BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
zombies are a MORE real threat then people think

G'day mate! Here are some spelling mistakes on your side: "perupose" purpose* "supily" *supply "effect animals" *affect animals "apcolpse" *apocalypse "surive" *survive "natrual" *natural ------------------------------------------------------------------- " Rabies is the key" to a zombie 'apcolpse'. Unlike the fictional accounts of rabies, the actual disease would only kill it's victim in a slow tedious process of up to a few months or a year, in relative to the victim's health and physique. Therefore it is almost quite impossible to have a large portion of our population turn rabid at the same time and start a 'apcolpse'. Source: http://www.healthcommunities.com... || Usually within 1 to 3 months, the virus migrates to the nerves near the site of the infection and spreads to the spinal cord and brain (i.e., the central nervous system). It usually takes from 12 to 180 days to spread through the peripheral nerves to the central nervous system. || ++ "So far its only managed to effect animals and make them go crazy, biting anything they meet." An enlightenment to your understanding as to why rabies causes animals to 'go crazy, biting anything they meet,' ; Generally while in rabid state, the animals are unable to think and act rationally which makes them become very defensive. It is part of their natural behavioural instincts to bite when they cannot recognize their surroundings. Which brings me to my point that humans will not bite in circumstances of a rabies infection because we are more intelligent and it is not our first instinct to react violently. ++ "If rabies were to infect humans the same way it does to dogs, what would happen?" There have been no known cases of human to human transmission of the subject disease, which nullifies your above point of a zombie apocalypse. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Awaiting your reply!
zombies are a MORE real threat then people think

When someone says "zombie" you think of the walking dead, already dead beings who come back to life, who sole perupose is to infect someone else. The only way to kill them is to shoot them in the brian. They have an endless supliy of engery and can't feel pain. The truth is zombies are a bigger threat than you would think. Rabies is the key. So far its only managed to effect animals and make them go crazy, biting anything they meet. If rabies were to infect humans the same way it does to dogs, what would happen? There would be a zombie apcolpse. In case of this the best way to surive would be to wait them out. They will die of natrual causes.
A Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones) is better then Lord of the Rings

I considered just posting a joke, like I did when my opponent forfeited round 2, but I did say in round 3 that I would post rebutals in round 4, so...Rebuttal:BelievableIt is debatable whether or not realism is a desired attribute for a fantasy novel to have, but I will go along with it because I feel that both books have their share of realism. It is true that in A Song of Ice and Fire, the characters all act with very human motivations. I would argue that the same is true of Lord of the Rings. My opponent quickly mentioned the Others in a parenthetical, as if they were of minor importance. Aware of the threat from the Others, Stannis and Jon Snow were quick to make alliances with the wildlings. This seems realistic to me. Humans side with humans against the Others. I suspect that if the Others marched south in force, all of the humans would put aside their squabbling and fight together for survival. In LOTR, we are presented with a world in which the evil “others,” have already begun their war, and we see the characters join and fight for survival. Unpredictable Yes, I always knew that Frodo would destroy the ring. And I knew that Harry Potter would defeat Voldomort. This is pure speculation, but I also strongly suspect that ASIF will end with the defeat of the Others. I would be shocked if the series ended with Roose Bolton on the iron throne. As far as main characters dying, LOTR has its share, Boromir, Denethor, King Theoden. Most of the main characters do survive, however, I would not say that it is predictable. The first time I read LOTR, there were many moments when I wasn’t sure if a character would live or die, and a few where I believed that a main character was dead.This could have been a much more interesting debate if my opponent had shown up for more rounds, but I'm sure he's a busy man. At least we each got a couple of arguments in.
A Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones) is better then Lord of the Rings

Because we missed round 2, I am going to make my arguments here, in round 3, and save rebuttal, as well as final thoughts for round 4.WorldTolkien created a rich and detailed history for Middle Earth that spanned thousands of years. Even if we consider The Silmarillion to be irrelevant to this debate, we can still take into account the Appendixes at the end of LOTR. These appendixes not only outline thousands of years of history leading up to LOTR, but also tell what happens to the main characters and their families far past the end of LOTR. They also include detailed family trees going back thousands of years. Martin hints from time to time about the history of Westeros, and he does include family trees at the end of the books, but it is little compared to Tolkien’s history of Middle Earth.Tolkien also created several complete languages to go along with LOTR. [1] Martin throws in a few words of Valyrian, but did not create a complete language, that I know of.I would argue that Tolkien’s attention to detail when creating histories and languages make LOTR a superior book as the reader is allowed to be completely lost within a fantasy world made more real by these histories and languages. CompletionLOTR is a complete story. ASIF is still being written, there are two books yet to be written. [2] Were this debate held in the future it may be a very different debate, but, as any talk of the future books would be pure speculation, we can only debate the two series as they stand today. As it stands today, ASIF is incomplete. I make the argument that an incomplete story is inferior to a complete story. If George R.R. Martin were to tragically pass away before finishing his work, his fans would be left in a lurch, with no way of knowing who lives and who dies or how the story ends. When asked which series is better, I can only possibly answer LOTR because at this point I don’t know if I will like the ending of ASIF.1.http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
A Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones) is better then Lord of the Rings

I apologize for not loging on in a while Believable I understand that both story's are works of fiction, but I find the character motivation and overall storyline more realistic in GOT compared to LOTR. In Lord of the Rings, the bad guys, (orcs, goblins, etc) are all plain evil for the sake of being evil. In Game of Thrones, (with the exception of the Others) all houses and groups of people are realistic in their motivations. Even the some of the biggest villans in the books (like Tywin Lanister) does not do what he does just to rule, He is trying to protect his family. Unpredictable Even starting Lord of the Rings, you know in the end Frodo will destroy the ring and the world will be saved. With Game of Thrones, It is unclear if any of the main "good guys" will even survive. You can never know if your favorit character will die, like Ned, Robb, Tywin, Jon, etc.
The words "under god" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

You speak as if its the end of world and your life is so over because some words that were add to the pledge by a bunch of people who are probably more than likely dead in the ground. Mankind has been changing and evolving for centuries and two little words 'under God' two minutiae words that have no meaning other than what someone hopes and believes and feels in their heart. You act as though this is going to destroy your life, as if your going to die because of the words "under God". You have a right as an American citizen to think and feel and believe whatever. Even if what you believe is right or wrong. No child should be forced to say the pledge of allegiance if they are atheist or agnostic but the point is no child is really forced to say those words. Americans can say the pledge of allegiance anyway they want and believe whatever they want. No school or teacher can force a child to say under God. HELLO!! Can you say: " LAWSUIT" no school will go through that especially the media attention and the ACLU getting involved with whatever school district. Likewise no teacher or school can force a religious child to not say under God. Under God means: What Americans believe in their hearts and minds it has nothing to do with religion. Under God means one nation under the advancement of Science. Without Science our lives would be difficult today. Under God means one nation under Jesus Christ the savior of all mankind. Under God could meaning one nation under Mother Nature some people believe that she is the protector of all that is in the earth. Whatever the reason it is based on the persons own mind and reason to come up with their own views about what those words mean. " In God We Trust " is on money and we spend money everyday. Is it the end of our lives because it says: "In God We Trust? No, it isn't they are just words on a piece of paper a federal reserve note. Children read them they see the money every day. In god we trust isn't brain washing or indoctrinating them to join Islam,Christianity,Judaism, or any other religion its just words on paper.
The words "under god" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

To all those voters out there: the previous was Con's argument. Four sentences. The fact is, saying under God or god is certainly not the end of the world. By asking this question, he immediately skips the initial discussion from "should it be allowed to exist in the pledge" to "ok, so what if it shouldn't be? It's not the end of the world!"(This is not in fact, of course, but one can assume that from his conduct)Even if I haven't succesfully explained that they are Christian related, one can still say it is wrong for the government to have any mention of religion in the constitution. I can definitely say that it is degrading to non-believers; athiests and agnostics, making it a bias. You have once again not proven that "God" means "Science" (which sounds far-fetched) Any phrase in national governmental monuments, pledges, or documents that are biased simply shouldn't be allowed to be in those things.If we do keep these things running, we have a problem.
The words "under god" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

Firstly, "Under God" is in reference to the Christian religion. What else, I ask you, would it be reference to? And if you say it's a metaphor, than you are agreeing that we should change the pledge to "under science" or "under Allah". Why does there even need to be a metaphor in the first place? Can it not just say, "stay humble, and be we are protected by greater things"?You say, "Once again God is an universal term that is accepted by most if not all people that represents something greater than themselves. It is possible to argue that the reason they didn't say one nation under Science,Mother Nature,Zeus, the Force is because there are so many gods out there and so many names for "God" that the acceptable name amongst the people is God." And again, why does it need to represent anything at all? What gives "God" (capital G- god, mind you), the only metaphorical representation of the things greater than ourselves?What about the people that believe in the Greek, roman, or any other polytheist gods? They aren't being represented fairly compared to the greater number of people believing in other gods?The fact is, any mention of "God" or "Allah" or "Zeus" is acknowledging that their is some higher power in the universe. It is an acceptance that God is in our lives, whether we like or not, protecting us. That is supporting religion. Instead of remaining literal, many people thought it to be ok to "metaphorically" add a god whom many people don't believe in."It depends on the person for example a Muslim may say the pledge of allegiance and God would be Allah to them because that is the god they serve or worship. To the Hebrews it could be Yahweh. To the Indians the ' Great Spirit'. To the atheist Science." Or, a Muslim may say the pledge of allegiance and not say "under god" because we aren't serving or worshiping Allah as himself, making them unfaithful and declaring their allegiance to another god. Same with the Hebrews, and the Indians. The atheists, whom don't even believe in god, are saying something clearly in the favor of the Christian faith, not the Islamic faith, or the Hebrew faith. God has different meanings to different people, those supporting your argument and those supporting mine.I have mixed my reasons throughout my argument today, but to those voters out there, realize that people have different interpretations for god. God is not Allah, and Allah is not Zeus. Con is trying to justify the unconstitutional problem in our pledge by saying that everyone treats god as the same. If that were true, there would only be one religion, one that clearly has "God" in it.
The words "under god" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

You say: " Under God" is in reference to the Christian religion and there is no real valid evidence to argue that point of view. You could claim the time and the reason being that most Christians don't like or have been taught that socialism or communism is anti-god but honestly there are Christians that are socialist. You could probably argue that USA was founded on alleged Judo-Christian principles but even that is only circumstantial evidence. Once again God is an universal term that is accepted by most if not all people that represents something greater than themselves. It is possible to argue that the reason they didn't say one nation under Science,Mother Nature,Zeus, the Force is because there are so many gods out there and so many names for "God" that the acceptable name amongst the people is God. It depends on the person for example a muslim may say the pledge of allegiance and God would be Allah to them because that is the god they serve or worship. To the Hebrews it could be Yahweh. To the Indians the ' Great Spirit'. To the atheist Science. For example Ohio's motto is with God all things are possible. To the Jehovah Witness that could be to them that with Jehovah all things are possible. To the Hindu with Krishna all things are possible. To the Buddhist with Buddha all things are possible.
The words "under god" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

You say in your previous argument: "I am here to basically say that the under God isn't a indoctrination of children or anyone. It doesn't force a child to believe in God. I will argue that God or god could be in reference to any higher knowledge above 'SELF'."For one, of course it is not forcing a child to believe in God. It doesn't in any way shape or form demand a certain lifestyle. However, I could disagree with the indoctrination part. Children are pledging there allegiance to a country that is under a Christian influence. It is not "under Allah" or "under Zeus", it is "under God". "Under God" is in reference to the Christian religion, and could influence how a child thinks about the country he/she lives in in regards to the CHRISTIAN RELIGION ONLY.I don't protest the idea that it could be a reference to any higher knowledge above 'self', but to specifically target the one "higher power" of a Christian deity is biased to all other religions, which makes it a religious problem. Our country is not a religious country. However, instead of putting Science in the pledge, we put a religious icon on instead. In that way the pledge in saying "under God" is unconstitutional, and certainly not right.The fact is, the government should not be asking impressionable, vulnerable children to pledge their allegiance to a God at the same time that they are pledging their allegiance to their country. This is easily seen in the pledge "I pledge allegiance to the flag... ONE NATION, UNDER GOD... (I'm not yelling, just adding emphasis)Anyone saying the pledge is pledging to their nation, which is "protected by a god". It is only indoctrination because only one religious view is present. Like I've said before, if it wasn't biased, why don't we put "under Zeus?" or "under Allah?" in the pledge? Why just "God"?"Under God" is not a rhetorical statement; there isn't any way you can't take it literally. "Under God" doesn't have any hidden meanings especially not with higher beings above "self" either. It was a mistake to put it in the pledge, and it is not patriotic and and it is definitely not American.I await your third argument.
The words "under god" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

First of all, thank you again for allowing me to debate this topic with you. I would like to say that even though in the original pledge of alliance there was no mention of under God. It was added in the time Communism was prevalent which was the beginning of the Cold War. My argument isn't trying to prove if Congress was right or wrong. I am not here to debate the Socialist positions. I am here to basically say that the under God isn't a indoctrination of children or anyone. It doesn't force a child to believe in God. I will argue that God or god could be in reference to any higher knowledge above 'SELF'. For example Science could be a higher form of knowledge or infinite thought above your thoughts and therefore the under god or God could be in reference to Science. Think about it, is the USA better than or greater than Science? We use science everyday to live and function. Without Science life would be really hard. So once again thank you for the this opportunity.
The words "under god" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

Reciting the pledge in public schools with the words "under god" targets children, and instills them with a monotheistic statement not believed by all Americans. You have a swearing of loyalty to your country that includes a biased, religious message. That isn't, and can't be constitutional in my opinion. The "under God" statement was added in 1954, and was not an original addition to the pledge. The first amendment does not require the government to be hostile towards religions, but orders government neutrality towards all religions. The fact that it is "under God" and not "under Allah" or "under Zeus" (I'm not saying they should be added) is unconstitutional because it is not neutral towards all religions. My concluding statement is that it is not constitutionally allowed to be in the pledge, and we should support the separation of religion and state in order to retain constitutional values.
If you don't like the US, LEAVE!!! Don't change it and make it worse for the whole.

If there was no one to complain how can we better ourselves in the future? People are merely expressing their opinions like you and I are doing right now. Does that mean be cause i differ in opinions than someone else that i should leave debate.org? No... of course not, and when it comes to an entire country, definitely not. USA is a democracy and we all have a say, which is why we are allowed to vote. That is why we have such an ENORMOUS country, powerful in every way, even when we are in debt trillions of dollars, the government doesn't seem to flinch (at least from my view) since there is still a war going on, where billions of dollars are being spent. People must be able to express their views and opinions in a democratic society like USA. Thanks for the debate.
Free Market Capitalism (Pro) vs Mixed Economy(Con)

Your example of the Swiss Confederation, I understand. But what about free market being held in the United States. It's already been chaos this past year and we have been dealing with a lot of stuff. The boundaries that would be held in mixed economy is quite necessary these times around and don't think getting rid of them would be much help. My cases on healthy products are based on things like organic food. Unhealthy products are things that are easy to get because it didn't take much to make them. Things that are easy to get like, soda, processed meat, even cheese. Things that you could get at a convenient store. Affordability to goods may or may not lead to increase in jobs that pull people out of poverty, but this is a situation based on time frame. How long is this exactly going to take? And I already talked about how cheap products are cheap for a reason. We have a problem with obesity in the United States, and we have unhealthy eating habits that CAN lead to death. Are you sure you want to make that problem worse until eventually all of us are in good shape? The world will never be perfect. But if you're just going to encourage certain problems with an extremely low chance of meeting your goal, it's just going to make it worse. I told you. Healthy competition leads to profit and that's a much better use of your time than the first alternative. Sure, free market can give wealth and everyone can get rich and whatever [eventually] but that means anyone who is rich today and has a big company today must ave done that by serving consumers. The flaw should be pretty obvious in this argument. I did not contradict myself using the donation and organization argument. I'm saying regardless, we have problems with poverty. But unhealthy products in this use will just build on another problem. Plus, regardless of people's wealth, usually people would like to get the cheapest alternative so even if we are out of poverty, we will still have unhealthy eating habits. There are many problems with free market, there are some good reasons too, but the pros outweigh the cons. I'm aware that pollution is caused by all countries but that doesn't mean contributing to it will make it any better. What I mean is these regulations are important because people broke certain boundaries before regulations were enforced which means getting rid of them will get us back to where we started. Maybe the boundaries don't fix everything but it sure does help. We've come a long way with certain problems and some are because of regulations we enforced. So you can bring up good things about free market but it's nothing compared to the problems caused.