BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jokes!

Nice jokes ;) You're so stupid you had to call 411 to get the number for 911. -*************************- Q: Why did God create blondes? A: Because pets can't bring beer from the fridge. Q: Why did God create brunettes? A: Because the blondes couldn't either. -******************************- A little kid gets on a city bus, sits right behind the driver, and starts talking loudly, "If my dad was a bull and my mom a cow, I'd be a little bull." The driver gets annoyed as the kids continues to yammer on. "If my dad was an rooster and my mom a hen, I would be a little chick." The kid goes on and on with all the animals he knows, when finally, the bus driver yells, "What if your dad was a bum and your mom was a drunk?" The kid smiles and says, "I'd be a bus driver." -*******************- I asked my Grandma if she ever tried 69. And she said, "No, but I have done 53 -- that's all the sailors I could screw in one night." -************- Q: What did one butt cheek say to the other? A: Together, we can stop this sh*t. -*******************- One Sunday morning, a little girl and her mother go to church. Halfway through, the little girl tells her mother she's going to be sick. Her mother tells her to go in the bushes behind the church. The girl leaves and comes back after about five minutes. Her mother asks her if she threw up. 'Yes," the girl says. "But I didn't have to go all the way 'round the back. There was a box near the front door that said 'For the Sick.' -**************- Have fun in life, if the world doesn't end today (which I know it won't) ;)
Jokes!

Q: What did one casket say to the sick casket?A: Is that you coughin'?A man cheats on his girlfriend named Lorraine with a girl named Clearly.Suddenly, Lorraine died.At the funeral, the man stands up and sings, "I can see Clearly now, Lorraine is gone."Q: Why did the blonde have trouble in the ladies' room?A: She is not used to pulling her own pants down.What's the real punishment for bigamy?More than one mother-in-law!An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that evolution had created."What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!", he said to himself. As he was walking along the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. When he turned to see what the cause was, he saw a 7-foot grizzly charging right towards him. He ran as fast as he could. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing, He ran even faster, crying in fear. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pounding and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up, but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.At that moment, the Atheist cried out "Oh my God!...." Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don't exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"The atheist looked directly into the light "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?" "Very well," said the voice.The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.And then the bear dropped his right paw ..... brought both paws together...bowed his head and spoke: "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful."Why did God give women belly buttons?For somewhere to stash your gum on the way down.Q: How do you get a German out of the bath?A: Turn on the water.Did you hear about the two gay Irishmen?Gerald Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzgerald.Q: What do you call a gay Jamaican guy?A: Pokemon.
Jokes!

No offence to all the blondes reading this, but: Q. Why did the blonde have trouble in the ladies' bathroom? A. She wasn't used to pulling her own pants down. Q. What do you do if a blonde throws a grenade at you? A. Run, cause she's got a grenade in her mouth! Q. Why could the blonde do 10+7 on a calculator? A. She couldn't find the 10 key. Q. What is the difference between a blonde and a pothole/ A. You swerve to miss a pothole! A blonde rings up an airline. She asks, "How long are your flights from America to England?" The woman on the other end of the phone says, "Just a minute..." The blonde says, "Thanks!" and hangs up the phone. Q. How do you make a blonde's brain the size of a pea? A. You inflate it. Q. What's the difference between a blonde's brain and a box of rocks? A. Nothing. And that's it! :)
Free Will is more rational to affirm than determinism

Welcome! The motion is: "Free Will is more rational to affirm than determinism" The Burden of Proof is shared - Pro (me) has to prove both that free-will is rational to affirm, and that determinism is not. Con has to prove that determinism is rational to affirm, and that free-will is not. Definitions: Determinsm: The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. [1] Free-will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one"s own discretion. [2] Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and Concluding remarks Good luck! Sources: [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Corporate greed is more harmful than taxes collected by the government

"Corporate Greed" to me is the "most toys" mentality that people wish to be much better off than having to worry about affording a place to live, food, etc. To me, corporations further this with such tactics as sexing up notions of high-horsepower vehicles over sensible ones. Corporate greed is inescapable if you wish to have a roof over your head, a car to drive to work to afford that work over your head, food to eat, water to drink, something to pass by the time you can't afford to do otherthings, and a job to pay for it all. The basic necessities of life are all owned by corporations, completely out of democratic control and the moment the CEOs determine that you are not a profitable sector of the economy to keep making their products affordable to you (or by contrast, that the loss of quality their products would endure by dumping your job for overseas slave labor). Compare Medicare to private HMOs. Medicare offers significant bang-for-buck efficiency in terms of revenues it collects from payroll taxes to what it doles out for actual medical services, and in addition HMOs actually have people hired strictly to refuse to pay for critical services for their customers in dire need of medical attention using very flimsy excuses (a woman had a yeast infection as a teenager that was quickly cured, her HMO when she was in her 40s determined when she needed to go to a hospital, after paying years into the HMO premiums, that the yeast infection she went through as a teenager was a pre-existing condition; the woman nearly died from her medical problems in her 40s). HMO agents actually get paid multi-thousand-dollar bonuses for every coverage claim they can find a way to dismiss (this was admitted to in testimony given before Congress!) == COMPARISON OF CORPORATE GREED TO GOVERNMENT GREED == Let's say the government raises everyone's taxes to 50%. No one actually pays that much, but let's say for the sake of argument that actually happened. How horrible! Half of the money you make is now going to the government. Let's say that the corporation you work for decides to ship your job overseas. Its better for everyone, because the slave labor and lax environmental laws really drive down the cost of production, the stock owners and executives will then have a lot more money for themselves. You've now had a 100% loss of income. Now tell me, which is the greater harm that impacts your life more, in the above scenarios: the 50% increase in tax or the 100% cut in income?
Corporate greed is more harmful than taxes collected by the government

"Corporate greed" consists of the desire to make a profit by using the corporate model to create things people use at a very efficient rate. It makes possible, among other things, your acess to a computer. Every time a person voluntarily spends money on a corporate product, they prove they value the product more than the money. By contrast, the fact that people AREN'T spending their money willingly on what the government presently offers them, and the government has to rob them at gunpoint (tax them) demonstrates they value the government's service less than their money. Taxation, unlike "corporate greed," fails the economic calculation problem-- there is no method to rationally determine how much of it brings a greater product than a cost. And since politicians are motivated by the nature of their election system to exceed whatever that amount is (there is little doubt that, say, spending on subsidies to nonsuccessful corporations in local states from the funds of successful ones from other states destroys value, yet that is done on a regular basis), they naturally fall on the losing end of that model. Each of the essential services of government can be provided through a nontax model, by way of user fees-- such fixes this economic calculation problem. The continued existence of taxes gets in the way of this, thus adding an additional cost to the tax system by way of what is given up in the form of better government services, ones actually subjected to economics. When one thing is inherently required to be superior in it's product to it's costs or die out, and the other has the opposite motive utterly in such regard because it can hide the costs among politically unpopular places and will receive campaign funds from the person receiving the plunder, the result is inevitable.
Corporate greed is more harmful than taxes collected by the government

I put the topic up for debate that: Corporate greed is more harmful than taxes collected by the government I declare that PRO (myself) shall need to prove, to win this debate, that Corporate greed has a greater cost with a lower return to the people of the United States than taxes collected by the United States government (and state and local governments). I declare that CON shall need to establish the converse: that the taxes collected by the government are a worse harm than corporate greed. I shall allow CON to actually establish the opening argument, and thus I am making this four rounds. In the hopes of staving off my own wordiness that I worry has caused my previous opponents to slow their responses, I have reduced a character-limit to arguments to 4,000 characters. However, PLEASE NOTE that I have reduced your time to argue to 48 hours, so if you expect to have a lot of real-life interference for the next few days, please do not bother accepting this challenge. Further, I ask the audience to refrain from trying to become a "third debater." I also ask my challenger (or the audience) to not attempt to make arguments in the "Discussion Tab" until the debate is over. I have an overabundance of time on my rat-paws. If you find you dislike my position, but do not think the challenger is doing a good job at opposing me, feel free to challenge me! I can handle more than one debate at a time. AGAIN, I FOREFEIT ARGUMENTS THIS FIRST ROUND to allow "Con" to make opening arguments. Thank you for accepting my challenge, and good luck!
Advanced Civilisations in Prehistory

I completely argue with the pro side of this debate, but I will argue con's side to gain new prospective on the subject. From my understanding, pro will be trying to prove that great technological advancements and complex societies existed prior to the development of a written langue I will have to prove that the development of writing made the development of certain advancements and complex societies. If I have misunderstood any of this please correct me in the comments or beginning of next round. Good luck.
Advanced Civilisations in Prehistory

INTRODUCTION:I have over the past few weeks, discovered some very interesting things through documentaries and my own research about our history. This debate is the product of this information.FULL RESOLUTION:There is evidence to suggest that civilisations existed prior to "Recorded History" (4000BC) that were far more technologically advanced than previously thought.IMPORTANT: I don't want this debate to fall into semantics, so let me clarify what I expect from this debate. I will supply evidence and examples of objects and anomolies which contradict the belief that pre-historic humans were exclusively simple hunter-gatherers. It is commonly believed that "Homo Sapiens" reached full behavioural maturity around 50,000 years ago. With recorded history only going back around 7,000 years, I will theorise about those missing 43,000 years. My opponent will rebutt these arguments by feisably explaining how these objects were built and how these anomolies could have occured using the simple methods we generally ascribe to these people.I will only have five arguments throughout this debate. This will prevent information overload and keep the debate concise. If my opponent is able to cast REASONABLE doubt on all five points, he will win the "Arguments" section of point allocation. This means the burden of proof is on me, obviously. The rest are at the voters discresion.Any video evidence supplied CANNOT be more than 8 minutes long TOTAL, per round. It's contents must be summorised so that voters need not watch it.STRUCTURE:Round one is only for laying out rules and definitions and acceptance. If my opponent wishes to add anything, please discuss it in the comments before accepting.Round two I will provide my first three arguments and my opponent will rebutt them.Round three, I will provide my final two arguments and attempt to rebutt any counter-arguments my opponent has made. My opponent will attempt to rebutt my own counter-arguments, as well as the new arguments.Round four will be only counter-arguments, with the last chance for either of us to provide new evidence.Round five will be strictly a summary and conclusion, with no new arguments or evidence.Good luck to my opponent.
Abortion and the right to life

I challenge you to this debate. The basic moral argument of why abortion is wrong is centered around this set of arguments: P1. A fetus is a person from the moment of conception P2. Every person has a right to life P3. A fetus has a right to life C. It is immoral to kill a fetus as that violates its right to life. While this set of arguments comes in many shapes and sizes, when you look into it, the basic premise is usually the same as above.
Abortion and the right to life

I thank The Bomb for instigating this debate. The resolution is a little unclear, so in Con's first round I would ask that he indicate whom he doesn't believe deserves a right to life. Does he believe abortion should be allowed up until birth, or not past the first trimester, etc? I would ask he be a little more clear so I don't risk creating a strawman argument against him.I would also like to amend his syllogism slightly. I don't use the word "person" when discussing abortion because "person" is a legal term used to discriminate a group of humans. For example, when slavery was legal, Africans were considered sub-human. They were not considered "persons." They were considered 3/5 of a person for the purposes of voting, only.Additionally, conception is not a "moment" (it usually takes a few days to a week). So more accurately, I say we are living humans from fertilization, which is backed up by science and indicates that all zygotes which are fertilized are human, not when implanted (which is why I would argue that IVF is immoral, as is embryonic stem cell research). Therefore, a syllogism which more accurately represents my position is as follows:P1: The unborn are human from fertilizationP2: Every human has an inherent right to lifeP3: The unborn have a right to lifeP4: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent humanC: It is immoral to kill the unborn as that violates its right to life.As instigator, Con bears the burden of proof, that the unborn don't have a right to life. Therefore, I will allow him to make the opening argument. Following that, I will make my opening argument and rebuttal to Con's arguments.
It SHOULD be made ILLEGAL to Fire or Evict someone just because they are LGBT

"I was VERY clear, I said it's CURRENTLY LEGAL in over THIRTY 30 states and THAT should be ILLEGAL" Ok let's say it is, but that is irrelevant if it should be illegal in the future. That's why i brung up the point that the statement would only be meaningful if we were arguing whether it's legal in the present, but what we are arguing is if it should be illegal in the future. "MOST people think THAT should be ILLEGAL to do" What most people think is irrelevant to whether something is right or wrong. This is the appeal to probability fallacy. "LGBT DESERVE protection from DISCRIMINATION" Them getting protection at the expense of others losing customization of their business is taking away the business owner's right to customization. Also people who are religious would be discriminated against since they are required to keep someone that's lgbt. And this notion that it's discrimination, is comparable to firing someone for doing their job poorly, because it would be discriminating against poor workers. Extend Applications serve the purpose of looking at the qualities someone possesses, and if the employer doesn't like a certain quality then they have the right to fire that person, therefore there is no difference if this person would to be lgbt. If someone owns a particular thing in which they are not forced to include someone but they have given the opportunity for this particular person to be included, he should be able to take away that opportunity since it wouldn't have been there if it weren't for the person.
It SHOULD be made ILLEGAL to Fire or Evict someone just because they are LGBT

I was VERY clear, I said it's CURRENTLY LEGAL in over THIRTY 30 states and THAT should be ILLEGAL. If you didn't understand my OBVIOUS point, that's on you. You've been VERY clear, you think it SHOULD be legal to FIRE or EVICT someone JUST because they're LGBT, and guess what MOST people think THAT should be ILLEGAL to do. LGBT DESERVE protection from DISCRIMINATION
It SHOULD be made ILLEGAL to Fire or Evict someone just because they are LGBT

My opponent has hilariously thought about this resolution narrowly, since I'm not arguing if it's legal or not, the debate is whether it should be legal or not. If this was for example, is firing lgbt illegal or legal, I wouldn't have took it. We are not arguing about currently, we are arguing about in the future. Also my opponent's assertion " you shouldn't", is not backed up by anything. Therefore extend my arguments.
It SHOULD be made ILLEGAL to Fire or Evict someone just because they are LGBT

If someone owns a particular thing in which they are not forced to include someone but they have given the opportunity for this particular person to be included, he should be able to take away that opportunity since it wouldn't have been there if it weren't for the person. The person has the right to customize his business how he wants without having to be forced to include something which isn't a big deal. Applications serve the purpose of looking at the qualities someone possesses, and if the employer doesn't like a certain quality then they have the right to fire that person, therefore there is no difference if this person would to be lgbt.
pich people paying more taxes

The lazy kid beside me is the one who helped me get where I am. This is the only country that pays you to be lazy. nuff said.Not true. In fact, the USA has one of the least generous welfare systems in the modern world. [1] [2] [3] Besides, if you do nothing, you are either rich, or you have no work ethic, and are on the welfare rolls (for up to 5 years in your life-- no longer).Conclusion:My opponent has failed to prove my case wrong. A progressive tax is the most moral, ethical, and smartest tax system. It makes a healthier nation, allows small business to compete, makes better opportunity for the country, improves a nation's infrastructure, and helps the economy. It was supported by the founder of Capitalism. VOTE PRO Sources:[1] http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...
pich people paying more taxes

--------Rebuttals--------About your personal situtation, the progressive tax would make the already wealthy pay their fair share, since society let them get that way. Then, society would have a stronger economy and country, with broad prosperity. "Why am I obligated to pay more then the lazy kid beside me who never did his work, never went to college, and dosn't get a high paying job"Because you got rich because of that kid and all the rest of middle class America and off the taxpayers. They gave you the resources to get rich. You didn't do it alone. It is not class-warfare. It is math.You still would be making heaps more of cash than "that lazy kid" would be, and the P.I.T. allows society to become more fair by giving the taxpayers some of their money back, and making sure that the next generation has a chance at becoming rich themselves. "If we remain on a progressive tax for the rich, not only are we sending a bad message to the younder one, but were being morally and ethnically unjust."I already showed how it was ethical, moral, and a successful tax system in R2."I don't know if what your religion is but their are also passages in the bible that show that flat tax is the way to go."Try explaining a homily reason that explains why Jesus should have condemned the sheep who demeaned the poor by feeding and clothing them, and blessed the rich man for living in splendor while Lazarus suffered. "Progressive tax for the rich is along the lines of Socialism and Slavery. The act of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is not right. It really all comes down to jealousy."-----A progressive tax is a liberal/ progressive idea.-----A government seizure of wealth is a Socialist idea.-----A regressive tax is a slavery-promoting idea.Frankly, the flat tax, since it gives the poor tax increases, and gives the rich tax cuts, is bad economics, bad morals, bad ethics, bad for a nation's infrastructure, and overall a bad tax plan. The flat tax isn't fair, since the rich (who got rich from middle class), don't have to pay back their fair share. It is not class warfare or jealously. It it is math. If a nation helps you get rich, you deserve to pay some more, so that the social contract is kept, and that in the next generation, people can get rich then too.My opponent hasn't refuted any of my points.Taxes in General Ø Government Is Needed National SecurityAssistance to those unable to fully support themselves Equal Access to Opportunity Economic Development Oversight of Financial Markets and Institutions Protection and Advancement of Public Interest Market Cannot FixProviding Investment when projects are too demanding for Market Revenue Collection Service This is where the progressive tax comes in play. When you have higher revenue, and a moral, effective, and economic friendly tax system, you get effective government as well, which can then serve all of the functions I put above. I can explain next round if you want examples; I have plenty. VOTE PROhttp://www.youtube.com...