BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Zombies would triumph over vampires in the apocalypse

Thank you for your arguments. Please use sources only once. 1) I think that 30 Mile per hour was a reasonable speed for vampires because the fastest recorded speed on foot is by the cheetah which can run up to 70 miles an hour for short periods of time. Cheetahs run on four legs whereas humanoids e.g. humans and vampires run on two legs. I think that because they are bipedal they should only be able to run half as fast as the quickest quadruped. http://science.howstuffworks.com... It is certainly not "stupidly slow" 2) What I mean by "Top speed: Depends on the level of decay of the zombie" is that some zombies may have been harmed in the past or some of them might have a rotted leg or arm. 3) Vampires if they were to set up stations would have to deal with the problem of zombie hordes. If one of the guards where to fire their shotgun (which you said they had) zombies would be attracted to the sound. Zombies would instinctually follow other zombies and soon you could face hordes like the ones depicted in this trailer http://www.hulu.com... (because you made a reference from the TV show supernatural I think this is an acceptable reference) 4) If vampires where to try and make a gas that dissolved the undead it would also affect them because they are also undead. Plus if they even managed to create the chemical how would they disperse it. 5) Yes humans would be able to evade zombies to a certain extent however the human would have to deal with not having the strength speed and senses that a vampire has. 6) These cattle farms would take time to construct and even more time to collect the humans. In that time the vampires could starve, the human race could die out or the vampires could be killed by zombies. Please construct rebuttals for my other arguments. I never insinuated that there where no humans so why did you keep repeating "Nowhere in round one did you say no humans were left on Earth at the beginning of the fight"? Thank you
Zombies would triumph over vampires in the apocalypse

Firstly you never ever said this was a world without humans. Since vampires are far superior in cognitive function to zombies they'd realise they needed humans to survive and probably rear them in secret hideouts (like cattle) and force them to reproduce, distributing the blood in a clinical manner (perhaps previous nurses or doctors turned into vampires combined with medical engineers would be able to continue medical procedure to keep all humans alive for as long as possible). Nowhere in your round one resolution did you state there were no humans available anymore. Thus I would like to offer this very likely possibility as the reality, probably several human 'farms' would be set up worldwide, with very strong and fast vampires as the security guards (shot guns at the ready) and considering one vampire can hold 1000 pounds with ease (you stated this in round one) they'd be able to carry huge amounts of ammunition back and forth to the shooters. Additionally, vampires have heightened senses and could aim very far using their hyper-sensitive eyes as well as hear a rampage from any 360 degree angle using super hearing (http://www.supernaturalwiki.com...). You offer a stupidly slow speed of 30 MPH for vampires' maximum but even this is far faster than any zombie at all (I don't understand this 'decay to speed proportionality concept, how can a zombie decay more than the zombie stage?).Now using the human cattle farm theory let's observe the lifespan you specified. Vampires live forever until no blood is available. Zombies live 10 years maximum unless frozen (the vampires would probably realise this very soon since they keep human intelligence and are not stupid like zombies). If you have a group of human scientists who all are now vampires analysing a zombie's DNA they'd realise a possible chemical weakness or 'bane' such as a certain gas which may dissolve the zombie or something. The use of teamwork and intellect of 1 million vampires would do the trick.Considering humans themselves are very intelligent, they'd easily evade and hide from zombies but vampires have unbeatable smell of all supernatural creatures (apart from werewolves, who hold first place http://www.supernaturalwiki.com...) and using smell they'd spot a hiding human far faster and more efficiently than a zombie as well as being able to work out how to get into the hideout better (a zombie only knows to scratch and smash at the surface of the door or whatever, a vampire could mentally process a lock or something and could use superhuman strength to destroy the lock).Now all the vampires have to do is survive 10 years, whilst preventing any human from getting into the hands of zombies and voila, they survive.I repeat: Nowhere in round one did you say no humans were left on Earth at the beginning of the fight.
Zombies would triumph over vampires in the apocalypse

Thank you for accepting RationalMadman. 1) First off a zombie would have a non functioning digestive track. The zombie would only eat their victims by mistake as a zombie's only drive is to bite all humanoid creatures that aren't already infected to spread the virus. The zombies only try to get flesh to their mouths and they swallow the meat accidentally. A Vampire on the other hand is still undead but it can digest. It requires human blood to keep itself alive or at least to keep its enhanced abilities and senses. 2) The main problem with vampires is that they would have to kill 7000 zombies in their lifetime to do their part. A zombie on the other hand would only need to wound a vampire to do its part 3) As Members of the undead zombies and vampires cannot heal. But for a zombie it would not need to heal as their would be billions of you. While if a vampire looses an arm it's odds of survival go down. 4) Blood would play an important role in this situation. MAny vampires would die after the first month because of their inability to find humans. And many more would continue to die as the human population gets decimated by both zombies and vampires. This would also affect the vampires ability to work in teams as their would be fights amongst team members over who gets drink from a human. 5) During the day a vampire would need to stay indoors because of the effect sunlight has on them. This could give zombies time to surround his/her location if the zombies know where they hid. 6) Fear would play an important role. the part of the brain that proceses fear would be inactive like other parts of its brain. The vampire can still feel fear. No matter how brave a vampire is it can still be frightened by 7000 corpses trying to kill them. Fear can lead to irrational decisions and in the apocalypse they can lead to death. I await you response. Thank you.
Zombies would triumph over vampires in the apocalypse

Thank you to whoever accepts. Round 1 acceptance Rounds 2-4 Debate Round 5 Final arguments and congratulations on the arguments. Triumph Noun A great victory or achievement. This takes place during a zombie apocalypse. I will be arguing that zombies would triumph over vampires in the apocalypse Vampire specs Top speed: 30 MPH. strength: Can lift up to 1000 pounds. Can be killed by: Dehydration (Blood), bleeding out, destruction of the heart or brain and sunlight. Lifespan: forever until killed or until dehydration sets in one month after the last time feeding. Quantity: 1,000,000 Zombie specs Top speed: Depends on the level of decay of the zombie. Strength: Up to 400% stronger than it's original human depending on the level of decay (Humans only use 20% of their muscle capacity). Can be killed by: Destruction of the brain, being burned or decaying completely. Lifespan: 10 year unless frozen then thawed or if the zombie was embalmed after it died but before it reanimated. Quantity: 7,000,000,000 Humans (For vampires to feed on) Quantity: 100,000 Thank you
Zombies would triumph over vampires in the apocalypse

Thank you for this debate 1) Vampires are not the glorious beings that you make them out to be. They are Soulless monsters driven by their thirst for blood. They have a mouthful of shark like teeth and pitch black eyes. They are only intelligent when they are well fed. When they are hungry their lesser instincts take over. 2) Retarded is not a word that can be used to describe zombies. The zombie virus is one that has one of the most ingenious ways of spreading. It started a pandemic in this scenario that killed all but 1100000 people and vampires. 3) I already made arguments that they couldn't make human farms "easily". 4) I told you that is would be impossible for the vampires to make laboratories to create anti zombie chemicals. Like I said even if they did they couldn't spread it. 5) I would have come up with better final rebuttals but your last sentence was hard for me to read. It was filled with grammatical errors, not to mention it was a run on sentence. Undisputed: Not disputed or called into questions; accepted I have disputed your argument therefore it in disputed that they will win It is my opinion that zombies will win. I would like to thank you for this debate. You had very good arguments toward the beginning. And I loved your reference to doctor Who. You where great to debate with. Thank you -Maxprimo
private school is better than public school

I agree with you on the point: The most serious things to consider about choosing your child"s school is the teaching staff, the facilities, and the class sizes. All of these things contribute to your child"s level of educational success so should be looked at carefully. Part. 1, Smaller class sizes. I will not contend the fact that private schools have smaller class sizes. This is due to the simple reason that fewer people are willing to pay a substantial amount of money to attend a private institution. If everyone wished to pay a large tuition, then private schools would have a larger class size and face the same issues as public schools. According to the Huffington post, the percentage of students attending private schools in America is 10% and declining (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). If private schooling was truly better than public schooling, then why isn't everyone making that choice? The obvious answer is money, and that the families cannot afford it. In that case, in what way is choosing to attend private school a better option than public school? I have shown that even if you prove that private schools are inherently better than public schools worldwide, which by itself is a preposterous general claim, it is still not the better choice for the majority of Americans. You mention again the smaller population attending private schools. I am getting more and more lost by the scale you are arguing. You say that "Generally, a private school will have less than 500 students at one time." But this fact is completely not true. Are you referring to colleges? Are you referring to K12 private schools? Just like any other type of schooling there are bigger schools that have students in the thousands, and then there are smaller schools. Private colleges have signifincantly more than 500 students. You also mention that a smaller population allows your children allows your children to shine. Your child should shine because he is of good quality, not because there are fewer people around to compare him with. Sheltering children from the larger world does not prepare him to "face the challenges life has in store of them." If anything, it leads to a false sense of entitlement.------------------Just as I was about to go on and continue, I realized that I am not debating with an actual human being, but a plagiarist. You just directly copied your arguments from this website: http://privateschool.about.com...You didn't even read what I wrote nor attempted to respond. This is a violation of even the most basic courtesy in debate. I'm sorry for having been fooled.
private school is better than public school

Like you, I have had my own experiences of both private and public schools. However, it would be wrong of me to conclude in general, that private schools are better than public schools based off my personal experiences of only a few schools. Much of your argument is from your "personal experiences," which is insufficient justification for such a audacious claim. For example you claim that: "My experience is the exact opposite and I have yet to see a private school where the top students out preformed the top students at a comparable public school." Yet in the state of Florida, public schools consistently outperform private schools in state and nationwide math tournaments (Mu Alpha Theta). How do I know? Personal experience of course. From my personal experience, can I conclude that public schools are therefore better at math? No. However, it shows the absurdity of trying to argue such a broad statement with personal experience. Although you haven't provided any evidence for these claims, you have listed the following in support of your argument. Private schools have: 1) Smaller class sizes. 2) Better books and supplies. 3) More access to up-to-date computers. 4) More religious affiliation. 5) Better Teachers 6) Less exposure to unacceptable lifestyles. 7) Higher level learning 8) Fewer school days off. You believe that in these ways private schools are "better" than public schools. Who would not want better books, better supplies, and better teachers? Your argument for private schools disregards the financial needs of each individual family. With the US median family income hovering around 50K/Year, very few can afford to send even a single child to a private school. In this way, it would be financial suicide for a lower income family to send their children to private schools. Therefore, for the majority of American families, private schooling would not be the 'better" option.
free contraception for teens in schools

Sir, this is the ISSUE WITH THE ENTIRE THING IF YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND MY POINT THEN SORRY?!People are paying and manufacturing contraceptives just to give to teens for absolutely free?! One could take them all for themselves and then just throw all of them in the bin for fun?! Don't you see the issue with giving them out for free? This is the issue I have been highlighting the entire debate!!!!!!!!!
free contraception for teens in schools

1.Up to $25 million for research and demonstration programs under the new Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPP) 2.$10 million to implement and test innovative strategies through The Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP). these are two government grants from the (tpp) they have been helping fund schools for free contraception for quit a substantial time now. http://www.choosingthebest.org... if you wish to also look into these grants and cash amount wise per state then look into this url: http://www.hhs.gov...
free contraception for teens in schools

http://www.guttmacher.org... this website has all of my statistics I know of including the 33% Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health: "Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sex in their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and male teens have had intercourse.[1] "On average, young people have sex for the first time at about age 17,[2,3] but they do not marry until their mid-20s.[4] This means that young adults may be at increased risk for unintended pregnancy and STIs for nearly a decade or longer. "Teens are waiting longer to have sex than they did in the recent past. In 2006"2008, some 11% of never-married females aged 15"19 and 14% of never-married males that age had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995.[1] "However, after declining substantially between 1995 and 2002, the proportion of teens who had ever had sex did not change significantly from 2002 to 2006"2008.[1] "In 2006"2010, the most common reason that sexually inexperienced teens gave for not having had sex was that it was "against religion or morals" (38% among females and 31% among males). The second and third most common reasons for females were "don"t want to get pregnant" and "haven"t found the right person yet."[5] "Among sexually experienced teens, 70% of females and 56% of males report that their first sexual experience was with a steady partner, while 16% of females and 28% of males report first having sex with someone they had just met or who was just a friend.[5] "Seven percent of young women aged 18"24 who had had sex before age 20 report that their first sexual experience was non voluntary. Those whose first partner was three or more years their senior were more likely to report this than were other women in the same age-group.[1] "Teens in the United States and Europe have similar levels of sexual activity. However, European teens are more likely than U.S. teens to use contraceptives generally and to use the most effective methods; they therefore have substantially lower pregnancy rates.[6] "Three percent of males and 8% of females aged 18"19 in 2002 reported their sexual orientation as homosexual or bisexual; the proportions reporting same-sex behaviors were similar.[7] "The use of contraceptives during first premarital sex has been increasing, rising from 56% among women whose first premarital sex occurred before 1985, to 76% among those who first had sex in 2000"2004, to 84% among those whose first sex occurred in 2005"2008. "A woman who is sexually active and not using contraception has an 85% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.[9] "The majority of sexually experienced teens (78% of females and 85% of males) used contraceptives the first time they had sex.[5]
free contraception for teens in schools

first I will say that I believe that there should be free condoms or birth control available to those only 16 and older in high school without parental consent. the reason being is simply that in our U.S. society today 33% of the kids in schools ages 15 to 18 are having sex. with that said I will also point out that is a regional study from many schools across the U.S.. we cannot stop it so why not ensure the kids are having safe sex rather than unprotected sex. this debate is not for or against abortion thank you and I will greatly accept and respect all facts and opinions I receive.
Super Delegates

In my rebuttal, I will point out that in simple math, Hillary is still winning, what simple math actually is, and reiterate how the parties are not the government. So, first of all, if we look at the "simple math", as you put it, Hillary is still winning. By a lot. Not an insurmountable amount, but by 289. So simple math has Hillary ahead. But what do you mean by "simple math"? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that super delegates don't have a vote. They don't just disappear. Now, you may not appreciate it, but super delegates serve a role in the nomination process. They are the elected leaders of the Democratic Party, and they have an interest in getting the best person nominated and then elected. The elected leaders are not officially beholden to the will of the voters. You may note that almost every nomination they have backed the person nominated by the party base, but the Republicans have a story to tell about this. The party base has most likely nominated Donald Trump. Now, many party officials have noted that Trump will be death in their home states. Others disagree, but we aren't here to talk about the viability of Donald Trump. Now, if Trump is on the ticket, a senator may reason that he won't win re-election. So, according to the definition of a political party, they would be failing at their job. Now, there is also the pull to attract new voters to the party, and keep the old voters. So, of course if the Republican Party snubbed all of those voters they would lose them. That is why the party officials normally back someone that the party elected. But they don't have to. Their main goal is to get people elected, and advance an agenda. What part of that is violated by the existence of super delegates? Concerning your last paragraph, in what way does the government play a large part in the nomination of party officials? How is the 14th amendment relevant at all? The Democratic Party is not the government. There is no part of the constitution that regulates or prohibits the existence of super delegates in a political party. If this happened in the actually election, we would have different issues. But this isn't about an election for president. This is about nominating someone to battle for the presidency. The government has nothing to do with it.
Super Delegates

Here are my opening statements.Superdelegate - (in the Democratic Party) an unelected delegate who is free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party's national convention. [1]In the current 2016 election, Hillary Clinton seems to be beating Bernie Sanders by quite a lot with 2,224 delegates compared to 1,451 delegates. [2] (This is information as of right now, May 7, 2016) This is including super delegates. Clinton has total of 523 superdelegates while Sanders has only 39. Simple math shows that without the superdelegates Clinton and Sanders would be at an equal playing field with 1701 and 1412 delegates respectively. Let's look at section two of the 14th amendment."Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state." [3]Superdelegates are unconstitutional, as they sway the vote drastically. The government plays a large part in deciding who becomes the Democratic candidate on the ballot during the election and possibly our president. This isn't how it should be. The president, by definition, popularly elected by the people. [4]Thank you. I look forward to your response.Citations [1]https://www.google.com...[2]http://www.bloomberg.com...[3]https://www.law.cornell.edu...[4]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...