BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humanity V. Zombies World Outbreak

As this debate is not to argue what a zombie is but if mankind could survive against them. First I will defend against slow zombies. Slow zombies at max speed will travel 72 miles per day. If a party of humans travel at the fast walk speed (average 5 mph) staying ahead of the zombies would mean travel time of 15 hours a day. They can then clear a home enter make it defensible eat anything they find in there new temporary dwelling along with what they have on them spend for hour salvaging items from the surrounding location sleep six our then get up and repeat 10 years of this. Zombies will redie(TM) at this point. Or the group can find a fort where food can be grown and defense is good enough to make a life to wait out the outbreak. After the zombies are gone high alert must take place at all times frozen zombies can defrost and the outbreak can start again. Fast Zombie (the gay kind like OMG) are actually a bit easy. Since they are actually alive yes they are they can move fast and need food to survive points taken in the movie itself. A total of one month of waiting out (28 days ish) will ensure survival. Fast zombies can run almost forever average speed can reach 12 MPH. Humans move this fast for short periods at top speed. Yet not for long periods. So running is not an option only course of survival is to wait it out. To prove they are alive would be their movement. Rigamortis did not take effect. So muscles are alive have blood rushing through them and if rigamortis had occurred they would be slow just like the Romero Zombie. In all reality fast zombies would be easier. If they freeze they would not defrost they would die like all living tissue when frozen. New recurring outbreaks would never be an issue. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Humanity V. Zombies World Outbreak

Thank you for the challenge Con. Sorry about the confusion I forgot to post my sources had things to do today that made me have to hurry to finish. My source is Max Brooks Zombie Survival Guide. http://www.youtube.com... The audio book was on youtube and I was going to use it for reference but it is removed be "random House" for copyright. A$$holes right. Sorry. The Rage Virus is not able to create a zombie one must die to become a zombie. 28 days/weeks later a movie that i enjoy and is to me a great movieis not a zombie film and must be removed the Zombie research society, George A Romero and Max Brooks the lead people in the concept of the modern zombie all agree to this. http://www.youtube.com... Fast Zombies also can't exist concerder rabies. One infected has a problem coordintateing and running in a proper manner slowing down there speed.
Humanity V. Zombies World Outbreak

I, SuburbiaSurvivor, accept this challenge. However, I'd like to point out that while Pro has made many claims in regards to zombies, he has failed to cite sources for his assertions. Since it has not been proven that zombies actually exist, one's only reference is fictional material regarding zombies. Unfortunately, Pro has not offered any such material. Since in Pro's opening round he did not A) explicitly define what a zombie was going to be in this debate B) offer a source for his definition and C) did not specify that the definition could be changed, I hereby offer a different definition, or, "concept" of zombie. I believe that the zombies illustrated in 28 Days Later are the most plausible. While the rage virus does not directly cause the death of the host, it does overtake the person mentally [1]. We see examples of organisms doing this in nature, in which parasites direct their host to suicide. Therefore I propose that this sort of virus or parasitic organism is much more plausible [2]. Pros: 1) Some level of awareness and intelligence. 2) Increased stamina, strength, agility. Cons: 1) Die of malnutrition after 8 weeks. 2) Rage virus can lead to the infected becoming disinterested in nutrition, causing the infected to die. It could be argued that while the rage virus does not involve the host dying at first and then coming back to life, because the host is no longer in control of its own body it is still a zombie. [1] http://28dayslater.wikia.com... [2]http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... I look forward to an interesting debate! Good luck, Pro!
Humanity V. Zombies World Outbreak

Humanity has a population of 7 billion people. Humanity has the ability to adapt and become more intelligent and push over hardships (EX. The Dark Ages, World War I & II, Religious Intolerance). Humanity have guns and other weapons tools that can be used to give one the edge. Zombies and humans have the same sight ability as each other but zombies decompose and once the eyes rot sight is gone humans don't have this problem. Zombies don't have a primary sense so hearing is used more for them then humans so they can hear things humans don't notice but decomposing is still an issue. Smell for a zombie is much acute then humans they can tell the direction of a smell and follow it more miles decompose issues still exist. Humanity has the ability to heal wounds zombies wounds however are permanent muscle use rip fibers and those rips are till the end of a zombies life. Zombies do not need oxygen or to eat. Bleeding gives no effect as the circulatory system is completely shut down. Zombies have endless endurance but as muscles deteriorate they become weaker eventually making a zombie immobile. Zombies can move no faster then three miles per hour, the average human walking speed. Zombies have no coordination and move in a clumsy limp with no ability to climb or run. Zombies have the intellect of a common fly. Pure instinct motivates them. Human life without medical treatment we have now, which would most likely disappear, would shorten to about 35 years. Zombies lifespan is 5-10 years unless frozen (zombies in cold temperature can be preserved). Zombie numbers increase as humans are bitten the process of zombification is 24 hours. Human prevent this by suicide shots to the head. Killing a zombie is a head shot or burning. Electicity effects in stunning only (2x volts needed to stun zombies compared to humans). Round one is accepting challenge.
You cannot solve this anagram.

Since, I will admit, it is unlikely I shall guess the correct solution and since Pro never stated that semantics would not be allowed, that is what I will now resort to. Pro stated "You cannot solve this anagram." "Cannot" usually means impossible in these types of settings. Since Pro never defined what it meant, I will have to assume he is stating that it is logically impossible for me to solve that anagram. Because of this Pro has the burden of proof. And since he provided no argument, it means he has lost this debate. But just so I'm not a complete a$$hole, I will make a guess...31,251 of them to be exact. http://wordsmith.org... Have fun reading all those. (note: Sometimes the link doesn't work, it depends on the server traffic. Check back later if it doesn't appear.)
The earth is FLAT

Please send me a link of something saying that NASA faked those. Yes those planets can't support life but why does everything say the Earth is a Oblate Spheroid? It's not a circle but it's obviously not flat. If all other planets are round It doesn't matter if they cant have life on them. How would the solar system have all round planets then have a flat Earth? We found out that the Earth was round thousands of years ago! I bet if you ask 100 people 90-100 of them will say the Earth is round, I know that's not fact but ask any scientist they will say the Earth is round! Like if a scientist says that the Earth is round that should mean that the Earth is round right?
Minimum Wage Raise

Now you are starting to just name call, calling them "freeloaders". However, you're saying that everyone should have a well paying job but the thing is is that's impossible, as who will man the cash registers? Who will take orders? There will always be something like that happening. And what about legal immigrants? They always have a tough time finding jobs. They take low income jobs (day laborer) that involve working 12 hours a day in hot sun and they still are barely able to feed their family. You're making me laugh by saying deflation is good, (really though, please educate yourself on economics more, deflation is awful, look at the Great Depression and Spain right now) because eventually prices go down to accommodate the little money that the people have, so two dollars will turn into 25 cents and then our currency will have less value than of other countries, and it will cost a lot more to make the money in mints, and then the economy collapses. Please, for the love of god(if one exists), educate yourself on this. I've began to notice you've thrown out the not affording argument, and replaced it with ethic. The problem is, is that the economy will benefit from this, and you're trying to stop it due to morals and ethic. If it benefits everyone, is it really morally/ethically wrong? Also a fifteen dollar minimum wage isn't socialism. It's reformed capitalism. Socialism would be the government takes everything you make and redistributes it back. Research socialism and examples of socialism (and not on a far right website, do it on an unbiased website). Stopping printing money would lead to no money left and no one would be able to buy anything. It's not a capitalism vs socialism debate, look at the title. It's a minimum wage debate.
Minimum Wage Raise

First of all, if those freeloaders went to college and didn't try to live off of McDonald's or Walmart, they would be able to get a regular job. College degrees are very useful when not everybody is entitled to them. When everybody wants one for free, they become useless. So instead of hiking up the minimum wage to $15/hr, people will a better work ethic will get raises, degrees, and success. And deflation is good. It makes you money worth more, which will bring prices down, and people can spend more. Don't you want a more valuable dollar? Hyper-deflation, no. We should gradually deflate our dollar. We can start by stopping the government from continuously printing and creating money. So yes, deflation is good. And one more topic. This is kind of a capitalism vs socialism debate. If you have a $15/hr. minimum wage, it is socialist. Lower it, capitalist. You're not going to have a pure capitalist society with $15/hr. minimum wage, and vice versa.
Minimum Wage Raise

"Deflation would help" Please explain to me how the Great Depression helped our economy. I actually laughed thinking you would actually think that that would help us. And they lose 43 billion, but they gain 43 billion and more. And the problem is, is that minimum wage nowadays isn't going to teenagers, it's going to middle aged people who can hardly afford a home. And that's because of the wealth gap as it got too big and now most people are poor. Also, you're saying that a cashier doesn't deserve 15 an hour, but why not when rich people can stay rich and the poor get wealthier? It would help everyone, and to deny it because of morals is stupid. Having to take on a second job is too stressful and increases unemployment. And you say that they should earn more experience to gain more money, but then everyone would be making 30+ an hour, and that's very utopian because in a (capitalist) society there will always be poor people. And I'm not turning this into a capitalist vs socialist debate, I'm just saying that no matter what there will be lesser people and it's impossible to make everyone rich and have no one that is poor. But actually research deflation, and understand why it would not help the economy. If you say we need it because we are in an inflation crisis, that's not deflation. Deflation is a bad state of money going up in value. We need money to go up in value a little bit, but not so much that we get in a deflation.
Minimum Wage Raise

Deflation (from our overly-inflated currency) would help. I have not used "ad hominem" I was attacking your point, not you. So you are saying that Walmart has $450 billion a year in profit. Now they lose $43 billion. I don't think that losing $43 billion is helping anyone but the people who's jobs aren't meant to raise families, or live off of, but to gain experience, or a second job, or for some pocket cash. A cashier's salary doesn't require as much work, experience, or senority to earn $15 an hour.
Minimum Wage Raise

First off, this is a debate on minimum wage increase, not capitalism vs socialism. We can't assume about other things that are happening with this government. Again, this is a minimum wage debate. And also, you're only scaring people by saying big numbers like 43 billion, and you don't even mention the amount Walmart made last year of about 450 billion. You seem mostly to be using ad hominem, where you attack me but don't defend your views. So now, rather than defend my views, I will attack yours. A minimum wage decrease or abolishment would cause something known as deflation, and eventually hyper deflation. Most people know what this means but you probably don't, so here is what it means. It's when people are making less money and the value of the dollar goes up and so one dollar becomes something like ten dollars. You probably will realize that hyper deflation is true and you will most likely defend it saying people will become super rich but the thing is is that all of their money decreases in value. There are countries suffering hyper deflation now, and in the past. During the Great Depression hyper deflation occurred, and people lost their money and if you had 100 dollars it was like being bill gates. According to moneyweb.co, countries currently in deflation are Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Poland, Spain and Sweden. Sweden is well known for abolishing minimum wage, Greece and Spain adopted to the euro and their economy collapsed. People will struggle to earn a dollar and America will be a very expensive place to live. The poor will die or emigrate and only rich will live in the country, which means nothing is produced and the economy will collapse again. If that doesn't happen, businesses will earn no money because no one will be able to afford their products and they will drop rapidly in price. Say now a gallon of gas could be 2 dollars. It would probably drop to 25 cents, and 25 cents would be the future equivalent to 2 dollars. Dropping prices are good, but only when the people still have money. Not only that, but any products would have almost no value in international trade and we will be the laughing stock of the world. Keep this in mind for round 3, don't use ad hominem. Attack me AND defend yourself.
Minimum Wage Raise

Ok. I will use a real life example and with my calculations. Walmart would lose $43 BILLION a yearn for they had to pay their employees $15/hour. And your "but people would spend more" is wrong. Yes people would have more money, but tell me in a socialist society, where would most of that money go? To the government. Plus, the people who DONT get laid off because of the huge raise of wages would be able to spend money. Minimum Wage jobs are not meant to raise a family or support you, they are for experience, or college or high school jobs when you are still dependent on your parents and family, or as a second job, not a full time career.
Minimum Wage Raise

My argument is that any good company could afford a 15 dollar minimum wage. My argument is built around common sense. I believe if people earn more money, they spend more money, which is kind of obvious. This will do especially well in urban areas with low income. Costco, a popular growing supermarket, pays their lowest employees 13 dollars an hour, and on average 17 dollars an hour. They still make lots of money with even more surplus than Walmart, and their employees are a lot happier and doesn't have the negative reputation of Walmart. Walmart could easily afford it, as they made 450 billion last year and increasing the minimum wage to 15 would only cost them 43 billion. This article goes further in depth. http://prospect.org... As for California, where Walmart is closing down, it's simply because California is an expensive place to live and as a result less people will be purchasing products from low end companies like Walmart. If we had a high end supermarket chain in California or made more houses for low and middle class people a minimum wage of fifteen would work there. Now for my counter argument to your claim: Not once do you mention the fact as to how people will be buy more products or anything. To you it seems like once the minimum wage is raised within minutes companies go bankrupt. This is obviously not the case. It would take months or years without earning any profit for them to go bankrupt. Here are my calculations: 15x15 is 225 225= amount paid in an hour 225 times 8= 1800 amount paid in 8 hours. Keep in mind a similar company that exists, staples, made 22 billion in 2014. There are 3856 stores, so 22 billion divided by 3856 is 5,705,394. This means each store has about 5 million dollars. I'm seeing how long it would take without earning any profit to go bankrupt 1800 times 7= 12600 amount paid in a week 12600 times 4= 50400 amount in a month 50400 times 12= 604800 amount in a year. 5,700,000 divided by 604,800 is 9.42 So about nine and a half years for staples (which is just like dunder mifflin) to go bankrupt, and that's not even considering making money. Within a few hours people will be buying more and more because they've earned twice the amount, and companies will profit greatly.
Minimum Wage Raise

I am against a raise in the minimum wage for a few reasons. 1. A minimum wage would force many jobs to be lost. Say for example, if there was a $15 minimum wage, then I will use Dunder Mifflin Paper as an example. They have 15 employees in one branch and they all get paid, say $9/hr. Dunder Mifflin is breaking even and doing ok. But, now that the federal government has stepped in and raised the minimum wage to $15/hr, Dunder Mifflin has had to fire people due to the higher wages. Now Dunder Mifflin can only have 6 people at a branch in order to keep themselves open. Many people lose jobs. 2. If the company is already going to go bankrupt, they will inevitably lose the business, and everybody will lose their job at that business. 3. Net Profit will eventually get lower and lower, for the highly successful businesses. Now let's pretend Dunder Mifflin is a huge national corporation. They now have branches in every state in the US. Now that Bernie's policies have taken place, they have to close down many of their branches, and fire many people. Profit would have drown due to having to pay every employee $6 more an hour. Let's see how much more a year. If Dunder Mifflin had 250 branches, each with 17 employees on average, $15 an hour, with an 8-5 job, with 345 days a year. That would be $135 a day for one employee, $675 a week per employee, and $46980 a year. Let's multiply that times 17, for the employees at the branch. $798,660 a year for one branches employees. Let's see the stats for the former $9/hour. $81 a day, $405 a week, $28107 a year. Now that sounds like a much better wage for a customer service agent or a salesman. It's $477,819 a year per branch. Let's multiply that by 250 branches. $119,450,750 for all of the employees salaries. On a $15/hr salary? $199,665,000. That's an $80 million difference. I don't think any company would want to lose $80 million. These are my main reasons why an increase in the minimum wage would highly affect our economy.
Trash Costs

I accept. Pro has the BOP. Rebuttals 1. And will making people pay for throwing away trash solve the problem? People do not choose how much trash they make. People do not choose that they have a leftover box that needs to be thrown away. 2. Again, they do not choose to create trash. That will have no effect because the same amount of trash will be produced anyways because trash is unpreventable. After you eat chicken, there will be bones left. Trash will be created with or without people paying. Contentions 1. Taxing(Basicaly) trash will make people dispose of it illegally. Because they do not want to pay, they can just dump it into a river or something. :D
ur daddy a thot

Are you fukcving kidding me !? i canrt believe my vigin ears u dog eating, furry fuc king, as s licking pig. I hope that your skin gets ripped apart by your hands and legs being tied to the opposite ends of two trucks and torn apart as they drive away from each other. If you don't miss me with that gay s hit I will have ur dad work as a pros titute for the rest of his life
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

I'm not trying to say that we need to change our culture. What I'm saying is we need to change ourselves in this ever changing world. Besides, the legal drinking age in the us wasn't raised until "On April 14, 1982, President Reagan established the Presidential Commission Against Drunk Driving (PCDD)."(http://www.chooseresponsibility.org...) which shows that before 1982 there was a lower drinking age than twenty one. During which time, America fought WWll, got through the great depression, and the Korean war. Which shows that society didn't go down in flames because of the lower drinking age. In fact, you could say that America was better while the drinking age was lower. During that time of a lower drinking age, America went through one of its greatest generations ever. Also, it us not putting the cart before the horse, if I'm trying to restore America back to its original form. Just like before europeans came to America and then slaves happened and now there gone again. Of course this topic is on a much smaller scale than that. Also, why did you avoid my question of what the legal drinking age should be. Is it that you are scared or that you don't have an answer to the question. So if i have presented enough evidence to show that the drinking age in America should be lowered, then us Americans must show this evidence to the white house.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

at best you are arguing that we should change our culture. perhaps after our culture is changed we can consider lowering the drinking age. but it's not changed. i've heard from plenty of people in other countries with lower ages, that their culture is different than ours, and what works there won't necessarily work here. we then must take things as they are, and that means not lowering the drinking age. it's not like we dont try to discourage poor behavior etc as it is now. lowering the age isn't going to do anything to change any of this. you can just lower hte age and say 'ok everyone this is how we will try to chane the culture now.' con is putting the cart before the horse and being unrealisitic.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

So from what you have told me, your biggest concern is that kids aren't mature enough to choose decisions such as smoking, drinking, etc. so your quick and simple solution is to just raise the drinking age and whatever you feel kids need mire time to decide on. But, instead of just taking an easy way out, we could take the time to teach kids when they're young, that there is plenty if time to make a decision and you can always say no to things such as drugs and alcohol. Maybe in the next ten years the drinking age can be lowered. The question is, is it worth taking that time to teach the kids? Hell yes, beer has brought people together for hundreds of years, and what I'm talking about is the one or two beer maximum. Not getting wasted. Liquor symbolizes people talking, becoming friends, and feeling good for a little bit. Besides, if beer is enough to ruin a life for a 19 year old, then why is Canada doing so well. Are you saying that we should raise the drinking age in Canada too. So I leave you to think about this question, and choose your answer to this question wisely. What should the drinking age be raised to.