BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Chainsaw is the worst weapon to use in a zombie apocalypse.

I will not make any more arguments, but simply correct a misunderstanding by my opponent. I will then provide a summary of the arguments. "But recovering the blade in a horde would be nigh impossible, and a forceful yank could throw one off balance. " It was said that to remove, you go sideways, not straight out. After the cord is severed, you go sideways to face the next zombie that is not likely coming straight behind the previous. In summary. My opponent states that a 10+ lb item (a little more that a gallon of milk) is going to slow you down, but never provides any logically reasoning for why this would cause any kind of significant loss of speed or agility that would actually effect the outcome of any battle. They also have stated that the knife will go through bone, but have not provided any evidence that the knife would not break in the process. My opponent has also claimed that the virus can infect you through splattering blood while never offering any evidence for this ever happening in zombie historic documents (movies) despite many of them using chainsaws and other weapons that splatter blood and fluids. My opponent then argues that without me posting the video of beheading, we must conclude that the chainsaw is likely to malfunction. However, despite not posting the video, I did post statistics on the injuries and amputations caused by chainsaw accidents, which clearly show that it can go through flesh. All in all, we can see that chainsaws are heavier, but not in any significant way (remember, only 10+ lbs as my opponent said). They have a greater range than the knife (my opponent agreed in the last round). They have shown to be able to actually cut through bone, while the knife is speculation based on a theoretical decomposition of the bone. We can then go back and compare these against the single and the horde to see which weapon is truly the worse weapon. Thank you,
A Chainsaw is the worst weapon to use in a zombie apocalypse.

My round will be fairly quick because of situations of which I will not make excuses for. I will break my round into three parts. First, talking about the chainsaw. Second, about the pocket knife. Finally, about the cat on a stick and tug toner. 1) The Chainsaw of beheading! !! My opponent suggests that because chainsaws are not designed for human bodies and that the soft tissue will "more than likely going to cause severe damage to the tool. " Now, thanks to the drug war in Mexico, there are videos online of using this particular tool to decapitate someone. However, I have decided not to post any link to that. Instead it is easy to show what happens when chainsaws meat flesh by seeing the damage to limbs. Amputations are not a rarity when it comes chainsaw accidents. In fact, chainsaws cause wounds so horrible, the average wound takes over 100 stitches (when stitches are even an option), and that's not extreme cases, that's the average [1]. While the chainsaw is heavy and bulky to use, we are talking about slow moving, stumbling zombies that don't know how to get out of the way. The speed of the weapon becomes little consequence. The main advantage is the range. The blade of the saw allow it to cause damage to a good distance, much better than a pocket knife. Another thing to consider is that through all the movies, with all the fires, chainsaws, shotguns blowing bits everywhere, no one gets infected from inhaling the blood in the air, not having it fall on any of their cuts. This implies that the virus has no airborne life span. It must be direct injection. 2) The pocketknife of Damn-I-have-to-be-close-to-use-this! This knife has an amazing blade of 3 3/8" made of the finest mid-quality china steel. Now, the steel on this knife is not strong enough to cut through bone, so the severing of the spinal cord must be done by prying the blade between the vertebrae to severe the cord. In order to do this, you must be right up to the zombie and reach behind him to the back of his neck. This places his mouth right up to you to spread his disease. Of course, an imperfect strike can cause the knife to hit bone, causing a high risk of chipping. Now, zombies have decaying bodies, so it is safe to say that their bodies are going to be softer and weaker than outs, but the knife can easily chip on wood, while a chainsaw, not so much. If it chips on wood, it is defective (and we are assuming both weapons are in standard operating condition). 3) Cat on a stick and Tug Toner of WTF? ! While the cat on a stick would claw the crap out of the zombie, it would not be able to defeat the zombie on its own. So you'd quickly end up with a zombie-cat on a stick, and they are too slow for their scratching to do a lot. Now left with the tug toner, all you can really do is pretend to masturbate while dying. I'm also fairly sure that no matter what kind of person you are and what religious views you have, dying in this manner will send you straight to Limbo (not even hell would accept that death). [1] . http://www.elvex.com...
A Chainsaw is the worst weapon to use in a zombie apocalypse.

I will be presenting two lines of arguments. First, a serious argument that is actually intended for this debate, and a second which is for nothing except comical entertainment (all zombie debates need this second argument, because if you can't laugh at a zombie, what can you laugh at? ). Voting should not take anything from the later parts into consideration. I will not present arguments here; however, I will announce what my true "worst weapon" and my comical "worst weapon" will be. 1) It is hard to find the right weapon for this. Of course, by trying to pick the worst, I want to be unreasonably stupid. But of course, I need to be logical (though my comical will not be logical at all, which is why it should not be considered with voting), so I've decided to take the consideration of a zombie breaking into my place right now while I'm sitting here typing this ou. .. AAAHHHH! !! .. .. Ummfdhgf. .. .bbbrraaaaaaaiiiiinnnsssss. .. . Anyway, a zombie breaking in and I look around to see what I can defend myself with. I look around to see what I can defend myself with, knowing that I only have seconds to make up my mind. Not seeing anything right off the bat, I naturally turn to my defense of choice had this been a home invader. My Kershaw 1920 Select Fire [1]. This is reasonable because it is what I would use for defense against a person and in such a case as a zombie break in, it is reasonable to think I acted on autopilot. 2) For this one, I will assume two things. First, that the zombies attacked my neighbors first and I heard it, so I had some time to process what was going on and get ready. Second, that I was drunk off my arse at the time. Hearing the screams in the other room and knowing instantly, "must be a zombie attack," with no questions asked, and of course not helping her (she never picks up her dog poop, bitch deserves it). Knowing I have a few minutes, I quickly craft one of these [2] and grab one of my three of these [3][4] and prepare for the awesome glory that will undoubtedly follow. [1] . http://www.knifecenter.com... [2] . http://birdgei.files.wordpress.com... [3] . http://guycodeblog.mtv.com... [4] see video . http://www.youtube.com...
A Chainsaw is the worst weapon to use in a zombie apocalypse.

Round two will be opening arguments. Your job, as con, is to provide me with a weapon (A means for defending yourself), that is worse than a chainsaw against both a single zombie, and a horde of zombies. Round three is going to be rebuttals, round four is going to be closing arguments. The rules are as follows: If you choose a ranged weapon, it is implied you have ammunition/fuel for it. If it's a power tool, I will argue both sides (It being turned off, and it being turned on) No lawyering, trolling, or semantics. The weapon MUST be a logical choice, either in a panic (Quickly grabbing something), or a tool that is clearly able to kill. For example, no one would take a small marble as a weapon LOGICALLY, especially given the range of choices above that. I thank any potential opponent in advance, and hope to have an enjoyable debate!
Hitler was a British agent

I will provide Links to my Claims. My Claims are Historical True, However the only problem has been not providing links to the Evidence. I didn't post your replies in attempt to limit the Character limit, But however did it to respond to each claim. Anyways Evidence Hitler was in fact a Jew (Which we both Agree on, So No need of Evidence). He was funded before and during the war by many Coporations including Ford http://www.washingtonpost.com... https://www.globalresearch.ca... Evidence that Hitler was in Vienna during the Supposed claims of Hitler being a "British Agent" https://worldhistoryproject.org... Evidence of Hitler's affiliation with the Holocaust https://www.ushmm.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... As to the Claim he fled to Argentina https://skeptoid.com... "If I call up the FBI and tell them I just saw Barney the Purple Dinosaur crooning outside the White House with a ukulele, that report is going to be filed away somewhere. And if, years later, some Barney conspiracy theorist rolls a Freedom of Information Act request on it, that report is going to be a matter of public record. You would see exactly the same articles on the conspiracy theory websites as we have with the Hitler story: FBI Documents Prove Barney Serenaded the US President. It doesn't mean there's any truth to it; it only means someone reported it. Just like they still report Elvis sightings " and there are 663 pages in there about Elvis. Frankly, I'm surprised there are only 742 pages of crazy Hitler reports?" The Claim that the FBI said he fled to Argentina is false, As seen here Debunking it https://www.snopes.com... Evidence Concludes that Hitler died in Berlin during the end of the World War, It is in fact concluded that Hitler's remains were compared to relatives thus matching DNA Evidence. Even a Former Body Guard describes Hitlers last moments http://www.independent.co.uk... So Finally, It concludes that Hitler Died in Berlin, He wasn't the British spy. Thus finally Concluding that it wasn't an all Elaborate plot to make the Jews flee Europe to go to Established a Jewish state of Israel. The Concept of Israel has existed for Thousands of Years with huge tentions https://en.wikipedia.org...
Hitler was a British agent

Hitler according to mainstream history was an an anti-semite of the worst kind and it's for that reason that he went hunting for Jews across Europe. But there's big holes in that theory. If he wanted to kill the Jews we know that lead is cheaper than food. Why maintaining them for so long if ultimately he was to kill them? Other questions were never answered by mainstream history. Why didn't Hitler block the Mediterranean sea when he had the chance. Why didn't he attack the British troop at Dunkirk when they were against the ropes? The Balfour declaration was signed in 1917. The Zionist dream (prophecy) of a Jewish state was fulfilled but how to convince Jews to leave the comfort of Europe to settele in the desert? What better way than using a war to displace them. The claim actually came from Hitler's sister.... She pretended that Hitler was trained by the British in 1912 when he was living with his brother in Liverpool. Hitler is, according to Himmler's assistant and the US officer who did Hitler's psychological profile during WWII, Salomon Mayer Rothschild's illegitimate grand son. If true this would mean that Hitler was in fact a Jew himself.
Should Children be Religious At a Young Ago: Pro (Yes) Con (No)

I'm not exactly sure how we are in agreement. You are CON, which means your argument is that children should NOT be religious at a young age. I am PRO, maintaining that children SHOULD be religious if their parents or guardians provide a religious background for them. The title was confusing but I don't see how it was so confusing that we fell on the same side. Your thoughts?
Should Children be Religious At a Young Ago: Pro (Yes) Con (No)

I will not argue that children should be made to be religious but rather that it is allowed that they believe in a specific religion from a young age. The difference is that I contend that it is also allowed for children not be made to believe in a specific religion if their parents or guardians are not religious. My interpretation of the CON argument is that CON maintains that NO children should be made to believe in a specific religious from a young age, regardless of the religious believes of the parents or guardians. Thanks and good luck.
The Governor is not dead

The Governor from the popular tv show "The Walking Dead" is not really dead. Her are some arguments to prove my point and some to argue against the idea that he definitely died.1. His new girlfriend is shown holding a gun, but they do not show her shooting the governor himself. It may be possible that she just ended up shooting a walker nearby. Or perhaps she just shot the ground near him because she could not muster the courage to kill her lover. Please note that the governor's new girlfriend (I think her name is Lilly?) is an experienced nurse. 2. Earlier in the episode a character talks about an "exit wound". When his friends spot the wound he says that this is a good thing. Perhaps Michonne's sword missed the governors vital organs completely and did not cause much internal damage.3. The governor is a very important character in the show. It is hard to believe that they would just allow such a good character to die so early in the show. Merle Dixon was also once shown to be stuck to a pipe with a handcuff but he survived and came back for a few more episodes. This boosted the show's ratings. I think a similar comeback from the governor would be too great of an opportunity to pass over.4. The fact that Michonne just walks away without finishing the govrnor off (I know that sounds sexual) is a classical mistake that many writers have had their characters make. If you do not finish off the bad guy comprehensively, he WILL come back. It's a rule.5. Basically, I am just mad because this is the only that ever happened in a tv show that I didn't see coming (I might be exaggerating here). I totally saw Herschelle's head slicing coming.
The Governor is not dead

********************WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW***********************8888 I researched this Negan character and I have to say you have convinced me that I am probably wrong in suggesting the governor is not dead. I actually didn't know the governor dies before the 100th issue in the comics. I thought his character lasts longer. I now think that it was the right time to kill off the governor and make way for the eventual unveiling of the Negan character. I am excited to see who it will be. In short, I am conceding. I will say though that you are wrong about the character who killed the governor in the tv show. Lilly is in fact the governor's love interest (the kissed and slept together a few times on the show). Lilly's sister is the one who is in love with the female from the governor's new group. Lilly (the character who brings her dead daughter to the governor) is the character who kills the governor in the show. Thanks for the information. I can't wait until February.
The Governor is not dead

****SPOILER ALERT********SPOILER ALERT************ The Pro side should of warned voters of the possibility of spoilers. But on the contrary to my opponent, I believe the governor is 110%. I have read the series of the Walking Dead. There are some differences but there are many similarities. "His new girlfriend is shown holding a gun, but they do not show her shooting the governor himself" 1. In the comic book of the Walking Dead, it is Lily who kills him actually. On the Talking Dead, Robert Kirkman said he had changed his mind about who was going to impair and kill the Governor. That is why he had Michonne impale him with the katana rather than have Lilly kill him. Lilly is not the Governor's girlfriend either. In fact, Lilly is a bisexual in the tv series because she has started developing a relationship with another female in the Governor's group. Remember, Lilly was not engaging in the firefight between the Governor's group and Rick's people. In fact, Lilly was hiding behind a vehicle. She was sympathetic to the negotiation that Rick wanted with the Governor. The Governor didn't want it so he executed Hershel. So why wouldn't Lilly kill the Governor after he caused so much trouble? http://walkingdead.wikia.com... "The governor is a very important character in the show. It is hard to believe that they would just allow such a good character to die so early in the show." 2. It would be great of the Governor could return but he is powerless and his group was eradicated at the prison. The prison and many of the prison saga characters are forgotten entirely after the fall of the prison in the comic book. There are more important villains than the Governor. The Governor has to die in order for these new villains to come into play. Plus how would the Governor have survived after being impaled in the left breast and shot. The Governor would have to escape the zombies that are all over the prison. "The fact that Michonne just walks away without finishing the govrnor off (I know that sounds sexual) is a classical mistake that many writers have had their characters make. If you do not finish off the bad guy comprehensively, he WILL come back. It's a rule." 3. No, he is dead. Lilly put a bullet in him. Robert Kirkman confirmed his death on the Talking Dead. "Basically, I am just mad because this is the only that ever happened in a tv show that I didn't see coming (I might be exaggerating here). I totally saw Herschelle's head slicing coming." 4. If you thought the Governor was a shocker. Wait till you see the character, Negan.
no home work

(and I don't see why it is relevant to this debate round but I just graduated this last May) I stand in negation of this topic for the fallowing three reasons: I. What the Pro considers suffering compared to what real suffering is II. Not everything can be taught in the classroom III. Homework teaches time management skills I offer the fallowing definition: Suffer: to endure death, pain, or distress (Marriam Webster online) Distress: a state of danger or desperate need (Marriam Webster online) I. Pro's definition of suffering vs. actual suffering The pro would have you believe that teachers give homework for one purpose to make students suffer (to endure death, pain, or distress). I think that saying students are suffering because of homework is pretty extreme. If you were to ask me, the people living on the streets, eating garbage, and begging for food and money, and who failed out of school because they never did homework assigned to them, are suffering. In four years of high school homework has never caused me to endure death, pain, or distress. Homework is a small price to pay to avoid ending up on the streets suffering. II. Not everything can be taught in the classroom You know the old saying "practice makes perfect. " Just like anything else, if you want to succeed in academics then you have to practice. How this practice comes about changes with different cultures and different areas. For example, in Japan students go to school for much longer than public schools keep students here in the States, so that students can get the practice they need while they are in school. We just do it different here by allowing students the time to study and practice on their own through homework. Homework is beneficial because it simulates real life situations and creates responsibility. Which brings me to my last point. III. Homework teaches time management skills. Throughout life you have to balance your time according to your wants with your needs. Its just like with money, you can't buy something you want until you have bought everything you need. For most people, an education is a need, so homework would fall in the need category. Just because you would rather play than do homework it does not make it unfair that you should have to do the homework, that's just not how life works. Homework does not make it impossible for students to do what they want. Plenty of people, including myself, have graduated from school and have found time to do other activities as well.
Telling a woman before you release your man seed when she is S'ing that D

Hi! So have you heard of respect and consent? If she don't wanna swallow, she don't wanna swallow. You ask her first and if she says no you don't go through. You can't bond a relationship if there is no communication or respect for the lady's wishes. If anything, if she doesn't want to, it would hurt the relationship more than it would bond it. It's like 5 words and a head nod/shake. Is it so hard for guys to do that? Also, women (or anybody for that matter) shouldn't be expected to do anything but pay taxes and die. Even if they're sealing the deal, it's not respectful and good to do that without asking her.
should marine life be kept in an aquarium

Not all of that is true. How often does an oil spill happen. I think that animals are happier in the ocean then in the aquarium. But humans eat fish, Its just a way of life. I know that you think its not good to eat the fish, (i cant stand to eat fish) but some other people like it. I live in new fairfield and every year they stock the pond with fish so we can go fishing. That's why they stock the pond. All fish should be left in the ocean and not in an aquarium.
should marine life be kept in an aquarium

but remember that humans kills most of the marine life in dams, rivers, seas. in the sea human catch fish and kill other marine life for other reasons. Where as it cant be killed by humans in the aquarium. in the rivers and the dams same thing happens accept slightly more happens like factories they let mercury and other chemicals that can kill the marine life in the rivers and dams and in the sea oil spills from ships happens and kill billions of marine life
should marine life be kept in an aquarium

No it is far from safe. They need the wide open space and not to feel cramped in a glass box. Sure its cool to look at but how do you think the animals feel. The Animals get eaten but thats why their are so many of them. The animals getting eaten is not a big deal. How many fish do YOU think are in the ocean. If i were to guess, I would say over 4.5 trillion fish in the sea. I looked that up online.
Ethics of Terraforming

I don't need it to negate the resolution. ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ /// I refute this, due to the fact that terraforming may one day save the human species (and maybe other terrestrial life forms) when the earth finally is destroyed in one of the many scenarios of its destruction. /// In this scenario it is not the terraforming that is the moral action. It is the saving of human life using terraforming as the vehicle. I will again use the example of me breaking a rock. If I break a rock there is no moral implication to my action. If I break a rock that is blocking a cave where a Boy Scout Troop is trapped them it is not the breaking of the rock that is the moral action, it is the saving of life that is the moral action. This is because my opponent is advocating an aspect of absolute morality by stating that terraforming is a moral/ethical action. Therefore he has to show that in all circumstances it is of positive moral implications to terraform. This is true of the terraforming because it is not necessary to terraform only in times of need. The resolution does not state any qualifiers, only that the simple act of terraforming is ethical. It is not. The resolution is negated, I await my opponent's response.