BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Redskins Name Controversy

Round 2: ArgumentIf we are to analyze whether or not a certain word is a slur and therefore unfit to be the name of a professional sports team, we must know more about the history of the word. It is somewhat disputed amongst historians as of where the term "Redskin" began. The earliest use of the slur was found in a letter written by an English colonialist in 1699, where he writes about how the colonists had to "...withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins" [1]. This, while somewhat interesting, is irrelevant given the fact that the term was only used most often in the 18th and 19th centuries. Originally the name "Redskin" was a sign of respect, as described by Smithsonian Institution senior linguistic Ives Goddard when he wrote that "[w]hen it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level . . . These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves" [2]. However the word went through a process called pejoration (evolving from a good to bad word), as proved by a linguistics study. this study analyzed forty-two books published between 1875 and 1930 and showed that the term "Redskin" was much more frequently used in a negative context than a positive one [3]. Native American activist Amanda Blackhorse described that "The name itself actually dates back, you know, at the time when the Native American population was being exterminated, and bounty hunters were hired to kill Native American people. And so, you know, one could make a great living off of just killing Native American people. And there was a tier effect that was paid out. You know, the highest paid was for a Native American man and then a woman and then a child. And so, based off of that, there were news clippings and flyers and stuff that were posted up, asking people to go out to kill Indians and bring back the red skin. So, in order to show that they made their kill, they had to bring back a scalp or their skin. And so, that’s where the 'Redskin' word has been kind of passed down. So, in our community, we do not use that word" [4]. This quote clearly shows that the term "Redskin" clearly has a negative context and therefore should be considered a racial slur. If the term "Redskin" is to be considered a racial slur, and I have shown that it clearly deserves to be considered one, why should it be allowed to be the name of a profesional sports team? Based on the history of the word, naming a sports team the "Redskins" is equally as offensive as calling a sports team the "N-----s". Sources: [1] http://anthropology.si.edu...[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(slang)#cite_note-29[4] http://www.democracynow.org...
Redskins Name Controversy

If the redskins name is such a "racial slur" then why is it that next to no native Americans have heard this term used negatively ever. This video pretty much says it all. Plus, very few Native Americans are actually offended by the name. Studies have shown that only one in ten Native Americans are actually offended by the name. Only one out of every ten Republicans voted for Ron Paul last election, but is he president? https://m.youtube.com... (watch this video for proof)
Todays music videos are getting more inappropriate and the songs more obscene.

Pro is claiming that songs are getting essentially out of hand and are not appropriate. The issue with his claim is that we have to determine what is appropriate and what is not. Cursing and Drinking are common in the society we live in, so it is only natural to assume songs will be made about it. Around 130 million Americans drink alcohol[1]. There are 316 million people in the USA[2]. That is a little over half the american population that drinks, which is a majority. So it is common to think a lot of songs will be about drinking. The same can be said for sex and even smoking marijuana. Marijuana has become legal in 21 states [3]. In Closing To say something is inappropriate you have to define why and by whose definition we are talking about. By pros definition it may be inappropriate but by the rest of the world all of these things in the music videos are common. [1] http://alcoholism.about.com... [2] http://www.census.gov... [3] http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...
Todays music videos are getting more inappropriate and the songs more obscene.

Again simply put this is irrelevant. Pros argument relies on the fact that he thinks this is inappropriate or obscene behavior. I have shown how almost everything he mentioned is accepted commonly in this culture. Rap music especially has some of these traits. This has been happening for a while and is nothing new. Take Eminem he has always been open about taking care of his daughters and has countless songs with them in it. Ja rule took at shot at Haley during his song loose change "Em ya claim ya mother's a crackhead and Kim is a known slut, so what's Haley gon' be when she grows up?"[1] Essentially Pro is arguing this from his perspective and is assuming all of this is inappropriate. This is just common in the rap game and apologies often follow along with him. Chris brown even took a shot a Drake recently as well. Specifically in rap culture, this is common place so it would not be considered obscene. If we were debating this is in a different time, sure it may be considered inappropriate. We are debating about "today" though. Therefore extend all arguemtns from previous rounds as well. [1] http://www.azlyrics.com...
Todays music videos are getting more inappropriate and the songs more obscene.

I have a song named Karate Chop by lil wayne and there is a line that is very disturbing. Rapper Lil' Wayne is not exactly known for his sensitivity, but his latest lyrical effort plumbs new depths with a line that's not only misogynistic, but also dismissive of the civil rights movement. In "Karate Chop (remix)", Wayne threatens to "beat that p***y up like Emmett Till", prompting a complaint from Till's living cousin Airickca Gordon-Taylor, "My agenda is not to be disrespectful to Lil Wayne, even as much as I feel he's been disrespectful to my family. We just want Emmett's name to be removed from that song...He wouldn't even be out rapping these stupid lyrics without the sacrifice Emmett made." Emmett Louis Till was a 5ft4, 14-year-old African American from Chicago. While on a trip to visit relatives in Mississippi, Till was brutally murdered by a white gang, for the supposed crime of flirting with a white woman. On the day prior to his murder, Till visited a grocery store and spoke to 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant, who owned the store with her husband, Roy Bryant. Some accounts say Till wolf-whistled at Bryant, others that he called her "baby" - the exact details of their encounter are is disputed. In the early hours of the following morning Till was taken from his house by a gang led by Roy Bryant and murdered. His body was found three days later, badly beaten, shot and with an eyeball gouged out from a socket. Till's mother insisted on an open casket funeral and images of his badly disfigured body were published around the world, drawing attention to the civil rights struggle in the South. Both defendants were later acquitted at trail by an all-white jury. Lil' Wayne's record label, Epic have apologised for the lyric and pledged to remove the remix from the internet, but Lil' Wayne himself is yet to offer comment. http://www.independent.co.uk...
GodSand's *other* proof of the existence God is logically invalid

My opponent has declared that DNA is a code because the experts catergorize it as a code. However, this is not just an appeal to authority fallacy, but also the crux of the debate. The fact that we arbitrarily designate something as a code does not mean that the very nature of the thing we are describing takes on all aspects of it. DNA shares similarities to what we call codes. This does not make it a code by all definitions. If my opponent wants to debate this point, I suggest that he address all of the refutations that I have put forth. If he cannot, then he must admit that his source is flawed. This type of argument is a semantic argument. Codes are an arbitrary designation that mankind created to describe their own viewpoints. For example, we can look at a pack of dogs and call it a society, since it matches the definitions of a society when in reality, it is not a society because it is our description of a natural occurrence. We can look at the bacterial flagellum and say that it is a machine, and it fits the definition of a machine, but it is not a machine because it is our description of a natural occurrence. Similarly, we can look at DNA and say that it is a code, and it fits the definition of a code, but it is not a code, since it is merely our description of a natural occurrence. To say that DNA is a code is to make an analogy. DNA is not a code, it is similar to a code. All codes require human categorization and understanding, DNA works perfectly without any sort of human comprehension or interpretation because it is as physical as atoms reacting in nature and other physical/chemical forces. I have offered many explanations and refutations while my opponent has not addressed any issues, I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
GodSand's *other* proof of the existence God is logically invalid

This debate is being created because my opponent has yet another argument for the existence of God that I find to be logically invalid. To avoid complications that arose in the original debate, I am sending this challenge specifically to deal with GodSands' argument regarding DNA as a code. The main gist of the argument is that since DNA is a code, and codes are developed via Intelligence, then an Intelligence must have been responsible for the designing of DNA. In this debate, I will show that this argument is logically invalid for a variety of reasons. These reasons include: 1. This argument relies heavily on semantics and deliberate interpretation of terms to forge a specific conclusion 2. There are hidden premises that are false or faulty, leading to an invalid conclusion. 3. My opponents argument commits an Equivalence Fallacy in its logical presentation and thus, it is logically invalid. On top of the logical fallacies, I shall also address the issue from a scientific point of view. I now invite my opponent to repost his argument in a different form, but I will include the following as a source in case anyone wants to see the original. Please see my opponent's first response of this debate: http://www.debate.org... Thank you and good luck to my opponent.
Favorite Song Debate

This debate is a pretty basic concept. Both users will post their absolute favorite song. There are no limitations on genre, release date, or artist, but the song must be different than mine (just closing a loophole), and the song must be at least 3 minutes long, and contain lyrics as well as music/beat. Having the song be about a serious topic, or have a "good message", will not grant it additional credit. Such a song will be judged like any other. Round 1: Acceptance+Link/Embed favorite song Round 2: Explain why it is your favorite, no rebuttals Round 3: Criticisms of the other person's song Round 4: Rebuttals/ Closing statement My favorite song is "No Love" by Eminem and Lil Wayne.
Zaz

The mask adds to his physique! especially in his song bye bye, it is a total opposite. a man singing such a beautiful song hidden behind a panda mask. It makes the song so much more beautiful in a way. What a stupid name? What kind of a name is Zaz! it sounds like a chemical cleaner! "Zaz, gets the tough stains out." And what do you mean Zaz is colorful? all of her songs are the same! they all have basically the same vocals and don't get me started on the instruments. I quite love the cello and guitar. Actually play guitar myself, but every song! meanwhile cro has a mixture of techno, plucked instruments, and bowed instruments! Saying that french is sexier is a very opinionated statement that cannot be proven. But I will say that a lot of people find mystery sexy. HENCE THE MASK. And do not get me started on that weird thing she does with her mouth in her song je veux! she could have easily gotten a saxophone and it would've sounded great! but no. and in her song/rap Les passants, she makes some very.... unique vocal choices. And I would like you to watch the music video for Cro's song unendlichkeit. Not only the music amazing, but so is the video. plus he makes so many creative choices, not with his voice. but with his video. which is so much more effective to captivate an audience!
Zaz

Cro is literally a mask wearing weirdo. I've never even heard of Cro, what a stupid name! Zaz is not just a rapper, she's a national Icon in france, targeting all segments from kids and families, to couples and the elderly. Zaz is colourful, Cro is a muppet! Plus French is so much sexier than german, and france has a better public relation with usa in comparison to Germany Zaz is beautiful, Cro is not Zaz is charitable, Cro needs some charity and a shower Cro is 27, the illuminati gonna kill his sorry butt need I say more mate!
Justin Bieber is not a bad person.

I guess I dont understand. By posting this list, you gave my argument validity, so I will allow it. He was listed so high on that list because he was in a position were people would listen to his every bidding, and instead of promoting positive messages, he preoccupied himself with drugs and DUI's. Next, note Donald Sterling is #1. He is a proud racist, however, he is not advertising to young teens. And I never said this was 'okay', however, when your being compared to murderers, your doing something wrong. Next, blog posts are invalid. Give me a website that ends in .org, and i'll take it. Tumblr.com is not valid. Next, would you show respect for Donald Sterling? Or others on that list? I know I wouldn't. Next, "Big woop. Celebrities like Bruno Mars get praised even though he was a drug dealer in the past, but no, he's a 'legend' or a 'lad'. " Next, I really don't like Bruno Mars, but I can say that once again, you validated my argument by using a person who used to be bad, and now does not engage in those activities. So, thanks, I guess. Finally, this argument is not about respect. It's whether or not he's a bad person. You never justified why you think he's good. You only mentioned charities, which doesn't make you a good person. The USSR had every intention of helping the poor, yet were they good? Not at all. Thank you, I have finished.
Justin Bieber is not a bad person.

As you said in your argument, you were comparing Adolf Hitler and Justin Bieber. I don't think this is particularly fair due to the fact that Adolf killed millions of people and showed no remorse. Justin has done a few bad things but comparing him to ADOLF HITLER is going to the extreme. There was a poll a couple months back about the most hated men in the U.S. This was an official survey and the results are shocking. I'll do the top ten even though the list went up to about one hundred people. 1. Donald Sterling. 2. Bernie Madoff 3. O.J Simpson 4. Conrad Murray. 5. Justin Bieber 6. Phil Spector 7. Aaron Hernandez 8. Michael Lohan 9. Eliot Spitzer 10. Jon Gosselin Justin scored higher than murderers. How can you say this is OK? At the end of the day, he hasn't killed anyone. He's urinated in a mop bucket, yes. But being higher than a murderer is taking it too far. You also said how because Justin is so rich, people hating on him shouldn't matter. I completely disagree with you because money isn't happiness and it must hurt for him to have such horrible things said about him at such a young age. It's still cyber-bullying even if he is famous. You also said few remaining fans, he still has lots of fans, more than before even. Your next argument basically claims how he doesn't actually care about charity. He helped raise money for and build a school in Guatemala. If that doesn't show he cares, I don't know what does. He didn't just watch, he helped sift concrete, lay down cinder blocks and just spend time with the many children who would be attending that school. http://media.tumblr.com... http://images.huffingtonpost.com... Your next argument says basically why should you praise him? You don't have to praise him, just show a bit of respect. He urinated in a bucket, yes, and so has Harry Styles but the difference is the media brushed off Harry doing it and made a big deal out of Justin doing it. There are probably a lot of drunk people who have urinated in mop buckets. Big woop. Celebrities like Bruno Mars get praised even though he was a drug dealer in the past, but no, he's a 'legend' or a 'lad'. Raven Simone was never as famous as Justin. Justin can't escape, he's taken a break now and travelled the world but you still see a lot of news about him. I know he's done a few bad things but he should be more respected. Thank you, that's all.
Justin Bieber is not a bad person.

Thanks for starting this debate! I would like start with definitions, the I will organize my arguments into three contingencies. Bad person: A person who has continually made bad choices. Now, Contingency 1: How any bad choices can a person make before he is considered bad? Is there any magic number? I would say no. However, I understand your argument, and would like to give an example that fits under your descriptions. Of course I think Adolf Hitler did bad things, but he wasn't a bad person! While he may not have grown up around the media, he was faced with lots of adversity through out his life! He was rejected from the art school he was so passionate about, and he lost his beloved mother. Justin Bieber has had his life handed to him on a gold platter. Regardless of what people say about him, he is rich enough to where it shouldn't matter. Dang, if I was that rich, I would just buy a nice pair of headphones and jam out to some music, and I would feel no need to spit on the few remaining 'fans' Contingency 2: A lot of people do things for charity. Mainly, because it will give you tax cuts. Justin Bieber keeps more of that money he earned when he was 15 because he doesn't have to pay as much taxes. Anyone can show up to a hospital for an hour, and then wait till the end of the year to reap the cash. Not to mention the good publicity that comes with it. Contingency 3: I will jump into rebuttals, since I have already described my argument "He does an awful lot of good that most people don't realise or focus on." What do you want us to do? give him a high five for peeing in a bucket at a restaurant? Why should any one expect praise at all? We do good things because they're the right things to do. We do bad things because it's what we want to do. "Justin grew up around the media. How hard can that be? People judging your every move, even though they don't know you." Your Justification for his actions is that you think he had a hard childhood? Because people were interested in his actions? I'd be laughing all the way to the bank if the media cared about me. Geez, i'd sell them info about my self if they were stupid enough to take it. It's not like there is no way out of the public eye! Example: Raven Samone. Have you heard her name recently? No, you haven't. It's because she herself stayed out, and she's a better person for it! Thank you, that is all
Justin Bieber is not a bad person.

Firstly, I want to start by saying I by no means think he's the nicest person in the world or he's never done bad things. Of course he has. However, I don't think he is a BAD person. Justin grew up around the media. How hard can that be? People judging your every move, even though they don't know you. He's not just started to be hated now he's been arrested, done drugs etc... He's been hated since he was 15-16 because his voice sounds 'gay', he sounds like a girl, he's not talented and he's a waste of space. So many people said bad things about him. Maybe that's what triggered his behaviour from then till now. Who knows? Justin also does lots of things for charity. It doesn't really show because not many magazines publish and write about those sort of things because most readers do prefer to read about juicy gossip. Justin Bieber on drugs!? They don't focus on how he's focused on so many charities including Make A Wish, Alzheimers Association, Children's Miracle Network Association, City Of Hope, Cure Duchenne, Food Bank for New York City, Give Back Hollywood Foundation, GRAMMY foundation, It Gets Better Project, Jumpstart, KaBOOM!, Musicians On Call, Pencils Of Promise, PETA, Ushers New Look Foundation and World Vision. He does an awful lot of good that most people don't realise or focus on. Source: https://www.looktothestars.org...
The date of Australia day should be changed

It's Australia day, not white people day it is directed at all Australians January 26 is a very significant date to celebrate Australia day. It is a date for all of us to reflect on the negatives associated with colonisation. It is a date that signifies the resilience of Indigenous australians A date that we can choose to focus on the real issues facing the traditional owners of the land and to work hard to resolve these issues It is a date where we can all celebrate our great nation and be thankful that we live in a free and accepting society
The date of Australia day should be changed

The reason that Aboriginal people believe the date should be changed has nothing to do with the extreme poverty they live in. People want a day where everyone can proudly be themselves, when we all reflect upon this amazing land and the all of its full human history. Lowitja O"Donoghue who was awarded Australian of the Year in 1984 on Australia pleaded for dialogue about changing the date of Australia Day. This shows the meaning on changing the date. Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson wrote that "no matter how much white Australians might want to ignore it or black Australians might want to reject it" showing that people actually see that the date of Australia Day should be changed. By white people the meaning to the black people is ignore and for the black people the meaning and the day is just push the thought of the day away. Why not change it to a date more meaningful such as 13th of February, the day which Kevin Rudd apologized to the Aboriginals for our past generations mistakes or 11th of April, the day which the White Australia Policy was abolished, or even 27th of May The day Aborigines were finally allowed constitutional rights. "Let us find a day on which we can all feel included, in which we can all participate equally, and can celebrate with pride our common Australian identity." The change the date would show that we care and that we recognize all Australians as equals. Even if refugees celebrate this day proudly there are still the Aboriginal people that believe in Australia but do not believe in this day, and as we are all proud Australians the date of the day should be changed so we can celebrate our nation and it should be a day for all Australians to stand proud as Equals.