BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Comedy battle II

Comedy Battle # 1 was won by me by Default. Apparently my opponent ran out of jokes on the first round. So much for a sense of humor. . . Any way here is Comedy Battle # 2. Win Loose or Draw; lets have a good laugh. Here is one for a start. A cop is patrolling Lover's Lane when he sees the strangest thing. A couple is sitting in a car, The guy in the front and the girl in the back. The guy is reading a magazine and the girl appears to be knitting. He stops the patrol car and walks over to knock on the young man's window. He rolls the window down. "Yes officer? " "I have to ask you, What are you doing? " "Well sir, I am reading a magazine. " "What about the young lady in the backseat? " The young man turns to look behind him. "Well, I think she is knitting a pullover sweater. " "How old are you young man? " the officer asks. "I am 25 Officer. " "And the girl? " The young man looks at his watch. "Well, She'll be 18 in 11 minutes. "
Black people will slowly turn into a sub-species

Black people are violent, which explains a lot. You see, black crime rates have gone up a lot. The average black IQ is only 52 points, which is way below average. With the neo-Nazis, the KKK, police killing black people, and black people doing bad at school and work, black violence will certainly increase SUBSTANTIALLY AND DRAMATICALLY! Their IQ will decrease around 5 points every 10 years. I predict that in 100 to 120 years, black people will turn into violent savage beasts with no intelligence or capability to think critically and solve problems peacefully. Also, due to the famine, war, and poverty conditions going on in African right now, black people are forced to eat each other to get energy (famine, drought, and poverty). Thus, black people will turn into cannibals
Black people will slowly turn into a sub-species

You predict that in the next one thousand years, African people will evolve into a new species based on natural selection as a result of lack of food. But you will be surprised, and hopefully glad, to learn that only about 233 million people in Africa of the 1.2 billion are hungry or malnourished. Furthermore, it is projected by 2030, 43% of all Africans are projected to join the ranks of the global middle and upper classes. Twelve years is nowhere near enough time for speciation to occur, in fact it would take millions of years for a new species to evolve. Plus with increased intercontinental travel and more openminded people, there will likely be more intermixing of races, which will further decrease the likelihood of speciation.
Black people will slowly turn into a sub-species

All humans are currently Homo-Sapiens. It is my belief that black people will devolve (depending on how you look at it) into Homo-Africanis. This does not mean they will be gay Africans, but rather they will become a new species of ape. This has a lot to do with natural selection taking place in Africa, where many people are dying from lack of food. Therefore those that can survive while only eating very little will live to pass on their genes. This will make any gene that benefits survival on low amounts of energy recessive. Thus leading to a change in the population and causing, over many thousands of years, a visible and biological change in the African population. Don't use the race card on me, because I'm not racist. I'm just a realist.
Black people will slowly turn into a sub-species

I'm not sure where you find your sources, but I have had trouble finding reliable sources that agree with your data. I have actually been to Africa and found no evidence of cannibalism. Black crime rates are actually going down, and we already talked about the improving conditions in Africa. You claim that this discussion is not racist, so I'm not sure if you know what racism is. Also have you ever met someone from Africa or of African descent?
Does Fortnite Suck

You could literally say that about any game. It is a combination of those games. No one of those games has all the features together. They make it fun because you can play with friends, There are several dif. Modes, It is much cleaner building and graphics, Literally any shooting game will have shooting like duh, And you can pick up loot and there is a variety of it. They also make several updates, Map changes, New items in the shop, Weapons and grenades and fun different stuff added occasionally, Etc. A lot of people like the story line too. I could say mlb2k and the show are a knockoff of wii baseball because their is a bat and you run around bases and their is a score. Cmon.
Does Fortnite Suck

Fortnite is a terrible game, Due to many reasons! First of all, It is another battle royale game that is mostly just a ripoff of Team Fortress 2, Call of Duty, And Minecraft. Secondly, It was not even a successful game to start with, It was just a lame zombie shooting game. Third of all, The animations may be good, But if you think about it, Many of those animations are not even original. OK, You don't believe me and call me a hater. Let us reveiw the aspects of the game! 1. Shooting and being the last one standing: Many games have this feature, Such as Battlegrounds or Pub G. 2. Building! As many would say, This is a totally new and original feature! INCORRECT: this came mainly from Minecraft and Battlegrounds. 3. The animations. As I said before, They are mostly unoriginal. So, Fortnite is a TERRIBLE, Completely rip-offed game.
people are born gay

Let me ask a clarifying question. By "predisposition" do you mean that they have a certain likelihood to be gay, or do you mean it's more or less CERTAIN that they'll be gay? To make it more concrete, say a child is born. Would it make sense to you to say that the child might end up either straight or gay, but the odds are 70% towards gay? (weak version) Or do you mean it more like the child is pretty much 100% going to go straight or gay, and which one is already determined? (strong version) If you take the weak version position, you might want to reset the debate. I don't intend to dispute that. If you take the strong version position, then it'll be a pleasure to debate you.
people are born gay

By born gay I don't mean that people are born with a sex drive, that develops later in life. "What you ARE born with is a predisposition to what you will be attracted to when you begin your sexual awakening. " " "American Medical Association Official Website:" http://www.apa.org... (You'll want to read each section of this article on homosexuality divided into the drop boxes) "Here is an article from Cornell University : https://confluence.cornell.edu... " here is the article released by The American Psychoanalytical Association Official Website:" http://www.apsa.org... "is a link to The American Pediatric Associaton Official Website's article on Homosexuality:" http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... "of these sources say that homosexuality is not a choice. "It is something you are born with. "Can I see your links now? " Take or leave the one from Cornell University or any other University. "Similar conclusions have been found by Yale, Oxford, and several other Ivey League Schools. "Those articles are also publicly available. "The American Psychological Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Pediatric Association Trump any University statement anyway. So many world leading doctors, scientists, biologists and psychologists say being gay is not a choice. (Let's hope I can get a decent opponent this time)
Resolved: In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

Haha! A T2 Debater! I'm a Policy Debater myself, but I judged a Public Forum round this past weekend. Where do you debate at? Also, I believe that you're taking the con side of the argument, because you're saying Civil Disobedience bad. Also, as a warning, I may go a little Policy ish. With that said, let's begin. Your first tag for your first point is completely contradictory. The fact that Civil Disobedience leads to violence and is justified basically throws you into the Pro side. You're trying to say that Civil Disobedience is bad and should not be allowed, yet you then say it's justified? Even in your card, there is no warrant for your tag. The evidence is powertagged. It says that Civil Disobedience may occur. Never does it say that it is justified. This point is not valid, and cannot be allowed in this debate. Onto your second point. Your second point is completely irrelavent to your first point, and must be treated as such. Again, the warrant for the card is not there. Again, it says could, not will. Your card is lacking the emphasis you want it to. Get another card if you want someone to be convinced otherwise. You also seem to forget that people right now disobey the government in violent ways anyway. The fact is, people will do what they want, regardless of what's going on. It would be better to allow Civil Disobedience. Why? It allows people to show how strongly they care about a topic. We have had times in our own history where we've seen Civil disobedience go fine, until it was intervened upon. Only when it was intervened upon did violence show. Now onto the last point. This card doesn't apply. Civil Disobedience is meant for people to voice their opinions, for their voices to be heard. The card makes no sense.
Horoscopes are False

My debating statement is that horoscopes are false and that it does not represent the fate or definition of a personality. One day I had found myself exploring this mysterious world of astrology where the stars, moon, and sun meet or sit in certain points in space claiming to determine my love life, work etc. Even trying to define what my personality is and who I am best matched for. Who you connect with depends on several factors like a person's look, intelligence, common or uncommon traits, like and dis-likes. If I followed astrology trying to look for the right person, I could be searching for a life-time. I find them to be so generic that horoscopes are almost as bad as fortune cookies. You can find them in news papers, Internet, magazines. If you lay each one of them side by side and do a comparison, they tell you completely different things, some even contradict themselves. Horoscopes also cannot determine personality because there is no real time of birth that astrology can pin point on - Is it as soon as the head pops out or when you cut the umbilical cord? If you are born in between a time of transitioning star signs, do you become a duplex combination of personalities? The idea of planets determining someone's personality is impossible. Furthermore, I believe personalities are developed by your surroundings and not by what star sign you belong to. Astrology also doesn't consider the eternal nature of the human spirit. If our spirits existed before birth, we would have already had our own personalities from our previous spiritual surroundings and carried a trait of it to this earth (according to the bible, it states we are spirit children of God and so our mission on earth is to 'return' back to Him) - That would mean that Horoscopes are 'man-made' because it only applies during the human's short life span on earth and also does not consider after death. There is no truth or principle behind astrology. Furthermore, astrology is always changing and unreliable, so that concludes my debate that horoscopes are false!
Horoscopes are False

In his last argument he said "According to which law do horoscopes abide by? ", then moves on to say that horoscopes have no basis in science. I conceded all these arguments. All his arguments are true, but they do not prove that horoscopes are false. I totally agree that horoscopes are totally random and that they do not abide by laws. They are therefore subject to chance. This means they will come true at least sometimes, by chance. As stated, if horoscopes come true at least sometimes by chance, then we cannot accurately state that all horoscopes are false.
Horoscopes are False

According to which law do horoscopes abide by? Man, in our limited knowledge have setup horoscopes to give a perception that you can predict the future or judge someone according to their birth date. However it has been made up based on no reliable source. Nor is horoscopes apart of nature as it has not been natural since the beginning of men - Whether your idea of beginning of men is the apes revolution or from Adam & Eve, horoscopes were made up only in the more recent part. And no, horoscopes could not have revolved because the sun or moon did not significantly change since man on been on the planet. I would also like to point out that there is no reciprocal communication channel between humans and planets. It is unknown that humans can talk to the sun, moon or stars and expect it to talk back. In saying that, astrologers can't talk to the planet Mars so instead they make up an idea and assume it is true - when in fact it is only made up, so that is actually false because they haven't confirmed their assumption. Nor can they see where the planets align (until more recent times). Because planet discovery is more visible due to modern technology, this would prove that horoscopes are man made and not true. Furthermore, society has survived century after century without the knowledge of horoscopes, therefore the need for horoscopes is false. What would happen if a star exploded (as they do in space), what would be the fate of that man relying on that star? So, does that mean astrologers would have readjust their man made ideas and try to reason out their initial predictions? This would be unreliable and false. This means that ideas would have to keep changing. How would astrologers keep up with what's going on up in space? How are astrologers able to predict 12 months in advance when the stars and planets are always changing? It is because they are quoting ideas that are general and applicable to anyone they write for. This would say horoscopes are false. Because it is made up by man, then I can accurately say that all horoscopes are false because there is no founding law behind it and no deep history. Furthermore, the calendar is man made so if astrologers base our fate on a man made calendar means that all horoscopes are false. Therefore if the ideology of horoscopes are man made, so anything that is 'sometimes true' - means that all horoscopes are entirely false because it is man made ideas without reliable confirmation.
Horoscopes are False

I agree with almost everything my opponent says, however, I don't think that he is proving that all horoscopes are false. He is only proving that horoscopes are false much of the time, but not all of the time. He says: "if you debate that horoscope are sometimes true and sometimes false would mean that there is no logic behind it and that horoscopes are false. .. " That doesn't make a shred of sense. If horoscopes are false sometimes, then they are false all the time? That doesn't make any sense. "Sometimes" is not logically the same as "all the time". Even if they are misleading, that doesn't mean they are always wrong.
Horoscopes are False

Mr confused Pro-Horoscope advocates that horoscopes 'sometimes' come true. Reality is anything in general can come true for anyone! You could say generally to anyone that you might meet the love of your life today, or today is your lucky day at work. However, such general statements are not influenced by the sun or moon. There are some ground truths or principles in life they are normally daily apart of us already which can be quoted generally. Horoscopes seem to be more for a vanity of hopeful luck rather than fact (if it claims to be true). Therefore if you debate that horoscope are sometimes true and sometimes false would mean that there is no logic behind it and that horoscopes are false because it is 'misleading' and furthermore as I have already mentioned, it is not stable and contradicts with comparative predictions. If a person reads horoscopes daily vs. a person that does not read their horoscopes daily, the 'read' sets themselves up with hopes and expectations (that doesn't always happen, if you are pro) compared to the 'not read' who is unaware, experience something completely contrary. Surely horoscopes can't be applied to all people born on that same day with the same events? Not everyone that is born a Leo, for example, is going to go through the same things as another Leo. This is clearly impossible unless we are under some alien hypnosis. Furthermore, horoscopes don't consider the educated/uneducated, mentally sick, handicapped. So how can horoscopes be true? It's a man made business. Horoscopes cannot resemble life, nor is our motions in life influenced by the sun or moon (unless it was a nice sunny day to hit the beach but that would only effect our mood for the day). We find our own happiness/luck by working hard, surrounding yourself in the right environment and exposing yourself to life's experiences. Horoscopes are false because it is misleading and sugar-coats daily common sense by stating the obvious that is applicable to anyone and everyone.
Horoscopes are False

My advocacy is that horoscopes are sometimes true and sometimes false. This topic has a HUGE burden of proof for my opponent - a burden of proof he has not met. Logical proofs in the form of "All X are Y" are difficult to prove. Are all horoscopes false? Probably not. Do they come true sometimes? Yes. They are vague for a reason, so that they come true - if only some of the time. Really what my opponent is proving with his arguments are that "some horoscopes are false" not "horoscopes are false in general". Even of the entirety of my opponents argument is true, that only means horoscopes are false some of the time. However, some of the time is not his burden. So, since horoscopes are true sometimes and false sometimes, one cannot accurately say that "horoscopes are false".
The word "GIF" is pronounced "JIF"

Once again, your entire argument is shortened down to: If the G in GIF stands for graphics, the G should be hard. HOWEVER! You must've forgotten these examples: NASA, the first A is for aeronautics, however the A in NASA is not long. NATO, the A is for Atlantic, however the A in NATO is long. POTUS, the U is for United, however the U in POTUS is not long. SCOTUS, the U is again for United, however again, it isn't long. PHAT, the P is for pretty and H is for hot, however in PHAT they sound like an F. DARE, the E is for Education, yet it remains silent in the word DARE. AARP, (Used as both abbreviation and acronym, we look at acronym.) The first A stands for American, but its used in a hard A, which sounds more like "Ah" then "Uh. NASDAQ, the Q is for Quotation, however the Q in NASDAQ sounds like a K or a C. SWAT, the A is for And, however the A in SWAT is a hard A, which sounds more like an "Ah" then "Uh" See, your point has remained invalid for many of these words, most of which are recognized by most world governments. So to close, just because the G in graphics is hard, doesn't mean it is in GIF. And for your information, Jreen Jrapes sounds lovely right about now.
The word "GIF" is pronounced "JIF"

Mr Wilhite's gift to the world were great graphics. Or should that be. Mr Wilhite's jift to the world were jreat jraphics. As you see, when an R follows a G the G is always hard. It's the rule. Your KYS argument is counter intuitive. The pronunciation of the K remains constant and relative to it's representative word. The same applies to the G in graphics, therefore GIF has a hard G, it's the rule. I expect Mr Wilhite was dumbstruck when he realised his glaring mistake. Or should that be jlaring mistake? If the popular way of doing things works ok, then why change it. I think that pineapples are delicious. I also think that green grapes are great too. Sorry. I should have said, jreen jrapes are jreat too.
The word "GIF" is pronounced "JIF"

The word GIF may be an acronym, but there is no rule in the human language that claims the words that make an acronym decide how the acronym is pronounced or used, for example: KYS, while yourself is one word, the expression is not KY Plus, who better to trust then its creator, who argued it was Jif after even he was dumbstruck by the idea of saying it with a hard G. And while the dictionary says its GIF. they claimed it was so because the population mostly pronounced it that way. Can we truly trust the popular way of doing things? A majority of people also thought pineapples grew on trees, but they clearly don't.
The word "GIF" is pronounced "JIF"

When i hop onto the wonderful world we call the internet, i occasionally need a 3 to 5 second clip, silent, peaceful, and yet ever so powerful. That is why i turn to the GIF. However, i hear people pronouncing it like it looks, with a hard G. But me, I always used a J sound. How is it pronounced? Clearly, the truth is the J sound. Even the creator of the format pronounces it that way, not to mention words like Gym, and Gigantic. Both are G's following an I or Y with a similar sounds, and all use the J version of G. And that, example wise, is why it has to be Jif, like the Peanut Butter, and not whatever a "GIF" is.
Jesus is not God

Thanks con ,your all argument going under the doctrine of trinity. In respone to Fathe is greater than I , you gave example that an officer is greater than an enlisted person in a rank but both are humanbeing, this example make no sense because it indicate jesus and God same substance, God is omnipotent . creator not creation .Its belittle His attribute. In the book Acts ch-2,v- 21-22 ,statedt-Man of Israel,listen to this jesus of Nazerath was a man accredited by God to you by miracles ..... wonders which God did among you through him. From this statement it is clear jesus is not God. Another place you mention that jesus told his listener to have eternal life,they must eat his fleh....... It is not logical to accept because it goes against the teaching of jesus ,- In the book of Mathew ch-19, v-16-17, one asked how have eternal life ,in reply jesus said -if you want to enter int life keep the commandments, he did not say eat flesh and drink blood, so is it not contradiction ? Next you quotedJohn 1;1- these statement were not made by jesus christ ,nor were they attributed to himby the author of the gospel according to John , consequently , these verse do not constitute evidence for jesus divinity ,especially considering the doubts held by christian scholars who authored the The five Gospels said- The two picture painted by john and the synoptic gospel cannot both be historically accurate. The Greek word for God used in the first phrase is the definite form hotheos,meaning "The God" in the second phrase Greek word used for God is the indefinite form :tontheos which mean a god. if the word was a god in the literal sense, it would mean that there are two god not one.In conclusion I point out about trinity , according to new bible dictionary- The term trinity is not itself found in the bible. It was the first use by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century.but received wide currency and formal elucidation only in the 4th and 5th centuries [1996, trinity].Religion writer A.W.Tozer, in his book :The Knowledge of the holy: -state that the trinity is an incomprehencible mysteriesand that attempt to understand it must remain forever futile.Cyril Richardson ,professor of church history at Newyork union theological seminary, though a dedicated trinitarian himself , sai his book The doctrin of trinity- My conclusion about the trinity is that it is an artificial construct -it produces confusionrather than clarification.......it has posed for many christian dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless.[ 1958,pp 148-149].At the end I like to quoted from the book of john ch-5 v-30. I can do nothing on my own authority,as I hear....... Iseek not my own wil but the will of him who sent me.Here jesus submit his wil to the will of God , s he is subordinate to God he cant b God at the same time or equal to God. jesus is not God but prophet and servent of God.