BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Yo mama jokes competition

Thanks again for instigating, I assume that we’ll be posting 10 jokes per round, so here goes, some jokes are selected from the internet, a few made up by me. Enjoy: Yo mama’s so dumb, Izbo was appalled after teaching her and left the site. Yo mama’s so fat that the black hole suffocated when trying to suck her. Yo mama’s so stupid, she wore used male condoms as gloves and taught it was jelly. Yo mama's like a pirate, there she blows. Yo mama's so dirty the flies on a dog crap passed out. Yo mama’s so hairy that she has afros on her nipples. Yo mama’s so fat that I tried to swerve around her and I ran out of gas. Yo mama’s teeth so yellow, when God said, "Let there be light,” he told her to smile. Yo mama’s so black that she showed up naked to a funeral. Yo mama’s so poor that when I stepped on a cigarette she cried, “Hey, who turned off the heater?”
Yo mama jokes competition

Yo mama is so greasy when she slipped, she went around the earthYo mama is so stupid when she got locked in a mattress store, she slept on the floor.Yo mama is so old her birth certificate says expired on it.Yo mama is so fat when she jumped off the diving board, she went straight to hell!Yo mama is so fat when she told people her weight, they thought it was her social security numberYo mama is so stupid she took a spoon to Super Bowl.Yo mama is so ugly she went into a haunted house and came out with an applicationYo mama is so ugly if she was a scarecrow, then corn would run away.Yo mama is so ugly her face is closed on weekendsYo mama is so old her picture is in Jesus's yearbook.
Yo mama jokes competition

My opponent forfeited his last round for posting jokes. His account is no longer active, so he'll more likely forfeit R5. Yo mama's so ugly she made Hellen Keller cry. Yo mama's so greasy that she used bacon as band-aid. Yo mama's so fat she had an armpit trim and lost 20 lbs. Yo mama's so stupid she put a ruler under the pillow to check on how long she slept. Yo mama's like a screendoor, a coupla bangs and she tends to loosen up. :)
Rap Battle

I'm the greater rapper, don't think else, whippersnapper So young yet so old-school, 8-bit games are a time sapper I don't see why you joined, cuz it's a one way battle You look so sh*tty, we all thought you were cattle One day confidence gets killed off by the second day D*mn that's so stupid are you in f**kin 2nd grade? B**ch I'm in 7th grade, reviewing you off appearances alone "Tone it down!" Alright I'll change the dial to 5 or so I got skills, you got concussions like you were Mario I'm always farther than you, I'm the antihero Flash Sit you down on your *ss, shoot you and start a car crash Where'd you come from and where'd you go? As long as I was there, nobody's gonna know Except for the people who see this And agree with my raps, makin you seasick So if you wanna vote for a cold-shouldered bloke with no hope for his future? Go ahead, let's see who gets the f**kin tumor
Most likely, Noah's Ark never happened.

Thank you for accepting, LaughItUpLydia!ARGUMENT:Noah's Ark. A ship that is longer and bigger than the Wyoming, which is also a wooden made boat. A boat that is described in the Bible, being made by peasants and farmers. Not possible. The Wyoming was made by professionals, and still wasn't anywhere compared to Noah's Ark. Not to mention they had to put over a hundred animals on a cheaply made structure by peasants and farmers. How could they make it? The ship would sink. (Comparison:https://cdn-assets.arkencounter.com...)In the Noah's Ark story, God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds. All of the birds, animals, lands, and obviously people, are still here... how is this possible? [1]Also in the Bible, it states that a great rain covered all of the land in water. There is absolutely NO evidence that this could have happened, considering that all the land would be gone and eroded for a very long time. Things like the Himalayan Mountains are not eroded for some reason, I guess?There's another problem. The Wyoming twisted and turned in the heavy seas, making it sink with all 13 crewman dying along with the boat. [2] These were the seas of today. If this Noah's Ark went through this "great flood" it would most likely sink or have the same problems that were probably even worse in the great flood time.Let’s now turn to the ark and its odds for survival throughout the violent time. Even before the first raindrop descends from the clouds or rises from beneath the surface, Noah would have had no way to prevent the wood from rotting in the hot desert sun. Even so, this factor is probably the least of Noah’s wood-related problems because he would need to select a grain and species strong enough to prevent separation between the ark’s joints during its hazardous journey. For reasons that should be painfully obvious by now, I doubt this mysterious “gopher wood” was selected using advanced thinking...It also does not make any sense that "God", apparently the protector of people, would kill all these innocent people, animals, and not to mention the plants and environment that would take years to grow back, maybe even decades. It makes no sense, he just senselessly murdered all of these civilians. Isn't he supposed to be the protector of people? The holy one, that everyone believes and worships to? Why would he do this?Why would God do this? Why would you want anything to do with such a muderous, horrific being? What can we say about people who would want to believe in such a being? Why would any normal, intelligent, ethical human being "worship" such a heinous, demented and despicable "God" as this? It makes no sense, as I stated before.Over to you, Con.Sorry for the short argument, I'm busy at the moment.Cites:[1]- https://www.biblegateway.com...[2]- http://schoonerwyoming.com...
Most likely, Noah's Ark never happened.

I accept. Thank you for the instigation! Pro's "warning" that the Bible is not very reliable will not be put into force as a rule, although that's what Pro put it as in R1. Instead, we will be debating whether or not the Bible is reliable, and more specifically if the book of Genesis is most likely true or not. I will be arguing based off of physical evidence/proof found all around the world and, as Pro mentioned, with 'common sense.' Good luck to Pro! I look forward to the second round.
Most likely, Noah's Ark never happened.

Message me to accept.Hello, I'm Gabe1e here with another religion based debate. This topic will be on Noah's Ark.DEFINITION:Noah: the patriarch who built a ship (Noah's Ark) in which he, his family, and animals of every species survived the Flood. Gen. 5–9.Full story of Noah's Ark, if you don't know, is here: https://www.biblegateway.com...Now, we don't know for SURE that it was real or not. We weren't there. However, evidence of today and common sense tell us that most likely, it was a myth.Since we do not know for sure, the resolution is: "Most likely, Noah's Ark never happened."However, if I took "most likely" out, I would be saying that we do know for sure, but we do not. In fact, Christians and other creationists probably don't know for sure if it even happened.Procedure:Round 1:AcceptanceRound 2:Pro's argument/Con's rebuttal and opening argumentRound 3:Pro's rebuttal and new arguments/Con's rebuttal and new argumentsRound 4:Pro's rebuttal and new arguments/Con's rebuttal and new argumentsRound 5:Pro's rebuttal, arguments, and conclusion/Con's rebuttal and conclusionRules:1. I have challenged LaughItUpLydia to this debate.2. No hate speech is allowed, such as swear words or mockery. 3. Use as much grammar as possible.4. No debating in the comments, if it happens you will forfeit automatically, same with me. If you are the audience, you may debate. But Pro/Con cannot debate in the comments.5. The Bible can be used as a source, but just a warning, it is not very reliable.Good luck!
Most likely, Noah's Ark never happened.

Arguments extended. But I would like to add a few points: 1. If you read the amazing articles in my sources previously that explained how every religion's historical documents, whether Christian or not, has some sort of explanation of the Flood. Because of this, a world wide flood has more than enough evidence to believe it was possible. 2. This debate, if it had worked, concerns the assertion that God is real or not. At the beginning Pro was assuming that God is not real, because he argued against the Book that explains God's existence. I am obviously debating on the side of and defending the Bible because I believe in it and that God exists. So, this debate's resolutions would've been wishy-washy; we'd end up arguing semantics and the existence of God. Also, it was a confusing debate title because of the 'most likely.' 3. This website explains the gist of 'probability' and more proof for the Genesis story really occurring. https://answersingenesis.org... http://www.theguardian.com... https://carm.org... Thank you, vote Con. Again, great sympathies towards my opponent.
is bank deposit a better way of money making

Thanks to my opponent for this debate! I am arguing that a bank desposit is NOT a better way to make money and that there is another method in which to gain money. To clear things up I am assuming that my opponent means a savings account. Argument The best way to make money without losing any in the process is to invest in a bank CD, otherwise known as a certificate of desposit. A CD is a time deposit, a financial product commonly offered to consumers in the United States by banks, thrift institutions, and credit unions [1]. CDs are virtually risk free. They are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for banks and by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) for credit unions. Basically, they are just like a bank account in the sense that they will insure your money up to a certain amount. Cds have a fixed term (often three months, six months, or one to five years) and, usually a fixed interest rate. Cd's purpose are to be held until they mature and then the money may be withdrawn with all available interest. Institutions usually grant higher interest rates than they do on bank accounts in exchange for keeping the money on deposit for the agreed-on term. Withdrawals before maturity are usually subject to a penalty. For example, a five-year CD that has money withdrawn before maturity often has the loss of six months' interest as a penalty. These penalties ensure that iis usually not in a holder's best interest to withdraw the money before maturity. When closing a CD, banks will charge a penalty fee if the money is withdrawn from the CD before it matures. Usually if you do not withdraw your money or tell the bank what you plan on doing with the CD they will automatically put it into another certificate of desposit for you. Generally, a "window" is allowed after maturity where the CD holder can cash in the CD without penalty (10-15) [2]. In my third source you can see the rates and min. deposits for a few different institutions. As you can see, the interest rates are all roughly 1.000% compared to a savings acount of anywhere from .50-1.00%. Some of these rates can be seen here: http://www.money-rates.com... In conclusion a CD is far better than a savings account because of the high interest rates. The owner is guaranteed a greater investment than a savings account. Although cds are more of a long-term savings investment, the holder can make a greater deal of money in the end than he/she would with a savings account at a bank or institution. All in all, cds are an excellent money maker as long as you abide by the terms or maturity. You just can't beat the interest rates and the money you gain. Thank you. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://banking.about.com... [3] http://www.bankrate.com... [4] http://www.money-rates.com...
is global warming true

There's a flaw in your arguent using the charts. It doesen't say "global temperature" on the y-axis, it says "rate of change". That graph means that in 2010, the average global temperature increased by 0.3 degrees. Here is a similar graph with global temperature: https://i.stack.imgur.com... Although the rate of change may fluctuate, the overall trend is clearly upward. " a lot of gases released in every day activity tend to reflect light rather than absorb it. This actually causes a net cooling effect." I was unable to find any evidence for this. Can you please provide a link? Until you do, your assertion has no basis. I realize that there are many other factors in global temperature, but co2 levels are a very large one, and one that we have dramatically changed. On your argument about the Medieval Warm Period: Here is a graph showing the average tempertatures across the world: https://cdn.britannica.com... If you look at the chart, you can see that Europe experienced warmer temperatures in the medieval era. But if you look at the far right of the graph, closest to the present day, we can see that all regions of the world have been experiencing temperatures higher then those of the Medieval Warm Period, and they're only rising. And they are rising faster than they were at the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period. We are clearly looking at different things here. "I would not call a inconsistent 0.5 degree increase in the global temperature dramatic." First off, it has been a consistent increase. See the charts I sent you. Second, in the Ice Age, average temperatures were 6 degrees celsius lower than they are today. (https://www.history.com...) And the Ice Age took thousands of years to onset. The change of 0.5 degrees has happened in a matter of decades. If current trands continue (which they show every indication of doing) than the Earth of 2100 will be as different from the present day as the present day is from the Ice Age. It gos without saying that this would be bad. "While certain regions of the world might be warming up, others might be cooling." Actually, the vast majority of the world is warming. See the map I showed you in the first round. Please provide sources saying that the Earth hasn't warmed at all. " As I have already shown, other factors tend to offset the heat caused by carbon dioxide". Actually, you haven't. You have provided no evidence, and I was unable to find any. Until you provide evidence, this argument is meaningless.
is global warming true

There is indisputable scientific evidence that global warming is real. 1: The globe is warming. Recent data has shown a dramatic rise in world temperature. [1] This has happened all over the world. And the effects are staggering. Seas are rising [2], islands are disappearing, [3], and crops are failing all over the globe [4]. It is clear that global warming is happening. There is no way to dispute this. The globe is warming. That means that global warming is real. 2: Carbon emissions from fossil fuels are responsible. Carbon levels in the atmosphere are higher than ever before in human history. [5] We have been burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate, and injected massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. And science has shown quite clearly that higher carbon levels are responsible. We can see this in two ways. First, we know how atmospheric carbon behaves. It traps heat that otherwise would have been reflected back out into space, increasing the temperature of the earth. [6] Additionally, we can see this happening from geological records. In eras when there was more carbon in the atmosphere, (such as the Cretaceous) temperatures were higher. [7] It's clear that higher concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere cause the earth to warm. In conclusion, global warming is true. Higher carbon emissions such as those of today will result in the warming that we are seeing now. Links: 1: https://climate.nasa.gov... 2: https://www.nationalgeographic.com... 3: https://www.theguardian.com... 4: https://www.sciencedaily.com... 5: https://ourworldindata.org... (scroll down to II.4 for the data I'm using here.) 6: https://www.livescience.com... 7: https://phys.org...
Gay Marriage

I am a firm believer that gay marriage should be leagalized within the U.S. Simply because this country was founded for freedom of oppression. As long as gay marriage doesn't affect our social norms negativley such as the upbringing of our children, and most importnantly does not affect the economy negativley. There should be no reason why gays can not marry. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thank the person willing to debate with me, my friends and family avoid confrontation.
Gay Marriage

Thank you Con for taking this debate & also clarifying what I had meant to indicate within my statements made. I am going to hit on the points you listed in the same order. A) I agree with the fact that there is a need for restrictions or there could be a world/nation wide chaos. But who is to say that heterosexuality is any different in the terms of marriage. I know several people that married for benefits, all groups are heterosexual. Even if you were to prevent homosexuality there is always going to people getting married for the "wrong" reasons. How would reproduction issues be a problem based off similiar genetic code by allowing gays/lesbians to marry one another. Either way they can not have a child unless they adopt one. If we go into blood kin marrying, I am against that because of your argument of medical problems, but that is not what this debate is about. And regardless, will stopping brothers & sisters from getting married stop them from engaging in sexual intercourse? Yes there is more to marriage than just love, but if (hypothetical) Bobby & Joe can't get married, then Bobby marries Lucy & Joe marries Stacy the same problems could persist if Bobby & Joe had married. In fact it could be setting their heterosexual marriage up for failure. B. I quote "Marriage is traditionally seen as the union of a man and a woman". This belief comes from where? Yes the bible states that Eve was made from Adams rib. But in the end what if my religion is "Mattressium" (Hypothetical) & I believe in the same sex marriage. If that view is merley argued by the bible then the constitution protects those beliefs for the freedom of religion. Homosexuality has been around since ancient times, Romans had brothels where they could pick a man or a woman to sleep with. The Spartans slept with one another to improve commorodery within their unit. The point I am making is that, Life has continued since then & In fact the populations have been increasing despite homosexuality so its impossible to say that if we we're to allow it now that life might be dwindling 100 yrs from now. C. I agree, but that can be said for heterosexual couples as well. Before I had married my wife I argued the fact that we we're in love & there is absoloutley no need to get married. What more do we need than love? But even so she still wanted to be "Misses -" & to be declared mine. I can't explain what drives our race to want to be claimed as another, but in the end homosexuality would have the same impact as heterosexuality. ============================================================
Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else

I realize it is called Christmas, but that doesn't make it Christian, as believe it or not Christmas started out as a pagen holiday. . http://www.simpletoremember.com..., I brought this up for the fact it is what you are suggesting that it should be Christmas not happy holidays. Doing so the U. S. A. would have to pass a law stating that, but that is Unconstitutional. This would be true but there is no Church of the Atheists. So forcing atheism on laws is actually a good thing, this was proved since many of our first presidents were Quakers (Society of friends. ) They pushed this policy and wanted everyone to get along. Under the theories of Quakerism everyone should get along with hugs and be happy.
Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else

With all do respect. You said Charlie brown has nothing do do with Christians and your right so ask yourself one question. why would atheists push so hard for these kids not to go go watch marry CHRISTMAS Charlie brown. Just in case you did not notice I capitalized it for you. I'm not saying anything about making it a law for marry Christmas to be said by anyone. I have no clue were you are getting that from And you were also talking about the separation or church and state. first lets define what makes up the church, and that's religion. There is many deff. for religion but ill name one. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Ill break it down the best I can. a set of beliefs (the word atheism originated from the Greek atheos meaning without gods) This is a belief and practice. so were is the separation of church and state when it comes to them pushing there religion on everyone else by our amendments they should not be able to do what they are
Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else

ResponseTo answer my opponents question on forced religion there is nothing in Charlie Brown's Christmas that has to actually do with Christianity. This is just going to see a play.Contention 1As I've gone on that religion plays an important part in America such as much of its foundation. Pro drops the fact that it might be offensive to other students and people of different religions if they are forced to say Merry Christmas. Contention 2 ConstitutionalWhat Pro is proposing is unconstitutional for the fact that in the 1st amendment it states that religion is to be free from law (separation of church and state). For this fact it would be illegal to pass a law that states no one can say happy holidays.
Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else

Ill make this as short as I can, and start with a question for you. Why should we be worried about offending Jews,Muslims, or atheists when some of them (mostly atheists) has tried to get rid of saying marry Christmas, and don't give a crap about offending the ones who say it or celebrate it. For example when a school took kids to see marry Christmas Charlie brown as a field trip in little rock, ark and a group of atheists complained and sayed students should not be exposed to shows with Christian themes. That's a forced religion. But its very simple if atheists don't like it they don't have to say it, or celebrate it, same goes for the rest.
Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else

Religion aspectIn America today there is an increasing number of Atheists and one would be insulting another if you say the phrase Merry Christmas, because you could offend Jews, Muslims, and Atheists. Jews would prefer that Hanukkah should a national holiday, because they believe that Jesus was not our savior and that he was more of a prophet. Muslims are against almost everything that is Christian and Christmas would be one of them. Atheists are in this allusion that God doesn't exists so you would be appeasing one person and offending another.