BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
nurses wearing uniform vs. nurses not wearing uniform

Thank you for the challenge Charmaine32. Before I continue, I'd like to notify the voters that there has been a resolution change, the resolution has been set within the comment box because my opponent made an error (we all make mistakes, so please don't vote off of that). The new resolution is: "NURSES WEARING HATS VS NOT WEARING HATS" http://www.debate.org... _______________________________ My opponent only presents one argument, that argument is as follows, "Nurses should wear hats as part of their unifom to give them a more professional look while they are on duty in the work place. supervisors should make it a responsibility for nurses to wear hats." The reason I stand in negation to this statement is for three reasons. They are dangerous, unnecessary and uncomfortable. _______________________________ First: If we stand in affirmation that would allow nurses to wear any type of hat. This means you'd go to the hospital and see nurses wearing: -Baseball caps -Feathered hats -Party hats -Top hats etc. http://www.millinerytechniques.com... The negative impact is obvious, these hats could cause a distraction to the doctors, the nurses and other medical workers, preventing them from saving lives. Furthermore, the hats may pose a fire safety hazard, like straw and costume hats. _________________________________ Second: Nurse's hats are unnecessary. Yes, uniformity is at times a positive necessity in any work environment. BUT nurses already have a uniform, for instance look at this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org... This is obviously a nurse, she can easily be pointed out as a nurse in almost any hospital. Uniformity is important, but the cap is an extra hassle and it shouldn't be a responsibility given by a supervisor, as my opponent advocates. If having a hat is a responsibility, that would mean nurses would get on probation or even FIRED, simply for not having a hat. This would mean less nurses in a world that is in desperate need of nurses. http://www.news-medical.net... __________________________________ Third: Having a hat on all day is uncomfortable. Imagine having to wear a hat for up to 12 hours a day. Now, imagine having to wear a hat that long, while at the same time saving lives. Nurses have an obligation to make people feel comfortable in a scary place, they aid doctors and create a safer working environment. Making it a necessity for nurses to wear hats all day long is quite uncomfortable. The only time that nurses should wear hats are whenever it is absolutely necessary. Like when they are dealing with patients who have lice. Other than that, the hats are not as important as their many other duties and they shouldn't be a burden in a nurses day-to-day job. ___________________________________ Thank you for this opportunity, I look forward to your responses. "As of now I can only see a CON vote" -Alexander
Gay rights are achievable in the South in ten years

org. The reason this topic is so interesting to me is that I too live in the south(Texas), yet I believe the exact opposite of the pro. There are two problems I see with the pro's opening statements the first being that we truly have not defined the states that comprise the south. So I will follow the list the United States Census Bureau's has for the south. [1]Here are the state's divided into three regionsSouth Atlantic States: Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Delaware. East South Central States: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and TennesseeWest South Central States: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and TexasThe reason Maryland and Delaware are bolded, is due to the Census Bureau not classifying them as part of the south anymore due to more cultural ties with other regions. So I propose that Arizona and New Mexico be include in the place of Maryland and Delaware. I believe that these two states have stronger ties with the south. The other problem is how we will approach the debate today. We have two options on how we will debate the topicOption 1-The entire southThis option is slightly weighted in the con's favor as the pro has to prove how gay rights will come to all of the south or at least a statistical majority. Option 2-A certain state This option is more pro friendly as pro only has to prove how gay rights will come to a certain state. This certain state must be a south state or a state that pro can prove belongs in the south. The pro has the liberty to pick either option in the next round or present his own options. I await the pro's response. Thank you[1]- . http://memory.loc.gov...
Gay rights are achievable in the South in ten years

Because of the rapidly changing landscape that gay rights has taken throughout this nation I believe that gay rights will finally come to my homeland, the South simply because more people are being encouraged to come out and are showing opponents of gay rights that gays are just like any other people they can meet. Having personally come out to friends and family who are extremely religious I have full faith that within ten years gay rights will win and people in the South will be able to get married regardless of orientation.
science is a religion

"know is true, and only know is true, matter is true, know is matter" What? Know is not an object or a word of discussion. What do you think matter is? Know is not matter. Know is a word, not an object so it doesn't take weight and space, or matter. You seem like you don't know what you are talking about. Facts are not in the past. For example, every object has matter, that is a fact and it will always be a fact. You are not on topic whatsoever. "Dosnt your ideas exist?" Those ideas are not mine. They are proven with evidence. For example, religion is not science, and neither is science religion. People have known these ideas centuries before me. By the way, your two last questions are complete opposites, I'm going to make my claim once more, please stay on topic and debate normally. Religion is not science...
science is a religion

"Know" is only a word, not a specific thing. God is imaginary. We can't get information from something that we know doesn't exist, because there is no real evidence or facts behind it. Sense is not specifically physical experience. Of now? Your definitions are not accurate & too specific. You can't just make up definitions. Imagination is not information, imagination is just our ideas and imagery that we thing of, etc. Once again, I'm going to mention my main idea, because you are not defending your side of the debate. Science is not a religion.
science is a religion

The word "know" is not the physical experience of now. Words are not physical experience. Physical is like action or movement, your "point" hardly makes sense. No offense. Negative positive is not a real word that even makes sense in your concept. God is not information. There are only theories about "God," nobody has information from this "god." You are making up concepts and words, but I will still state my point. Science is not a religion, there is no information from religions that we could use in our lives (sometimes morals). What I'm saying is, your point has no real evidence.
science is a religion

Science is not a religion. Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" (dictionary). Specifically, science has evidence and it includes proven theories & many sources. For example, evolution has bones and artifacts from thousands of years ago; we can tell from carbon dating, etc. Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (dictionary)." Religion is merely a belief which has hardly any real evidence. For example, Catholicism has only a bible to conclude that the religion is accurate and true. People say the bible was created by the Holy Spirit, but however, they just merely be attention seekers and fiction writers. In conclusion, religion is not science, it's only a belief.
The United States vs Any Nation: War Politics

I will be Russia. My weapon will be the 100-kiloton-yeild nuclear warhead W76. These are Russia's stats GDP PPP: 2553 Billion USD Nominal GDP: 2.097 trillion USD Total Population: 142,470,272 Manpower: 69,117,271 Fit for service: 135,202 Active Frontline Personel: 766, 055 Active Reserve Personel: 2,485,000 Tanks: 15,398 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 31,298 Self-Propelled Guns-5,792 Towed Artillery-4,625 Multiple-launch Rocket Systems (MLRs)-3,793 Total Aircraft: 3,429 Fighters/interceptors: 769 Fixed-wing Attack Aircraft: 1,305 Transport Aircraft: 1,083 Trainer Aircraft: 346 Helicopters: 1,120 Attack Helicopters: 111 Total Naval Strength: 352 Aircraft Carriers: 1 Frigates: 4 Destroyers: 12 Corvettes: 74 Submarines: 63 Coastal Defense Craft: 65 Mine Warfare: 34 Oil Production: 10,580, 000 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 3,200,000 bbl/day Proven Oil Reserves: 80,000,000,000 bbl/day Labor Force: 75,290, 000 Merchant Marine Strength: 1,143 Major Ports and Terminals: 7 Roadway Coverage: 982,000 Railway Coverage: 87, 155 Serviceable Airports: 1,218 Defense Budget: $60,400,000,000 Square Land Area: 17,098, 242 KM Coastline: 37,653 Shared Border:22,407 KM Waterways: 102,000 KM
If it takes 2 hens 2 days to lay 2 eggs, then how many days does it take 5 hens to lay 5 eggs? 2.

Aside from the ridiculous nature of this argument, which I assume to be a joke, I believe there is in fact a problem with scaling this argument. If 2 hens lay 2 eggs in 2 days, then 1 hen will lay 1 egg in 2 days. We can arbitrarily expand this to 50 hens will lay 50 eggs in 2 days. However, there is no mention of how many roosters we started with. I find it hard to believe that a single rooster could impregnate 50 hens in 2 days. Working nonstop, he'd have to impregnate the hens at a rate greater than 1 hen per hour, which I don't believe the rooster could be persuaded to do. Perhaps he would be physically incapable of the feat, not having the endurance or the sperm count to finish the task. Also, there is the problem of the complications in the birthing process. I would consider it a failed egg-lay if the egg were to break upon falling into the nest, or if crushed by the female. When there are more eggs, it is likely that more of them will break. You could consider it a 50/50 chance whether or not the egg breaks, and when you have 50 chickens, statistically, you will have more broken eggs. Also, it is quite possible that among those 50 hens, at least 1 is infertile, resulting in only 49 eggs in 2 days. Let us suppose you scale this proposition to 1000 chickens. Obviously you will first need more roosters, so we can't really answer the scalability of the problem. However, it seems fairly likely that at least 1 hen in 1000 will have some complication that causes her NOT to lay an egg. So for the following reasons, I don't believe you can accurately predict that 50 hens will actually lay their 50 eggs in 2 days... 1) The possibility of 1 broken egg rises with the more hens you have. 2) The possibility of an infertile hen rises with more hens. 3) The lack of rooster sperm may prevent the impregnation of all 50. 4) More hens means less control of the area, which means it's more likely that at least one hen will be taken by a predator. And last but not least, 5) If all else fails, I will personally take 3 or 4 eggs for my morning breakfast, giving you a yield of only 46 or 47 eggs in 2 days.
If it takes 2 hens 2 days to lay 2 eggs, then how many days does it take 5 hens to lay 5 eggs? 2.

If it takes 2 hens 2 days to lay 2 eggs, how many days does it take 50 hens to lay 50 eggs? Well, let's see. Let's call the first hen (out of two) to be A and the second to be B. A takes two days to lay 1 egg. B takes two days to lay 1 egg. If we continued this 2.5 times, we would establish that 5 hens lay 5 eggs in 2 days.
A Crowbar is the best weapon to have during a Zombie Uprising.

My opponent says that the bats would be useless in temperatures under 70 degrees Fahrenheit and that I said this. This is not true, in fact if you look at my above source [2] you will see that the actual temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature warning is put in place to safeguard the user when playing baseball, which I will show to exert much more force on the bat than a human skull would and therefore is not really a significant factor to consider when using the bat in any given temperature. The force exerted between a bat and ball when playing baseball is enormous. The amount of force being generated by hitting a 90 mph fastball is about 18,436 Newtons, which converts to about 4124 lbs of force being exerted on the bat and ball in the moment of contact [4]. Experiments on _cadavers_ have yielded that the amount of force that is required to crack the skull is 73 Newtons [5]. You could easily generate this amount of force on a skull in any plausible temperature with the bat and it would be fine. My opponent contends that a crowbar would make a better weapon because it is also a useful tool. I'm not going to sit here and deny that crowbars can make useful tools, but that really doesn't matter. It's usefulness as a tool has no bearing on its viability as a weapon. He also contends that you could use the crowbar as a spear for skewering the brains of zombies. It's true that this is possible, but it is also not a tactic that would be very effective. I stated in my opening argument that crowbars are not balanced for swinging, this is because their center of gravity is near the middle because it is made of a single, solid material and is fairly uniform in shape. This means that while my opponent is holding the hooked end all of the weight of the crowbar is being felt between 7-10 inches beyond the hand. This weight means that more effort needs to be made in order to keep the crowbar level for stabbing which tires the user out quickly. A baseball bat on the other hand can be manufactured so that the center of gravity is found pretty much anywhere on the bat. This means that the weight of the bat can be made to be felt on the handle. The closer the weight is to your hand the easier it is to carry and swing because there is less torque [6]. The length of the two weapons is not really all that different as my opponent states and is therefore a minor factor when it comes to safety, but the bat is longer and that does increase the level of safety when it comes to zombie killing. It is for these reasons that a baseball bat would be a better weapon to use when killing zombies than a crowbar would be. [4] . http://paws.kettering.edu... [5] . http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk... [6] . http://dev.physicslab.org...
A Crowbar is the best weapon to have during a Zombie Uprising.

Good luck. A nice choice, the baseball bat. A good weapon on the surface however the crowbar is not only a weapon but can also be a handy tool for survival. Some problems with the baseball bat as described by my opponent. As my opponent noted, when these bats are used in tempatures under 70 degrees (Fahrenheit), they are more likely to break, making it's use as a weapon virtually useless. Tempature has no effect on a steel crowbar. It is always unfair to state that a zombies skull is soft. Just to assume since a zombie is dead their skull must get softer is not true. Some may be more durable than others, depending on how long the zombies has been dead. A human skull just ten days old will still prove to be a stronger target for a baseball bat of any kind. Stronger than say. .. a baseball. Other than breaking windows could you use a baseball bat for anything else than beating skulls in? No. A crowbar can not only provide you with a strong steel bludgeon for zombie skull busting, but it can also be used to open locked or heavy doors, shift heavy objects, and other tasks which the crowbar was originally designed for. It's hooked end makes for a great handle to use as a spear motion into the face of a zombie. Bearing one sharp end and another sharp end at the hook makes zombie heads a perfect target for it's thrust. You don't need alot of power to control the crowbar, as the ends do most of the work with minimal velocity. A baseball bat requires more strength to use when bashing a skull. The only disadvantage to the crowbar is it's length. You never want to be too close to a zombie. However my opponents baseball bat is hardly any safer when it comes to length. Also when it comes to weight, a steel crowbar is no more heavy than a composite graphite baseball bat. As I said before you should never depend on a single weapon of course, but you never want to be in the midst of a zombie takeover without a steel crowbar.
A Crowbar is the best weapon to have during a Zombie Uprising.

In this debate I will be showing both why a crowbar is not the best weapon to use during a Zombie Uprising and providing at least one example of a better weapon. First my explanations as to why a crowbar would not be the best weapon to use. I assume that by crowbar my opponent is referring to those similar to the first example on this site [1]. I will be using its specifications for my arguments. The referenced crowbar is 21 inches long and weighs 1.32 lbs. and is made of solid titanium. The problem with using a crowbar like this one as a weapon is that crowbars are meant to add leverage when prying things open, this means that during their production they are not tested for balance and are more difficult to swing than many other objects. It is also a fairly short weapon which means that your effective range would be around 55 inches or so. I contend that for zombie killing a composite graphite baseball bat [2] would be more effective than a crowbar. Baseball bats are meant for swinging and are designed to withstand forces that are greater than bashing in the decomposing head of your average zombie. The only disadvantage to the composite bat is that in cold temperatures they are prone to breaking when playing baseball. This is not really much of a factor considering that it does not take as much force to crush said zombie's softened head as hitting a fastball. If you consider the face that the average length of a baseball bat is around 30 inches for an adult [3] you get more range to do damage. They may weigh a bit more than the crowbar, but the fact that they are better balanced means that swinging it will not tire you out as fast. With that I negate the resolution that crowbars are the best weapons for a zombie apocalypse and contend that a baseball bat would be better. [1] . http://www.materials.com... [2] . http://www.articlesbase.com... [3] . http://www.dickssportinggoods.com...
A Crowbar is the best weapon to have during a Zombie Uprising.

My position is simple. During the Zombie uprising, the best weapon is a crowbar. Yes you should always have a good amount of reliable weapon and shouldn't depend on just one. But the argument here is which is the best. I will let Con choose a weapon they feel is better and we shall debate the matter at hand. Some things to keep in mind: -You can only kill a zombie by destroying the brain. -Real zombies (George Romero zombies) walk and shuffle. They don't run around. -Once you're bitten you will turn into one of them. hopefully this debate will help everyone when the zombies come. When discussing Zombies here we are talking about George Romero's zombies. Not "Left 4 Dead" zombies, "Dead Rising" zombies. Thanks.
Phillies fans are worse than Cardinals fans.

CouldThis is based off my personal experience. Phillies fans in general are rude, and they have no qualms in pronouncing your team as the worst or in denouncing your favorite players. They will boo your team for existing. They will throw things on the field. They will call your favorite teams atrocious names.Some may say that Cardinals fans are even worse, with their practices of taking to social media to proclaim the other teams' players 'f*gs' or 'talentless monkeys', as I have seen. I disagree and I believe that Phillies fans are indeed the worst fans in baseball.Could you please provide an example for your claims? A sound byte perhaps, otherwise you're just making mindless assertions.
Phillies fans are worse than Cardinals fans.

This is based off my personal experience. Phillies fans in general are rude, and they have no qualms in pronouncing your team as the worst or in denouncing your favorite players. They will boo your team for existing. They will throw things on the field. They will call your favorite teams atrocious names. Some may say that Cardinals fans are even worse, with their practices of taking to social media to proclaim the other teams' players 'f*gs' or 'talentless monkeys', as I have seen. I disagree and I believe that Phillies fans are indeed the worst fans in baseball.
The Battle of Stalingrad was more important than any other battle that took place during WWII.

"There are even more reasons to proclaim December 1941 as the turning point of the war. The Soviet counter-offensive destroyed the reputation of invincibility in which the Wehrmacht had basked ever since its success against Poland in 1939, thus boosting the morale of Germany"s enemies everywhere. The Battle of Moscow also ensured that the bulk of Germany"s armed forces would be tied to an eastern front of approximately 4,000 km for an indefinite period of time, which all but eliminated the possibility of German operations against Gibraltar, for example, and thus provided tremendous relief to the British. Conversely, the failure of the Blitzkrieg demoralized the Fins and other German allies. And so forth" It was in front of Moscow, in December 1941, that the tide turned, because it was there that the Blitzkrieg failed and that Nazi Germany was consequently forced to fight, without sufficient resources, the kind of long, drawn-out war that Hitler and his generals knew they could not possibly win." (http://www.globalresearch.ca...) According to General Alfred Jodl, Chief of the Operations Staff of the OKW, Hitler then realized that he could no longer win the war.(Andreas Hillgruber (ed.), Der Zweite Weltkrieg 1939"1945: Kriegsziele und Strategie der Grossen M"chte, fifth edition, Stuttgart, 1989, p. 81.) And so it can be argued that the tide of World War II turned on December 5, 1941. There are many more instances such as the one above when Germany realized there was no hope against Russia. The victory at the Battle of Moscow ensured that Germany would have to fight a prolonged war, something that they would be not to handle, which is why they adopted the strategy of the blitzkrieg in the first place. Germany was doomed once Russia was able to halt the German advance, the only thing Hitler thought could save him was if Japan would have opened up a second front of their own, but Japan at this time had the US and Chinese to worry about.
The Battle of Stalingrad was more important than any other battle that took place during WWII.

The Battle of Moscow was of the most important battle of WWII (and also the largest battle in history) and yes, it is rarely mentioned. However, this battle did not destroy the German war machine the way that the battle of Stalingrad did. During the Battle of Moscow the Soviets lost ~1 million men. The Germans suffered less than 400,000 casualties and thousands of these men died as a result of the Russian winter. Although Moscow was saved, the Germans were still winning the war. The Battle of Stalingrad was the most decisive because during this battle Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties. This was the largest defeat for Germany and changed the entire coarse of the war. Had Germany won the battle and captured the valuable oil fields of the Caucuses they could threaten the entire British Empire: from the Caucuses the Germans could strike at the British oil-fields in the middle-east, India, and Egypt. Had Germany won this battle the Soviet Union would have been defeated since 80% of all Soviet oil came from this region. In addition, Stalin was ready to sacrifice whatever men he had left in order to defend Stalingrad and this would be the chance Hitler needed in order to finally destroy the Soviet armies.