BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Little johonny jokes

The teacher in Johnny's school asked the class what their parents did for a living. One little girl said her father was a doctor, another said her mother was an engineer. When it was Little Johnny's turn, he stood up and said, "My mom's a whore." Naturally, after that remark, he got sent off to the principal's office. Then, 15 minutes later, he returned. So the teacher asked, "Did you tell the principal what you said in class?" Johnny said, "Yes" "Well, what did the principal say?" "He said that every job is important in our economy, gave me an apple and asked for my phone number."
Little johonny jokes

Little Johnny asks his mother how old she is. Her reply is, "Gentlemen don't ask ladies that question." Johnny then asks his mother how much she weighs. Again the mother's reply is, "Gentlemen don't ask ladies that question." The boy then asks, "Why did daddy leave you?" To this, the mother says, "you shouldn't ask that" and then sends him to his room. On the way to his room, the boy trips over his mother's purse. When he picks it up, her driver's license falls out. The boy looks it over and goes back to his mother saying, "I know all about you now. You are 36 years old, weigh 127 pounds and daddy left you because you got an 'F' in sex!!!"
Little johonny jokes

President Bill Clinton was visiting an elementary school today and when he visited one of the classes (4th grade I believe), they were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the President if he would like to lead the class in the discussion of the word, "tragedy." So our illustrious leader asks the class for an example of a tragedy." One little boy stands up and offers, "If my best friend, who lives next door, was playing in the street and a car came along and ran over him, that would be a tragedy." "No," says Clinton, "that would be an accident." A little girl raises her hand. "If a school bus carrying fifty children drove off a cliff, killing everyone involved, that would be a tragedy." "I'm afraid not," explains Mr. President. "That's what we would call a GREAT LOSS." The room goes silent. No other children volunteer. President Clinton searches the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?" Finally, way in the back of the room, little Johnny raises his hand. In a quiet voice he says, "If Air Force One, carrying Mr. & Mrs. Clinton, was struck by a missile and blown up to smithereens, that would be a tragedy!" "Fantastic," exclaims Clinton, "that's right. And can you tell me WHY that would be a tragedy?" "Well," says little Johnny, "because it wouldn't be an accident, and it sure as Hell would be no great loss!"
Little johonny jokes

An elementary school math teacher asked her class one day, "If there are three birds on a wire, and a farmer shot one, how many are left?" One little boy said two, but little Sally, realizing it was a trick question, said, "None, 'cause everyone knows that if you shoot at birds they all fly away." The teacher congratulates her on her correct answer. Little Johnny, however, disagreed. He said, "No, there would be one -- the one that the farmer shot." The teacher replied, "No, Johnny, you're wrong, but I like the way you think." "OK, teacher, I have a riddle for you," boasted Johnny. "Let's say three women are at a bar and they each order a single scoop ice cream cone. The first one eats it by gently licking it around the edges, the second slowly sucks the ice cream off the cone from the top, and the third gobbles the top and then sucks the rest out of the cone. Which one is married?" After a few seconds of contemplation, the teacher replied, "Well, I think it must be the third, the one that gobbles the top and sucks out the inside." Johnny responded, "No, teacher, you're wrong -- it's the one with the wedding ring. But I like the way you think."
Cigarettes should be legal while cannabis should be illegal

Why the scenario in question is correct is simply because of the right to choice. Upon coming t a consensus that it would be very difficult to change the current legal situation of both Marijuana and Cigarettes then we should also agree that the current situation is justifiable because : 1.There has been more warning and information about Cigarettes than there was In the last decade. Its astounding in fact. So the harm that's caused is not because of its legal state but because humans have a choice. If a person decides to stab himself and cause himself great harm and even death should we illegalize Knives because they can cause harm to people or should we take it into consideration that people have a choice as to how they use a knife. Same concept applies to anything hazardous. 2. For those who suffer due to being in close proximity I think in France there are places where people can smoke, a place where they don't potentially harm those who don't. In the Arab Emirates there are places where people can effectively smoke or drink without inconveniencing those who don't . To conclude I will talk about Cannabis just like Con did about its effects and why its legal state is justified in relation to Cigarettes. First off I will like state that in recent years there has been a drastic improvement with Cigarette production and the introduction of E-Cigarettes which are a good way to have Nicotine in the body and that helps reduce the amount of people affected by second hand smoking. My conclusion: The recreational use of Cannabis brings about not only one effect but leads to an unfolding chain of effects that don't affect a person in a large way like cancer developments but instead smaller effects that amount to something rather big. 1. You see unlike Cigarettes, if cannabis is used at a young age it literally takes over and decides who a person becomes. If youth use Cannabis not only are they in danger of experiencing a great deal of psychological damage but also they become very vulnerable to the abuse of much stronger and eccentric drugs like Molly and Heroine and Cocaine which have damaged lives and broken apart families to bits. If we look at the displaced people in society that wander around looking coins to survive are usually Crack addicts or heroine addicts who started off by smoking a "joint" for fun. People have dropped out of school. This was a good argument and I'm not sure where people stand but I believe its justifiable that the state of legality of both Cigarettes should stay as it is as well as for Cannabis. Why? The damage has been done but, there have been different ideas that can reduce the amount of people that are dying and not only are they ideas but ones that have been put into practice. People are dying not because Cigarettes kill but they chose to smoke.
Cigarettes should be legal while cannabis should be illegal

As this is my last round, I will try to both respond to your points and sum up my arguments.I will begin by stressing that the title of the debate was "Cigarettes should be legal while cannabis should be illegal", and not "Cigarettes should stay legal while cannabis should be illegal". Therefore, I think that the difficulty of changing is rather irrelevant, in the same way that "We should use base 12 instead of base 10" is different to "We should change to using base 12".Cigarettes do have "May be hazardous to health" writted on the front, and the same could be done for cannabis were it to be legalised. I am not a farmer and have very little knowledge of farming, but couldn't these farmers with hundreds of workers as you describe grow something other than tobacco were it to be made illegal? I stand by saying that I would rather people didn't die from lung cancer etc, and have farmers change what they grow. Again, I do not think the process of changing is part of the debate but even so I doubt it would have anywhere near the effect you discribe. An alternative source of nicotine to cigarette would definately be a good thing, but until that arises we should not allow people to continue killing themselves.______In conclusion...Cigarettes are more dangerous than cannabis.Recall, that in America it is estimated that more than 480,000 deaths annually are caused by smoking (1) in addition to 42,000 deaths to secondary smokers. That is a large number of deaths which could be prevented.The only reason it is the way is it is because of culture.There is little to no rational provided by Pro as to why "Cigarettes legal, Cannabis illegal" is the optimal scenario aside from the fact that is the current situation (in UK) and it would be hard to change. As I said (and should have made more clearly) the fact that it would be difficult to change does not affect they way it should be.Cannabis and cigarettes are very similar (except that cigarettes are far more dangerous).There is no reason why the legal situation should be different for them, especially not "Cigarettes legal, Cannabis illegal" scenario.There are strong arguments for both being legal or both being illegal, either by considering the abilty for people to choose for themselves or making anything that causes harm illegal. But there are little/no strong arguments why the scenario in question is correct.______To close, thank you for taking part in the debate, I've enjoyed it and hope you have too.
Cigarettes should be legal while cannabis should be illegal

Thank you, for you response, those are some good points you've put across and a quite and daunting challenge you've given me which i'll gladly accept. You said and I quote " I choose to value the lives of thousands of people over the farming business of thousands of farmers." My argument's objective is to justify my case why the state of legality of the two drugs should stay as they are. Cannabis illegal and Cigarettes legal. Your response touched on why its very beneficial for those especially around cigarette smokers to be moved away from harm, that was valid and you also spoke about why it would be problem to illegalize cigarettes due to conflict between government and those that feel they have a right. If that's the case then its justifiable for cigarettes to stay legal, although their state of legality has brought so many deaths throughout the world. If we look at it from a neutral position then its best we illegalize both drugs but if we look at it from an intellectual view then we'll realize that we cant change what has been been done. We cant bring back the lives safely but one thing we have to come to terms with is how Cigarettes have " May be hazardous to health' written clearly in bold white lettering, this shows how the manufactures understand how people need the Nicotine but it warns them meaning that the decision for people to go to the grave or to acquire diseases associated with smoking plays a role on the number of deaths and so we cant illegalize it due to health factors when people clearly make an informed decision. Illegalizing Cigarettes will cause a lot of problems for a lot of lives, mainly those that Con clearly values and those are the number of farmers that are in the Tobacco business, not only are they just farmers and Con perceives them but these are Thousands of farmers in continents but not only does a farmer represent his Tobacco but also his staff of hundreds or even thousands depending on the size of his/her farm, especially those farmers on African soil that provide not only money as a salary but a means to preserve and look after large families in places where there is shortage of food due to corruption in governments. (which isn't their fault ) Lets think of the poverty that could come forth from the taking away of Cigarette production. To take away a family of 7 or 8 the only way to buy food and other basic necessities and not luxuries but basic necessities like taking their children to school and to give them a roof over their head. THAT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE Sir. To conclude I ask you to be open minded as to the consequences of illegalizing Cigarettes which out whey the benefits which although could save many lives but also could devastate the lives of many people. Because in no way are they disadvantaged on the basis that there is no clear warnings. I propose we find an alternative way to pump Nicotine which I the addictive drug into the bodies of those addicted because its not the nicotine that gives cancer but 200 substances out of 4000 found in cigarettes that give cancer. Again thank you for your contribution to the debate.
Cigarettes should be legal while cannabis should be illegal

Thank you for accepting the challenge, you have put forward many strong points. I realise that the laws regarding Marijuana hasn't changed yet (in the UK, I don't know much about other countries) however I think that is not because this scenario (cannabis illegal, cigarettes legal) is the optimum one but changing it would be difficult. Legalising cannabis would anger many people who have seen the negative effects it causes (which there are) and make it seem as if the government is supporting this. Meanwhile making cigarettes illegal would anger people who feel they have the right to choose etc. There is little incentive for a government to change the ruling, that doesn't, however, mean it shouldn't be changed. I also do not deny that Marijuana has negative effects, sometimes serious ones, but I do not think that they in any way compare to the far larger number of deaths due to cigarettes as shown in my statistics from the first round. The long term effects of cigarettes are far greater and more dangerous than that of cannabis, especially for those around the smoker. If Marijuana were to be legalised, I agree it would have to be strongly controlled by the government (as is the case with cigarettes mostly). This means controlling production and taxing imports heavily. But the government would be far more able to control such things with cannabis legal rather than illegal and it could be done in such a way to greatly reduce (if not eliminate) the effects you describe. Also, it may be the smokers not the fact that it is legal causing the health problems, but that doesn't change the fact that those health problems would decrease were it to be illegal. As well as this, I choose to value the lives of thousands of people over the farming business of thousands of farmers. As far as I see it, there are 4 options: Both illegal, neither illegal, cannabis legal and cigarettes illegal, and cannabis illegal and cigarettes legal. The first two of which are justifiable either by considering our freedom to choose or by thinking that any substance which causes such harm should be illegal. The latter two are far more difficult to justify, partly because cannabis and cigarettes are very similar, however the last (which is the subject of the debate) is extremely unjustifiable given the immense damage that smoking does in comparison to cannabis. I therefore challenge the Pro to argue for this option over the other three and not just explain the consequence of changing the legality.
Cigarettes should be legal while cannabis should be illegal

Hello, this is my first debate and I am looking forward to it. The topic is, 'Cigarettes should be legal while cannabis should be illegal'. (I'll use 'smoking' to refer to smoking tobacco based cigarettes and cannabis to refer to the drug when used for recreational purposes not medical etc.) I disagree with this motion however I am not saying that both should be legal, neither of them legal etc, only that it should not be as described in the title. My first 2 arguments are as follows. 1) Cigarette smoking is more dangerous than cannabis. In America it is estimated that more than 480,000 deaths annually are caused by smoking (1) in addition to 42,000 deaths to secondary smokers. That is a large number of deaths which could be prevented. In fact the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said, "Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature disease and death in the United States."(2) I could go into great depths about the statistics of lung cancer, heart disease and the cost to tax payers in the UK (I am from the UK where cannabis is illegal, so will apply most of my points to the UK), but the fundamental fact is cannabis, even where legal, causes far fewer deaths than cigarettes. It is therefore counter-intuitive that cannabis is the one which should be illegal. 2) Why is the line drawn here? It is not too hard to draw the line between legal and illegal at either end, all harmful substances legal or none legal. Drawing it between cigarettes and cannabis, however, is much harder (even assuming cannabis is more dangerous) as they are ultimately very similar and it is mainly culture which has decided their legality, not their objective level of danger. These are my first two points, I can introduce more in a later round when 'pro' has put forward their own points and rebutted these two. Thanks. (Please tell me if I've done anything wrong/need to change anything) (1) http://www.cdc.gov... (2) http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... (3) http://ash.org.uk...
Resolved: I hate you.

Well, I didn't think it would quite matter to someone who takes debate as such a minor thing that they would post as ignorant a resolution as this. Con is also dumb in the manner that he agreed to the comment that if I hated myself I win this debate. The resolution, formed by Con argues this: "Resolved: Con hates Pro. " Because Con wrote this debate, I means him, and he already defined "you" as the Pro. Con added "arguments" or at least that's what he calls them, in the final round. Conduct to Pro. The topicality propposed in the comment would have been dumb to argue and shot down in a quick second by the opposing debater. I could have argued them, but I didn't believe in them, anyway. So, therefore, no point. Oh, and for future reference, I like structered, intelligent debates. They're more educational.
Resolved: I hate you.

Pro and Con are not interchangeable terms, by the way. Also, calling me stupid hurts my feelings. This debate isn't fair. Obviously. It can, however, go to me. Just because a resolution is horribly biased doesn't mean that the person who benefits from the bias did something wrong. Well, in any other situation. Seeing as how I wrote the resolution, it is entirely my fault. This debate is so subjective that, as the instigator, I can not lose. It doesn't matter who's pro or con, just who the instigator is. Also, I liked the suggestion in the comments. If you hate yourself, then there's no issue. I think some drugs should be legal. Crack is wack, for instance. I wouldn't touch LSD with a ten-foot pole. Things of that nature. The question wasn't specific enough, really. As this debate is clearly very serious, I will now bring up the real issues. 1. Ice cream Preferences in ice cream flavor are clearly at the root of this misunderstanding. If we could just agree that all chocolate chips should be removed from mint ice cream, there could be peace in the universe. I'm not willing to bet money, because I don't have any, but I'll bet that Pro hasn't ever even had just mint ice cream. If he did, his entire world view might change. Who knows. 2. Lazy as a Snorlax I'm incredibly lazy. I won't put up a 3rd one for the reason that I am lazy as a Snorlax. Basically, vote for Con. I don't hate him. He could have supplied a plethora of reasons why I should hate him and then hotly abused me for being in denial, but he didn't. He could've used the highly amusing semantical argument suggested in the comments, but he didn't. No default for you. I think I've spent this entire time arguing that this doesn't automatically go to pro. Hm. For future reference, I like semantics. They're funny.
Resolved: I hate you.

Pro is too stupid to understand my point, clearly. This debate is subjective, and he knows it. If he claims that he does not hate me in the final round, he would win by default under his own resolution. The resolution is flawed in a way that the Pro cannot win if Con is smart enough to know what he's saying. Granted, Con may be dumb enough not to know this, and unless, by surprise, he is inteligent enough to read this correctly, he may just be able to form that argument. Therefore this debate cannot go to him, it either goes to a tie or to Pro. I would also like to point out Pro's stupidity for the reasons that he disagrees with my preference on 20% of the topics we both had opinions on. The fact that someone is unintelligent enough to believe that drugs should be legallized may help explain, however, why Con thought this was a fair debate.
Resolved: I hate you.

I see what you're doing there. My opponent is attempting to use bad grammar and douchebaggery into convincing me that he is in fact a douche worthy of my hatred. This debate is not impossible for the pro to win, as he just proved. If I were more prone to irrational rages the use of numbers instead of words might make me angry, might even make me want to lunge through this digital portal and strangle my opponent. However, I can't use the Force(yet) so I can't do that. So sad for the world. Besides which, saying "I do not hate you" proves nothing. If I say in the final round, "I don't hate you. I just hate your children, mother, father, dog, grandmother, etc. and will systematically slaughter them all." that would clearly show that I nurture a secret hatred for you. So no, it's not completely unfair. Just mostly. No default for you.
Resolved: I hate you.

THIs dEBaTe IZ iMPosSIblE 2 WIn on tHE PRo. ESSeNTiALly, tHE tOPiC iS suBJeCTIve. As lONg AZs COn In THe fINal rOUNd sAYs "I do not hate you." He WIll autOMaTIcALly WIn.ThIZ dEB8 SHoULd deFAulT 2 PrO 4 tHIs rEASon, asZ anN AUtOWin 4 CoN iZ NoT FAiR.
Resolved: I hate you.

So there are a few basic and simple reasons why I do not hate you. 1. I do not know you It's extremely difficult to formulate an opinion about someone, let alone nurture such a powerful emotion as hatred, towards somebody that one does not know. As I have absolutely no idea who you are, I can't exactly assume that I hate you. Whether I may or may not hate you at some indeterminate point in the future is irrelevant. 2. Major issues I agree with you on 80% of the major issues as listed on your profile. Odds are I don't hate you on principle due to membership of some social, religious, or political minority. 3. You entertain me By indulging in my whimsical debate, you have amused me. As I am amused at the moment, I am generally disinclined towards hating anything. For all these reasons, I contend that I absolutely do not hate you.