BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jokes! ;)

Lol that last one was funny.Three guys go to a ski lodge, and there aren't enough rooms, so they have to share a bed. In the middle of the night, the guy on the right wakes up and says, "I had this wild, vivid dream of getting a hand job!" The guy on the left wakes up, and unbelievably, he's had the same dream, too. Then the guy in the middle wakes up and says, "That's funny, I dreamed I was skiing!" One day Mr. Smith, the president of a large corporation, called his vice-president, Dave, into his office and said, "We're making some cutbacks, so either Jack or Barbara will have to be laid off." Dave looked at Mr. Smith and said, "Barbara is my best worker, but Jack has a wife and three kids. I don't know whom to fire."The next morning Dave waited for his employees to arrive. Barbara was the first to come in, so Dave said, "Barbara, I've got a problem. You see, I've got to lay you or Jack off and I don't know what to do?" Barbara replied, "You'd better jack off. I've got a headache." One day an at home wife is alone and the doorbell rings. She opens it to a guy, "Hi, is Tony home?" The wife replies, "No, he went to the store, but you can wait here if you want." So they sit down and after a while of silence the friend says "You know Sara, you have the greatest breasts I have ever seen. I'd give you a hundred buck just to see one." Sara thinks about it for a second and figures, what the hell - a hundred bucks! She opens her robe and shows one to him for a few seconds. He promptly thanks her and throws a hundred bucks on the table. They sit there a while longer and guy then says "That was so amazing I've got to see both of them. I'll give you another 100 dollars if I could just see the both of them together." Sara amazed by the offer sits and thinks a bit about it and thinks, heck, why not? So she opens her robe and gives Chris a nice long chance to cop a look. A while later Tony arrives back home from the store. The wife goes up to him, "You know, your friend Chris came over." Tony thinks about it for a second and says, "Well did he drop off the 200 bucks he owes me?"A little boy and his grandfather are raking leaves in the yard. The little boy sees an earthworm trying to get back into its hole. He says, "Grandpa, I bet I can put that worm back in that hole." The grandfather replies, "I'll bet you five dollars you can't. It's too wiggly and limp to put back in that little hole."The little boy runs into the house and comes back out with a can of hair spray. He sprays the worm until it is straight and stiff as a board. The boy then proceeds to put the worm back into the hole. The grandfather hands the little boy five dollars, grabs the hair spray and runs into the house.Thirty minutes later the grandfather comes back out and hands the boy another five dollars. The little boy says, "Grandpa, you already gave me five dollars." The grandfather replies, "I know. That's from your Grandma."
Jokes! ;)

Q. What's 72? A. 69 with 3 people watching! ******* There was a little boy and a little girl in a bathtub having a bath. Suddenly the little girl looked down at the boy. "Can I touch it?" "No way -- you already broke yours off!" ******* Once there was this man whose car broke down. He realized after looking for help for 10 minutes that there was a small farmhouse with an old lady sitting on the porch. He told her his unfortunate story and she gladly let him in. But first she told him, 'I have three rules that you mustn't break or I'll see to it that you meet justice! But since talking hurts my throat so much, I won't tell you my rules.' She let him sleep in the laundry room. He found himself a comfortable pile of old wool sweaters. After puffing his "pillow" he realized that a pair of pants were hanging down from a clothes line over top of his new bed. Seeing that it was no big deal he pulled them down. Instantly the old lady darted into the room and said, 'You broke my first rule!' He was sent outside to sleep in the donkey's stable. Right beside him was a tiny donkey kicking him so much that he slapped it. In a flash grandma was there: 'You broke the second rule. Watch out.' He was sent onto the porch to sleep. All of a sudden a big, ugly cat came along and started rubbing all over him. Being allergic to cat hair, he shaved it bald. Here came the grandma. 'You broke the third rule,' she starts, 'I'm calling the cops.' The cops came and requested a description of what happened. The old lady said, 'That man is a d*** rapist. He pulled down my pants, slapped my a** and shaved my p*ssy!' ********** A man gets on a bus, and ends up sitting next to a very attractive nun. Enamored with her, he asks if he can have sex with her. Naturally, she says no, and gets off the bus. The man goes to the bus driver and asks him if he knows of a way for him to have sex with the nun. "Well," says the bus driver, "every night at 8 o'clock, she goes to the cemetery to pray. If you dress up as God, I'm sure you could convince her to have sex with you." The man decides to try it, and dresses up in his best God costume. At eight, he sees the nun and appears before her. "Oh, God!" she exclaims. "Take me with you!" The man tells the nun that she must first have sex with him to prove her loyalty. The nun says yes, but tells him she prefers anal sex. Before you know it, they're getting down to it, having nasty, grunty, loud sex. After it's over, the man pulls off his God disguise. "Ha, ha! I'm the man from the bus!" "Ha, ha!" says the nun, removing her costume. "I'm the bus driver!"
Jokes! ;)

In round1 my opponent never ever said "only two" jokes instead he write this: Round 1-2 blonde jokes.What would this make you think?My opponent very inconveniently made me think that in round 1-2, we were doing blonde jokes.And because you said Round 2-3 yo mama jokes I thought round 2 would be a hybrid round where we did both.By saying "Round 1-2 blonde jokes" is EXTREMELY misleading what the 2 refers to.I shall now supply 3 yo mama jokes, as requested.Yo mama so poor she can't afford to pay attention!Yo mama so bald that she took a shower and got brain-washed.Yo mama so dumb she tried to sue m&m's for giving her a pack of w's.
Jokes! ;)

Actually, I said Round 1- 2 blond jokes. ONLY TWO! The same goes for the rest of our debate. This round, 3 yo mama jokes: Yo' Mama is so dumb, she went to the police station and said, "Give me all your money!" Yo' Mama is so fat, she tried to jump rope and knocked the Earth out of orbit. Yo' Mama is so old, her birth certificate expired.
Jokes! ;)

Hey guys, here's what we're gonna do: Round 1 - 2 blond jokes Round 2 - 3 yo mama jokes Round 3 - 4 dirty jokes Round 4 - 3 disgusting jokes Round 5 - 2 jokes about anything you want ************* A blonde gets her haircut while wearing a pair of headphones. The hairdresser asks her to take them off, but she protests that she'll die without them. The hairdresser sighs, and starts cutting the hair around the headphones. Soon, the blonde falls asleep, and the hairdresser removes the headphones. A few minutes later, the blonde collapses, dead on the floor. Alarmed, the hairdresser puts the headphones to her ear and hears, "Breathe in. Breathe out." *************** A blonde wanted to go ice fishing, so after getting all of the right tools, she headed toward the nearest frozen lake. After getting comfy on her stool she started to cut a circular hole in the ice. Then from the heavens a voice boomed, 'THERE ARE NO FISH UNDER THE ICE.' Startled, the blonde moved further down the ice, poured a thermos of hot chocolate and started to cut yet another hole in the ice. The voice boomed, 'THERE ARE NO FISH UNDER THE ICE.' This time quite scared, the blonde moved to the far end of the ice. Then she started another hole and once again the voice said, 'THERE ARE NO FISH UNDER THE ICE.' The very scared blonde raised her head and said, 'Is that you, Lord?' The voice answered, 'NO. IT IS THE MANAGER OF THE ICE RINK.'
Jokes! ;)

Q: Did you hear about the couple that "96ed?" A: After they "69ed" they rolled over and sh*t in each other's hair. ********** Q: What do you call nuts on a wall? A: Walnuts Q: What do you call nuts on your chest? A: Chest nuts Q: What do you call nuts on your chin? A: A penis in your mouth. ********** Little Johnny comes home one day and says, "Mom! Little Mark next door has a penis like a peanut!" "What do you mean, Johnny? Is it shaped like a peanut?" "No," says Johnny. "It's salty."
Pres. Obama's Legacy

President Obama's legacy will be extremely positive in the eyes of future Americans. note: Any criticisms, contributions, accomplishments, scandals are allowed. Nothing is off the table. But this will be a fact-based debate. I will be taking the pro position as I will show that the President's legacy will be acclaimed and favored in history. Round 1: acknowledgement Round 2: Substance Round 3: Substance Round 4: Closing Arguments
A god exists.

Firstly, my opponent and I do not agree that a "Supreme Being" is of the metaphysical world, mainly do to the fact that I do not concede to the existence of "Supreme Being". I also argue that the arguments of motion and causation apply due to the lack of any empirical evidence stating otherwise. We may argue for The Big Bang Theory because it is sound to the scientific method, regardless of our ignorance of its motion. We may not assume the existence of a being which has no cause just because we do not know what the catalyst for what we know is. Unfortunately the philosopher who's ideas my opponent is basing his argument on was a Catholic priest who dedicated a good majority of his life to proving the existence of god in various ways, including what he called the five proofs. None of which actually prove the existence of anything aside from ones belief in god. The theory that there may exist an entity which is non-contingent has no basis. We may not assume that because there is a natural world and we are of it, and there are things outside of our understanding which we call supernatural, that the laws of the former do not apply to the latter. Any idea of the workings of an entity that could have created the universe is mere speculation, the existence of a philosophy which dictates that the contingency of the natural world must depend on the non-contingency of anything is is not ample in providing any evidence of the existence of a god. I argued my opponents syllogism because it was the only part of his argument to argue. I will not debate the laws of nature for I agree with them all.
A god exists.

"I apologize for the briefness of my reply but there is a major flaw in your reasoning, for if a supreme being were the catalyst of The Big Bang and creator of the universe, according to your reasoning, there would be a creator to the creator and hence a creator to that creator which created the creator of the universe." My Response: My opponent is very true when saying this. My opponent is being logical. However, there is a difference. We both agree that this "Supreme Being" is out of the physical world, i.e. metaphysical. Therefore, the laws in the natural world, i.e. Argument of Motion and Causation, don't apply. This is where my opponent makes a flaw. She is saying that the laws of the natural world are the same no matter what time/space or dimension. Let me go further. These natural laws, according to Thomas Aquinas (One of the founders of natural law theory), explain that the natural laws proceed from non-contingency. Non-contingency is a word meaning, no cause. Therefore, this "Supreme Being" is the only non-contingent being. The natural world, as we know, because of the big-bang is contingent. Thus, a non-contingent being, i.e. the necessary being, had to have started the 2 fundamental principals of natural law, i.e. Motion and causation. =============================================================================== Extension: My opponent only attacks my syllogism rather then my contentions, this is fine, however, for the remaining rounds, I ask that my contentions be extended. Thank you ladies and gentlemen
A god exists.

1) The Universe had a cause, i.e. The Big Bang 2) Every effect needed a cause 3) A Supreme Being was the catalyst of the big bang ************************** I apologize for the briefness of my reply but there is a major flaw in your reasoning, for if a supreme being were the catalyst of The Big Bang and creator of the universe, according to your reasoning, there would be a creator to the creator and hence a creator to that creator which created the creator of the universe. It is flawed to use a line of reasoning to argue for the impossibility of the existence of one thing (the universe without a supreme being as it's creator) while arguing for the existence of another (the supreme being which created the universe) using that same line of reasoning. I look forward to your response.
A god exists.

No problem, I'll modify the definition. Exists: To be extant. (Hmm, odd, I can find no adequate definitions of exist, so I guess this will do.) Extant: See exist. I guess I'll present my opening arguments for the sake of this is only 3 rounds. Contentions: I. Motion It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. II. Causation n the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Syllogism: 1) The Universe had a cause, i.e. The Big Bang 2) Every effect needed a cause 3) A Supreme Being was the catalyst of the big bang =============================================================================== Thank you for accepting the debate.
Our gun rights

Legislation enacted at a federal level tend to be the ones that are the most fought against simply because when this country was founded it was decided that the states would be separate sovereigns with their own state constitution, state laws, state governments, and state courts. In other words, this method was used to grant more freedom to the people instead of imposing federal laws that were essentially passed with little to no input from the citizens. The federal government was created to protect the peoples constitutional rights but was granted more and more power over time becoming what is known as "Big government" By enacting federal laws it strips people of the choice to live in a place where the law best fits their own beliefs. For example: People in a Texas have a drastically different opinion on guns from those in Massachusetts. It varies from state to state but the point is that people are obviously very divided on this issue and when there are such drastic differences in views held by so many people it should be left up to the people in each state to make the choice not being told by the federal government. This country was established to give the power to the people, let the people decide and its happening that way less and less these days. Statistics can be argued from almost every standpoint depending primarily on who funded the research. People generally tend to disapprove of any government funded research when seeking information on an issue. As a country we need to stop allowing the federal government to chip away from our state rights and respect the constitution enacted by the founding fathers. Had gun control measures taken in other countries been effective as they were told they would be, there would not be mass protest by the people. Regardless of an individuals feelings about guns we can all agree that everyone has an innate right to protect themselves from those that mean to do them harm. If we allow legislation that would restrict our access to firearms how are we expected to protect ourselves from a criminal with a knife trying to rob us or even kidnap us? This simple question has been dodged by almost every anti-gun person asked. They understandably dont want to fear that they may by shot but they are allowing their fear to over take their logic. Criminals are going to commit crimes regardless of any law put into place. This may sound like an extreme circumstance but for many people this is a reality. If you were being attacked by someone wielding a knife which would you prefer to protect yourself with? A gun, or a knife?
Our gun rights

I don't think municipal gun control laws are - or can be - effective. In order to be effective, weapons legislation needs to be enacted at a federal level, not municipal, state or provincial. I did a lot of digging regarding the claim that crime rates increase in response to gun control, and as far as I can tell, it is false. The Australian example is the most popular: homicide rates have experience a slight decline since 1997 (when the Australian firearm buy-back program was instituted), manslaughter rates have remained relatively constant, drug-related offences have declined slightly, and violent crime rates have remained stagnant, with the exception of the assault rate, which has risen. The general consensus in academia is that the 1997 buyback had little or no effect, but the few studiies which did find an effect (Ozanne-Smith et. al., Simon Chapman, Neill & Leigh, etc.) all found it to be a reduction, not an increase. The NRA and several other right-wing organizations have been accused of falsifying government statistics in order to claim an increase in violent crime in Australia since 1997. Neither has gun legislation had a measurable impact on violent crime rates in Sweden or Norway. The most recent gun legislation in Germany (2008) has effected a reduction in violent crime rates, but it's too recent to know if this is statistically significant or not (trends are what matter, not year-to-year data). The trend continues in Canada, with studies finding no effect (Langmann) or small positive effects (Hopper). If you argued that there is no conclusive evidence that gun control makes a society safer, I would partially agree with you. There is a lack of evidence that enacting gun control legislation results in a drop in violent crime, and yet there is a correlation between strong gun regulation and low rates of violent crime. However, if your claim is that crime increases in response to the passage of gun control legislation, you are very clearly mistaken. Most of the sources I could find making these claims had clear bias in the matter (most of them were right-wing political websites or pro-gun websites), and most of the "statistics" I found them using were either flawed (you cannot speak about "trending" annual crime rates over a period of 12 months, for example), carefully selected (the assault rate in Australia continued to rise at the same rate after 1997 as it had before 1997, making it unlikely that the gun buy-back was involved), or plain made up (a website I visited claimed that Australia had seen a 300% increase in homicides and an 800% increase in armed robberies; both claims are laughably false). I dont't think there's any point in discussing what "may" happen as a result of gun control, without any evidence to suggest that it *will* happen, when we could be saving lives right this minute. Stats sources: http://www.aic.gov.au... http://www.aic.gov.au... http://www.aic.gov.au... http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu...
Our gun rights

It may not always lead to mass genocide but the possibility is there and we should make it easier for them to commit such an atrocious act. People will argue that because it is not a common occurrence it is not a feasible reason to prevent further gun control but if we are to use that same sense of logic all the mass shootings in last decade do not account for a feasible reason to bad semi automatic weapons as many people have been calling for. But let us suppose that a tyrannical government didn't happen, in the countries around the world where guns were banned altogether these countries saw a drastic increase in every type of crime. http://www.youtube.com... Part 1 http://www.youtube.com... Part 2 Chicago and DC have the strictest gun and yet they have the highest murder rate with guns. http://www.youtube.com...
Our gun rights

Why does the federal registry make you nervous? Alternate question: what would you implement instead, in order to allow the tracking and control of firearms? I'm not sure you're correct on the 2nd amendment, but I'm not American, so I don't really want to argue the constitution. I'd like to ask about this "disarmament" argument, however. I've heard it a lot, especially in reference to Nazi Germany, but I don't understand its relevance. Nations sometimes disarm their people before a genocide, but often they do not. In some cases (Rwanda is a good example), they actually prepare for genocide by arming the people, not disarming them. There is a much stronger correlation between authoritarianism and infringement upon the rights to freedom of speech and association than there is for the right to bear arms. In addition, this is what's considered a "false correlation." Nations sometimes disarm the populace before committing atrocities, yes, but dozens of nations (if not more) around the world have enacted gun control measures much stronger than anything even being considered in the US, and not gone on to abuse their power, so disarmament alone is no reason to suspect the government's motive. I agree that the government in the US has run entirely amok, but I would say part of that catastrophe is the government's failure to enact meaningful gun control legislation, not their desire to do so. I don't think anyone wants to eliminate the 2nd amendment entirely, or enact a blanket ban on gun ownership, but gun control legislation has been very effective at reducing gun-related death rates in other countries, so why not the US? The murder rate in the US is more than twice as high as it is in warzones such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and 15% higher than in Palestine. 75% of those murders are committed with firearms. If you oppose gun control legislation, what would you recommend instead to bring these numbers down?