BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My jokes are funnier than yours.

I Missed My Last Round So I'll Put In Two For This Round: A blonde walked into a store and asked one of the employees there if she could buy dishwasher. The employee replied, "No we don't sell to blondes." So she went and dyed her hair brown. She went back to the store and asked the same guy if she could buy the diswasher and the employee said, "No we don't sell to browns." So she went and dyed her hair red and went back to the same store and asked the same guy if she could buy the dishwasher. The guy replied, "No we don't sell to blondes," the blonde looked confused and asked, "How did you know i was a blonde?" Then guy replied, "That's a microwave!" ______________________________________________________________________________ On the first day of college, the Dean addressed the students, pointing out some of the rules. "The female dormitory will be out-of-bounds for all male students, and the male dormitory to the female students. Anybody caught breaking this rule will be fined $20 the first time." He continued, "Anybody caught breaking this rule the second time will be fined $60. Being caught a third time will incur a hefty fine of $180. Are there any questions?" At this, a male student in the crowd inquired, "How much for a season pass?"
My jokes are funnier than yours.

This man who had spent his whole life in the desert comes to visit a friend. He'd never seen a train or the tracks they run on. While standing in the middle of the Rail Road tracks one day, he hears this whistle, whooo whooo but doesn't know what it is. Predictably, he's hit, but only a glancing blow and is thrown to the side of the tracks, with some minor internal injuries, a few broken bones, and some bruises. After weeks in hospital recovering, he gets out of the hospital and goes to his friends house that evening. While in the kitchen, he suddenly hears the tea kettle whistling. He grabs a baseball bat from the closet and smashes the tea kettle into an unrecognizable lump of metal. His friend, hears all of the noise and rushes into the kitchen, sees what's happened and asks the desert man: "Why'd you ruin my good tea kettle?" The desert man says: "Man, you gotta kill these things when they're small."
My jokes are funnier than yours.

Two hikers are out hiking. All of a sudden, a bear starts chasing them. They climb a tree, but the bear starts climbing up the tree after them. The first hiker gets his sneakers out of his knapsack and starts putting them on. The second hiker says, "What are you doing?" The first responds, "I figure when the bear gets close to us, we'll have to jump down and make a run for it." The second says, "Are you crazy? Don't you know you can't outrun a bear? The first guy says, "I don't have to outrun the bear... I only have to outrun you!"
My jokes are funnier than yours.

These two starving bums are walking through an alley when one of them sees a dead cat. He runs over, sits down and starts to eat the cat, tearing the meat from its limbs. He says to the other bum, "Hey, I know you're hungry, too. Why don't you eat some of this cat?""Hell no!!!" replies the second bum, "That cat's been dead for days, he's all stiff and cold and smelly!" The first bum says, "Okay, suit yourself," and continues to eat everything, skin, muscle, guts, all but the skeleton.A few hours later as they are walking down the street the first bum says, "Oh, I don't feel so good. I think there might have been something wrong with that cat." And just then, he pukes up a huge puddle of rotten cat flesh and guts with stomach bile mixed in, all half digested and looking like mush. The second bum sits down next to the puddle and says, "Now you're talkin'! It's been months since I had a WARM meal!!!"
My jokes are funnier than yours.

My jokes are funnier than yours (1 joke per round) Try this one on for size A Game Warden from Kentucky is making patrols along the Kentucky-Tennessee border and in the distance he sees some movement on the ground. As he draws closer he begins to shake his head in a perplexing manner and pulls out his cell phone and calls the Game Warden from Tennessee. The call goes like this: "Ya, can I talk to the Game Warden in your state that's in charge of patrolling the Tennessee-Kentucky boarder, this is the Game Warden from Kentucky on the other side of the boarder." A moment goes by and the Game Warden from Tennessee says, "What can I do for ya, is there a problem?" The Game Warden from Kentucky says, "Ya ,we got one of your animals from your state stuck in one of our hunters traps and you need to come dispose of it properly." The Game Warden from Tennessee says, "How the hell do you know if it's an animal from Tennessee?" The Game Warden from Kentucky says, "That's easy, it' done chewed off three of it's legs and it's still stuck in the trap!"
Same Sex Marrige should be legal

I would like to keep this short and simple. The dropped arguments do no matter as this debate seems to be over a value premise. Same Sex Marriage, as under any ideal, boils down to marriage. Marriage, or holy matrimony, yet I did agree on secular union, is between two people in love. The con is taking it and turning it into saying procreation is the only reason for a union even though A) nothing is wrong with unnatural procreation as it is currently 10% of couples use in vitro (according to eMedicine), B) Not all governments value procreation as the USA has been the only one mentioned, and by far is not the only nation in existence and C) his debate conduct is not very good. And if he knew about the proper ways of debate, he'd realize that contentions do not matter until the premise is resolved and clearly, that is what this debate is on. By valuing marriage for only natural procreation, that simply means 5% of the USA population is not "married" as they have used in vitro. Homosexual couples tend to produce the same, if not better, offspring than those of the former.
Same Sex Marrige should be legal

My opponent claims I have not justified my argument, yet forgets my quotes of the government itself saying marriage and procreation are linked, and the government regulates marriage to ensure safe and effective marital sex. (wait, I never quoted.... I will now :D )[1] “The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”[1] (aka Singer v. Hara)Or“[sates marriage law is]to promote and protect propagation.”[1] (aka Baehr v. Lewin)And maybe“furthering the link between procreation and child rearing.”[1] (aka Baker v. Vermont)“Recognizing that procreation is marriage’s central purpose, it is rational for the Legislature to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples who, theoretically, are capable of procreation.”[1] (aka Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health)My opponent claim on "take his word?" Is false as I was offering empirical data before, and again here. My opponent then states: "do you date and love for procreation?". As stated, personal choice has NOTHING to do with the institution of marriage or the states interests, hence the argument is invalid. Also, the answer to that question (for most men) is sadly yes anyway :P. My opponent THEN CONCEDES "one can procreate and one cannot". he concedes my case. If the states interests are in procreation, then there is no reason to allow SSM, my opponent has no reasons on why to allow SSM, so my argument stands etc. He drops my whole case this round, I call that productive for me...Then my opponent states: "Yet it is still GOVERNMENT recognized love." [I edited the spelling, I ask for S/G points]No, marriage is not about love in the governments eyes, if so why not regulate friendships or boyfriend/girl friend relationships? When you look at laws, and states interests, marriage nor personal choice influence the legislators, procreation and states interests do. [1]-Dropped arguments-Same Sex Parenting. Most of my procreation caseVitro insemination The personal choice and 44% statistic. aka most of the debate. How you should vote:Sources - Me, I use mainly peer reviewed law reviewsArguments - Many dropped arguments, poor refutations etc. CON.Conduct - you decideS/G - I edited many of his mistakes when I quoted him. SO me. CONCLUSION:VOTE CON, and yeah thats about it. __________________[1] Duncan, William C, “The State Interests in Marriage” 2004 Ave Maria Law Review.
Same Sex Marrige should be legal

The only argument the con has going right now is the fact marriage is for natural procreation. What does he have to justify that? Nothing but his word. As an audience and a human, do you date and love for procreation? I think not. The premise of this Debate has still not been realized as love is what Ssm is for. And that is a big enough difference between hetro and homo is procreation and my opponent said that is what is stopping him from believing in Ssm. Therefore he agrees with my arguments. Con: there isn't enough separation between hetro and homo marriage Pro: one can procreate and one cannot Therefore the separation between the two is in fact procreation and homo marriage will be less than that of hetro. Yet it is still GOVERMENT reconized love.
Same Sex Marrige should be legal

Defending my case:My opponent first cites the artificial ways gays can create children. And how only 44% of married couples have children. I will refute that first, and it is a misrepresentation of my argument. The amount of couples that have kids DOES NOT refute my point. People not having kids is a heterosexual choice, but this does not have an effect on what the structure of marriage is, hence the argument fails. My opponent then cites vitro fertilization, again this is a false premise. My argument is on natural procreation, and the state of a "real marriage". A real marriage is a union that binds through procreation on a NATURAL scale. [1] Homosexuals cannot procreate in principle. Why? Because a man and a woman are complimentary in procreative acts, homosexuals are not, hence it is not real procreation. Given that circumstance, their vitro fertilization does not have any intrinsic value to the union. My opponent then cites a study claiming gays can raise children better. It is a common misconception that it does not matter if the kid is devoid of a mother/father, its ok with two mothers or two fathers. What do these studies say? Nothing, yes you heard. The source I am using examined the studies, inch by inch, found nothing. [2] All social science studies like the one you cited need certain steps, failure or deviation from these steps result in a flawed study. [2] "All good studies begin with careful definitions of key concepts and careful delineation of the relationship between these concepts... Only two studies among the 49 studies we examined actually contain an explicit positive hypothesis statement of this sort, (Pagelow, 1980 and Miller, 1979). [Note this study only found old studies that where accurate on the hypothesis stage, hence most studies need to be crossed out, like the one you cited]... A majority of the studies we examined (29 of them or 59 percent) failed to produce a testable hypothesis. [lol] The remaining 18 studies explicitly seek to find no differences between heterosexual and homosexual parents in child outcomes and to make this formulation a kind of hypothesis statement. While this procedure is superior in some way to those used in the otherstudies, it is also highly problematic because of the difficulties associated with testing hypotheses purporting to affirm the null hypothesis." [2]So really, only two really really old studies actually have any water, and their age destroys them, hence my opponents "they raise kids" argument fails. CONCLUSION:I defended my arguments, my opponent has not even made any in favor of legalizing SSM, therefore vote CON.[1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)[2] Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D., "No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting", Marriage Law Project
Same Sex Marrige should be legal

Homosexuals are all around us. In fact, for those with anti-gay beliefs, think of it this way: Heterosexuals produce homosexuals. The Con is valuing procreation for his case, and is on the premise that marriage equals procreation yet this is simply not true, according to the 2008 US Census only 44% of married couples have children, the number of those children that were conceived sexually is only bound to be less. In order to keep our cases equal and to value the same idea in which has already been stated I believe that a world of homosexuals would still be able to produce. Lesbian couples and Gay men couples can reproduce quite easily with today's in vitro fertilization. A gay couple simply has to offer their sperm to a lesbian couple. This is already starting to begin with organizations like Pride Angel (. http://www.prideangel.com...) Now isn't the true value of marriage love? Or do people just bind themselves to each other for life to have kids? The con brought up gay parenting, yet according to many sources (the huffington post in this case) same sex couples raise better children. "But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn't back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't. Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement. " And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table. )"
One should be an Atheist Rather Than an Agnostic.

I negate the resolution - theism and atheism are not logically tenable positions. By a logically tenable position, I mean that there exists a logical argument that will deliver the sought truth value for the proposition: "God (classically understood) exists." I'll accept The Skeptics definitions of atheism and agnosticism with the caveat that agnosticism represents more of a commitment to the proposition being unknowable than a non-commitment to answering the proposition at all. For example, there are several different "brands" of agnosticism: I don't know, but I think God exists. I don't know, but it is possible God exists. I don't know, but I think God doesn't exist. I don't know, and neither can you. ************************************* 1. Agnosticism is Epistemology. Epistemology is usually defined as "a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge." One can glean meaning from the etymology of the word as well - episteme + logy, or knowledge-study. One obviously does indeed need absolute knowledge to answer the question of whether or not God exists definitively. Equally obviously, this knowledge does not exist. My opponent uses the example of fairies without proper qualification of the example. If one can run around and LOOK for some fairies or do some other action that can actually verify the claim that there are indeed fairies, then there are no middle-ground positions. Another example of this would be to tell someone from Panama that snow exists. They have not seen snow, so by all accounts, they should be a snow-agnostic. But if you take them someplace and show them some snow, they would not be a snow-agnostic. The fact that the claim "snow exists" is in principle verifiable is what creates the lack of snow-agnostics. In short, for there to be no "agnostic class" the claim MUST be verifiable. The claim "God exists" is not verifiable, and thus there can exists an "agnostic class" on the issue. Furthermore, since by principle, God's existence is not within the possible bounds of human knowledge, agnosticism, atheism, and theism are not epistemological studies. 2. On Evidence Collected Thus Far. The argument against this position is quite simple. The existence of God does not necessitate any sort of evidence be left behind. Claiming that there should be evidence about God's existence is exactly like claiming that "a tortoise that doesn't leave footprints walked through this loam." There would be no evidence (footprints) left by the footprint-leaving-less-tortoise. The search for evidence of God's existence is a futile search, not because there necessarily is no evidence, but because any evidence there would be is in principle inaccessible to us.
One should be an Atheist Rather Than an Agnostic.

=====Counterarguments===== 1. Agnosticism is Epistemology. If I understand my opponent correctly, he makes the claim that since something is supernatural and/or outside the realms of human knowledge (i. e. God in this instance), he states that can't judge the likeliness of the proposition "God exists". This is erroneous to claim. If this were to be such a standard, then this means we have to be "agnostic" of an almost infinite amount of things. Supernatural unicorns. An immaterial soul or "mind" (Cartesian dualism anyone? ). The very fact that something is supernatural lowers it's "warranted assertability". Apply Occam's Razor, and one can see what I mean. 2. On Evidence Collected. In a way, Russel's teapot can be pushed into this. Simply because something is unfalsifiable, doesn't mean we should suspend judgement on it. As stated in my previous argument, simply because something is supernatural (which, by definition, is unfalsifiable) does NOT mean we should suspend judgement on it. =====Specific Responses===== >>>Atheists hold the position that God does not and could not exist. <<< ----> Perhaps it would be more accurate to label, at least me, as an agnostic-atheist. However, this just causes confusion and unnecessary labels. ALL strong atheists are agnostic-atheists. No rational atheist seriously claims that he/she has absolute knowledge on God's existence. As I've stated before, empirical knowledge is NEVER absolute - thus, even when one says "that's true" or "that doesn't exist", what the semantics of their words mean is really that entity X is highly unlikely to exist. Yet, it is true that I didn't make this distinction (because there could be some few atheists who claim to hold absolute knowledge on God's existence), so count this against me if you want, haha. *sigh* Always got to think of wording in debates - blegh. =====Conclusion===== I have shown how just because something is unfalsifiable, does NOT mean we should suspend judgement on it. Otherwise, my opponent has a lot of "agnosti-" labeling to do. >>>For example, the argument from evil can be "answered" by stating that there is a further, unknown purpose for the evil. Uncompelling, perhaps, but logically tenable. <<< ----> Just because something is possible/logically tenable, doesn't mean it's likely or probable. Otherwise, we'd all be stuck in the muck of "I don't know". Unless you argue Mackie's version of the AOE, which makes the claim that evil and a good God's existence is logically incompatible. But that's besides the point ;D Anyway, this is the end of the debate. I apologize for not making longer arguments - time's a douche. Always a pleasure JMCT.
One should be an Atheist Rather Than an Agnostic.

Responses: 1. Agnosticism is Epistemology. What you are looking for here is warranted assertability, not proof. Nobody seriously looks for hard proof of a concept. With visual confirmation, one has warranted assertability for a concept. Since, by principle, you cannot attain this level, it is simply nonsensical to speak of levels of proof for this concept. Likewise, the likeliness of the proposition cannot be evaluated in either direction; thus, the only logically tenable position on the issue is "I don't know." Given accessible evidence, the claim may be highly unlikely, but that does not indicate that it is false, which is the position that atheists adopt. 2. On Evidence Collected. If something is indeed unverifiable or unfalsifiable, we cannot assign a truth value to the proposition. That much is fairly simple. If the claim is logically coherent, which (unfortunately) the proposition that God exists can be made to be, then it is impossible to move beyond "I can't know and neither can you" on the issue. ************************************** Specific Responses: >> "Atheists do not deny that there is the possibility of God existing" This is simply incorrect. From your own definition: "a disbelief in the existence of deity." Furthermore, the very word itself (a - theism) means against belief in God. Atheists hold the position that God does not and could not exist. Those that hold the position that God does not exist, but could are called "Agnostic-Atheists" or "strong agnostics." (http://en.wikipedia.org... or http://en.wikipedia.org...) >> "I have shown that all empirical knowledge is not absolute. Thus, we shouldn't form our beliefs on something being verifiable or not, but rather on the likeliness of it existing." That conclusion supports agnosticism, not atheism. The likeliness of the proposition is indeterminate... thus, the answer must necessarily be "I don't know." ********************************************** Conclusion: * God's existence is in principle unverifiable. * Under the "likeliness standard," this existence is inconclusive, if unlikely. * Under the "logically coherent standard," this existence is possible, if unlikely. * Under the "absolute knowledge standard," this existence is inconclusive, if unlikely. Thus, since the answer to the proposition "God exists" is inconclusive under all standards, yet still logically possible, the only logically tenable position on the issue is agnosticism. Furthermore, one cannot provide a logical justification for atheism that cannot be "answered" in a way to make theism logically justified as well. For example, the argument from evil can be "answered" by stating that there is a further, unknown purpose for the evil. Uncompelling, perhaps, but logically tenable. The only logically tenable position on this issue is agnosticism. NEGATED.