BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chuck Norris Jokes (I know there's already one, but for the sake of humour)

Thanks for doing the chuck Norris joke contest. Also, nice jokes, I was going to use the Optimus prime one, the grenade one (The way I would've said it is chuck Norris threw a grenade and killed 50 people... Then it exploded.), the logic one, and maybe the concrete one. I have decided to post my jokes this round, because this debate is about humor, but I will only post five. You are allowed to post up to ten chuck Norris jokes in the comments if you want. The phrase "Made by Chuck Norris" is imprinted beneath the surface of China When Chuck Norris gives you the peace sign, it is not a peace offering, it's the number of seconds you have to run. Chuck Norris, Vin Diesel and Arnold Schwarzenegger have all died and are in Heaven. Each of them hope to occupy the seat next to God. God asks Vin Diesel why he thinks he should have the seat and Vin replies, "I believe... I should have the seat because of the virtuosity in my toughness and pride." Arnie says, "I believe... that I should be the one sitting next to you because of all my achievements." God then turns to Chuck Norris, who replies with, "I believe... you are sitting in my seat." Chuck Norris is the reason Waldo is hiding. Chuck Norris is the only person that can punch a cyclops between the eye. Chuck Norris once went to mars. Thats why there is no signs of life. Chuck Norris is the only person on the planet that can kick you in the back of the face.
Chuck Norris Jokes (I know there's already one, but for the sake of humour)

What was going through the mind of all of Chuck Norris's victims before they died? His shoe. The phrase "made by Chuck Norris" is imprinted beneath the surface of China. When Chuck Norris gives you the peace sign, he is not offering peace. He's telling you how many seconds you have to run. Chuck Norris can do a wheelie on a unicycle. Chuck Norris doesn't dial the wrong number, you pick up the wrong phone.
Chuck Norris Jokes (I know there's already one, but for the sake of humour)

Chuck Norris was signing an autograph for a little boy. "How old are you little boy?" "I'm 5 years old" Chuck Norris said, "When I was your age I was 7." Santa Claus goes to the mall to sit on Chuck Norris lap Chuck Norris once urinated in a semi truck's gas tank as a joke....that truck is now known as Optimus Prime. Once the cop pulled over Chuck Norris....the cop was lucky to leave with a warning. Some kids pee their name in snow. Chuck Norris pees his name in concrete.
Chuck Norris Jokes (I know there's already one, but for the sake of humour)

Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter". The real reason Hitler killed himself is because he found out that Chuck Norris is Jewish. Chuck Norris tells Simon what to do. If it looks like chicken, tastes like chicken, and feels like chicken but Chuck Norris says its beef, then it's beef. Tough men eat nails. Chuck Norris does all his grocery shopping at Home Depot.
Chuck Norris Jokes (I know there's already one, but for the sake of humour)

Yeah, a total of 20 jokes each. Here we go: Chuck Norris once wrestled a fifty metre snake, and then he realized he was just masturbating. Chuck Norris threw a grenade at a gang of terrorists and they all died. 5 seconds later, the grenade went off. Jesus could walk on water. Big deal. Chuck Norris can swim on land. Fear of spiders is arachnophobia, fear of tight spaces is claustrophobia, fear of Chuck Norris is called logic. Chuck Norris eats gummy bears and shits out grizzly bears.
legalized prostitution

Women who are prostitutes are not the driving force for the idea of women being an item. I know that, but it has and will not help the existing problem. Also the idea of prostitution is just immoral and should not be done. Especially on a regular basis, which is happening all the time and should not be allowed or considered socially acceptable. Also, if having sex becomes a normal thing for a person, it is more likely that a man or woman, will rape someone for the want to satisfy themselves.
legalized prostitution

The issue of dehumanizing women or making them out to be an item does not lie in the idea of prostitution. The most devaluing aspect of prostitution is the fact that it is not legal. This restricts a woman's ability to choose her own career path. The idea of sexualizing woman has already taken place with exotic dancing and pornography and therefore should not be seen as the driving force for anti prostitution movements. As for rape, sexual assault is even more of a reason for prostitution to be legalized. If a prostitute is raped now, the lines are more blurred and the woman is likely to be prosecuted equally or instead of the man who did the sexual assault in the first place. If prostitution was legal, the only one to be at fault would be the rapist, not the prostitute.
legalized prostitution

Diseases like HIV aids are actually some of the biggest reasons for prostitution to be legalized. Of course, this at first seems like an oxy moronic statement, but with the legalization of prostitution, sanctions could be placed in order to regulate the ways in which prostitution takes place. For example, if a woman has an STD than she will be restricted from turning to prostitution due to the limits that could be put down through the legalization of prostitution. The ability to say that "prostitution is legal BUT..." Is much more empowering to the justice system than to target all prostitution ever. Legalizing prostitution would not only require police officers to target more specific violations of the law but also require them to target things that are weighing on the minds of many individuals today such as human trafficking and other things that are taking place.
We must obey Jesus

Death is the great unknown and where death takes us is a question with no answer. Science fails us where death is concerned and only faith can provide us with a glimpse of what may lie ahead. I believe in a life after death but when I look at my faith, then my faith can not limit itself to a heaven or a hell with nothing to look forward to but an eternity of unchanging sameness. I belief that the soul travels from life to life and death is a pause in which the past is shed and innocence reborn.
Jehovah's Witnesses Are a Cult

On your last comment, I just want to make a quick disclaimer. I was shooting for comical arrogance so your not really supposed to take that comment seriously, just you know… laugh and have fun. Anyway back to the debate, there are 2 Major Reasons you lose this debate. Reason #1: You can’t give new arguments in the final round. Even by your own admission the point which your whole case hinges is about all faiths being cults, it was a new argument you decided to just add in the final round. Final rebuttal and conclusions are okay in the final round by flat our new arguments are not. At the very least this is a breach of conduct and should lose you the conduct point and at the most your new arguments in the final round should not hold anymore weight on the debate than had you put them in the comment section, thus causing you to lose the debate. Reason #2: Even if we were to consider your new argument you added in the final round you still lose this debate. By deciding to go as far as say “sure all religions are technically cults” for the reasons you gave that make the JW’s a cult than the term “cult” has now become watered down to the point of meaninglessness. Anything can be called a cult not, Catholics, Baptist, scientologist, Hindus, Congress, the Military, the GOP, lobbyist, the USA, Australia, Unions. Pretty much anything. If we are to follow your case to its natural logical conclusions we could only really conclude that “cult” is a meaningless term, like ahifdyoi and QQQQiiryr. Cult being a meaningless term means that there are no cults, they do not exist. Cult is just a vain word we slap on things we don’t like we slap the word “stupid” or “bugerbrain” on the kid we don’t like in elementary school. Its not that there is anything that actually makes him a bugerbrain, cause the a insult I just made up, theres no rational case for actually calling kid that. That’s really all the character space I needed to use on that. So…. . In Conclusion: 1) Pro needs to give linked sources in future debates that preferably avoid being wikipiedia. 2) Pro needs to give definitions for all the terms of the resolution in his future debates 3) Pro needs to keep his new arguments in the rounds before the final round in future debates 4) Pro needs to have debates with more than 2 rounds in the future. 5) One last piece of advice that might help your future debates; try and package your arguments in the future as if you plan on a extreme skeptic to your side of the case to read it with only a logical line of thought to bias them to see it your way. Perhaps then you will not just put sporadic factoids that come off like a rant but instead are all used in a flow together in the same fashion of the Socratic Method.
Jehovah's Witnesses Are a Cult

I would like to add this argument to my case: 1) All religions are technically cults 2) Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion 3) Because all religions are techincally cults Jehovah's Witnesses are therefore technically a cult. "Based on A Christianity is not a cult."- Sorry Con, Christianity is techically a cult. You provide some excellent examples as why: "We teach that when you live a live with love like Christ it truly starts to change every aspect of your life. It is the goal of every Christian to have our old selves that were of this world die with Jesus on the cross and have our spirits be reborn to live lives that are set apart and stand out from the lives of those that live for the secular world."- An example of a drastic change of life, one of the signs of a cult. "I donï¿½€™t know if you have met Jesus but he is our churches leader who not only claims to have knowledge from God but claims to be Gods only begotten son. Not to mention every book of the bible was claimed to be written by someone under the divine inspiration of God. The word of God has got to come from some kind of prophet man."- Again, more proof, in fact another thing cult leaders do is to direct veneration away from god and towards themselves which is what Jesus did. Back to the Jehovah's Witnesses, I would like to add some more information to bolster my earlier arguments: A: According to the Jehovah's Witnesses Offical Media Website, contact with "disfellowshipped" individuals is only limited if they have Witness relatives "In the same household", a sign of the organization exerting control over their congregation. B: In the Tract titled "United in Worship with the One True God"- Members are suppose to refuse blood transfusions even in "life or death situations" and in a wikipedia article memers have somtimes been coerced by other witnesses not to get blood transfusions. Again exerting control over members lives. C: In the same wikipedia article new members undergo an intense "re0eduaction program" that replace their past beliefs with Watchertower approved dogma, According to HC: CDD reprogramming is another sign of a cult. D: Former member of the Jehovah's Witnesses governing body Raymond Franz said the Watchtower parctice "Intellectual dominance ", "Controlling Information", forms of mind control. E: Watchtower Mar 15, 2006: "This means we avoid exposure to religious programming on the radio or television."- Controlling Imfo and Exercising dominance, both elements of cults. F: In the Watchtower Oct 1967 edition it advoacted memebrs to "submit" to the governing body "without question." Submitting? Really? And without question? Sounds like a cult to me. In conclusion the Witnesses are a cult beacuse 1) They're a religion and therefore technically a cult. 2) They control members lives' 3) They hold their members back. By the way: "But fear not, for I, Marauder, one of this sites top debaters,"- I can't take you seriously when you sound like that.
Jehovah's Witnesses Are a Cult

Premise: Cults require members to make drastic changes in their lives (History Channel: Cults, Dangerous Devotion) and Jehovah's Witnesses are required to quit smoking, celebrating holidays, date and marry only other Witnesses, ect. (What Does the Bible Really Teach?) In addition to that cults have leaders or a leader that cliams "special knowledge from God" (HC: CDD) and Wintness believe that the Wathtowr organization is helmed by a group of "prophets" that have "knowledge of the truth" (WDTBRT), Lastly, cults exercise control over their followers and, in a Watchtower titled :"Avoid Independent Thinking" (Jan 1983) It claims that: "Indepdent thinking is introduced by Satan." A clear indicator of a cult exercising control.
Evolutionary theory is the best explanation for biodiversity according to the current evidence

I'm sure they will be interesting :) I will note though, that my did not provide an alternative scientific explanation for the observed biodiversity and the current evidence, which I asked for, but I'll still argue the case for evolution. The case for Evolution: Endogenous retrovirus Retrovirus' are virus' whom enters into a host cell and then uses reverse transcribtase enzymes to get itself implemented into the host cell's DNA, where it can then get copied by using the host cells resources and mechanisms. Sometimes though, these can enter germ cells in which they get implimented into the very foundation of the DNA, which could potentially become offspring. Another thing that can happen to vira, which also happens to all life, is mutations. If both of these things happens, and succesful offspring comes out of it, then we can track all the subsequent descendants of that parent, because every offspring in that line will most likely contain this particular retrovirus in that exact position. An Endogenous retrovirus are what these fixed ancient virus are called. There is no reason, why two different lineages, like chimps and humans, should share the same ERV in the exact same position in their genome, besides common ancestry or extreme chance. The reason why it has to be extreme chance is because of following: Your genome contains around 3,2 billion nucleotides. That is 3200000000 letters which codes for you. A retrovirus insertion can enter in between all these nucleotides, so the chance of it ending where ever it ends, it had a 1 in 3,2b chance for that. For it to land in the exact same position for both you and chimps, by chance, meaning, without common descent and biological relatedness, the chance would be 1/3,2b^2 which gives=9.765625 ï¿½ 10^-20 or to put it another way, around 1 in 980000000000000000000 (rounded) However, the fact is that we share more than 1 ERV with chimps. In a paper[1] they mention 16 ERV sites that both chimps and humans have in common, the chance of this would be something along the lines of this: (1 / 3 200 000 000)^16 = 8.27180613 ï¿½ 10^-153 In fact, we share far more ERV's than that, but I might get into that later. Randomness I've heard claims that ERV's aren't so random, and tends to select its insertion site in a higher rate in active coding sites, rather than in non-coding areas. However even if we redo the calculations and narrow ourselves to 0,1% of the genome, which is far less than the active part of the genome, but just to help the critics, we go with this number. This would leave only 3,2 million insertion sites, and with 16 ERV's in the exact same place, that would be left to chance, the chance would be (1 / 3 200 000)^16 = 8.27180613 ï¿½ 10^-105. So that woulds till render it so immensely unlikely, that common descent is the only rational explanation. [1]C. M. Romano, R. F. Ramalho, and P. M. de A. Zanotto; Tempo and mode of ERV-K evolution in human and chimpanzee genomes. Arch Virol (2006) 151: 22152228
should the us help other nations with their poverty problems

I think we shouldnt help other nations with poverty problems first of all the US is in dept the goverment cant aford to help other nations the US was once a devopling country nobody helped us there but fundraisers are fine but the US shouldnt always be the hero on everything we have our own poverty problems to deal with is it really our job to take care of other countries.... also nobody helped us back then when we were a devolping country france gave us some weapons but still is it the Uniuted states job no it isnt we shouldnt give away money it is our own country we shouldnt have to give away money to other nations
should the us help other nations with their poverty problems

If your walking down the street knowing you're in debt, and you see a homeless person who is starving, or needs a vaccine for a deadly disease that they are likely to get, or needs birth control so that they don't have a baby that will surely die, it is ethical to help them. If you were in the position of the person in need, wouldn't you find it absurd that a country that is possibly the world greatest superpower won't give you help? My point is, we are already spending money even though we are in debt, and we should spend some of it on giving aid to those in need, even if we have to make cuts somewhere, because morality is determined by the pleasure you create, and the suffering you relieve.
should the us help other nations with their poverty problems

first of all I can use whatever grammar I want but first the us shouldn't help yet before congress should not help with other countries are Americans paying tax dollars to support these countries in stead of our roads and safety fundraisers are fine but we shouldn't help with other countries our economy is in dept we cant help these countries like before nobody helped us we don't have the money has the government helped other nations with poverty problems no we haven't you were stating on our own country it seems to me that you don't get this debate should the us help and spend our hard earned government money no we shouldn't fundraisers are fine but our government money is hard earned it should go to our own country
should the us help other nations with their poverty problems

You may want to think about using some periods. That's quite a wall of text you have there.Should we, or should we not give aid to foreign nations that happen to be stricken by poverty?(1) Is it possible?$30 billion per year is needed to end world hunger, Congress spends $737 billion per year on defense.[1] The US could end world hunger with only 4% of its defense budget.[2] Currently the US spends 1% of it's budget on foreign aid, while it spends 60 times more on defense.[3] (2) Is it ethical?Giving aid to the world's poor would greatly reduce their suffering, while either not causing any to the US, or causing a much lesser amount in comparison to that of the poor. Since whether or not something is ethical depends on the amount of suffering and pleasure it creats, granting aid to foreign nations in need is ethical.(3) Would it be in the interest of the US? Poverty causes inequality, resentment, scarcity, and ultimatly violence.[4] If these impoverished nations feel resentment towards the US from their lack of available opportunites then surely they willl not be our allies. The opposite could be true if we gave them aid, they would have a healthier society and ultimatly be able to contribute to all of our futures.[1] http://borgenproject.org...[2] 30/737=.04 .04*100=4[3] http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org...[4] http://eml.berkeley.edu...
Piano is more qualified to be a sport than video games.

Lately in my other video game debates, my opponents have pointed out that "button mashing" is not what it takes to work a video game. They say that it is precise hitting of the buttons at the right time rather than "button mashing". So then why doesn't piano, writing, etc. count as a sport. All those have precise times clickings of the button. My challenge is for gamers to point out the difference between writing, piano, etc. "button mashing" and video game "button mashing". What makes video games more qualified to be a sport than those? Round 1-first point/acceptance Round 2-debate Round 3-debate Round 4-debate Round 5-debate
U.S. schools should teach comprehensive, sex-positive sex education instead of abstinence (Part 2)

I accept the challenge. (I would still, however, copy some of my arguments and sources from the previous debate)Please don't rebut those arguments in this debate as I yet to post it here.kindly post your reasons first and later is the rebuttal...I am sure you're aware of that. (I hope you're not the same person with that from the previous debate)
U.S. schools should teach comprehensive, sex-positive sex education instead of abstinence (Part 2)

In this debate, I will be arguing for comprehensive, sex-positive education. First round is for acceptance only, and with Con's agreement, will continue directly from the first round of the previous debate on a similar topic. The Burden of Proof lies with both sides; each debater needs to cite their sources in order for a point to be considered valid. I was disappointed with the previous debate on a similar topic due to a lack of participation on pro's part. I was doubly disappointed because of the great potential the topic had. I hope to rectify that and provide the attention that this topic deserves. I look forward to a challenging debate with a worthy opponent. Link to original debate: http://www.debate.org...
Legalize Euthanasia

In regards to the idea that every individual holds different beliefs and perspectives on ethical issues, such as the one we will debate now, I believe that human euthanasia should be legalized for the pure fact that any individual, that is suffering from a disease/illness that is terminal, should be able to choose how they will go about dealing with their situation. Euthanasia should not be permitted to any random person that decides arbitrarily to walk into a clinic and ask to be euthanized, but instead should be offered (restrictively) to persons suffering from terminal illness. Instead of forcing someone to suffer through the pain (for what might be a couple years) before they naturally die, someone should be able to decide on when they want to stop the pain. People would be able to talk it out with families, plan a date for the procedure, and decide on their own when the right time to pass peacefully is. In contrast, other people who are against euthanasia will still be able to decline that option- because legalizing euthanasia doesn't imply that one MUST choose to use the procedure.
In a post-modern or hyper-modern milieu where the press becomes a commodity whose freedom ought

In a post-modern or hyper-modern milieu where the press becomes a commodity whose freedom ought to be devalued. (The system didn't allow me to put the whole resolution in the Topic bar. I am negative on this debate. First round is accepting and agreeing to the terms. It is a value debate which means you have to have a value in order to win. A value is a non tangible goal for society to move towards.