BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Funnier Jokes Wins.

The Recovering Thinker It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I began to think alone - "to relax," I told myself - but I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read writings of Plato, Saint Augustine of Hippo, Jesus Christ, and Aristotle. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?" Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's. I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in. He said, "Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job." This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey, " I confessed, "I've been thinking..." "I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!" "But Honey, surely it's not that serious." "It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking we won't have any money!" "That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently, and she began to cry. I'd had enough. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door. I headed for the library, in the mood for Clinton's latest book "Family Morals in America". Listening to a PBS station on the radio, I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors... they didn't open. The library was closed. Later, I realized that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night. As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster. Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Jerry Spinger" talking about the song "I'm bad" by Michael Jacks. Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. Life just seemed .. more bland .. without purpose or meaning, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking, and avoided thoughts about the meaning of life and my future. I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home and the office. Now I stare for hours at the T.V. and receive my daily dose of brainwashing instead of contemplating the mysteries of life. Have you joined Thinker's Anonymous yet?
Funnier Jokes Wins.

51 Ways to Annoy Everybody 1) Pretend to be one of the Bush family. Doesn't matter which. 2) Have an uncontrollable lusting for someone else every five minutes. 3) Pretend to be from different ethnic backgrounds every hour, and when people ask you about it, answer like a hillbilly would. 4) Act like a hillbilly. Period. 5) Improvise Italian operas. 6) Gossip about someone to their face. 7) Answer every question with a question. 8) Repeat yourself constantly. 9) Act like a member of the opposite sex. 10) Repeat yourself constantly. 11) Act like Mr. Flanders from The Simpsons. 12) Repeat yourself constantly. 13) Change what you repeat every now and then. 14) Use homonyms in your e-male that the spell cheque would knot sea as miss steaks. 15) Change what you repeat every now and then. 16) Talk to someone while looking at somebody else. 17) Employ in your casual banter extensive vocabulary that will befuddle thy contemporaries. 18) Change what you repeat every now and then. 19) One word: Caffeine. 20) Another word or two: Caffeine and Sugar. 21) stringwhateveryousayintoonelongwordsoitshardtomakeoutwhatyou'resaying. 22) Using non-existent words like George Bush would. 23) Change what you repeat again. 24) Speak in rapid Spanish. 25) Pretend not to know about the rule of personal space. 26) When doing number 25, pretend to have a heavy nose cold causing you to breathe heavily through your mouth. Sneeze occasionally. 27) Change what you repeat again. 28) You are better than everybody else. Let them know so. 29) Rudely correct everybody's grammar. 30) Don't proper grammar use while you are correcting them. 31) Pretend to be drunk. 32) Groom yourself while standing backwards (towards everybody) in an elevator. 33) Change what you repeat again. 34) Pretend your name is Cletus-Atkins-Wheatherby-Percival-Smith, and don't answer to anything else. 35) Call everybody you know Bob or Georgia. Bob for girls, Georgia for boys. 36) Fine people for stupid things, like being too popular, or having to many teeth. 37) Change what you repeat again. 38) For those who wish to annoy, riddles is that in which you should speak. 39) Lick your lips constantly, acting as if doing so is pleasurable. 40) Pretend to be high. 41) Become severely narcoleptic in the middle of a conversazzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. 42) Change what you repeat again. 43) You ARE the lord of the dance. Never forget that. 44) Speak in Gaelic. 45) Blink rapidly and constantly. 46) Scratch yourself constantly. I am not saying where. 47) Strut. 48) Start repeating what you say as soon as you say it. 49) Start repeating what you say as soon as you say it. 50) Become "The Masked Wedgie Giver." 51) Have this list printed on a T-shirt and write above it "Check list for Today." Don't let anybody forget that you have it on.
Democracy is the best form of government

In direct democracies, where the people rule, they often make mistakes in their decisions, because of fleeting passions and not having full knowledge which has severe consequences for everyone. " democracy is based on consultation and discussion. A democratic decision always involves many persons, discussions and meetings. This reduces the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions. Having fleeting passions and not having full knowledge is not because the form of government is a democracy, the main reason is because it is not efficient. The debate over here is not about the efficiency of a democracy, it is to decide the best form of government. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In representative democracies, corruption is rampant. " This can again be proved by my previous argument. there is a difference between an efficient, good democracy and a true democracy. You propose an establishment of a nation led by a philosopher king, well, it cannot be guaranteed that corruption will not exist when a nation is led by only one individual. checking the record of dictators or individual rulers in real life, most of them are corrupt, selfish and brutal. and the worst part is hat one can't even get rid of them. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Once again, I'll prove my points, 1. views of the people is what a real democracy means, the efficiency of the democracy is a different issue. 2. the notions and views of a person can change, a wise person cannot always take right decision. moreover, approval of the decision by the majority if also important. 3. democracy is based on the principle of political equality, on providing the same status to the rich and educated as to the poorest and least educated. It definitely enhances the dignity of citizens. 4. In a democracy, even if a mistake is committed, it cannot be hidden for too long There is a space public discussion on these mistakes. There is room for correction. 5. a non-democratic government may and can respond to the people's needs, but it all depends on the wishes of the people who rule. if the rulers don't want to, they don't have to act according to the wishes of the people. A democracy requires that the rulers have to attend to the needs of the people.
Democracy is the best form of government

First, my case, then refutations. I have found that my opponent has in previous debates frequently not responded to more complex or extensive arguments, so, in the interest of fairness and a good debate, I will keep my case succinct and not overly complicated. In direct democracies, where the people rule, they often make mistakes in their desicisons, because of fleeting passions and not having full knowledge which has severe consequences for everyone. There was strong sentiment directly after 9/11 that America should use nuclear weapons against Arab nations that were suspected of being involved in the attacks. If America was a direct democracy, we would long have been dead by now, as momentary passions would have led to worldwide nuclear war. In representative democracies, corruption is rampant, where politicians vie for votes and money to get votes. This is a problem because it means that the people who are supposed to represent us don't really have our best interests at heart, which basically defeats the purpose of the democracy existing. I propose an establishment of a nation led by a Philosopher king, as described by Plato. Someone who is wise, and wishes to always become more wise, would be best to lead a country, because he/she would be able to make even headed desisions without any outside pressures. To refute: 1. The views of the people aren't always the ones that will lead to the greatest outcome, infact they often aren't. 2. A person who was recognized as wise and fairminded would be even better than majority rule, which can lead to unfair decisons. 3. I would feel better in knowing that someone who is extremely wise is leading me, other than the folks who live around me, who often times are, to be frank, dumb. 4. I'm not sure how this relates, to be honest. 5. I think a philosopher king would be a better alternative. Back to you!
Democracy is the best form of government

Democracy, in today's world, is the best form of government. Day by day, the number of democrecies in the world are increasing. Some of the reasons that support my posotion as pro are: 1. Democracy represents the views and notions of all the citizens of the country, whether majorities or minorities. 2. It helps in solving conflicts and quarrels in a better way. 3. It provides a dignity to the people. 4. It helps in realising one's mistakes and improving upon them. 5. There is no other form of government or an lternative better than a democracy.
Seat Belt Laws

Forty-nine states, as well as the District of Columbia, have seat belt laws. D.C. and thirty-two of the states have “primary” seat belt laws, meaning a police officer can stop a vehicle if he or she believes anyone in the car is violating the belt law. What violates a seat belt law differs from state to state but all laws consider the age of the people in the car, where in the car people are sitting, and, obviously, whether or not a person has on a safety belt. What I propose to you is that all seat belt laws should be repealed on the grounds that they are unconstitutional because they deny a personal freedom without good and reasonable cause.Seat belts can save lives. That should be mutually agreed upon because of statistics alone. It is for that very reason that seat belts should be worn by everybody in a vehicle, but only by the choice of the person. Statistics alone shouldn't be cause enough to take away free will.In certain situations, evidence has shown that a seat belt can cause more harm than good. This fact alone should be cause enough to want the repeal of a seat belt law. When the government forces a person to wear a safety belt, they are essentially forcing that person to risk their safety. That isn't a right the government should have without an exceptionally great and pressing cause (an example would be a military draft in time of great need). People should be taught the risks of not wearing a seat belt and then be given a choice, just as they are with other risky activities. Taking away risk in this situation logically leads to other situations. If the government can take away the choice of wearing a seat belt, then should they be able force people to exercise? Inactivity is the leading risk of heart disease. If our government follows the path of thought they are on right now, then that doesn't seem to be out of the question. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S. so logically if the government passed a law requiring people to exercise a certain amount of time each day then the law would be saving countless lives. Fortunately, this law would be shot down immediately and with good reason. The United States isn't a dictatorship. It is a democracy full of free people that should be able to make choices involving their own life. That is why seat belt laws should be repealed.Good Luck to my opponent!
The Earth is spherical (or at least closely spherical)

So I accept because in my opinion your argument is flawed, in that the mathematical object sphere by definition, is an object with an infinite amount of points with the same distance from the shapes origin point, and from a mathematical perspective you would be absolutely wrong in stating that. Thank you. And no I won't provide any evidence as to how the earth would be flat. a) Because I don't believe in that statement. and b) Because if you would've wanted to argue about that you would've chosen the topic "The earth is flat", not "The earth is spherical (at least closely spherical)."
The Earth is spherical (or at least closely spherical)

That's why I said 'virtually'. You can be as pedantic as you want on the definitions, but I'm looking for an intellectually stimulating debate on the shape of the earth. I said 'At least closely spherical'. The word 'closely' is relative and subjective, so if you want to debate on one another's definition of 'closely' we can do that but in all honesty it won't get anywhere as everyone has different subjective views.
The U.S. federal government should increase social services for persons in poverty.

Hello. I am hoping that this will be debated in a CX fashion. I would like to forewarn my opponent that I will only be pasting card title and source when I post my case, simply for sake of space. If card legitimacy comes up I will happily post the full cards. I will begin with my case and then a basic summary. Thank you for whomever accepts my debate. The thesis of this case is that SNAP is an extremely successful program that only needs more expansion. Ir works perfectly with the people it affects, but it does not sufficiently cover all the people needed. Increase of this is an obvious need. Therefore I affirm the resolution: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE SOCIAL SERVICE(S) FOR PERSONS LIVING IN POVERTY IN THE UNITED STATES. Observation I: Significance/Harms A. One-sixth of America, almost 50 million, lives in a food insecure home and the number is increasing. FRAC 09 B. Families need more money for food as prices increase. Milam 09 C. The number of people experiencing food insecurity has doubled since 2000. FRAC 09 Observation II: Inherency A. Needs increasing- Prior expansion not enough. Britney 09 B. Food Stamps Need More Funding. Frank 09 To solve for the above mentioned harms my partner and I offer the following plan: Plank I: Funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will be doubled to $100 billion Plank II: Funding will come from a .5% tax on all goods except food and medicine which will provide $50 billion Plank III: The affirmative reserves the right to legislative intent Plank IV: Enforcement will be the Department of Agriculture Observation III: Solvency A. Food Stamps target the poor and are empirically successful. Center on budget and policy priorities 4-3-09 B. The food stamp program must be expanded- It is the most efficient program and only needs more funding. RESULTS 2009 C. Food stamps efficiently solve hunger. CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 2009 Observation IV: Advantages A. Food stamps help stimulate the economy. FRAC 05 So in summary, SNAP is a program that has been shown to not only help people in hunger better than any other program, but also to do it faster than any other program. The problem with it is that is simply does not cover enough people. By expanding SNAP we can sufficiently solve for the harms stated. I do hope this is accepted and, remember, CX format. Thank you.
I actually met god in a dark back corner of a busy street

You have brought up a lot of things that I need to think about. The debate can be over, but I have one more question that I am genuinely curious about. Where do you think morality comes from? This is not a challenge, but an honest question; I really want to know. You keep saying that the commands in the Bible are immoral (and I totally understand that and I might even agree). What morality are you comparing them to? Where does your standard of morality come from? Please answer my question; I just am genuinely curious. I'm so sorry that you see me the way that you do. I totally understand how you see me and the bible this way; thank you for explaining you point of view further.
I actually met god in a dark back corner of a busy street

You keep relying on insult, not argument. Contrary to your beliefs, I have examined the evidence. And I am not a psychopath or whatever other insults you keep throwing at me. I don't know what else I can say to you. I have said all that I can say; I will not insult you by repeating it. I don't think we share enough common ground to continue to debate this topic. I wish you well, and I hope you find healing for all that pain and anger that you seem to feel. I know this will make you very irate, but I will pray for you. I still believe that God is a God of love. I do have reasons for believing that, but I don't think I can explain them to you. I know that God loves you and the whole world very much.
I actually met god in a dark back corner of a busy street

OK this is over. I read y\our second paragraph and that was far enough too much. The very reason why you have no genuine friends or loved ones, like so many here on debate.org, especially those that are christian, is not only are they, like you, completely brainwashed and go into flat out denial by their indoctrination, but they, like you, completely avoid the imprint of evidence that is presented to them as you have clearly done without question. Here's something for you... when I was either 8 or 9 I was beating up on my brother. I was hitting, kicking, punching him for whatever reason. I don't remember. And he was crying and bawling. And he took it to my father. And then my father taught him to "put up his dooks" or whatever it was called and my father sent him right back in, and I beat my brother up anyway. I will never forgive my father for doing that. Um no dad you make peace between us, not war. Yeah I had my morality then because of it. And yeah since then my father favored my brother every step of the way. Morality. Right. Since that time, I've never, not once hit anyone, not one person and I am now 56. And at that time I most certainly would have had enough common sense, morality, to know that if my dad was beating up on my siblings or my mother, I would have protected them from him. And that most certainly would have NOT been taught to me by anyone. There is an eternal clock that tells us of our morality and it doesn't come from an invisible god that nobody can prove even exists who is based on nothing but hate and evil as the verses have ultimately proved. That is of course you are a complete psychopath totally incapable of insight towards anything who goes around shooting schools up, praying for that magnificent day. And had you watched the videos, you f--king arrogant prick, who cannot examine ANY evidence put forth to him, NO HE OPENS HIS MAW AT ALL TIMES FIRST AND FOREMOST ---BEFORE--- GAINING ANY KIND OF UNDERSTANDING in which you clearly without question didn't watch them, you wouldn't have asked that completely stupid question AGAIN. I leave you now with this... everybody, no exceptions is born as an atheist. No exceptions. None. Someone MUST teach you your or whatever religion in order for you to believe in it. It just doesn't come POOF from nowhere. Wow could the very same thing be true of morality? Why yes does. And you know what snookums? A lot of animals have their own special morality. Perfect examples are when they care for their young or when they hang around in their families and how do they get extremely worried when left alone., But not always. IT-DEPENDS. It depends on certain situations and surroundings as examples. That's true of everybody, again except for psychopaths who are incapable of feeling anything. Also, if there is the slightest nth of a degree that you do not believe in god(s) then you are an atheist. Bye.
Two is equal to one.

I don't know how hard you want me to work for this so I will start with easy slam dunk reply. Proving 1 + 1 = 2 is the holy grail of mathematics. Several of maths brightest minds in mathematics have gone completely insane attempting to prove it. If you had a proof you wouldn't be certain of winning several prominent prizes worth at least a million dollars. Unless you where a total idiot you wouldn't be posting it on the internet before you cashed in. I believe you are not a total idiot therefor you have not posted a proof worth a million dollars on the internet with no proof that it came from you.
Late-Term Abortion

==============Response #1================"In what cases do you say that this is okay, concerning the mother? Because I understand that if the physical wait could harm the mother or the child, that should lead to an early birth through c-section. "You defined late-term abortion as abortion when a fetus has a gestational age of 15-25 weeks. Ectopic pregnancies are pregnancies wherein the embryo implants outside the uterus and are extremely dangerous for mothers, that has a very high probability to lead to their death if not medically treated. (1) In some rare cases these diagnoses are made early in the second trimester (3) which is the range from about 14 to 26 weeks (4). Although the earliest known babies to survive premature birth were just under 22 weeks, neonatologists generally do not provide intensive care to babies born under 23 weeks. (2)"..most neonatologists would agree that survival of infants younger than approximately 22 to 23 weeks’ estimated gestational age [i.e. 20 to 21 weeks' estimated fertilization age] is universally dismal and that resuscitative efforts should not be undertaken when a neonate is born at this point in pregnancy." (5)Therefore, if a serious and immediate health risk to the mother, such as an ectopic pregnancy, was diagnosed prior to any remotely reasonable chance the baby would be viable, such as between 15-20 weeks, it would be the most prudent decision to terminate the pregnancy, as the chances of the baby surviving are extremely small, in order to prevent the very likely serious harm or death to the mother.While this scenario may indeed a rare one, I believe that it is a very real example of one in which the late-term abortion is not to be considered "exceptionally wrong".======================================== (1) http://www.mayoclinic.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.healthline.com... (4) http://www.mayoclinic.com... (5) Halamek, Louis. "Prenatal Consultation at the Limits of Viability", NeoReviews, Vol.4 No.6 (2003)
Late-Term Abortion

Great! This could be an interesting conversation. In what cases do you say that this is okay, concerning the mother? Because I understand that if the physical wait could harm the mother or the child, that should lead to an early birth through c-section. The following is a link to show the exact process of late-term abortion. http://clinicquotes.com... FYI a fetus is legally considered a human 8 weeks after conception.