BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The NFL should not allow a team to be called the Redskins

Thank you for responding. You made some good arguments, but I feel that I can take them. 1. Freedom of Speech (sorry if I stole your format, but hey, it works) Freedom of speech means you can walk up to anyone in the country and legally say whatever you want. Freedom of press means that you can write a book, pamphlet, movie, etc. , and distribute it to anyone. By that, it means you can name that pickup team of yours whatever you want. If you want to name your pickup team some really offensive slur, nothing wrong with that (well, there is something wrong with that, but nobody's stopping you, anyway). Would you cry free press if your local newspaper wouldn't publish an editorial which is extremely racist and peppered with curse words? Would you cry free religion if you applied for a job at a Mosque and they turned you down because you aren't Muslim? My point is, this is a debate on the ethics, not legality, of the NFL to allow such a team name. And, going back to a previous argument, I'm certain the NFL would allow a team to be named the "N! ggers," even if it is honoring an African American coach. 2. Nature of the word "The problem with racial slurs is their derogatory nature. This does not apply when the word is used in a positive way. " very often, African Americans refer to themselves in a good way as "N! ggas. " The NFL wouldn't allow a team to be called that, even if it is supposedly a good thing. 3. Prejudice 100 years ago, it was socially acceptable to call African Americans "Negroes. " In fact, that was all they called them. Could you imagine a team called the Negroes? There would be much more objection to that, going back to my previous argument of Native Americans being scapegoats. "Furthermore, our judicial system agrees. In 2005, a court ruled to sustain the registered trademark of the Washington Redskins, allowing them to continue to use their mascot. " I agree with the court's decision. It's not a legal issue. Same things with many issues. I'm not gay, but I think their right to marry is not the government's decision. Abortion is a horrible thing, but once again, it's not the government's issue.
The NFL should not allow a team to be called the Redskins

Thanks for the rebuttal, looking forward to another good one. 1. Freedom of Speech You agree with me that "absolutely nothing should impede on the first amendment". This means legality has nothing to due with the infringement of civil liberties. The fact that the term 'Redskins' would remain legal, but should not be used for social reasons does not absolve your resolution of its trespass on free speech. "absolutely nothing" means whether it be social norms or cultural standards, nothing should stand in the way of an NFL team calling themselves whatever they please. It does not matter that you are not using the law in particular, the resolution is deleterious to free speech. 2. Nature of the word While 'redskin' may seem derogatory, the naming of the team was to HONOR the coach at the time, whose mother was Sioux. The origin of the name verifies that the supposedly offensive mascots are an homage to the heritage of the team and region. Furthermore, the fact that the word 'redskin' is a racial slur is only perspective. The problem with racial slurs is their derogatory nature. This does not apply when the word is used in a positive way. The fans of the team obviously carry a positive connotation with the word redskin and are proud to have it as their mascot. This is not an instance of a group of people calling someone a redskin as an insult, this is a private organization identifying themselves as such. Your example of being reprimanded at work is not objective nor applicable. The NFL is a privately owned business, as are the Washington Redskins, and the decision to keep the name and not reprimand anyone is entirely their own, given their right to free speech established by our mutual agreement above. The fact that someone would be reprimanded at work is simply a reflection of that particular company following and enforcing social norms. These norms are not objective or universal and your example is simply another instance of broad brushed societal morality being pushed upon organizations and people that believe in other practices. 3. Prejudice Your claim that this prejudice is solely applied to Native Americans enforces my point. Rather than name their teams after a group thought to be less valued and accepted at the time (negroes), the organization decided to pay tribute to the history of the region it represents. The specific name 'redskin' is just a reflection of the time the team was named, where there was less political correctness. The team has an almost 100 yr tradition as the Redskins and are far within their rights to maintain it, even through more socially delicate times. Furthermore, our judicial system agrees. In 2005, a court ruled to sustain the registered trademark of the Washington Redskins, allowing them to continue to use their mascot. Looking forward to your response. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The NFL should not allow a team to be called the Redskins

Thank you for responding! You did make some great arguments that are a challenge to rebut. But, I'm pretty sure I can do it. There were really two points in particular that aren't quite valid, and also you didn't really address my main point, of which I'd like to restate. The first point that you made that stood out was that it was not meant to be offensive, and I think you did kind of accidentally hurt yourself there. You said, "While it may not be acceptable to call a team the San Jose Chinks, San Jose Samarai would be acceptable." You are completely correct there. Let's change the sentence a little. Try this. While it may not be acceptable to call a team the Washington Redskins, the Kansas City Chiefs are acceptable. Your other argument that I took issue with was the whole thing about freedom of speech. Here's something about me. I am about as socially liberal as you can get, and the first amendment is by far my favorite. I firmly believe that absolutely nothing should impede on the first amendment. Here's how this does not impede upon the freedom of speech. I'm not asking for it to be illegal to call the team the Redskins. I'm just saying the NFL should have never allowed it. The NFL is nothing but a business, and what you can name your teams is part of an implied code of ethics. Just like if you went to work and called your African American coworker a "Negro," you'd probably be reprimanded, even if it was a joke, or even in a slightly favorable manner. Now, one thing that you didn't quite cover was my argument that this is because we often write off Native Americans as "fair game," and the NFL would certainly not accept a team known as the "N!ggas," even if it was conceived and favored by African Americans. In fact, they most likely wouldn't even accept the name "African-Americans." I can't wait to hear your rebuttal!
The NFL should not allow a team to be called the Redskins

Hey, good topic. Looking forward to a good debate. Organizations don't choose mascots because the wish to insult themselves. For instance, if I were starting a pro sports team, I would pick a mascot that I can be proud of. The name Redskins is not used in a derogatory sense, it is simply an attempt, albeit a crass one, to pay homage to the local areas history or rally behind something cool that people admire. At Florida State University the seminole on horseback is one of the student body's favorite traditions. The mascots in question are simply cool representatives of the team for supporters to identify with. The term Redskin is a now politically incorrect reference to a historical group evidenced by the logo with a traditional native american. While it may not be acceptable to call a team the San Jose Chinks, San Jose Samarai would be acceptable. Second, political correctness should not impede the right to free speech. A sports team should be able to call themselves whatever they want no matter who doesn't like it. The mascot in question is an homage to something positive that people obviously admire, rather than a racial slur. While the literal term 'redskin' may seem offensive out of context, it simply refers to a group of people whom people think were cool. Also, political correctness and social acceptability is not grounds to limit freedom of speech.
drinking age being lowered

Who would benefit when the teens are openly drinking without fear of punishment? The officer who has to report the death of the kid to his/her parents when he/she was driving home drunk after the party that he/she was openly drinking at? Or how about the parents of the kid who now have to pay for a funeral of their 17 or 18 year old child who is now dead because they made a poor decision to attempt to drive while intoxicated. there is no benefit in this situation at all save the crime systems being less cluttered with petty under age drinking arrests.
Avenged Sevenfold is a better heavy metal/hardcore band than (opponent's choice)

1. Pro cites a change from one style to a very similar style. Iron Maiden has defined rather than conformed to styles and has great variety in their music. 2. The New Wave of American Heavy Metal is of course named in reference to the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, a movement in which Iron Maiden was central. Avanged Sevenfold has cited Iron Maiden as an influence, and Avenged Sevenfold emerged late in the NWOAHM movement. 3. Iron Maiden has existed for more than three times as long as Avenged Sevenfold and the only time that Avenged Sevenfold surpassed Iron Maiden in Google popularity was when their drummer died. 4. Iron Maiden influenced many of the biggest metal bands in history. Avenged Sevenfold is a late edition to a movement named in reference to what Iron Maiden achieved over a decade before. The difference in influence is clear. http://www.google.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com...
Avenged Sevenfold is a better heavy metal/hardcore band than (opponent's choice)

1. Their musicstyle has gone from metalcore to heavy metal. 2.( against arguments 2, 3, and 4) Avenged was started ten years ago and made it to the top in 05, and are still one of the mainstays of heavy metal today. "The band themselves have received much credit for their worldwide mainstream success and and were most notably proclaimed as one of the leaders and key bands in the New Wave of American Heavy Metal and featured in second place on Ultimate Guitar's Top Ten Bands of the Decade. It took Avenged five years to gain fame. For example, their newest album which has only been out eight months and has just recently attained Gold as well as being voted as the best metal album of the year by Revolver, over Iron Maidens 'Final Frontier'.http://www.nocleansinging.com... and while all those bands attribute their existence to maiden, Avenged has been around for ten years and is experiencing an equal, if not greater amount of fame and recognition
Avenged Sevenfold is a better heavy metal/hardcore band than (opponent's choice)

I will contend that Iron Maiden is a better band according to the standards. 1. Iron Maiden's musical style is best defined by the fast and intense intrumentation and powerful vocals of "The Number of the Beast" but "A Matter of Life and Death" features soft vocals and acoustic instruments. 2. Trivium singer Matt Heafy said, "Iron Maiden helped create what we know as heavy metal." They defined the new wave of British heavy metal. 3. Iron Maiden was started 36 years ago and recently released it's fifteenth studio album, "Final Frontier," which has had the best chart success of any of their studio albums. 4. Metallica, Trivium, and Slayer all attribute their existence to Iron Maiden. M Shadows of Avenged Sevenfold said, "Maiden are by far the best live band in the world and their music is timeless." http://en.wikipedia.org... The video is Paschendale, my favorite Iron Maiden song. http://www.youtube.com...
Avenged Sevenfold is a better heavy metal/hardcore band than (opponent's choice)

The Con must argue as to why Avenged Sevenfold is not better than a band of their choice. The standards that should weigh this round are: 1.Artistic expansion 2.Influence 3.staying power proportionate to the time they've been on the scene. 4. the intenisty of influence on the genre just for fun kinda thing, i am a huge A7X fan, so i figured id test my own ability to defend that veiw.
Gravity can be defined as pressure resulting from space displacement

I was disappointed to read Con's R2 argument. I expected more from a top debater on this website. It was lazy and dismissive. After thoroughly addressing each point Con made in R1, his response sounded like he just threw up his hands and said, this is all just too stupid and ridiculous to continue discussing. Which naturally leads me to the glaringly obvious question: Why did Con take this debate to begin with? In the opening round (prior to acceptance), I was fairly clear in describing exactly what this theory entails. I was also clear that it was not backed by current scientific theory, that it was loosely defined and abstract, and that it would be difficult for me prove or win. So again, I ask, why did Con take this debate? Perhaps Con accepted this debate because he thought it would be an effortless win (let's face it, someone in the 99th percentile is likely very strategic about the debates they accept). But here's where Con went wrong. His "nail-in-the-coffin" argument (which happens to be the most sound aspect of my theory) is based squarely on Con's misunderstanding that matter displacing space is the same as matter displacing other matter. The type of displacement Con keeps referring to is when an object of mass is displacing another object of mass (i.e. a submarine displacing water), where the size and shape (surface area) of an object determine the amount of displacement, not its density and mass. On the other hand, when we are talking about matter displacing space, the amount of space displaced is directly dependent on how much matter an object is made of; and the object's size and density, and therefore, the object's mass, is the measurement that tells us how much matter an object is made of, which tells us how much space it is displacing. As I said before, matter could even be described as, "where space isn't." This understanding, regarding space displacement, is not "meaningless," nor is it an arbitrary redefining of words or concepts; and there are many scientific forums and articles that explore this concept thoroughly. That being said, one of three things is happening here: 1) Con simply cannot understand that the greater the mass (size and density), the greater the space displacement. 2) I haven't explained space displacement well enough for Con to understand. Or, 3) Con is now aware of this misunderstanding, but decided to double-down for tactical purposes (i.e. admitting error could cost him votes). There is one other avenue Con can take (which is the one Con SHOULD be exploiting to win this debate): The idea that space can't be displaced because it is a perfect vacuum, and therefore, there is nothing to be displaced. Additionally, how can a perfect vacuum such as space exert pressure? What exactly is doing the exerting? There, I gave you a head start. I'd appreciate a little more effort in your next round.
Gravity can be defined as pressure resulting from space displacement

The argument against Pro's theory is simple: Pressure is based on volume displaced, not mass. In other words, pressure is stronger or weaker based on the size of objects (i.e. which affects how much volume is displaced). Gravity scales with mass, not volume. In other words, gravity is stronger or weaker depending on the mass of objects. Volume is not the same as mass. This alone dooms Pro's entire theory. At this point, you can vote Con. There's no need to continue reading. But Pro's theory contains so many other problems, and so much nonsense, that it's worth pointing issues out, so as to make the debate more educational. 1. What is a "pressure sphere"? I've never heard of such a thing; it sounds like nonsense. I can't even imagine what a pressure sphere would look like. Pressure just doesn't work like that. 2. Assuming this "pressure sphere" idea somehow exists or is possible, Pro's theory still fails to account for the fact that anything affected by gravity falls with the same acceleration. This is an integral part of the way gravity works, and it's encapsulated by Newton's famous law, F=ma, i.e. force equals mass times acceleration. Any theory of gravity must produce the result that things fall with the same acceleration. Pro's "pressure sphere" cannot produce that result. In Pro's "pressure sphere," the force from pressure is proportional to area rather than mass. This is inconsistent with Newton's law. Pro even admits this: "The external pressure being exerted on them is evenly distributed, and therefore the pressure (gravity) affects them equally." In other words, Pro's saying all objects feel the same force or same pressure due to the uniformity of the pressure from his so-called "pressure sphere." This makes no sense. In Pro's "pressure sphere," where objects experience the same pressure uniformly, the force of the pressure will depend on the surface area of the object. If that's what causes gravity, objects won't fall with the same acceleration. The only way for every object to fall at the same speed is if the force depends on the mass. When force depends on the surface area of the object, the objects will fall at different speeds. In Pro's "pressure sphere," the mass in the equation cancels out. Thus, Pro's theory fails because it cannot account for a crucial part of gravity. 3. Presumably, Pro's "pressure" is caused by some substance. If there exists such a substance capable of applying pressure due to its displacement, this same substance should apply a friction force to things moving through it. Friction makes things slow down. So, under Pro's theory, we'd expect to see objects slowing down. But the earth isn't slowing down. So Pro's theory is wrong.
Gravity can be defined as pressure resulting from space displacement

This is a very loose, underdeveloped theory of mine that may or may not already exist. I expect to be torn apart by someone knowledgeable in GR and physics; however, given the mysterious nature of gravity, and the variety of theories claiming to understand it, I figured what the heck? Here's another one. I have no debate rules, just stay on the topic of gravity, and hopefully we can have a fun, informative exchange. Here is my theory: Gravity is nothing more than pressure being exerted on an object of mass. The pressure is being exerted by space (assuming that empty space has the ability to exert pressure). The larger the mass, the larger the pressure (gravity). In fact, there is a direct correlation between the amount of space the object is displacing, and the amount of pressure being exerted on the object. In other words, the space that an object displaces pushes back on the object from all sides (hence the roundness of most massive objects in space). Any object that comes near this pressure-sphere surrounding the object, gets pushed into the object, giving the illusion that the object is sucking them into it. This could also explain why very large objects fall at the same speed as much smaller objects. The external pressure being exerted on them is evenly distributed, and therefore the pressure (gravity) affects them equally. This theory is derived from the concept of how particles naturally move to fill a vacuum and achieve equilibrium (like high pressure systems moving to low pressure systems). In this case, it is the exact opposite. Space itself has a natural desire to fill the objects place that is displacing space. It's easier to visualize if you inverse the make-up of earth and space. Imagine if space was filled with fluid matter (like water), and there is a small spherical vacuum moving through it (Earth), there would be a consistent and evenly distributed pressure being exerted on that spherical vacuum because of the matter it is displacing as it moves through it. That pressure is what we perceive as gravity. That's kind of the idea. Obviously there's more to discuss, and I'm sure you can't wait to explain all the ways this violates physics and what we already know about gravity. Let's get to it!
Most Interesting Animal Challenge!

My choice is the Turritopsis nutricula, also know as the immortal jellyfish. From a biological point of view, the Immortal Jellyfish really can live forever. When the Jellyfish reaches maturity it can revert itself to its polyp form (the sexually immature state) which then gives birth to a whole new colony. See, in the animal kingdom, there's really little use for the animals to keep living after they reach sexual maturity and reproduce but the Immortal Jellyfish cheats the process by turning back time on itself and reproducing asexually in what, technically, can be an endless cycle. So this jellyfish holds the key to eternal life. http://www.jellyfishfacts.net... I wait for my opponent to decide their animal and we will just let the voters decide.
Evolution vs Young Earth Creationism

This debate is reserved for NewLifeChristian. I will be arguing that Evolution is true and that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. NewLifeChristian will be arguing for Creation being true and that the Earth is around 6-10K years old. RulesNo trolling Reliable sources must be usedStructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments only (no rebuttals)Rounds 3-4: Everything elseRound 5: Everything and explain why we did better than our opponent DefinitionsYoung Earth Creation: A literal interpretation of genesis that the Earth and heavens were created in 7 days by God, combined with the belief of the Earth being 6-10K years old. Evolution: Darwin's theory of organisms changing overtime through proccesses such as mutations or Natural selection
Early educational start on career choice for students

Between 50% and 70% of students change their college majors at least once, and most will change majors at least 3 times before they graduate university [1]. If 18-22 year olds change their mind so often within those 4 years, it is logical to assume that students would change their mind even more often from the time they are younger until the time they graduate college. A career/personality assessment or career professional can help you clarify and understand your strengths, weaknesses and preferences so that you can make confident decisions about what type of career you might want to pursue. However your personality and skill sets are often not developed until later on in life. The brains of young people are still developing, and look much different than a developed brain in their mid-twenties [2]. There would be little utility in starting to measure young people's brains, long-term interests, skills and values. For example a young person's priority might be an easy, fun job, whereas that same person might prioritize financial return later in life and prefer a more lucrative career. By asking young people to make important decisions about their future (or set expectations) it creates unnecessary pressure to make low-informed decisions. Not enough variables about the student are known. Many people prefer or need work experience in order to decide on their major/profession. There is little to no benefit in forcing someone aged 14 and younger to make decisions on things they will likely change their mind on later on. [1] http://sites.laverne.edu... [2] http://www.livescience.com...
100 debate challenge 4: This House supports the death penalty

Full Topic This House supports the death penalty Rules1. Pro accepts the sole BOP2. No forfeits3. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate4. No new arguments in the final round5. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere6. No semantics or trolling7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss