished the fairy tales that had already existed in European culture for hundreds of years. In other words, fairy tales were spontaneous creations of the human psyche. They were not created for the 'marketplace.'"
Many kids would be prohibited whose parents don´t mind.

BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL, Majority Opinion (November, 2010): "as a means of assisting parents the Act is greatly overinclusive, since not all of the children who are pro-hibited from purchasing violent video games have parents who dis-approve of their doing so. The Act cannot satisfy strict scrutiny."[24]
Games put violence in hands of players, unlike other speech.

Justice ALITO June 2011 opinion: "Spending hour upon hour controlling the actions of a character who guns down scores of innocent victims is not different in “kind” from reading a description of violence in a work of literature.See ante, at 10–11. The Court is sure of this; I am not. There are reasons to suspect that the experience of playing violent video games just might be very different from reading a book, listening to the radio, or watching a movie or a television show. [...] the Court is far too quick to dismiss the possi-bility that the experience of playing video games (and the effects on minors of playing violent video games) may bevery different from anything that we have seen before. Any assessment of the experience of playing video gamesmust take into account certain characteristics of the video games that are now on the market and those that arelikely to be available in the near future. Today’s most advanced video games create realistic alternative worlds in which millions of players immersethemselves for hours on end. These games feature visual imagery and sounds that are strikingly realistic, and in the near future video-game graphics may be virtually indistinguishable from actual video footage.7 Many of thegames already on the market can produce high definition images,8 and it is predicted that it will not be long before video-game images will be seen in three dimensions.9 It is also forecast that video games will soon provide sensory feedback.10 By wearing a special vest or other device, a player will be able to experience physical sensations sup-posedly felt by a character on the screen.11 Some amici who support respondents foresee the day when ‘virtual-reality shoot-‘em-ups’ will allow children to ‘actually feel the splatting blood from the blown-off head’” of a victim.Brief for Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press et al. as Amici Curiae 29 (quoting H. Schechter, Savage Pas-times 18 (2005)). Persons who play video games also have an unprece-dented ability to participate in the events that take placein the virtual worlds that these games create. Players can create their own video-game characters and can use pho-tos to produce characters that closely resemble actualpeople. A person playing a sophisticated game can make a multitude of choices and can thereby alter the course ofthe action in the game. In addition, the means by whichplayers control the action in video games now bear a closer relationship to the means by which people control action in the real world. While the action in older games wasoften directed with buttons or a joystick, players dictate the action in newer games by engaging in the same motions that they desire a character in the game to per-form.12 For example, a player who wants a video-gamecharacter to swing a baseball bat—either to hit a ball or smash a skull—could bring that about by simulating the motion of actually swinging a bat. These present-day and emerging characteristics of video games must be considered together with characteristics of the violent games that have already been marketed."[15]
Violence in video games similar to that in ferry tales, etc

BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL, Opinion of the Court (June 2011): "California’s argument would fare better if there were alongstanding tradition in this country of specially restrict-ing children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read—orread to them when they are younger—contain no shortageof gore. Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim in-deed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers “till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jeal-ousy.' Cinderella’s evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves."[20]
Violent video games are protected by the first amendment.

Justice Scalia wrote in June 2011 "opinion of the court" against the California ban on the sale of video games to minors: "Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. Under our Consti-tution, “esthetic and moral judgments about art and lit-erature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approvalof a majority.” United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 818 (2000). And whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, “the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do notvary” when a new and different medium for communication appears. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 503 (1952)."[9]
Some youth have tried to emulate violence in games.

Paul Boxer. "It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games." NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: "A few years ago, on Long Island, six teenagers were arrested after a crime spree involving break-ins, a violent mugging and a carjacking attempt. According to what the teens told authorities, they had been trying to live out the life of Niko Belic. Ever heard of him? He is the protagonist in the wildly popular video game 'Grand Theft Auto IV.' What the teens did represents one of the worst-case scenarios imagined by those who advocate for government to limit the sale of violent video games to minors. Fortunately, such scenarios are very few and very far between. And Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision preventing the state of California from instituting a ban on the sale of such games to minors. The decision was steeped in legal precedent concerning free speech and censorship. But make no mistake: The Supreme Court’s decision in no way negates or devalues the decades of scientific research that have been conducted demonstrating that the consumption of violent media leads to increases in aggressive and anti-social behavior."
There is little desire to return to New Orleans and rebuild

Jack Shafer. "Don't Refloat". Slate. 7 Sept. 2005 - "Few uninsured landlords and poor home owners have the wherewithal to rebuild—or the desire. And how many of the city's well-off and wealthy workers—the folks who provide the city's tax base—will return? Will the doctors, lawyers, accountants, and professors have jobs to return to? According to the Wall Street Journal, many businesses are expected to relocate completely. Unless the federal government adopts New Orleans as its ward and pays all its bills for the next 20 years—an unlikely to absurd proposition—the place won't be rebuilt."
New Orleans is well located at the head of Mississippi

Mark J. Clayton Associate Professor Department of Architecture Texas A&M University. "The view from the levee." 2005 - "there are very good reasons for New Orleans to be where it is [...] The urban geography of New Orleans is defined by the river. The Mississippi is the 14th longest river in the world (Geohive 2005a). If measured from the headwaters of the Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico, it would be the fourth longest. It has the third largest drainage area among world rivers, stretching from New York to Montana and draining over 40% of the land of the 48 contiguous states (Wikipedia 2005a) [...] The mouth of the Mississippi is a globally unique natural feature. One of the longest and richest river systems in the world empties lazily not into an ocean or sea, but into a relatively tranquil gulf. The deposits of silt form an enormous alluvial plain stretching from Illinois to the gulf that is some of the richest farmland in the world."
US does not have enough resources to rebuild New Orleans

"The Case Against Rebuilding New Orleans". The Unplanning Journal. 8 Sept. 2005 - "With the recent destruction of New Orleans, will we also have enough energy (and other resources) to rebuild what was lost while protecting from future calamity? [...] Again the answer would have to be no. [...] Our global energy supplies are stretched thinner than ever, even before Hurricane Katrina struck. [...] Secondly, the spiraling cost of oil and other forms of energy would suck the economic life out of the country, depriving the government of the will or the means to pay for an increasingly costly reconstruction effort."
New Orleans is an economically essential port city

Mark J. Clayton, Associate Professor Department of Architecture Texas A&M University. "The view from the levee". 2005 - Permanent evacuation of South Louisiana does not make economic sense. The river is the reason for New Orleans. If you move the city, you must move the river and vice versa. The simple truths of shipping, commerce, and trade require that there must be a port at the mouth of the Mississippi.
New Orleans can be rebuilt to address its social problems

Thomas Campanella, an urban planning professor at the University of North Carolina and co-editor of "The Resilient City.", said to the Christian Science Monitor in October of 2005, that rebuilding "is going to take tackling the socioeconomic problems that bedeviled the city long before Katrina. There's going to be billions and billions of dollars thrown at this, and it should be spent to fix the preexisting conditions that led to this massive underclass being in such a bad condition."[3]
Rebuilding New Orleans is not too costly for America

Save Big Easy.org - "Some even use the argument that the U.S. government cannot afford to strengthen the New Orleans levees beyond a Category 3. This is simply not true. Monetary issues have never stopped the U.S. government, or the American people, from pursuing a course that they know to be right [...] From 1948 to 1951, the U.S. spent $13 billion on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe. That is equivalent to $100 billion in 2005 dollars. [...] In the FY2006 federal budget that President Bush submitted to Congress, requests were made for $8.2 billion for core development assistance to other countries [...] This is not to say that any of these causes are undeserving of the funds they are receiving or received in the past; indeed many of them are very worthwhile. However, they do provide some perspective into how much money the government spends on foreign ventures. They also expose the immaturity of the argument that we cannot afford to spend the necessary money to upgrade the levee system design in New Orleans"
City location need not be "logical" to justify existence

Barbara Gelinas. "Rebuilding New Orleans is essential, if not practical". The Shorthorn. 28 Aug. 2007 - "Some of America’s most impressive achievements were never logical or practical. Building Los Angeles in the middle of a desert was illogical. Sending men to the moon was impractical. [...] Let’s stop asking if we should rebuild and move on to how we should rebuild."
Rebuilding New Orleans is important to rejuvenating America

Toni McElroy and Kevin Whelan. "Rebuild New Orleans, Rebuild America". Tom Paine, Common Sense. 5 Feb. 2007 - "Rebuilding could be powerful theme for members of Congress who want to take up the striking mandate delivered in the last election and rekindle the dreams of making the county a fundamentally better and fairer place. Finally getting down to the work of rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast would be a great place to start. But why not get busy rebuilding America, as well?"
People want to live in New Orleans, so it must be rebuilt

Donald E. Powell, Federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding. "Forward progress; Rebuilding the Gulf Coast". The Washington Times. 25 Feb. 2008 - "Each time I visit New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast I am struck by how much has improved since the 2005 hurricanes. The people of the Gulf Coast have shown tremendous determination and fortitude to get their communities and their lives back on track, and I am amazed at their progress."
Rebuilding New Orleans is key to improving US race relations

Former Oregon State Rep. Chris Beck (D-Portland). "Why should we bother rebuilding New Orleans?". Oregonian. News 2007 - "If we can't, or don't want to, save New Orleans, then we are essentially abdicating our national responsibility to get it right when it comes to the most troubling parts of our history: slavery and its troublesome aftermath. Yes, of course, plenty of other cities have racial problems that can and should be dealt with. But New Orleans is where the best and worst of it has found voice, and it behooves us to save this cherished chunk of our past and present, to understand our past so we can be reminded we still have a lot of work to do."
Rebuilding New Orleans can be funded by cutting pork

Jay Ambrose. "To rebuild New Orleans, D.C. should forgo pork and corporate welfare". Desert News. 25 Sept. 2005 - "This nation is going to rebuild a major city -- New Orleans -- and that won't come cheap. Some say the federal government's contribution alone could end up being $200 billion, and some also say there's just one way to come up with the money: Raise taxes. [...] That's wrong, even though worries about the federal deficit are right. [...] You can start, in fact, with corporate welfare, a favorite target of the liberals as well as of many principled conservatives. [...] You can then move to pork, which used to be a specialty of Democrats until Republicans took over both houses in Congress."