BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Yo Mama

"If the person the joke is being told to takes it personally the "joke teller" could be beat up or could get in a bunch of trouble."Just because some people cant take a joke seriously, (Like yo momma), it doesnt mean you have to ban yo momma jokes, thats just stupid (Like yo momma)" how would you like it if someone was calling your mom fat or dumb?"Its a joke, chances are most people wouldnt be offended at all if the joke was funny enough."The person being beat up will get hurt, and the person beating him up could get in trouble, affecting his whole life."Oh please, people arent frail little babies who need to constantly be coddled and protected.... If you ban everything that may result in violence then you would have to ban language as we know it since just about anything that can be said can result in violence"That is why yo mama is harmful for everyone."But its NOT harmful for everyone. Its actually completely harmless to people who can take a joke, or to people who can see the humor in things, or to people know that the joke teller is telling an actual joke, or to people who arent pansies.
God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violations of nature

What you are arguing here is called the Cosmological argument, something pretty much every apologist uses. The premise is, all things that begin to exist have a cause, the universe exists, therefore the universe must have a cause. I don't disagree that the universe doesn't have a cause. We both agree that it does. The issue is whether or not that cause was natural or supernatural. You say that it must be supernatural because it defies laws such as thermodynamics and the uncaused cause. Like I said earlier if there is a violation in nature then the laws can be amended. The problem with the first cause is it happened once, and unless we can observe other universes forming which is pretty much impossible, right now anyway, but if we could observe other universes form like we do obverse stars and galaxies and planets, it would just bring us to the question of how does it all happen? What caused the first universe? It's a never ending cycle of questions and we may never have all the answers. I don't see how anything I described is more wacky and improbable than the, "supernatural." Now, what do you mean by the supernatural, something that exists outside of nature. Can there be such a thing? Is that even possible for something to exist outside nature? Can something exist outside of existence? No. Supernatural indeed, by its own definition it is nonexistent and pure fantasy. You say that since laws of nature would have HAD to be broken in order for the universe to exist, or at least, start to exist, it must be something outside of nature. Is it possible for something inside nature to defy the laws of nature? In certain cases, maybe. We would be better off assuming that than something outside of nature, whatever that means. Maybe the laws of nature themselves evolved since the first cause. Just because something SEEMS to be supernatural because it can't otherwise be explained, doesn't mean it is. I don't know if you're trying to set a foundation to establish deism or if you're just going to stick with the bland assertion of this ambiguous supernatural label. What is it that tells you that there's only one supernatural force? Perhaps many worked together in order to create the universe, but you couldn't prove that because it's all speculation, all of it. Where did this supernatural come from? If your premise is that all existing things need a cause, and if the supernatural existed then it too must have a cause. I think I've made my point about the supernatural how by its own definition is impossible. Nothing exists outside of existence; until it can be demonstrated, (which the supernatural cannot be) that there is something beyond the material world, the world we live in and observe, assume nothing.
God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violations of nature

well, as with any anaology there are limitations to them. my magician analogy is imperfect for the reasons you describe, and your anaology of previous humans believing God caused inexplicable phenomenon is imperfect for the reasons i described. you argue that we don't have all the information about our beginning to make a conclusion. perhaps not. but i would contend we have sufficient evidence to make a conclusion. i would still say the magician anaology is better than yours, by virtue of the law of, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. that is, if it looks like there are violations and/or things outside of nature and the natural, then it is supernatural. that also extends to your shopping cart analogy. it is also imperfect. every cause we see on a daily basis has to have a cause as far as we can tell. but at the point of uncaused causes, even if there was a natural explanation, we are in the realm of things we are not observed on a daily basis. we are in the territory of things unique unto themselves. variolus theories can be presented, but i'm arguing that i'm going with what correlates best to our observation. how did you demonstrate that thermodynaimcs was not violated? a high energy state came from something other than a higher energy state. that is a violation. there are various ways to describe it, such as more or less order in the system, but they all go back to the same idea. and if there was something that caused existence, is it a violation of the observation that there was nothing that caused it. and, it is a violation of the observation that every cause has a cause before it. it would be a supernatural uncaused cause, again, cause there is a violation (or at least outside of) of nature (as it appears) in that there is nothing in nature to make note of that could have caused it. bottom line: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violations of nature

you ask about which laws of nature are broken. i argued that thermodyamics was, and i argued something causing existence was we know, is a violation of what we see.... namely, the apparent something from nothing situation. con talks about what various descriptors of the God model, 'straightforward' 'easier to be understood and or accepted etc'. we can call it whatever we want, the only point is that if a magician is turning dogs into cats, and we cant figure out how, perhaps he actually is turning dogs into cats. that's what it looks like. analogy again transfers to the apparent violations in the laws of nature. con argues that people have always prescribed supernatural explanaitons to things they didnt understand. those are specific sitautions though that had natural explanations all along. as far as we can tell, existence as we know it is very much different than specific situations. we don't just have a lack of knowledge, but an apparent violation of established knowledge. given it's categorically different than most scientific issues, it would be reasonable to conclude it has a categorically different explanation. con points out that other theories are possible. it's always been acknowledge that they are possible. but, we are just calling a spade a spade. after every known scientific attempts at understanding, at what point can we say the magician is actually using magic? it would be to deny what true and plainly evident to just live your life as if he isn't, or even to act as if you dont want to take a position on it. the final quibble about whether the first cause is a violation of nature. perhaps it isn't a violation within nature itself, but is beyond nature itself. so it is still super, outside of, nature. supernatural. i still say it could be a violation of nature. but this is more a semantical or philosophical disagreement only., that doesn't really affect the effective substance being discussed.
God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violations of nature

I would like to begin by clarifying that the second law of thermodynamics actually states, "Heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one," (TalkOriginsApp). You talk a lot about the laws of nature being evidently broken in order for the universe to have been made, and therefore, a supernatural claim is more acceptable than a naturalistic claim. What you sort of describes was Occam's Razor, how people will conclude more natural, sensible explanations to an unknown cause rather than a whimsical, extraordinary one. You mention laws of nature being observably broken; would you care to provide real examples? Now, at the end of your contention you said, "Theists merely are arguing the most straightforward explanation." If by, "straightforward," you mean easiest to be accepted and understood then I think you would be right. It is very easy to say to something, "I don't know how this happened, so God did it." That does not in any way make the supernatural explanation true. Also, theists do not state anything straightforward. Theism goes beyond observation and attempts to describe the first cause, God. Theists say, "We know; we know exactly how God created the universe," but that's not even all theists claim. Theists claim that this God answers prayer and heals illnesses and that anyone can know this being and even communicate with him/her/it. Your argument only goes as far as deism. Deism has a very ambiguous and unknowable, unreachable deity, whereas theism has a personal and describable one. Now, you say it's better to hold belief in a supernatural explanation than in a natural one, or, none at all. The supernatural was invented by primitive people who needed something to explain what they didn't understand. Earthquakes, for example, were God's wrath and anger. As humanity continues to grow and discover, we now know how earthquakes happen completely by naturalistic means and no supernatural needs to be involved. The same can be applied to cosmology. The origin of everything is a bit tougher to tackle, but just because we don't know does not mean we should accept supernatural, extraordinary theories, that's absurd. As far as the uncaused first cause goes, we know how planets and stars form naturally; couldn't there be a possibility that the universe itself does the same thing? The universe goes through these cycles of formation. You say something can't come from nothing, well, what's nothing? Simply put, we don't know. We have no evidence for a supernatural today, like theists claim, so we're not going to assume there ever was one. Until we find the answers, it's better to keep searching. By the way, if the laws of nature came about after the formation of the universe, or, first cause, then the initial cause did not break the laws of nature since they did not already exist. If there were a law maker, why would he, she, or it defy its own laws to create the universe.
it is better to call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

Because he cannot beat my argument my opponent wishes to simply assert that his definitions must be accepted, even if this is true all of my arguments which state that my definitions should be accepted have been ignored, this means I win even if my opponent is correct. Pro I have to thank you for an amazing and thought provoking match, glad to have you on this website.the resolution has been negated.
it is better to call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

atheism = a + theisma = without/lackingtheism = belief in a god or godsatheism = lacking the belief in a god or gods(+)Belief - A belief that something Does exist(-)Belief - A belief that something Does Not exist(0)Belief - The lack of any belief, ignorance. The Only thing atheism means is "Lack of a (+)belief in a god or gods"Now, imagine those people who do not know about the concept of god. Those people have a (0)belief in god. They still lack a (+)belief, and thus are still atheists. The 4 L's P1) Litterally Anything that is not (+)belief is atheism. P2) Lack of belief is not (+)belief.P3) Logically, you can't believe nothing and something at the same time.C1) Lack of belief is atheism...P1) Babies lack a (+)belief C1) Babies are athiests
Child Discipline or Abuse

To answer your questions. I do not know the answer to your first two questions. We didn't press the child to give us any details. My wife saw the welts on her bottom. Which was enough for us to report it. To your third question does she get spanked often. Don't know the answer but I don't think it is often. Lets assume for the sake of the debate these parents had good reason to punish her. What we disagree on is the method used or that the method used was excessive, unreasonable, and too severe.. Getting hit with the broom handle? They're pretty tough. Seems me it could easily cause bruises. How old were you at the time if I may ask.? Neighbors are okay people. They just went too far this time. The welts were pretty nasty looking my wife said. I trust CPS and the Sheriff's office to handle it well. Don't think the police is going to arrest anybody and CPS can get the family help if they need it.
Child Discipline or Abuse

What did the little girl did in her school? What was her bad behavior? Do the parents of the little girl do often spank their child? When I was a kid, if I did something wrong or behave badly my parents sometimes spanks me, my brother and my sister disciplined this way as well, and I can definitely say that it worked, an iron hand is not the best way to deal with a misbehaving child but sometimes, showing the child the gravity of his/her misbehavior or wrong actions can't be justified by just talking with the child. For example when I was a Kid, I am stealing money from my parents, when my parents learned about it they got a little bit angry and told me that its bad to steal and that's it, what I did is do it again, I still continued on stealing money from them (Not big amounts) and when they caught me again stealing from them my father got a hold of a broom and spank 3 to 5 times on my butt, I cried like a bitch, yes it is painful, but you know what the spanking have taught me a valuable lesson. The lesson is that when you do something bad, you are going to be responsible for that action, you must always think before you do something, think if its right or wrong, cause when you do something wrong chances are you going get punished.
Child Discipline or Abuse

A 12 year old girl came home from school with a bad conduct mark on her report card. She received a switching which resulted in welts on her thighs and buttocks. After the spanking the girl came crying to out door. We let her in and my wife saw the switch marks on her. We decided to call the local child abuse hotline and report it. The neighbors tell me I should have minded my own business and the girl deserved the switching as she had been warned about her bad conduct in school. I believe I did the right thing by reporting it and will defend that position in the debate. Contender will open with an opposing view then we will debate our positions in the next three rounds.
Christian Universalism is Biblically False

Again, unfortunately, Pro has forfeit. Extend my arguments. I'll close the debate with a nice quote from another personal favorite Christian universalist : "As long as there is any hate in us we are not ready for heaven, not as long as we're shutting the golden doors on anyone else...the heavenly banquet cannot begin until we are all there, and I can greet with love...everybody who has caused me pain, and call out a welcome to them all. The heavenly banquet cannot begin until all those whom I have hurt are ready to welcome me, in all my flawed and contradictory humanness... Belief in [eternal] hell is lack of faith because it attributes more power to Satan than to God...but it is God who has the last word! God is not going to abandon creation, nor the people up for trial in criminal court, nor the Shiites, nor the communists, or the warmongers, nor the greedy and corrupt people in high places, nor the dope pushers, nor you, nor me. Bitter tears of repentance may be shed before we can join the celebration, but it won't be complete until we are all there."" -- Madeleine L'Engle
Christian Universalism is Biblically False

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeit. Extend my arguments. Here's a quote from one my favorite Christian universalists: "I believe that justice and mercy are simply one and the same thing. [I believe] such is the mercy of God that he will hold his children in the consuming fire of his distance until they pay the uttermost farthing, until they drop the purse of selfishness with all the dross that is in it, and rush home to the Father and the Son, and the many brethren, rush inside the center of the life-giving fire whose outer circles burn." -- George Macdonald
Allow Gladiator Fighting Among Consenting Death Row Inmates

Death row inmates should not have the option to participate in gladiator battles. Killing other humans is cruel and disgusting. Gladiator battles would promote the idea of murder. Death row inmates most likely got to death row by killing people. You should not give them what they want because the do not deserve it, especially if it is killing other humans for fun. Also, it would never be on television. Watching movies where people kill each other is different than watching real people kill other living people. You would be watching living people die for your entertainment. Even the idea of humans doing gladiator fights is disgusting and unbelievable. Letting people legally end each others life for fun would be unacceptable. Only sick, disgusting, cruel, and evil people would even consider that idea.
Rap Battle: Short

A hurricane? You sure are lame When the weatherman saw you He didn't think to make a PSA Your an army jet? A big bad army jet? Well your rhymes so POOR this round That army jets in DEBT Rhymes like a cruise ship? Rhymes like the Titanic Your structure hit my iceberg now sunk in the Atlantic Now your James bond? think youll send me to heaven? Well then Ill shove my Golden Finger up your double O' seven
Rap Battle: Short

Im better than a hurricane Leave a path of destruction Only youre to blame I cannot be stopped so dont provoke me your a tree dont make me chop But i will if your roots do choke me I said my friends call me Jet Well im an army jet I blow a hundred thirty missiles in every enemy i ever met You better not hurt my rep you better watch your step My rhymes well kept Like a fancy cruise ship I owned you so dont even respond Your my enemy and im james bond
Rap Battle: Short

I agree that you're a bear A bear under sedation Because its mid december b*itch and your in hibernation And if youre a b*tch with bite Ill put a muzzle on your frown and if you think you still got fight Then no doubt Ill put you DOWN Go back to Hogwarts? Go back to sixth grade that burn is so terrible I bet you never get laid Jake, you're so easy to mock almost everyone would agree If I had a cat and he could talk, even hed call you a pu$$y
Rap Battle: Short

You think you can bury me Ill come back from the dead and then ill take your poor a$$ skills and bash you on the head You call me your b*tch well this b*tchs got bite and theres no way in hell im goin without a fight If your an infestation, a bug is still a bug and I will put all of you in the grave your body dug You go back to Hogwarts Your spell can charm no more Im a deadly force these raps are never a chore Im as strong as a bear Unmoveable and tough dont come into my li
Rap Battle: Short

Your raps so awkard A chicken beheaded The rhymes are so bad i feel a child said it People call you Jet? Well I call you b*tch Cus youll be my pet At the end of this pitch You say you crush pests Well I'm an infestation You can do your best But I can conquer nations You come into the wild well go back to the playground Cus soon enough that sand box will become your burial mound
Rap Battle: Short

My names Jake Smith Normal by name, unique by game Yous all afraid to accept my challenge Do you even think you can manage? I have the advantage Dont even try or Ill own ya all the way to oklahoma People call me Jet Cuz Im so fly I'll rock your sh*t Up into the sky Dont look in my eye Ill cause you to cry your rap's gonna die Im not shy My style's not to be messed Im surely the best I dont jest I crush you like a pest Now you submit your smack talk rap. I look forward t
Kennedy and Lincoln's assassination are linked in mysterious ways.

you may think that, but why exactly are the assassinations linked 100 years apart from each other? Lincoln's being in 1863, Kennedy's being in 1963. And lets not forget that both of them were elected as Presidents 100 years apart too! Lincoln's: 1860. Kennedy's:1960. And after both of them were assassinated, they were both succeeded by men who's last names were Johnson. And that both of their wives were there to witness the assassination. I still have plenty more facts to go Source: http://www.snopes.com... you'll understand most of the "coincidences" if you read through the whole thing.
Kennedy and Lincoln's assassination are linked in mysterious ways.

http://youtu.be... There is a video for you. It takes some of the "connections" that you mentioned, and proves why they are wrong. Kind of puts a hole in your argument, doesn't it? Well, I have enjoyed this debate, and I urge the voters to vote for me, as you cannot see similarities and think they are connected. It just leads to paranoia. By the way, I was not saying that my opponent had paranoia, I was just comparing situations.
Kennedy and Lincoln's assassination are linked in mysterious ways.

Well, i am not stricken with paranoia, that is a fact. But it is also a fact that, somehow, these two "coincidences" are connected. It's funny, really. That two of the most tragic events in American history can be connected like this. Most people think this too. I am Christian as well, but just because not evrything goes with the bible, doesn't mean that these two "coincidences" aren't connected in some way. And, by the way my friend, if you want people to root for you, I would at least use a couple more links, or even a video, to prove your point. I await my opponent's response
Kennedy and Lincoln's assassination are linked in mysterious ways.

Events all happen because they happen. Their is a reason everything happens. Yet, just because something may seem way too similar to be just a coincidence does not mean that the two things are connected. I will bring up the point of the Bible and the similarities throughout history that seem to correspond with the Bible. Now, I am a Christian, but I am able to see that not everything is as it seems, or rather, what we want it to seem. It (the theory that the assassinations are connected) actually sounds like, the more I read into it, that it is almost like the person stricken with paranoia, therefore believing that everyone is out to get them. Except, though, in this case it is actually people who want to create something more of the two events, because it would make the two events that much more significant.
Kennedy and Lincoln's assassination are linked in mysterious ways.

All that proves is that someone was a history fanatic that wanted to recreate Kennedy's assassination. Also, Lincoln was killed in a theatre, Kennedy in a motorcade in Dallas. I will use a quote from the same source as you did that refutes any connections, no matter how amazing they may seem. "You could take any two famous people and find a number of similar-type coincidences between them." [1] I want to see how you respond to this before I continue, as I do not see any proof coming from you other than a website filled with a list of similarities that could happen to anyone. Especially when some of those similarities are not actually yet proven. 1: http://www.school-for-champions.com...