BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Funnier Jokes Wins

An elderly husband leans over and asks his wife, "Do you remember the first time we had sex together over sixty years ago? We went behind the village tavern where you leaned against the back fence and I made love to you." "Yes", she says, "I remember it well." "OK," he says, "How about taking a stroll around there again and we can do it for old time's sake?" "Oh Jim, you old devil, that sounds like a crazy, but good idea!" A police officer sitting in the next booth heard their conversation and, having a chuckle, he thinks to himself, "I've got to see these two old-timers having sex against a fence. I'll just keep an eye on them so there's no trouble." So he follows them. The elderly couple walks haltingly along, leaning on each other for support aided by walking sticks. Finally, they get to the back of the tavern and make their way to the fence. The old lady lifts her skirt and the old man drops his trousers. As she leans against the fence, the old man moves in. Then suddenly they erupt into the most furious sex that the policeman has ever seen. This goes on for about ten minutes while both are making loud noises and moaning and screaming. Finally, they both collapse, panting on the ground. The policeman is amazed. He thinks he has learned something about life and old age that he didn't know. After about half an hour of lying on the ground recovering, the old couple struggle to their feet and put their clothes back on. The policeman is still watching and thinks to himself, "This is truly amazing! I've got to ask them what their secret is." So, as the couple passes, he says to them, "Excuse me, but that was something else. You must've had a fantastic sex life together. Is there some sort of secret to this?" Shaking, the old man is barely able to reply, "Sixty years ago that wasn't an electric fence."
Funnier Jokes Wins

I completely agree with you. A young boy and his friend are talking about ways to con people. His friend says that by saying the phrase, "I know the whole truth." has gotten him rich. The young boy Thinks about this and decides to check this out. He goes to his mother and says, "I know the whole truth." His mother responds, "Don't tell your father." and gives him 10 dollars. He goes to his dad and says the same thing. He responds with, "Don't tell your mother." and hands him 20 dollars. He decides to lengthen this and do this to the first adult he sees. He walks outside and sees the mail man. He walks up to him and says, "I know the whole truth." The mail man drops his bags, spreads his arms, and says, "SON!"
Funnier Jokes Wins

Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson were going camping. They pitched their tent under the stars and went to sleep. Sometime in the middle of the night Holmes woke Watson up and said: "Watson, look up at the sky, and tell me what you see." Watson replied: "I see millions and millions of stars." Holmes said: "And what do you deduce from that?" Watson replied: "Well, if there are millions of stars, and if even a few of those have planets, it"s quite likely there are some planets like Earth out there. And if there are a few planets like Earth out there, there might also be life." And Holmes said: "Watson, you idiot, it means that somebody stole our tent."
Funnier Jokes Wins

Lol good one there. And for my third and last joke... A blonde is distraught at the fact that he has been cheating on her behind her back. She goes to a gun shop and buys a revolver. She then sneaks through the back door, and catches him in the act of sleeping with another woman. She starts crying and puts the gun to her head. Her boyfriend yells out, "Don't do it! I'm sorry!" She replies with, "Shut up your next!"
Aliens will come in peace not war.

I thank Con for keeping this debate interesting. Its been a fun, and extremely vague debate, which is mostly my fault do to the fact that I was the one that set up the scenario. I am going to try to keep my conclusion first. My opponent says " A sleeper vessel would only be plausible if it was on a large scale. These vessels would have to be 'arks' containing everything needed to rebuild a civilisation. .. " I think this extremely untrue. First off, my opponent jumps to the conclusion that because I say a sleeper ship is plausible, that a whole colony is coming in it. I say again, it is more likely that if a sleeper ship is used, it will only hold a small group of people. Could have traveled any number of years, so its not very fair to jump to the number of 1 million. My opponent also suggested that on this sleeper ship, they will be observing earth. How is this possible if all of it's crew is asleep? I think it fair to look at what humans will do when we are in the situation to go to planets that we discover have life, or hope will have life. We will have protocol. We also have ethics. We know its not a good idea to go to a planet and just kill all the life forms on it and steal the resources. I think a highly intelligent life will have ethics also, and know right from wrong and try to do things the right way. "It is equally likely as an advanced intelligence that they will place equal value on co-existence and genocide. " How is co-existence and genocide equally important? All of life on earth co-exists. Co-existence is a necessary part of survival and all of life will co-exist with the other life on it's planet. Genocide, on the other hand, is not important, but destructive and harmful to life. Humans frown upon genocide and other life on earth doesn't even consider genocide as a possibility. Other life will also realize how harmful and unhelpful genocide is. I don't think my opponent has made it clear that life will come for war. I believe that we only need to look at the intelligent life that we know of and compare, a. k. a. , humans.
Aliens will come in peace not war.

My opponent state that, "I still think it more plausible to use a small vessel that would not cost enormous amounts of resources to make. Also, if the aliens were on the brick of annihilation, they would not send their only hope to a planet already inhabited with intelligent life. It would make most sense to look for a uninhabited planet where there is nothing to fight first to start back up again." This however fails to address my logical speculation. A sleeper vessel would only be plausible if it was on a large scale. These vessels would have to be 'arks' containing everything needed to rebuild a civilisation. In addition my opponent has accepted it is a sleeper vessel, therefore from the perspective of the aliens they are on the brink of annihlation, everything depends on their vessel all their eggs are in one basket (quite literally in fact). In addition my opponent has accepted that they are travelling to earth. To summarise. 1: My opponent accepts that is a sleeper vessel. 2: The most likely motive of a sleeper vessel is to establish a colony. 3: It is likely the aliens are observing earth during the journey. 4: The settling of an inhabited world suggests violence. 5: Therefore the intent of the aliens is war. "Even a colony ship would want to observe everything they will pass for its usefulness. A ship with no turning back will not pass up chances to find out if there is usable resources, even for later use. I again I say that it would not make sense to send your last hope against a potentially powerful enemy." My opponent accepting this is a sleeper vessel and defining it as heading towards earth has accepted this situation, even if it now feels nonsensical to them. However in addition the aliens are close enough to determine how much of a threat mankind is. They have a whole year for scans, weapons training and battle plans. "I disagree. If it did take a million years to reach us, so what? What is one life or a few, when trying to find one of the ultimate answers of the universe, "what will other intelligent life be like?" I think it more likely that a species that has learned to cooperate well enough with itself that they are space-faring means that they will understand coexistence and recognize it's importance." By the time the aliens wake up it is almost certain that their parent civilisation is dead, is it plausible that they will accept exploration on these terms? Humanity is already capable to detecting alien worlds and analysing their atmospheres, the aliens are much more advanced than we are, and so can probably determine many things about earth without actually leaving their home system. It is equally likely as an advanced intelligence that they will place equal value on co-existence and genocide.
Aliens will come in peace not war.

My opponent says, "The aliens are unlikely to utilise a single small sleeper vessel, they would naturally have sought to send a sufficient population for both genetic variability and to ensure the survival of a new colony. In any event it is likely that vessels sleeper technology would still require energy and/or sustenance. In any event a small sleeper vessel unsuited for war would not after a journey that may have lasted millions of years approach an inhabited and potentially hostile world." I still think it more plausible to use a small vessel that would not cost enormous amounts of resources to make. Also, if the aliens were on the brick of annihilation, they would not send their only hope to a planet already inhabited with intelligent life. It would make most sense to look for a uninhabited planet where there is nothing to fight first to start back up again. Resources. "...my opponent has not challenged the proposition that this is a colony vessel, thus by heading towards earth we can see that the aliens desire the specific life sustaining resources of earth. The other worlds and planetoids not being suitable to them. As Earth is heavily populated we must infer that the aliens are prepared to address that issue, the most logical way is through violence." Even a colony ship would want to observe everything they will pass for its usefulness. A ship with no turning back will not pass up chances to find out if there is usable resources, even for later use. I again I say that it would not make sense to send your last hope against a potentially powerful enemy. Colonizing. "It is equally possible that the aliens were unable to dedicate sufficient time or resources to 'terraforming' due to the loss of a war or the sudden deteriotation/super nova of their home star. It is possible that the aliens are refugees, or exiles. My opponent has already accepted the possibility that it is a sleeper ship. The use of a sleeper vessel would be consistent with a species on the brink of extinction desperately trying to save itself. Inhabitants of a safe system would be unlikely to embark on such a vessel, such a vessel would be used for trade or exploration for obvious reasons." Even if it were to cost too much to terraform a planet, it would make more sense to find a life sustaining planet without intelligent life on it for safety reasons if not ethical ones. Peace. "This is not consistent with a sleeper vessel. Many of the facts suggested here could be ascertained by the aliens without leaving their homeworld. The ambassodor would be representing a power millions of years extinct. A sleeper vessel may have taken many millions of years to reach us, they would not come for simple curiosity" I disagree. If it did take a million years to reach us, so what? What is one life or a few, when trying to find one of the ultimate answers of the universe, "what will other intelligent life be like?" I think it more likely that a species that has learned to cooperate well enough with itself that they are space-faring means that they will understand coexistence and recognize it's importance.
Aliens will come in peace not war.

Indeed the aliens originated outside of our solar system. "It is for these reasons that I suggest the alien vessel is a sleeper/generation ship. " 1)The ship. Con has left out a more plausible option for the ship. A small vessel that only holds a few beings in it, the sleeper idea would be plausible for this type of ship. This small vessel would be likely because it would not take the huge amount of resources that would be required for a generation ship. A small vessel would also, most likely, not be a warship designed for invasion. "…that they intend to colonise us with the maximum retention of resources. " 2)Resources. The alien beings are coming directly at earth, not stopping by all the other planets and moons on the way. Why would they not be interested in the resources on these also? If resources were on their mind, they would harvest everything they possible could in their mission. Humans have already discovered usable resources all over the known cosmos, so a more intelligent being must surely have also. Thus I conclude resources are not on their mind. "It is therefore certain they intend to colonise earth" 3)Colonization. A small vessel ship would not be likely if its purpose was to colonize a planet. Besides, if they have space faring technology, surely they could terraform any rock planet they came across. Even humans have ideas of how we can terraform mars. Going through the trouble to find a planet with life on it, just to steal it, is not plausible. It would be more likely to terraform planets and moons close to home. "I affirm it is more likely than not that the aliens are here for war. " 4)Peace. The beings are on a small vessel, coming straight toward earth. Because of the apparent lack of life throughout the cosmos, it would be likely that we would be the aliens' first contact. They would come here to learn about the same things we hope to learn once we actually discover other life. They will be interested the age of life on earth, the age of our sun, and the age of earth, that we are carbon-based life forms, that all life here requires a form of water, and many, many other things. They will have likely send an ambassador of some kind, a language expert in hopes of communicating with us, a biologist, and maybe a historian to teach us their past. The possibilities are endless but it is most likely bound to be a peaceful greeting.
Aliens will come in peace not war.

For this debate, Con and I will assume intelligent extraterrestrials do exist. In this scenario, humans have discovered an alien ship that is on course for earth and will arrive within a year. I will take the position that the beings are coming in peace and Con will take the position they are coming to invade/war. Other possibilities are not to be mentioned in the debate. For round 1 my opponent must simply agree upon this scenario and position. If Con has any questions about the scenario, please say so in round 1.Con many feel free to start in round 1 as well. I look forward to a great debate.
Intelligent design is how the universe originated

Thanks for the reply Pro. My arguments:Assuming this is a debate weather creationism is more viable explanation than lets say evolution (although evolution is more of the development of life, however it appears to be that my opponent is arguing against evolution) and the big bang. I will propose that these two theories are more credible due to their massive amount of evidence and it is up to my opponent to fulfill his/her BOP. I will do rebuttals in the following round.R.1 Evidences towards the Big bangAccelerating expansion of the universeThe accelerating universe points out evidence towards a huge possibility of a singularity for the creationof the universe. The evidences for the accelerating expansion include the red shift, and isotropic distribution of the objects in space. We can detect the expansion through redshift by their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space. (1)2. Cosmic microwave background radiationIn 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipitously discovered the cosmic background radiation, an an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band. the radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions.This discovery showed radiations that were isotopic and further supported the big bang theory. (2)3. Other evidences supporting the big bang include abundance of primordial elements, galactic evolution and distribution, and Primordial gas clouds. (2)C.2 Evidences towards evolution1. Ancient organism remainsDarwin found the bones of an extinct giant sloth, Megatherium. He realized that animals can become extinct and that life is not unchanging, and Darwin also saw many similarities between extinct and living animals. This provided evidence that the giant sloth, Megatherium was an ancestor of the tree sloth. This showed that the sloth evolved. (3)2.Similarities among living organisms.Many organisms share a similar body structure such as Horses', donkeys', and zebras'. This provide evidence that they shares a common ancestor until they branched off. This also includes for apes and humans, also showing similar DNA structure. (4)Similarities among embryosFish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth. This shows that the animals are similar and that they develop similarly, implying that they are related, and they have common ancestors and that they started out the same, gradually evolving different traits. (5)http://en.wikipedia.org.........http://en.wikipedia.org.........http://necsi.edu.........http://necsi.edu.........http://necsi.edu.........
Intelligent design is how the universe originated

I believe that the bible, the word of god is the ultimate truth, and the accounts in Genesis explain how the earth and the universe came into existence. I believe that God created the earth in six, twenty-four hour days, about six- thousand years ago. I expect that we will both not go into origin, or we will stay away from it as much as possible. My reasoning for this is that in order for a theory to become scientific law is must go through the scientific method, which states: A theory must be observed, (this is the second step in the scientific method. ) Therefore, neither of us can debate origin. Nonetheless, the evidence that we find to support creation is, as you will see, abundant. I will be presenting support for my belief as well as points, I would like to make clear evidence that includes: the evidence for a young earth and universe, and the logic of an intelligent designer. The categories I expect to debate in are: Geology, astronomy, genetics, and botany. I would like to make clear that both sides of this debate requires faith, in order to believe in what each theory states. Since science cannot prove anything, all we can do is look at our world and the evidence within. Then each individual must decide for themselves weather or not he will believe the word of god or the theory of man.
Moral Nihilism is a standard of immorality

1.) The Apology...First off, I would like to apologize for not posting a previous round, and sincerely thank Con for being accommodating. 2.) Scientific MoralityThese debates I like to think of more as a discussion. I found it very interesting how morality is now being analyzed under the microscope of science (a notion I always held was when science was applied to morality, one would always end up with existential nihilism). I truly find this an intriguing concept, and do look forward to studying more about this in the future.3.) NihilismNihilism in general is not a metaphysical philosophy so much, but is a strictly materialist philosophy. In the context of morality, an argument could go as such; "Why is it wrong to stab someone? All stabbing does it create a tear in their body, by causing cells to tear, and by letting blood flow out. Now, there is nothing inherently immoral about blood flowing out of a tear. Now, if the person dies, there is nothing immoral about it. If they die, there bodily functions just cease to occur, as their whole system shuts down. It is the equivalent of shutting off a robot. Now, their is nothing inherently immoral about that." Now, I will take on assumption that many of us (the readers and voters), as well as Con, agree that stabbing and killing a random person is immoral. But why? This is what many people are interested in. And if this question is addressed by science, all one will come too is Nihilism. For science is the study of the material world, and Nihilism is a philosophy in the context of materialism.4.) MoralityI hope that in round two I was able to show that objective morality is possible. Although the example I provided was very primitive, I feel that it was a sufficient example to make my point. Now, if one takes Moral Nihilism, it gives way to the notion that "all is permitted". Now, if there exists objective morality, and someone uses Moral Nihilism for justification to commit an immoral act, it must be taken that Moral Nihilism is a standard of immorality. "But what if they do good?" The chances of committing immoral acts is greater, because, if everything is permitted, one can act on their own impulses, not giving way to any moral compass. And historically, it has been shown that human beings are not the "best" of people.5.) ConclusionAgain I apologize for my forfeiture. But, I found this discussion to be very stimulating and interesting, and I hope that in the future Mike_10_4 and I will be able to delve into this topic further. I would like to thank Mike_10_4, the readers, and the voters for what has been a very interesting debate. Again, I thank you all.
Moral Nihilism is a standard of immorality

Thanks Pro for your short rebuttal. However, I regret to say from Pro's questions my opening may have caused some confusion. I'm not sure how to answer Pro's question about “Objective morality.” “Objective morality” and “moral nihilism” are metaphysical constructs. Metaphysics is a human philosophical response relative to the subtle machinery of Nature, until the scientific method presents the incarnation of clarity. As I stated in my opening, in today's modern age, the scientific method has become inseparable from human endeavor; hence, the subject of morality is now under the microscope of science.I also stated in my opening, morality is part of the physical Laws of Nature via the Constructal Law and is present in life found in the currents of bio-flow during group formation, or morphing, as a function of positive feedback. I listed a number of references pertaining to said scientific endeavor of the empirical relative to morality and its symmetry to the Constructal Law. For example, as we get to the nub of this symmetry, it becomes clear why some cultures find cannibalism to be moral, while others find it immoral. Even today, killing Christians and eating them is a moral event--bon appétit! https://quranexplained.wordpress.com...https://shoebat.com...https://www.youtube.com...Objectivism, nihilism, and all the other philosophical isms about morality have an argument on many debating floors throughout the ages; otherwise, those isms would not be around. And the many whose favorite ism comes to light is arguably the “standard.” And there is no reason why this philosophical cycle will ever end, until the scientific method presents clarity relative to a physical Law in Nature, relieving man from this philosophical noise. On the other hand, when empirically studying this philosophical noise one will find symmetry throughout the isms, which represents a footprint of some physical Law in Nature. What that law is has yet to be named, but the research and resulting discoveries are new. This scientific endeavor is the point of all my morality arguments on the debating floor. Such endeavor presents an evolutionary paradigm shift in understanding, opening the door to a new set of debates, encouraging those who are fascinated with morality, to name that, yet to be named Law in Nature; resulting in that incarnation of clarity isolating the absolute “standard” of morality. With that said, the Burden of Proof (BoP) rests with Pro on the subject of “Nihilism” being that “standard.”