BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Best Jokes

One day three brothers, Deak, John and Harry, are hiking on the unexplored mountains of the mystical land of bobbybob. On an especially peculiar day, they happened upon a magical looking cliff. Filled with curiosity, they ventured up the sparkly paths of the peculiar cliff. Yes, the cliff was magical, but none of the brothers knew how it was so. In fact, the cliff works a special type of magic: while standing on the wide platform on the cliff's edge (whose construction is, in itself, an enigmatic mystery), a person is only to utter a noun, any noun, and he/she will literally become the subject of their utterance. Unfortunately for the brothers, their knowledge of this dangerous platform upon the cliff is lacking. The prospects of the supernatural was simply too alluring, and the brothers walked unto the platform and began crossing its ancient stone pavings toward the cliff's very edge. As the brothers looked out upon the open land, they beheld a sight that would overwhelm even the most sturdy of men: Mountains upon mountains of pure, unadulterated gold, piling mile upon mile into an immeasurable distance. Unable to restrain themselves, Deak and Harry, the more impulsive brothers, laughed in joyous unison: "Gold!!" They were instantly swathed in a strange light. Both brothers, with a sudden fear, turned to attempt an escape, but they were solidified before even a step was taken. They were doomed to forever stand as guardians warning future stragglers with their faces aghast with confusion and horror. John, upon losing his two brothers whom he had intimately known all his life, lamented in sheer agony and cried: "HARRY!! DEAK!!!" A horrid hue of light enveloped him as he shrank into shape. None of the three brothers were ever seen again.
Best Jokes

Blond Joke #1: A Blond, a Brunette, and a Red Head are all running from the cops. While running in an alley, they find three sacks. The Red Head climbs in the first one, the Brunette the second, and the Blond the third. A cop walks by the alley, and spots the three sacks. He pokes the first one, and the Red Head goes, "Meow, Meow." The Cop thinks it's just a cat... The Cop pokes the second one, where the Brunette goes, "Roof!" The Cop thinks it's just a dog... The Cop pokes the third one, the Blond goes, "PO-TA-TO!" Blond Joke #2: 3 people have won the trip of a lifetime, A business man, a Boy Scout, and a Blond. They are all flying to the Bahamas when an engine goes out. The Pilot of the private jet takes one of the three parachutes and jumps off. The Blond, takes a bag and jumps off as well. The business man looks at the Boy Scout and says, "Go ahead boy, take the last chute." The Boy Scout looks up at the business man puzzled, he answers, "It's alright sir, that Blond took my backpack." Yo Mama Jokes: Yo Mama's so fat she counts as a 25 kill streak on Call of Duty Yo Mama's so fat, that when she went to Jenny Craig, Jenny Craig said, Sorry, I don't do miracles. Yo Mama is so dumb, that when she saw a bus full of white kids, she yelled out, "STOP THAT TWINKIE!" Yo Mama's teeth are so yellow, that crow's peck at them because they think that they're corn. Yo Mama is so poor, that when I saw her kicking a can down the street, and I asked what she was doing, she said, "Moving." YOUR TURN, Can't wait to hear your jokes!
Best Jokes

OK, So I want to have a joke off. Pretty basic, each round is a different topic. (Blond Jokes, Yo Mama, etc.) Who ever has the best jokes wins! Please try to keep language down! Thanks and may the best jokester win! Round 1. Accepting the Challenge Round 2. Blond Jokes Round 2. Yo Mama Jokes Round 3. Debater's choice (Can be about anything)
Linux is the best best performing operating system for personal use.

Well, that was an anti-climactic end. Just for kicks, I will now show proof that my opponent was plagarizing. . http://www.tuxmagazine.com...http://www.tuxradar.com... . http://www.linux.com...If any of these don't work, just copy and paste a line of my opponents text into a search box, you'll find the source. This was a disgraceful debate on my opponent's part. I hope that in the future he will not start debates he doesn't plan to finish or copy other people's work.
Linux is the best best performing operating system for personal use.

INTRODUCTIONI've noticed an interesting trend regarding my opponent. All of his arguments seem to be directed toward someone other than me. He doens't face my rebuttals, he dropps my arguments, and he rebuts points I haven't made. I suspect plagarism, however, I can't convict my opponent at this time. I will continue playing his game for this round. REBUTTALS1. My opponent is rebutting an argument I didn't even make. Not sure what he is trying to get at here. I'm going to ignore this.2. Even if you can use a Linux program to get second-hand versions of Windows software, Windows still has the advantage here. Despite what my opponent said, Wine does produce second-hand versions of software. Lets take games for example. It is possible to port Windows versions of games over to Linux using Wine. However, these versions are at a much lower performance level and often take hours configuring games to work with Wine. This seems to conflict with what my opponent says about simplicity. Even worse, after all of this configuring, a single Wine update can break a game. [1] Wine is obviously not a suitable replacement for genuine Windows software. It is simply a cheap imitation.3. This is sort of similar to an argument I made. I suppose I will justify it with a response. The argument I was making in this area was more reffering to community support. I wasn't reffering solely to commercial support. It's an undeniable fact that there will be more support for Windows operating systems given that a huge majority of computer users have a Windows operating system. If my opponent disagrees with this, I suggest he actually rebuts this point properly.4. I never made this argument. My opponent is once again rebutting against nothing.5. Again, my opponent is debating a ghost. ARGUMENTSMy opponent has once more ignored all of my arguments. Not sure how he expects to win if he continues to do this. My arguments stand strong. CONCLUSIONAnother dissapointing round. Let's look at what has occured up to this point.1. My opponent hasn't yet stuck with an argument or line of reasoning.2. My opponent hasn't rebutted any of my arguments.3. My opponent hasn't directly rebutted any of my rebuttals. 4. My opponent appears to have plagarised.5. My opponent hasn't come close to fulfilling his BOP.
Linux is the best best performing operating system for personal use.

Huh. I'm not really sure what my opponent is trying to get at with this round. He completely dropped all of my points and has instead presented us with multiple benchmark-testing graphs. It's also pretty obvious that he copied and pasted all of this off of some Linux website or forum. He claims that "obviously, were Linux users ourselves" and never actually address me or the debate in general. The funny thing is, my opponent actually does my debating for me in this round. Some of his benchmark tests even display Windows superiority. Just read my opponent's conclusion."Benchmarks are always plagued with questions, uncertainties, error margins and other complexities, which is why we're not going to try to look too deeply into these figures. Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's good for competition in the long term. However, Linux isn't sitting still."Thanks Pro. I won't look deeply into them if you won't. However, this also means that they can't really be used as proof in our debate. And remember, you hold 100% BOP. Let me clarify what has happened up to this point.1. Pro has not gotten close to fulfilling BOP2. Pro has neglected literally all of my arguments. 3. Pro has debunked his own benchmark arguments.4. Pro probably ripped off all of his R3 (plagarism).Overall, a very poor round. Luckily, Pro has two more rounds to right his sinking ship. He better make good use of them if he hopes to be a contender in this debate.
Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical

In this debate I will be acting as a believing Christian. It would be sinful and hypocritical for a Christian to not use every God-given gift on this earth to better live and take care of his body, a temple of the Holy Ghost. Not using the nutrients in foods readily available that Vegans refuse to eat would stop the human body from reaching its full potential and health as God intended.
Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical

This debate spirals from a previous debate whereby my well opponent seems to think that a vegan diet is wrong yet their is no moral change within the dieting of a person. That unbelievers refrain from animal produces and that I was pursuing animal produce brought out lower morals in humanity. Neither of these are fully the construction or fundamentally the argument. In every cake milk DNA suited for calves and the eggs of an unhatched birds are necessary ingredients for the feel of purity.
Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical

So what you are saying is that the consumption of milk leads to the proper care of animals which is a Christian virtue. Therefore Christians should be encouraged to do so, thereby rejecting vegan-ism. Summing up, Christianity teaches to use and thank God for all His gifts. Vegans refuse to do this and even preach against it. In conclusion, a Christian vegan is a hypocrite because of this.
Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical

God clearly saw that there people were animal caring settlement perhaps too the people had experience cruelty to animals. . Animals are abuse and the milk their could supply did teach us unconditional compassions you must have with an animal in order to milk the goodness of milk. I am sure that the myth of and love would be in the relation between the milking individual and cow. Can you imagine God himself milking cow?
Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical

God was talking directly to Moses who was by no means a child. What's more is that God was talking of the "land" not of the people. It is clear God was referring to the milk of animals just as He was referring to the honey of bees. When "milk" is brought up peoples' first thought is of the milk of animals. If God meant breast milk, He would have specified. Christian vegans refuse to use all of God's gifts for the betterment of their health, going against their beliefs and scripture.
Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical

On the contrary, God promised to Moses "a land flowing with milk and honey" (Exodus 3:8) making it a special gift from God as it is specifically named by Him. This coupled with the giving of all the animals to man in Genesis proves that God, with our best interests in mind, intended us to use all the animals to take care of the bodies He created for us so we can better praise and honor Him by accepting and thanking Him for all His gifts.
Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical

It is not a gift craft be my friends and unless he is caring for the cow the milk is no way come him in his labour. Neither furthermore does the milk have any revenant in holy circles as a gift from god. I do agree with my opponent genesis scripture and greatest thing is the milk is safe to drink that we form bonds with animals and yet to day we refer to them as livestock. I an imagine the world where winters are cold and barren so animals we a fundamental part of survival using them at times.
Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical

Actually in the book of Genesis in the Bible, God gave man all the plants and animals to use as his own (Genesis 2:15) and later he gave man the skins of animals as clothing (Genesis 3:21). This means that although skins and milk of animals have many other uses, they are also there for the use of man as God clearly intended. Ignoring and even preaching against the use of God's gifts of food or clothing would an insult to God just as not accepting your friend's gift would be an insult to him.
Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical

Milk is not 100% factually intended for human consumption is it? because milk is intended for feeding calfs to survive in the years before able to create memories or move about. Human do produce enough milk for the same thing. If it was solely intended or human consumption then i would accept the made by God for the us to be the best we can. But it is not. The milk is perfect to keep a mother child into the taste and riches of nutrition but it is of no interest of making human design any better
The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools.

First: Regardless of intent, the resolution remains what it is, and must be defended as it stands, like any other resolution. Second: FERPA is a restriction on the state's gathering of information about individual students, in a manner that calls to mind the "Search and Seizure" clause. Title 9 contains the same essential principle as the 14th amendment, applied to a slightly different trait. Civil rights laws, which is what these both are in essence, are a very different field than state labor policy that has nothing to do with discrimination. The precedent set by those two laws does not cover the domain of such policies, as it would extend a very narrow exception in keeping with a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution into something so broad (The undefined and undefinable "general well being," as though wellness were generalizable as to render effectively no weight whatsoever to the Constitution's limits on federal power.
The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools.

Thank you for accepting this challenge. First defense: Private vs. Public While the topic says ALL high schools, I did mean public schools (hence my first round not saying anything about private schools.) This was my fault. I should have been more specific. I didn't do that to be abusive and attempt to present a moving target. I hope this will no longer be an issue in the final round of the debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second defense: USFG Although my opponent makes a very good point, the USFG does have federal laws passed that have to do with public education. Examples are Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which established confidentiality for student records as well as allowing a request of modification. Another: Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 which dealt with discrimination based on gender. Although the government shouldn't butt in in businesses and the like, it is my strong belief that the federal government should be devoted to the well being of its citizens. And it has been conceded (silence is compliance) that tenure affects the well being of students. Therefore, the federal government (1) has this power; and (2) should use this power.
The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools.

Though on the surface tenure is problematic, I have to object to the resolution's requirement of the USFG banning it from ALL high schools. After all, not all high schools are public high schools.The government, federal or otherwise, does not have the right to invade contracts between private schools and teachers merely because it disagrees with the prudence of those contracts. Incidentally, though this is not central to my argument, the US FEDERAL Government has a specific meaning. We have a federal system, in which constitutionally all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or "the people" . I find it doubtful that my conservative American opponent will really feel comfortable so blatantly violating the constitution (since Education is not among those powers granted the federal government, which is why at present the Department of Education is limited largely to "collaborating with the states," helping them out, granting them, rather than bans) for the purpose of education reform, and also doubtful that an amendment on the matter is likely to happen, and that there aren't better things to do with the effort that such an amendment would take.
Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl only off of his arm and needs a kicker to win for him.

They won those super bowls because of Tom Brady's arm and multiple touchdowns. The kicker did not win the game for him. Tom Brady needed a kicker to win, but the main reason they won in the first place was because of Tom Brady's arm. Do you recognize these words this is you these are your words. These are contradictions, my main argument was that Tom Brady has NEVER won a super bowl off of his arm alone. There are quarterbacks that have won without their kickers. I also never said the kicker was the sole reason why Brady won. I said that Brady needed a kicker to win.
Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl only off of his arm and needs a kicker to win for him.

It does not mean that game rested solely on Vinateiri making that FG, They won those superbowls because of Tom Brady's arm and multiple touchdowns. The kicker did not win the game for him. Winning by 3 points does not mean that Tom Brady couldn't win on his own. Having the kicker make one 37 yard FG in a game, and not kicking the ball ever again for the last 4 minutes, does not mean he bailed Tom Brady out. The Philadelphia game rested solely on McNabb failing to score, and not Vinateiris one FG with 4minutes left on the clock.
Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl only off of his arm and needs a kicker to win for him.

My debater includes a bunch of what ifs in his arguments and doesn't realize that every point of a game counts. A person who says that whether a team wins by 1 or 100 does not realize that every single point in a game matters. The only Super Bowl he lost was the one where nobody was there to kick a field goal for him in any part of the game. In every single Super Bowl Tom Brady has won whether the field goal was made in the first period or last seconds has had his games rely on that one field goal.
Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl only off of his arm and needs a kicker to win for him.

Look your argument like you have said in the previous rounds is that Tom Brady needs a kicker to "bail" him out. Bail out means that he needed to rely on the kicker to essentially win the game for him like his first superbowl, where the final play essentially did fall on vinateiri making that FG. The scores for 2 of the 4 of Tom Brady's superbowl went past 21points for both teams which is essentially a high score for any superbowl. The superbowl against the Eagles, Tom Brady did not need Vinateiri to "bail" him out, he needed Donavan Mcnabb to fail in scoring on two consecutive drives. Vinateiri's FG was not the final play, and the entire game did not rest on him making that FG, Tom Brady did not fail to score at a critical moment, Donavan Mcnabb did. My argument is just that because they only won by 3points in his 3rd superbowl appearance does not mean the kicker won it for him, if McNabb scored a FG, instead of a touchdown, then Tom Brady gets all the credit? One FG kick in the middle of the 4th quarter does not mean that Vinateiri bailed out Tom Brady. A FG during the final play like the 1st superbowl does.
Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl only off of his arm and needs a kicker to win for him.

Do you see that is the reason why this is a debate that you cannot win because Tom Brady has yet to win by a convincing enough margin. In a Super Bowl where he should have creamed the opposition he loses to a defense that was ranked 17th in points allowed with 21.9 ppg. If you look at my topic statement it reads Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl off of only his arm. This is true. He has never carried a team with his arm in scoring through his defense. He has had plenty of chances to do so through his Super Bowl appearances but he hasn't. You said what if McNabb didn't... well he did score that touchdown. You make it seem as if they are not a part of the game. I'm not trying to take anything away from Tom Brady, but all of the Super Bowl history, only six games have been decided by field goal kicks and or missed opportunities to kick field goal kicks, or missed field goal kicks. Four games have involved Tom Brady. Is this odd to you that Tom Brady scoring ability does not come through in the Super Bowl. These performances are not normal. So the next time you say 1 or 100 points you think about all of those other teams that did not have to worry about a kicker coming through for the team.
Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl only off of his arm and needs a kicker to win for him.

His arm sets up the FG His arm scores half of the touchdowns His arm made him the MVP twice His arm essentially was the biggest reason why they won all those superbowls. The Giants were not the number 1 defense that was my bad, I remember 3 years ago i made bets using that evidence but, The Giants still had a top 10 defense, in 2007 they were ranked 7th overall http://www.nfl.com... Still with only 38 seconds, it is asking too much from any quarterback, or any team for that fact to drive down the field for 50 yards on a prevent defense. The Superbowl against Philadelphia was not won because the kicker "Bailed" him out. The kicker scored last but the patriots were already up by 10 points by that time. Tom Brady scored the touchdown and vinateiri followed with a Field Goal leaving 4minutes for McNabb to attempt score two times. What you are saying is that just because the Patriots won by three points it wasn't due mainly to Tom Brady's arm. If McNabb failed to score that touchdown with 4minutes left and just settled for a field goal would that have meant that Tom Brady's arm was the sole reason just because they won by 7? Tom Brady needed a kicker to win, but the main reason they won in the first place was because of Tom Brady's arm.
Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl only off of his arm and needs a kicker to win for him.

This person who argues with me has not proved my statement false. He also claims that the score to a certain super bowl game was 28-32, when in fact the score was 32-29. All three Super Bowls including the one Tom Brady lost was by a margin of three points. I am not disputing whether Tom Brady can score touchdowns. My question is can Tom Brady win a Super Bowl without without having to rely on a field goal kicker to bail him out. The Super Bowl in which Tom Brady lost. The Giants were not even close to being the top defensive team in the NFL. Their team was around 17th place in every category. So a team as good as the Patriots losing 14-17 to an average Giants team is unacceptable. Win by 1 or 100 that's a good one except Brady only won by three every time.