BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's better to have a katana than a shotgun for a zombie apocalypse.

Thank you, deadlykris, for making this debate possible. Without further ado, I present my arguments:1. AmmunitionWhat do you do when a zombie apocalypse first strikes? Go to Wal-mart, of course. There's plenty of food and weapons and ammunition and things to keep you happy for a good long while. There's only one small problem: everyone and their mothers, if they're not already zombies, have thought of that too.Undoubtedly, every store of every street housing anything of use would be littered with desperate, crazy people clawing each other's eyes out to get what they desire (like Black Friday but with even bigger sales!). But while a katana requires nothing to keep it primed but a wet rock to sharpen it with, an FP6 requires an indefinite supply of 12-gauge shells (otherwise it's just a big, clumsy club).It'll be difficult getting those shells at first, as you'll have to fight every other distressed gun-toting sheriff and outlaw to get to them and likely even more difficult maintaining your supply as more and more bullets are spent in the months and years to come. Bullets can be spent quickly (or, at the very least, eventually), but a sword will always be ready to decapitate someone as long as you sharpen it every once in awhile.2. Reloading and pumpingShould you ever find yourself surrounded by a group of zombies (which, let's face it, you will considering there's seven billion people in the world) and you must fight, hacking and slashing your way out is the way to go. With practice, one can reload a shotgun fairly quickly, perhaps all six shells in a matter of seconds. But in the heat of battle, those precious seconds (which must occur after every six shots) can mean the difference between you getting to see the next sunrise as a human or a zombie. And that's not even to mention the time taken to pump every new round into the chamber.A katana, on the other hand, has no such handicap. At no point during a fight do you have to stop killing zombies to perform some kind of maintenance on the weapon.3. NoiseIf zombies are something to be avoided, then certainly noise is as well. Zombies (which can travel in hordes large enough to make you wish shooting yourself in the head was a valid option in this debate) will be attracted to the sound of that shotgun exploding in your hands every time you pull the trigger.By comparison, the katana is silent and stealthy. You can take down one or two unsuspecting zombies without attracting fifty more in the area.4. Clean killsIf any part of your insides is somehow exposed to the blood of a zombie, you will die. Therefore, it can be said that the cleaner you can kill a zombie, the better. A katana can stab one's forehead (thus incapacitating the brain), but an FP6 will blow them to smithereens. So ask yourself, when fighting a group of zombies, would you rather be making clean, minimally-bloody cuts, or be blowing guts and body parts in every direction while it practically rains zombie blood?Over to you, Deadlykris.
The United States Should Adopt the Single Transferable Vote

Rebuttals Proportionality You have explained how FPTP does not give proportional representation, but you haven't explained here why STV would be a better option. You have merely asserted that "Under the single transferable vote system or STV, there would be multiple members per district, and will results in a fairer distribution of seats." You didn't explain why this is true. Spoiler effect Again, you have shown how bad FPTP is, but you haven't proven STV to be better. You claimed that "The Single Transferable Vote allows for smaller parties to gain influence and gives third parties a fair chance at winning elections." You haven't proven that to be true. Gerrymandering You said that under STV, districts would be larger and consist of more representatives. If you were arguing for a new district system, you should have specified that in round one. From what you said in the first round, I gathered that you would be arguing for a voting system. You haven't explained why these things couldn't be solved while maintaining FPTP. Examples prove Both of these examples depict a government with STV, but they do not prove that STV was responsible for the proportional representation. If they showed a significant improvement after a transfer from FPTP to STV, than it would be evidence. There are also examples of STV causing problems: In the 1981 election in Malta, which used STV, the Labour Party won most of the parliament seats despite the Nationalist Party winning the majority of votes. http://aceproject.org... This example seems to prove the opposite of what you have been saying. I'm short on time, so I won't defend my previous arguments, which doesn't matter anyway because you have the BoP.
The United States Should Adopt the Single Transferable Vote

ResponsesCon's 1st ArgumentWhile FPTP may be simplistic, it is not proportional, creates the spoiler effect, and is prone to gerrymandering. Single Transferable Vote would only be complicated in the way the votes are tabulated. For the average voter who is not counting the votes, it is relatively simple: You go into the booth, rank the candidates on the ballot in order of preference, and place the ballot in the box. It is really not that hard.The Con's argument also highlights one of the main problems with the FPTP system: Minority rule. While the candidate with he most votes may win, FPTP only requires a simple majority. In a race with more than two candidates, the winner is only required to have 34% of the vote. Under STV you would have multiple members who would be required to reach a certain threshold. This allows more views to be represented, as I addressed in my first contention in round 2. Con's 2nd ArgumentTo begin with, it is very clear that the con is confusing Single Transferable Vote with Instant Runoff Voting. While similar the two are different systems. Both systems are based on a form of preferential (ie Ranked Choice) voting, Instant Runoff Voting (also called the Alternative Vote) is a system for single winner elections, Single Transferable Vote is a system for multi winner elections. While IRV could be implemented under the current, single member congressional districts, STV would require larger congressional districts with 3, 4 or 5 representatives in each district. Furthermore we are not discussing presidential elections, we are discussing elections for the House of Representatives.Additionally the scenario cited by the Con is not an accurate depiction of either IRV or STV. In all preferential systems, after the first choice votes are counted, if no candidate achieves the quota, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and candidates are eliminated until someone reaches the quota. In his example, the con completely ignored the Reform Party, the Libertarian Party, the less popular independent and the Constitution Party. And while the Democrat may have been more popular with a simple majority of people, he was not as well liked as the Republican candidate, because by eliminating the less popular candidates, we are able to see what it would have been like had they not run.ArgumentsThe con has thus far failed to address any of my contentions, those being the spoiler effect, proportionality, gerrymandering and empirical examples of STV in practice, and this has conceded these arguments, and I shall extend all of my arguments from round two.
The United States Should Adopt the Single Transferable Vote

The first-past-the-post system is simple. Voters go to the polls to vote for one person and the candidate with the most votes wins. The STV is unfair. Consider this scenario: During a presidential election, the following candidates recieve votes: Democratic Party- 63 million votes Republican Party- 61 million votes Independent- 3 million votes Libertarian Party- 1 million votes Green Party- 200,000 votes Constitution Party- 100,000 votes Independent- 70,000 votes Reform Party- 50,000 votes If this election used the first-past-the-post system, the Democratic candidate would win and the election is over without any problems. If the STV system were used, the Democrat would not meet the quota for votes and voters would be required to split their votes between him and the Republican. The more popular Independent candidate is a fascist. Everyone who voted for him transfers their votes to the Republican candidate because he has an ideology with more similarities than the Democratic candidate, although his political views are very different from the fascist's. The Republican now wins despite the Democrat being more popular and more agreed with. The Green Party candidate is very liberal and has views similar to the Democrat's, but her supporters were outnumbered by fascists who voted for, but didn't support, the Republican. Now the less popular candidate wins due to the STV system. I don't have to say much. The full burden of proof is on Pro.
The United States Should Adopt the Single Transferable Vote

This debate will be debating whether or not the United States should adopt the single transferable voteRight now in the US we use the First Past the Post system.I will argue that STV is a better system and the US should move towards this system.The rules and format are pretty BasicRound 1: AcceptenceRound 2: Main Arguments Round 2: Futher arguments and responses Round 3: Responses and rebuttleRound 4: Final Rebuttle and ConclusionI as the Pro will need to prove that STV is a better system, ie I shall have the burden of proof.
The United States Should Adopt the Single Transferable Vote

Proportionality Under the STV system, districts are given more representatives and more proportional representation. However, the FPTP system could accomplish the same thing. The top five candidates would be elected; in my example, the Democrat, the Republican, the more popular Independent, the Libertarian, and the Green would win an election whether the STV was used or the FPTP was used. Spoiler effect If there are five representatives for a district, third parties can get representation with the STV or the FPTP. In my example, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party would have representation regardless of what system was used. Gerrymandering Gerrymandering can be solved while maintaining the FPTP system. Pro says my argument is irrelevant because "This debate is about the single transferable vote system, not about alternate solutions for Gerrymandering", which completely ignores the fact that Gerrymandering is part of this debate. If there is an alternate solution, I can use that as a response to his argument. Examples prove While my Malta argument may have failed, the burden of proof is on Pro, so his arguments are what matters. He has shown that STV is a success in some countries, but he has not proven that such a success could not be accomplished with FPTP. Conclusion Pro has shown that STV would likely succeed in giving citizens proportional representation, eliminating the spoiler effect, and solving the problem of Gerrymandering, but it is all based on a district system. Pro said the district system would have 3 to 5 representatives in each district, which would solve the previously mentioned problems. He has not proven that STV must be used in order for the district system to work, so he has not fulfilled the burden of proof.
Ryan Howard is the best player of the decade in Philidephia sports.

It's a fact not an opoing, you just have to go by it. This debate focouses on Ryan Howard not cheese Utley or some other member of the team. What has been accomplish can never be taken away, is just life and the true is somethime you need to acceprpt the rtruth. By the way during the decade he become the faster baseball pl;ayer rto ever reach 200 homeruns. Just go with it because talent is god's gift and that's what Ryan Howard has. Talent that include speed , power and a whole lot of team work. So let me leave you with this to remember before you hurt your hand typing you must remembedr rthis, for most poffesional athlete stats is the proven reason to their succes and don't forget hardwork. espn.com philliesstats.com rphillies.com ...............
Ryan Howard is the best player of the decade in Philidephia sports.

First of all let me start off my saying to be the best you have to play like the best. Ryan Howard is one of the best baseball player Philly have ever see. This man is a champion and a real winner any way you look at it. In his career he has won rookie of the year, Major league player of the week. Major league player of month and much more including the winner of the home run derby in 2006. And one more thing to keep in mind Big PaPe , also call Ryan Howard is a beat in the making. Stats tell it all. SOURCE http://www.baseball-reference.com...
Cats are better that Dogs.

Dogs do need toys. "Why dogs need toys: dogs need toys to provide mental stimulation, allow for appropriate chewing, and serve as important tools in behavior modification. ... If you don't want them to choose their own chew toys, such as your sofa, pillows, or toilet paper rolls, provide them with appropriate outlets." I do admit you can go get a stick from the backyard that you can go this for your dog, but if he/she starts chewing on it, woodchips often get everywhere. https://pawsintraining.com... Most cats do need toys, but you don't have to buy cats toys, you could make them from everyday items. "Paper bags are good for pouncing, hiding and interactive play." Cats need some, but you don't HAVE to buy anything extra. http://www.humanesociety.org... "Most importantly, we see that dogs prevent deaths, while cats cause them." Dogs don't always save lives, I have been studying and, honestly, I have not been able to find a reliable source for the average of deaths cats cause a year. I will keep looking though. "Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year. In 2015, 35 Americans were killed by dogs, down from 42 the prior year. Each year, more than 350,000 dog bite victims are seen in emergency rooms, and approximately 850,000 victims receive medical attention." https://dogbitelaw.com... Many cats save lives, the link below is one of the many I've come across while researching this topic. http://www.today.com... Dog poop also has many harmful elements. "Dog poop is NOT good fertilizer. It's toxic to your lawn! The high nutrient concentration in dog poop will burn and discolor the grass, creating "hot spots"." " Dog poop often contains roundworm larvae, which cause blindness. If a human ingests a roundworm larva, it can migrate through the body causing disease to the brain, lungs, kidneys, liver, heart or eyes. " http://dogtalk101.blogspot.com...
Cats are better that Dogs.

Cats are better than dogs. First of all, cats need less room. Dogs need room to run around and play, cats on the other hand, could live with you in a studio apartment and never want more. Dogs need space to get active and if you put them in a small space they will get restless and not be the happy little puppy you want them to be. Cats cost less to get and to feed, they don't NEED toys unless you want to give them toys. Dogs need things to chew and, not all, but a large majority chew through things like shoes and socks because they have nothing to play with. Cats have instinct that tells them how to get rid of their waste. Dogs do too, just not to the same amount. Cats will find a nice, often sandyish, area at which to relieve themselves, and they will bury solid waste. Dogs leave their waste out in the open and don't think twice. Some people say that dogs can be a replacement for a child they can never have or adopt, but cats can too. Some breeds of dogs don't shed, and that is why a lot of people like dogs, but there are breeds of cats that don't shed either. I'm not talking about those hairless cats. There are plenty of cat breeds that have hair, but don't shed.
Karaoke!!!

I love how much fun you're having... I thought about getting excited for my round but I'd have to get reeeally drunk. Thank you, Budda! I chose to sing The A Team by Ed Sheeran. My sound quality is terrible... But what I said at the beginning of the video was: "I know this is supposed to be a karaoke challenge but I really want to sing this song and he sings it much deeper than I can. So I'm going to forgo the music and do it a capella, and I hope that's okay." Can't wait for round 3!
We should stop whaling

PRO hasn't made a single argument; the only thing he has even offered is an article from teenlink that was plagiarized -- but that he's passing off as his own argument -- in its entirety. He hasn't in any way advanced his burden of proof, and that he, in the face of his plagiarim, is insisting that his unattrbuted copy/paste job could substitute for his own argument is nothing more than a conduct violation. Therefore, vote CON. Plagiarism is inexcusable.
We should stop whaling

I accept. Note that PRO has plagiarized the entirety of his first round. His round was copy and pasted in its entirety from a teen essay from this website [http://www.teenink.com...] without the slightest attribution. This is a clear sign of plagiarism, and for this I urge our voters to award me conduct. From there, I will give PRO a chance to, if he so chooses, present real arguments in the following round. But obviously you should throw out the entirety of his Round 1 because it was plagiarized.
We should stop whaling

Imagine being in Japan at the ocean on a beautiful spring day. You see all the wonderful creatures popping up from the water. Suddenly, you hear horrible cries of a harmless whale, being slaughtered and exploited by whale hunters. Take a moment and think about what that whale may be feeling. Think about why the hunters are harming it. This is called whaling, where the whales are hunted, speared, shot, and killed for their meat. The hunters use the whale for a lot of products that you may unknowingly use today! Did you also know that you might even eat it everyday? Why should we care? Whaling is poisonous to the people who eat it, it"s inhumane to poison us and kill mammals. Also, it"s a waste of money. Therefore, we should put an end to whaling. First, whaling is highly poisonous to the people who may eat the whale meat. The factory workers in Japan say that whales are really healthy to eat, but that"s not necessarily true. Whale meat is heavily contained with mercury. Mercury is so toxic that only one small drop of it, can poison an entire pod of whales. Just by eating one bite, of the whale meat, it"s possible that you may not live after that! Also, the people who might eat the whale meat may not know that it contains mercury. If an expectant woman were to eat the whale meat, her baby may result in having retardation or a deformity. So, therefore the whale meat is not so healthy to eat. Next, whaling is also inhumane to poison us and kill mammals. The whale hunters believe that whaling is not inhumane because the whales tend to die fast. So, they hunt whales and use them for resources because they think it"s the right thing to do; since the whales are going to die soon anyway. The whales are like us, humans. They"re harmless and they"re the second most intelligent animals. Whales are vulnerable to pain and suffering, which means, they are easily hurt. When the hunters shoot their riffles at a whale, it"s aware and can feel every bit of pain. Also, whale hunters believe that whales should be treated in the same way as other animals, such as chickens, cows, and pigs. Whales should not be treated like other animals because they are social beings. Over twenty-three, thousand of them are killed each year anyway. Lastly, whaling is a waste of money. Japan sells the whale meat at high rates. They also mark the meat purposely, wrong so that the customers won"t know that it"s actually a whale that they"re eating. Japan also use whales for soap, tobacco, dog food, and other supplies. They say that they use whales for research, but stabbing and killing them, doesn"t sound like any research to me! Also, instead of using the money, given to them, for the poor, they use it for whaling. They use the whales to get them a better success in finance. In conclusion, whaling is highly effective. Therefore, it needs to be stopped. Think about the poison that"s harming the ones who eat the whale meat. Think about the people who don"t know what they"re eating. Most importantly, think about the harmless whales. So, stand up and fight to put an end to whaling!
Drugs are bad.

Second of all, a lesson in debating. Never instigate a one round debate. It's nearly impossible to win since you can't rebut anything. If you must instigate a one round debate, at least give a decent argument. I generally don't accept one round debates, because it seems indecent to me to accept a debate that's impossible to lose, but I didn't realize that it was how it was until after I'd clicked accept. Now, we first must define bad in a health context. I would say that "bad" would mean that it would do more harm than good. Clearly pharmaceuticals do more good than harm, otherwise doctors wouldn't prescribe them. If I had a sinus infection or something, the doctor would prescribe an antibiotic. Good effects: I would no longer have a sinus infection because the drug would have cured it. Bad effects: I might have a slightly upset stomach and might require Tums (another drug) to fix that. Tums have no bad effects. There you go. I hope I have helped. To the voters: Please don't think negatively of me for accepting this debate. I honestly didn't notice that it was one round. Don't get me wrong, still vote for me, I just felt I had to say this, because I don't like shoo-in wins. I feel bad doing that, so I felt I had to rectify it with an apology.
Resolved:the Ivy League has lost its prestige and allure as many non-Ivy schools have exceeded them.

I'm glad that you've conceded that the Ivy Leagues have not lost their appeal...you stated that "the Ivy League is still highly desirable". As far as the Ivy Leagues schools not being worth the cost, I guess that would be a matter of opinion to the students that go there. If they don't think it is worth the money then they do have the choice to go elsewhere, yet they still choose to go there. Your statement may have some truth to it as far as exclusivity is coupled with ignorance. Yes, some of the reasons these students choose these schools are for the prestige and exclusiveness, and that may seem shallow and stupid to others...but they apparently are willing to pay for this. Your argument in the beginning however was geared toward the loss of appeal and prestige and I just proved to you that they had in fact not lost either. However, your point about high cost of education is important and perhaps you should start another debate and word your argument a little differently. Thanks for presenting this topic to debate. Happy Holidays!
Resolved:the Ivy League has lost its prestige and allure as many non-Ivy schools have exceeded them.

I am in agreement with in many ways. The Ivy League is still highly desirable but I am still higly opposed. Did you know that the Ivy League was orginally founded as a sports league? Now it is supposedly the icon of education. However, the fact that other schools are more inviting and "accepting" than many Ivy League schools increases their allurement and decreases the Ivy League's allurement. Exclusivity is often coupled with ignorance. What you are paying for that you are not getting is the best. What you are really getting is all talk and some action. The Ivy League has much to credit to their name but it simply isn't worth the cost. Education is the most overpriced industry in America and teh Ivy League isn't working to make it available to more people than before.