BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans would survive the typical ( slow zombie ) zombie apocalypse.

Alright, seeing as this is the last round, I didn't see a point for my opponent to continue to remind us of why humans would survive the zombie apocalypse. However, rather then repeating all of my rebuttals, I will simply just dig into his closing part. "I urge you to stand with your species and it's ability to live on. We are strong, smart and a force to be reckoned with. Zombies are slow, dumb, physically fragile, and purely instinctive creatures. Their only advantage is that you have to hit them in the head to kill them. We beat them any day of the week. There would be survivors and those survivors would rebuild. " >>No, humans are the cause of many problems around the world. Every war, every crime, and every nuclear weapon has been caused or made by the human race. I urge everyone to realize this. By definition, an apocalypse isn't one zombie that can essentially easily get it's butt kicked. We here are talking about hundreds of millions or even a billion zombies, just so it fits in as an apocalypse. The war would be terrible, and if things such as nuclear weapons are used, imagine the impact on humanity, through radiation or some sort of volcanic winter. Imagine the chaos on the streets, as one by one humans are slaughtered by zombies, and yes, fellow humans for food and water. The same stuff that is being poisoned. Imagine 5 years later, when the heads of state have to come out of their shells, and that is IF they even got there. Imagine what will be waiting for them. The simple case is, humans will starve and there is no way that with the use of nuclear weapons, and other forms of heavy arms that we will survive as a species. Although we have always gotten through trouble, that would surely be the end of it all. Also, for the record typical zombies aren't killed with a bonk to the head. It takes guns, and in many countries that will be very hard to get. I would like to thank my opponent, however I think seeing he destroyed his own arguments by not using definitions correctly, Con should be the clear winner. Thanks you all.
Humans would survive the typical ( slow zombie ) zombie apocalypse.

I will continue to selectively destroy each argument, with respect. 1. Walls They simply won't work. How long do you expect to build walls, and what is the point if there are already zombies? Perhaps Woodbury style cities would work but eventually the would collapse, most likely by other survivors. 2. Like I previously said, who do you expect to control these? Currently, under the U.S constitution I don't think you can just have tanks rolling around the country. Also, wouldn't those soldiers be in the middle east or with their families? Getting to the bases would be a logistical nightmare, and they just couldn't do it. 3. Many small islands aren't self sustaining and need outside help, 'nuff said. Cuba will be flooded with refugees, and the military wouldn't be able to kill them all. Again, it takes only one idiot to cause a complete nightmare. 4. Again, these won't work. In a 'typical' apocalypse (definition: http://dictionary.reference.com...) there wouldn't be decompossure. Also, theres no scientific evidence that zombies would basically vanish. Also, again bunkers wouldn't be self sustaining for long, especially as more refugees get in. And someone with a bite WILL get in, because nobody will just allow hundreds of thousands of starving people to sit outside a safe zone. 5. CDC and WHO won't have a vaccine on time, simple as that. We can't even develop proper flu vaccines, or ebola vaccines, much less zombie ones. Also, in the typical apocalypse when someone dies they have the disease, and obviously by bite they will get it to someone else, otherwise how would the infection start in the first place? 6. 2 people left would cause... incest by their offspring and they would die, simple as that. And what makes you think they would be together? Or that they are man and woman? 7. I think in the event of a nuclear war, which would happen, the U.S would launch at Pyongyang and the floodgates would open. Anyone who survives would be killed by radiation. True, Beijing would be destroyed, and you also don't have proof that the North has nukes at this time. For my last part, I think that by definition of apocalypse, it isn't a good argument to say the zombies would be immediately killed as that wouldn't be an apocalypse. Police wouldn't even respond quickly, seeing that they would probably be helping the citizens who are panicking. I agree that the human survival instinct is great, but what about nukes, radiation, and disasters that come as a result of war? You haven't mentioned those. Also, the 2 people argument requires... incest eventually and the child would probably not even survive birth because there wouldn't be any medical equipment and the women would probably be incredibly unhealthy. And that is only if it is a man and a woman!
Humans would survive the typical ( slow zombie ) zombie apocalypse.

Good evening, and thank-you for the timely response. Sorry for my terribly slow response, unfortunately duty called on a debate outside this website. 1. War lords and the like are criminals. I think they would be out for themselves, and they wouldn't actually help organized governments in the fight. Also, we see time and time again that criminals are stupid, and I therefore believe they would actually make things worse, through games and other atrocities they might commit. 2. Britain is such a liberal country that I don't think it is possible for them to send out an armed SWAT on time, but I don't think that patient zero would be in England either. Besides, we are talking about an APOCALYPSE which according to dictionary.com is "any universal or widespread destruction or disaster:" (1) A country with little to no guns, or people trained with guns wouldn't survive. I think I will leave your points and go onto mine, while generalizing yours. People of Debate.org, It is simple. Humans wouldn't survive universal or widespread destruction. Granted, there may be few survivors such as the rich or heads of state, but is that really human survival? Would you consider 6 or 7 BILLION deaths to be victory? What about the aftermath, when people run out of food? What about radiation and nuclear winter? My opponent has made it quite clear that nuclear weapons would be used in an apocalypse, and I don't think for one second natural disasters wouldn't also happen as a result of those nukes. I think that the whole planet would be a wasteland at this point in time. Also, my opponent mentions terrorists. But would they not USE zombies against us? I think if the IRA makes a bomb out of nails, they or other terrorist groups would happily drop or secretly transport a bunch of zombies to any of the small and virtually desolate survival areas around the globe. And they are stupid, so they would probably end up getting infected by the zombies too! Simply put, the walking dead wouldn't happen. Paranoia, selfishness, and lack of weaponry (thanks politics) would sadly drive the world apart. But at least we know it can be prevented. Why? Because they don't exist, so the question in itself is actually pointless. I meant no offense in my statements. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Same sex marriage ahould be legal.

My opposition claims that God does not want same sex marriage. I claim that religion has no place in the law. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Antigay laws are based mostly on religion, and that is not acceptable in any society. I further want to rebut the opposition's claim that God does not want same sex marriage with 2 Samuel 1:I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
Same sex marriage ahould be legal.

Just jump right in. I believe that same sex marriage should be legal, and I will say why. 1. The antigay mindset is for the most part rooted in religion, and religion should not be part of politics. 2. People have the right to be happy if they are not hurting anyone. 3. It is wrong for the religious minority to force their beliefs on the majority. 4. There is nothing wrong with being gay or bisexual. I am bisexual and I am not hurting anyone. I thank my opposition in advance for debating me.
Total War is the best strategy series available for PC

I will be arguing pro, that total war is the best PC strategy series. Con must prove another series is better to win. Burden of proof shared equally (The word best is key. If neither side proves their game better, it should be a tie) 1st round acceptance only. I'm not in the mood for heavy mental lifting, so I'm making this two rounds of short debate, but I think we can still make good points.
Total War is the best strategy series available for PC

-C&C has one of the largest and most active fan bases in the world, which obviously represents good quality of their games [1]-C&C has sold the first edition alone 3 Million games on the PC, more than any of the Total War games [2] -Some of your points are unsupported, including awards - over half of the C&C universe was created BEFORE 2004-C&C has had superior graphics to many games during the period they were released-R.T.S is more popular than turn-based strategy [3]-I added up all of the average ratings for all of Total War series games, and they rank about ONLY 2% higher (about 86%) compared to C&C (84%) [4] [5]Conclusion:Both games are very popular. However, Total War has better reviews for a few games, while C&C is close behind. C&C has a stronger fan base, and this series shapes RTS as been shown. C&C also has many world records, also has had more sales by far on the PC market. Stronger sales and fan base and strong reviews = better game.
Total War is the best strategy series available for PC

To begin: C&C does not garner as good of reviews as total war. On IGN, both Empire and Rome TW rank higher than any C&C game. There are six TW games (ten including expansions) in IGN's top 75 strategy PC games, and one C&C. [1] C&C may be the "biggest selling RTS" but that is for multiple platforms, not just PC like TW, which is what the resolution refers to. Thus this point is irrelevant. Besides that, sales do not necessarily reflect quality. Transformers movies for example are horrible but rakes in hundreds of millions each. Of only seven games, less than half of the number of C&C's, 3 have won best strategy game awards, as well as been nominated for best overall game. Rome TW ranks 6 on the IGN top 100 PC games ever, the best C&C is 77 Also, TW is a better strategy franchise. Whereas the only strategy C&C offers is rts, TW has rts AND turn-based combining the best of both. TW also has 3 times as many Game of the years since 2004 TW has the best graphics available, C&C doesn't
Total War is the best strategy series available for PC

Both of our games get about 4-5 stars and similar ratings (mine are more flat though). However, here are some special notes for C&C: Over 30 million games sold as of 2009, one of the first Strategy games of all time Command & Conquer's long history resulted in Guinness World Records awarding the series 6 world records in the Guinness World Records. These records include "Biggest Selling RTS Series", "Most Number of Platforms for an RTS", etc. C&C RA 2, Generals, Tiberium III, and RA 3 received "best strategy game of the year" awards The franchise boasts one of the largest and most active fan communities in the world Has spawned over a dozen PC titles, and ranks in the top 5 best-selling PC franchises of all-time according to the NPD Group [1] [2] My games have better reviews overall. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://news.ea.com...
Total War is the best strategy series available for PC

Ok. I've not played command and conquer, but I've done research on it since your post. However I will not attack it until you've made your points. To start off, I'll mention the public popularity of the total war series. Shogun: 9.5 user review average on metacritic. On amazon.com, 87% of reviews are four or five stars. Medieval: 88 on metacritic, 8.9 on ign, and a 90/100 on Yahoo! Games Rome: 92 on metacritic, 9.4 on ign Medieval II: 88 on metacritic and 8.8 on ign Empire (my favorite): 90 on metacritic, 9.5 + editors' choice on ign Napoleon: 8.9 on ign Shogun II: 90 on metacritic, 9.0 + editors' choice on ign We can see that people love total war and for good reason. Total war games have amazing graphics. My 2008 computer can barely handle the second lowest setting. Moving to game play, total war offers a combination of the best real time battles and amazing turn based game play that is available. Not only is it turn based AND rts, but the two types meld perfectly in-game
The Nintendo Switch currently is a great Console/Handheld Device.

(Previous debate was forfeited by my opponent on round 1.) Alright, this will be more of a casual debate about the thoughts of the Nintendo Switch. I will argue that the Nintendo Switch so far is a fantastic console and a huge step for Nintendo. While the opposition will argue that the Nintendo Switch has a heavy amount of flaws that hinders the Nintendo Switch from being a good console despite its massive success. There will be a couple of ground rules:1. No trolling, excessive insulting, etc.2. No forfeiting of course.3. First round is for acceptance (Just to make things quick. After accepting this debate just say "I accept this debate" so we can get things moving). Also in the final paragraph of the final round there needs to be of course a simple summary of the argument towards why people would want to vote on our side and no new evidence for the final paragraph.4. Of course have fun! Don't get TOO worked up about this simple debate.5. By "Great" or "Good", it is meant that the Switch not only meets its primary goal very well. But its pros still outweighs its cons since the Switch's flaws are also inevitable. But CON will give reasoning towards how the Switch's flaws outweigh its pros.
The world's history is mostly pre-determined to happen the way it has happened.

Another Example. People say that creation of steel was an accident. And technical I'll admit it was an accident. In antiquity a person smelting Iron led a jar of carbon fall in it and created a super hard material. Steel remained to be produced in a small scale all over the world primarily for swords. But I contemplate that this "accident" was no accident. It was merely a matter of chance that when societies began to work with IRON and CARBON that one day in one location they would meet with each other. Humans solve problems. Case in point. Why do the adobe structures present in the Middle East , where found in the new world . Two societies that NEVER had contact developed the same solution to a common problem. The problem was the need to create shelter with limited tools. The solution? Adobe a compound made from mud that when hardened is really strong. Heres another example. The spear. It can often be overlooked by how is it possible that the speer has been found in a variety of societies that NEVER had contact with each other. The speer has been found in Early Bantu Africa and Eurasia, those societies have come into contact with each other so it can be argued that it defused. But also the Native Americans also had spears. If a person argues that the nomads that crossed the bearing straights had spears from asia then heres another case. Iron working was something that definitively was not around during the ice age when the bearing straight was crossable. Yet the Native Americans in modern day Dominican Republic were wearing gold earings, that they made becuase as time went on the society found out they were living next to a river were gold was present. Becuase they lived next to gold time advanced and they learned the technique of Metal working. The same Technique known by every society who has access to gold no matter if they are isolated or not.
Marijuana should be legalized

Now then, i feel we can agree on all point made that both Vicodin and marijuana both have their major drawbacks, and uses for the greater good. We both agree that they can be picked up from a drug dealer, which is a very dangerous act of doing due to the countless risks that come with obtaining anything from a drug dealer. Also i am all for giving doctors and researchers the opportunity to research medical uses for marijuana, however this does not mean we need to legalize the use of it just yet. Sure we run trials and such to see if the effects are lasting and what not. But this doesn't mean we have to legalize marijuana. It just means we should research into it. So again i resend my point on which i stand and i feel is the moral and ethical choice that must be voted upon by our peers. However i will explain it. Point A. The research of medical marijuana is fine and i am all for it but it does not mean it should be legalized, it can just be researched there is a difference between the two. Point B. Legalizing Medical Marijuana can open a Pandora's Box of sorts. For starters, access to the drug will become more prevalent in our society then it already is. Final Point. Plainly put there is not urgency in legalizing marijuana, even for medical uses. If anything we should merely research the effects it has on illnesses.
Marijuana should be legalized

Okay sorry now that i have carefully read it i see you have.....although i have just a few things to say about it. you say vicodin is different because the doctor cant give more refills but with marijuana they can just go down the street and pick some up....its the same with vicodin, many drug dealers sell vicodin on the street. So how is that any different then marijuana? all of your points with marijuana are valid but as i have stated before..this use of medical marijuana isnt going to be so people can just get it whenever they want it, smoke it where ever and whenever and then go drive their cars. It will be supervised under the supervison of doctors which would prevent from these things you speak of occuring. you claim marijuana is doublesworded....vicadian is just as doublesworded as well as any other pain medication..or any medication for that matter..so you dont have an argument there. If you give doctors, researchers and other people a chance to find a way to make it 100% maybe they could...but with ignorance preventing them from trying they could never do this. I would also like to point out that EVERY medicine has sideaffects and negative affects...many times the affects being worse then your actual problem. You say we cant legalize medical marijuana because of the negative affects...then how did every other drug become released? Our current drug issue has nothing to do with medical marijuana. Our current drug issue is an issue that will always be around and legalizing medical marijuana will not have an affect on it. Legalizing medical marijuana will simply be providing help through doctors to those who are ill and can prove it. Legalizing medical marijuana will not be having cancer patients or any others on the streets buying it. Further more for many young people who are using drugs half of it is the feeling of being rebillous and breaking the law, it gives them a sort of high in its own that they are being a rebel...legalizing it isnt going to make it become an epedemic or one it will take the part of being a rebel out of the situation and thus many younger people who are doing it for this reason will stop. also as i've stated before if people want to smoke it they will get it no matter what the means are. Having it legal or not will not change anything...they are going to get it when its legal and they are going to get it when its not legal!....... if you could provide proof that legalizing MEDICAL marijuana will provide an epedemic then maybe i could try to see your case but i cant see your case without proof that an epedemic will be caused. Strictly because medical marijuana will not be the same situation as buying marijuana off the corner from a drug dealer.
Marijuana should be legalized

Okay, for starters, for the sake of the debate, please don't use that text again, but now onto the fun stuff. No, i did mention the dangers of Vicodin slightly, as shown here "Not to say though that Vicodin comes with its own risks such as addiction, but when it is prescribed correctly a patient cannot necessarily become hooked on the drug since the doctors would spread it out over a time frame and usually not give any refills on the prescription. Causing the patient to limit the amount they take to the prescribed schedule and not just use it whenever, which is what would occur with marijuana since if they run out they would not necessarily have to go to a pharmacy to refill there prescription but would rather just go down the street or where ever it may be and pick up some more from your local "friendly" drug dealer." Now i also did point out there are other more serious dangers to marijuana then just munchies as shown here. "Now I say it is unhealthy because it has been proven that one marijuana cigarette has a tar count then 10 standard nicotine cigarettes," Also I'm not saying we shouldn't take it, i feel that without hard proof, or evidence that it will definitely do good for the actual illnesses and not just alleviate pain, or halt a few other portions of the illness but do all around good then there is not valid enough point to make it legal. Also legalizing it would not stop drug dealers, it would more or less increase their numbers since many more would have access to it, and would then be able to sell it for a profit for themselves but at a discount for those who buy it, since there would not be tax on it. You do make a valid point on the vaporizer / inhaler, now if it can made with the actual use of marijuana, i.e. in a lab then just the actual product be sold then it should be used, only if the person in need cannot cause harm to those around them when they do get the high of the marijuana, like when they are in the hospital. Now you may be saying what harm can they cause, there are a variety of doomsday scenarios that can play out if a person obtains this high without being supervised by those who are not on that high, this usually entails a car, or various other things. Not to mention the one thing that leads to this is one of the main side effects of marijuana which is the relaxed state one goes into where they tend to just want to sit there, maybe fall asleep, or not focus as much. And onto the part where you say we are currently looking into ways of getting the beneficial parts out of marijuana without the negative. You need to realize marijuana is a double bladed sword in a sense there is no pure beneficial without negative, there is always to parts to it, you cannot have one without the other, it is just not possible. So i restate my point of unless you can show me 100% undeniable proof that there is a way we can legalize marijuana and get just the pure benefits out of it without any of the negatives. Then Marijuana must remain illegal, so that our current drug issue does not explode into an epidemic.