BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
yo mama fight

Seriously, another forfeit? I guess that just makes ny job easier, doesn't it? Well, here are some more jokes. Yo momma so fat when she wears a yellow raincoat, people say, "Taxi! Yo momma so ugly if you looked up ugly in the dictionary her picture would be next to it. Yo momma so old that when God said let the be light, she hit the switch. Yo momma so old Jurassic Park brought back the memories. Yo momma so stupid she took a ruler to bed to see how long she slept. Yo momma so stupid when she saw the NC-17 (under 17 not admitted) sign, she went home and got 16 friendsAs I still haven't figured it out, I spelled it "momma" this time.
yo mama fight

As you can see, Pro has forfeited the 2nd round.But the debate must go on, and so I present to you more "yo mama" jokes.Yo mama so stupid, she failed a blood test.Yo mama so poor, she can't afford to pay attention.Yo mama so poor, when I went to rob her house I went in the front door and tripped out the back.Yo mama so old her social security number is 1! Yo mama is so fat that her bellybutton gets home 15 minutes before she does.I decided to put less jokes this time, so that's all folks!
yo mama fight

Many of the following jokes are ones I've heard here and there, so no hate for copy pasting all of them. However, a few I couldn't help using. Yo mama is so ugly that she makes blind children cry. Yo mama is so fat that she could fall down and wouldn't even know it. Yo mama is so ugly that her birth certificate contained an apology letter from the condom factory. Yo mama is so fat that I took a picture of her last Christmas and it's still printing! Yo mama is so ugly that when she walks into a bank, they turn off the surveillance cameras. Yo mama is so ugly that she practices birth control by leaving the lights on. Yo mama is so fat that when she gets in an elevator, it has to go down. Yo mama is so fat that she can"t even jump to a conclusion. Yo mama is so old that that when she was in school there was no history class. I hope you had a good time with some of these.
Physical Vs. Psychological abuse

The other problem with emotional abuse is that it is much more widespread. In 2011 a study was done by the US government that showed that almost 90% of reported abuse cases involving children had some form of emotional abuse involved. Only 17% of all reported cases had some for of physical abuse. Most of the reported cases had multiple kinds of abuse involved, almost all of the cases had some form of emotional abuse involved, the most common being neglect. Psychological abuse is now much more wide spread, and people do not seem to realize that fact.
Physical Vs. Psychological abuse

You make an important point regarding the issue of non-intervention when witnessing someone being verbally abused. Often times it is a matter of what constitutes abuse. In the case of physical abuse, it is very clear when it is taking place. For example, educators are told to note any markings or signs of physical abuse. It is also easier to hide signs of psychological abuse. The case of bullying being so extreme it leads to suicide presents a tragic dimension to this issue. Nevertheless, better training regarding noting signs of depression, withdrawal, and other possible signs of psychological trauma may be exercised to curtail such tragic events. In the case of physical abuse, any sign requires immediate intervention to protect the safety and well being of the person involved. In the case of psychological abuse, the victim should get the necessary attention as soon as possible, but there is still ways t mediate the effects of abuse. No one should have to suffer the extreme form of bullying that results in suicide. Nevertheless, in all cases of physical abuse -- the role of aggressor and victim is clear. Physical abuse is more widespread in the harm it does.
Physical Vs. Psychological abuse

And there in lies the problem. People do nothing to try to stop emotional abuse, if anyone saw someone being beaten I would hope that the witness would do something to stop it. It is not the same way with emotional abuse, people will just walk right by ignoring it. No one goes out of their way to help the person who is getting yell at. Saying it is not as life-threatening as physical abuse is ridiculous , what about suicides. We see these cases all over "A child commits suicide due to bullying." We see these as great tragedies to our society, not to say that deaths do to physical abuse are not tragic, there is just something about a child committing suicide that makes our whole society sad. A public speaker came to our school a few years ago talking about the effects of bullying, he told us the story of his son who committed suicide. He sad he never saw it coming, that it would never happen to his son. The father knew about the bullying, but tried to late to stop it. How would you feel if it was your son or daughter that committed suicide. I do not want to sound like I am saying physical abuse is an easy thing to deal with, but to driven to taking one's sown life, it seems like the worst pain one could go through.
Physical Vs. Psychological abuse

As many aphoristic statements imply, they sense and not the literal meaning is what matters. No rational person would deny the pain and harm caused by damaging words. However, there is at least recourse to ignore, answer back and resolve -- in the case of physical abuse, you become a victim no matter what. Also, the availability of therapists and counselors serves to mitigate the pain of verbal abuse -- especially as social stigma against seeking such help has waned in recent years. While many have witnessed children being yelled it in what clearly amounts to verbal abuse, seeing those same incidents with physical violence attached or in place of the verbal abuse would warrant immediate intervention. This is not to say verbal abuse does not result in trauma, it is just simply not as traumatic and life-threatening as physical abuse.
Physical Vs. Psychological abuse

I have a real problem with that phrase "words will never hurt me." I know for a fact that words have hurt me and I would be truly surprised if you have never been hurt by something someone else has sad. There have been numerous scientific studies that have proven that depression is linked to abuse, this abuse could be of any kind physical, sexual, or emotional. From dealing with people who suffer from depression in my own life I can tell you first hand that this combination of depression and abuse can be catastrophic to the person suffering from it. Any emotional attack seems worse to the victim, and any physical attack can lead to the victim emotionally abusing themselves. The chemical imbalance in the brain makes the patient seem sad, exhausted, on top of a few other things. It also makes the person focus on the negative, so when someone is abused and depressed they ask themselves "why are they doing this to me?" The answers make it worse Because now they are telling themselves every reason you could think of to hate them. Even if a victim isn't being psychological abused by an attacker they could be doing it to themselves. So tell me how words can't hurt someone, because whether it's the victim's or someone else's words, they seem pretty damaging to me.
Physical Vs. Psychological abuse

You may an excellent case regarding the trauma that psychological abuse can cause. However, you underestimate the impact of physical abuse. There's a reason for the old adage "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." In the case of psychological abuse, the victim has the ability to minimize the damage by ignoring the abuse or speaking to someone about it. In the case of physical abuse, the consequences are severe. There is a Wikipedia listing for all the victims of violence against lbgt. No doubt they suffered psychological abuse, but in the end, it was physical abuse which proved the more damaging.
Physical Vs. Psychological abuse

Psychological abuse in the modern era is the worst form of abuse because the victim can not escape it. If it is happening at school the children who are the aggressors will insult and make fun of the victim as long as they can for the whole day. And now with social media they can harass the victim even when he or she is home, the child can no longer get away from the bullying. If it is at home the victim is subjected to it when ever possible, it will never go away.
IVF Debate

IVF has an increasing success rate as the years go by and have an increasing number of people who are using the treatment. IVF has a safety track record, meaning that they are able to prevent various different complications, such as side effects for the women and the child, birth defects, inheritable complications, and other issues that can result to the surgery, such as Ovarian Hyper-stimulation Syndrome or invasive surgery in the Fallopian tubes and the ovaries.
There is no such thing as a virus

1. Where do viruses go to when people are not infected with viruses? Answer - Nowhere, because they didn't exist in the first place. Take the common cold for example. People get the flu on a regular basis. The occurrence of the flu virus is extremely random and doesn't follow any pattern. This violates the germ theory rules which stipulate that a virus should spread from a single person and spread gradually by passing on the virus to others who are nearby. But one needs to ask, how did the first person get infected? Answer - They didn't get infected because viruses don't exist. So, if there are no viruses and people are still getting sick, then what is causing them to get sick? Answer - Grain, sugar, dairy and alcohol. That's what REALLY makes people sick. Thus, why does the medical system not recognize that grain, sugar, dairy and alcohol makes people sick? Answer- Because the medical system is there to make money and not to make people better. Surely this can't be true! We are taught that doctors are saints and are working to save lives. True, they may save some lives using surgery and drugs, but, at the same time, they turn a blind eye to the causes of these problems. Note - This is recent information. Thus, doctors can't be blamed for being deceived by the system which taught them that viruses and disease cause ill health. Modern concepts of nutrition are slowly being adopted by the medical establishments but they still cling on to many old and redundant ideas which are thousands of years old. http://www.ageofautism.com... http://www.whale.to...
There is no such thing as a virus

This is a very weak point. Viruses do exist. They are logical; the bacteria spreading through contact (such as sneezing) to other bodies is very logical. Or if you mean spreading through your body is even more logical, because it already entered your system and has weakened your white blood cells. It is true, nobody has seen a virus, but that doesn't matter. Just because you don't see something it doesn't mean it isn't there, like oxygen. The discovery of the virus was made by Dmitry Ivanovsky. He discovered the first virus, the tobacco mosaic virus. Ivanoski reported in 1892 that extracts from infected leaves were still infectious after filtration through a Chamberland filter-candle. He showed that the incitant was able to migrate in an agar gel, therefore being an infectious soluble agent. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
There is no such thing as a virus

We have all been fooled by the medical system. Viruses don't exist. Viruses are illogical and can't exist, purely on a logical step by step analysis of what viruses are and how they are supposed to work. Nobody has ever seen a virus. The ones you see on the internet are just computer generated fakes or they sometimes show pictures of hormones and try to tell us that they are viruses. 1. How did the first person see a virus and know that it was a virus without having any reference material? Answer - They just made it up, hoping to get a Noble prize. That's how!
There is no such thing as a virus

My opponent has not answered the question of where do viruses go to when people don't have colds or flu. Note - In order to go, you first need to come. Viruses don't come, so, therefore, they can't go either! lol!Thus, we can see, that the concept of the 'virus' is totally illogical.The appearance of viruses is totally random and doesn't follow a pattern. Thus, according to germ theory, viruses should follow a pattern of spreading in concentric circles from the point of origin. But, alas, this never occurs in the case of the flu virus. Flu viruses only appear when people eat excessive amounts of dairy, sugar,grain and alcohol. This is the only pattern that I have observed.Since switching to a Paleo diet and avoiding grain, sugar, alcohol and dairy, I have not had any colds, flu, headaches, tooth decay, chest pains or any other health problems. Thus, this proves that the medical system is out of date and uses old redundant ideologies which no longer apply.My previous references show that the medical system is corrupt and that scientists have hidden agendas to falsify research data so that they can continue to get grants to do ever more bogus research in regards to non-existent viruses. http://neue-medizin.com...
There is no such thing as a virus

Viruses don't and can't go; There are 7 million people on Earth. It is impossible to have all of them cured. Especially those poor people who can't afford it. So the virus will just keep spreading. Scientists have been able to piece together some viral histories, based on the fact that the genes of many viruses"such as those that cause herpes and mono"seem to share some properties with cells' own genes. This could suggest that they started as big bits of cellular DNA and then became independent"or that these viruses came along very early in evolution, and some of their DNA stuck around in cells' genomes. That is where they come from. It is sometimes true that doctors don't care about their patients, just about the money, but some do care. And the probably do know that grain, dairy, and alcohol also make people sick, because a virus isn't the only thing that gets people sick!
Stereotypes are good

My opponent points out that negative stereotypes and biases can affect peoples behavior negatively. I agree that this is possible, and it is a side effect of categorizing information. Let me reiterate what exactly a stereotype is. I had previously defined it as ""A widely held but fixed and simplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing" So for instance, our ability to see a metal box with four wheels that is moving, and to realize that the object is a car without giving it a second thought is essentially stereotyping. What about the positive effects of stereotyping though? Without our ability to sort summarize and group information we would be lost. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the cons? What would you rather have, the ability to generalize information, or to give that up in order to become less biased?
Stereotypes are good

My opponent likes to point out examples of the negative side effects of stereotyping people. In order to make an accurate judgement though, we need to weigh the negatives against the positives. Some things are just so useful that no matter what the negative, they are still employed. Car's are dangerous. Millions of people every year are killed in car accidents. Motorized vehicles are the number one cause of pollution in industrialized countries across the world. They cause people to be lazy, and they are dangerous. Does this mean we should do away with cars? Is that a practical solution? Of course not! Car's are so useful that we cannot do without them The same thing can be said of stereotypes. They are dangerous and easy to misuse. They are the cause of bigotry and racism. However, they are also what makes us human. Our ability to categorize and easily summarize information is incredible. To say we should avoid stereotypes is just not practical. Instead, we should simply be mindful of how we choose to categorize things. More specifically, how we categorize people. (It's fine to say all toasters look the same, but if you say the same thing about a specific race of people its racist) People do not like being categorized, because it takes away there feeling of individuality. We should be mindful of how we stereotype people. However this does not make the use of stereotypes inherently evil. Now I think we can both agree that stereotypes are inevitable. Con has said "If you find yourself stereotyping someone (and we all do it. I do it. All the time. So do you.), take a step back and ask yourself why" Yes indeed we all do it all the time. So why is that? Stereotypes are an automatic process. It is an unavoidable, efficient yet biased mechanism of our minds. It is a natural part of being human, and it should not be frowned upon. Does this mean that we should embrace racism, bigotry and discrimination? Absolutely not. Those are examples of negative stereotypes. I argue that the benefits of being able to stereotype information outweighs the negatives. What you should take away: Stereotypes are what make us human. They are not always correct, and they can be dangerous when applied to people, however it is natural to stereotype everything. We all do it, all the time, so instead of treating stereotyping like a bad habit, treat it like any other part of being human. It is a mental process that's essential for day to day life, and to say the world would be better of without it is absolute nonsense.
Integrity and truth

So according to my opponent everything honest equals integrity and if it is not honest all integrity is lost. So when your parents (Spoiler alert) told you that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy were them and the existence of these mystical figures were lies did that hurt your parents integrity forever, of course not. When someone is too honest if a women asks if they look fat and the honest answer is yes, but you said no did you hurt your integrity. On the tragic day of the Sandy Hook shooting a teacher told the shooter a lie to safe children, so is her integrity lost, no. So the equation of integrity = honesty is false and the reality is that there are many variables in the equation of integrity.
Red (Pro) Vs. Ash (Con)

I shall accept this short debate. I think that my knowledge of Pokemon will come in handy. I will assume (by context clues) that you mean Ash Ketchum (oh my god! That sounds like catch em'. I never noticed that before. Having a cooler name is now one of my arguments) of Pallet town, and not Ashking, a fantasy character I created 7 years ago. Anyway, let me lay out my point in an organized manner. 1. Cooler name. Catch em' is how his last name sounds. This is an appropriate name for being a Pokemon trainer, as you catch Pokemon, and the theme is gotta catch em' all. Ash by itself is a fairly cool name. Red however, seems to be a name thought up by a bunch of Asian cartoonists who took a middle school English class, and only payed attention when they were learning the colors. 2. Durability. Ash has remained a main character of the Pokemon franchise for a very long time. What other character, from a series not centered on that character (like Goku in Dragon ball, or Naruto in Naruto) has remained the main character for that long in the main series. Unlike those other shows, the Pokemon universe could begin with a new character, a new story. Is Yuugi still the main focus of the show Yu-gi-oh!? (Note that the spelling of Yuugi is a more proper spelling used in the manga translations, and the exclamation point after Yu-gi-oh! is part of the name of the show) No! They partially moved on. They bring him back once in a while, but he shows up nowhere near the amount he did before. In the main series, Ash remains the longest, and still standing focus character. He has stood the test of time. Red has faded in and out of our memories. He shows up every once in a while, and we once more forget about him, until the next offhand reference in a Pokemon game, or his own side-story. 3. Companions. Ash has had some of the best people that you can possibly have around. They make up for his shortcomings. Yes, sometimes they are terrible (like May from Pokemon advanced. What a terrible season), but many times, they are good, dynamic characters that help Ash focus and become better. 4. Begginership Unlike Red, every time Ash goes to a new region, he re-learns almost everything that he already learned. Some may view this as a negative. I however, view this as a positive. It helps a new viewer learn and love Pokemon, and gradually helps them to understand the Pokemon universe. Red is a know-it-all. 5. Pikachu I didn't want to have to pull my trump card, but who doesn't love Pikachu? He's cute, he's cuddly, and he sends out deadly volts of electricity. What kind of monster would you be to vote against this? http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com... (The pictures wouldn't open on this page. Sorry! Try the links. The cuteness is irresistible) I rest my case.
this house believes that parents not judges or doctors should have the final say in terminal care

In your latest argument you stated " Parents should have the ultimate decision as they are the ones who are responsible for the child". To have the ultimate decision is to have the last stay, even if the overruling decision is not what's best for the child. For a parent (whom is most likely untrained, even through consulting) to have an overruling say over a professional shouldn't be practiced. Even if the parent knows the child emotional wise, all able children are similar medical wise which a professional doctor would be needed. Unless the patient is sick emotionally the a physiologist would be needed. To say a doctor doesn't know if a child wants to live or die ?! How could you even suggest that a child wants to die. Therefore I won't be arguing against that statement.
this house believes that parents not judges or doctors should have the final say in terminal care

I am not suggesting that the professionals should not have a say by any means, in fact quite the contrary I believe it is imperative that the doctors and parents work extremely closely. The most appropriate decisions about care combine the professional expertise of health-care providers with the parents' values to determine the infant's best interests. But I believe their input should be strictly confined to consultation. Parents should have the ultimate decision as they are the ones who are responsible for the child, are more likely to know the child's best interests as they know them on a personal basis, how are doctors to know whether a child they have never met would want to live or die depending on medical conditions? Everybody has their own slightly different opinion on the sanctity of life.
this house believes that parents not judges or doctors should have the final say in terminal care

The belief that the parents of a child knows what's best for that child simply isn't true. Your debating about professionals who have spent thousands of hours studying and practicing their chosen professions. To say that a professional of their trade shouldn't have a say, which could possibly be the best solution for the well-being of their children is absurd. Yes there have been numerous accounts of doctors and judges being wrong, but, most of the time they truly do know whats best,.