BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The superior weapons in a zombie apocalypse.

Rebuttal:Trench SpikeA trench spike was made for close-quarters fighting in trenches. If you're surrounded by a crowd of zombies - and I'm assuming we're talking swarms - let's say you manage to stab one in its head, effectively destroying its brain. Now what?You've got your weapon stuck in a zombie's head, and there are more around you. The inefficiency of having to forcefully yank your weapon free after each strike is going to get you killed. Also, the blade of a trench knife is maybe six inches long. Why are you getting to within six inches of the thing trying to eat your brains?CrowbarA crowbar is a useful tool, and definitely a good thing to have in an emergency situation. But unless I misunderstand the meaning of "superior weapons", it's hardly the best weapon to carry with you. Half-Life aside, it wasn't designed for fighting, and it's a slow and cumbersome weapon. Like the trench spike, it might be fine for dealing with one zombie, or even a few, but in a crowd you'd tire quickly and fight less effectively. And then die.CrossbowIf I had to make a list of the weapons I wouldn't want to have with me, this would probably be on it. Crossbows are useful for one thing: taking out individual enemies silently at medium range. At long range, you'd probably miss, and at close range you'd be overwhelmed while reloading. Again, most zombie-apocalypse scenarios involve hordes of roaming zombies, and you said yourself that there are great numbers of them. How exactly is it useful to pick off individual zombies?I'm not sure if this is my place to rebut your arguments, so I'll follow your example and save my defense for the conclusion.
The superior weapons in a zombie apocalypse.

*On Cons note on killing zombies, I do realize now that there are multiple ways to kill a zombie, sorry for not clearing that up, we will argue with the destruction of the brain as the main way of killing the zombie as con has consented to. Rebuttal KatanaThe katana would only be fully effective at medium range. Assuming that in order to kill a zombie, some sort of head/brain wound would have to be inflicted. For example lets just say that a zombie somehow was able to grab you, get on top of you, or approach to about 2 feet from you. The katana would be very hard to manage at that range. A short weapon like a dagger or a trench spike would be the superior weapon at that moment. Baseball bat I am not sure if you are implying a wooden bat or an aluminum bat, as wooden bats have a chance of breaking, especially when hitting a skull often. The baseball bat would also only really serve one purpose in an apocalyptic situation. Where as a crowbar would have a good number of uses across the field. M4A1One of the biggest problems is that it is loud. Zombies are attracted to noise, and by using a gun, you are drawing more zombies or other attackers to your position. There is also the concern of ammunition. I would expect a gunman to carry a sufficient amount of ammo to last a few days or weeks, but what happens after that? What will happen if there is water damage or sand gets in there?
The superior weapons in a zombie apocalypse.

First, a note: even though one could argue for zombies that have to be dismembered to kill them, as opposed to destroying the brain, I'll accept Pro's "zombie kill" criteria for this debate.So, my weapons of choice.Katana:A katana is a sword used by Japanese Samurai warriors. They are about two feet long, and ridiculously sharp. Crafted by master smiths, they can cut through a mushroom sitting on a surface without knocking it off. Perfect for removing zombie limbs or heads, and silent as well. Even though they are two feet long, when used effectively they can be slung at the side or over the back, out of the way of motion or other weapons.Baseball bat:A baseball bat is a perfect club. Good quality bats are strong and light, and are great for knocking back zombies and possibly clearing a path through a zombie horde in an emergency. Never need sharpening, never run out of ammunition...what more is there to say?M4A1:The M4 carbine is an all-around great weapon, effective to about 600 yards. A skilled marksman could hide in a building and take out approaching zombies - or survivors - from a safe distance, and because the A1 version, which is the standard weapon of all US special forces, has fully automatic fire, so it can be used to spray crowds of zombies to escape an ambush. It's fairly reliable as well, and I'm using your conditions to assume that I'm skilled enough at weapon repair to fix the occasional jam - less than 1% in 60,000 rounds.
The superior weapons in a zombie apocalypse.

Alright. Might I also add that skill would be irrelevant for both of our people carrying said weapons. Mine would be skilled with a crossbow while yours would be skilled with a gun, etc. Same with all weapons. Anyways, here are my argumentsMêlée : WW1 trench knifeThe trench knife, also known as a trench spike, was a weapon used by soldiers fighting in trenches in ww1, just to state the obvious. It is a combination of brass knuckles as a handle, and either a spike or a knife attached. They were designed to stab through the helmets of other soldiers. If they were in fact that effective against soldiers helmets, one could imagine what it could do to a zombie. A regular zombie must be killed by destroying the brain, this would be the best tool for penetrating the skull at close range. CrowbarThe crowbar, also know as a prybar, is a tool with a curved edge and flattened points and notches at the end usually for removing nails. This weapon is effective not just for killing zombies but also for prying open doors, removing nails, breaking windows, etc. The crowbar would give you more space than the trench spike, allowing the most amount of room between you and the attacking creature. The curved end and the straight end are essentially spikes, and the length of the crowbar would give you a good amount of force into the zombies head.Projectile :CrossbowThe crossbow is a very powerful weapons that has been in use for centuries. modern ones today are significantly more accurate and come with additions like scopes. Two of the best things about this is that it is silent and you have the ability to make your own arrows, in essence, not having to worry about running out of ammunition. Zombies are attracted to noise, if you honk a car horn, they are drawn by the sound. Crossbows are silent and you would not have to worry about a hoard following you after you shot down a few.
The superior weapons in a zombie apocalypse.

Second round is for stating your arguments on why said weapons are superior, third is for a rebuttal of opponents arguments in round 2, and four is for conclusions. The types of weapons you must argue for: Any two mêlée weapons and one projectile. You must argue not just the effectiveness of killing zombies and protecting yourself, but the actual usefulness of them on the field. The weapons I will argue for:Mêlée : A WW1 trench knife A crowbarProjectile:Crossbow
Confederate Laws on slavery were horrific

In the Confederate States of America slaverys started to die of in 1862 and was nearly abandoned in '64. Blacks had a right to bare arms in the Confederate Army, to own slaves. The Confederacy also banned the slave trade in her consitution. Around 22,000 freed slaves fought for the Confederate army with an estimated of 34,000 who were undoumented. Blacks fighting in the army wasn't mentioned by any polition till around a week till the fall of the Confederacy and after that around 3,000 joined to fight the cause. The first largest black Confederate regiment was the 1st Lousiania Guard. Witch was formed and abandaonded by freedmen, Many thought joined the 1st Lousiania. Around the end of the war Blacks started owning slaves, Not just 1 or 2 but hundreds. African slavery was still legal and the CSA was was still a legal country but blacks will build or find abandon plantations, then by slaves and make a living of of it. in the last years of the Drayton Hall Plantation blacks grew cotton and indigo with 84 slaves.In the Confederate Constitution it states that the slave trade is to be abolished:) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
Could Canada and it's allies beat America and it's allies in a war.

Sorry I forgot both sides have burden of Proof. I do agree you are a military super power. Sorry for no links forgot http://thecommonwealth.org... The commonwealth would pull all the countries to Canada unfortunately Ireland isn't there I thought it was part of the commonwealth as it used to be British. Netherlands is a Country Canada liberated in World War 2 who has sent flowers every year to Canada in remembrance so they likely wouldn't take kindly to Canada being invaded. Also North Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East could Join on Canada's Side to get back at you for Napalm, and Carpet bombing them. Canada is multi-cultural unlike america which has a strategical advantage in that we are unpredictable, one second your fighting an Irishman next an Indian both have different strategies, so you have to memorize many different strategies. Canada has Happier people which would mean a much higher likelihood of rebellion. http://www.cbc.ca... You have more soldiers but could you wage a war against half the country in the case of rebellion. Also we have Mounties so we win as they are pretty tough and are more effective as we have the lower crime rate.
Could Canada and it's allies beat America and it's allies in a war.

Here are the rules 1. The war just started no one invaded. 2. You may use civilian weaponry 3. You can talk about what happens after the war and whether the other side could hold the land it had taken I think Canada and it's allies could beat America and if not inflict massive causalities on America's military. This is because Canada has many allies such as Ireland, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, and Many African nations. Canada also has better snipers than america does which would help a lot. Canadians also would likely not take to kindly to losing our Healthcare and may start rioting or even rebel.
Could Canada and it's allies beat America and it's allies in a war.

You separated from Britain violently, we separated with negotiation. We stayed loyal and declared war with Britain during WWII even though we could have ignored them. Also it doesn't matter what the U.S. thinks it matters what Great Britain says. Also you Americans seem to be shunning Britain. http://www.theblogmocracy.com... http://www.nydailynews.com... Multi-Cultural isn't about races, it's about trying to make everyone keep their culture, it's a policy. It pertains to the debate because every officer will act very different, making our army completely unpredictable. You said that "Under socialism, these views and opinions are stifled if not prohibited." this is not true, Europe is socialist but also a Democracy just like Canada. Canadians love socialism and we would not want to lose it. America does not have an incredible Healthcare system like Canada. What are all these things america has that Canada doesn't. Canada is the 6th happiest place in the world the 5 above are all also socialist. http://www.forbes.com... Canada is the best place for women to live in the world. http://www.reuters.com... Canadian Snipers can't be released to the public. There is however a few who have been given medals by your army for bravery. http://www.thestar.com... http://afghanistan.nationalpost.com... America got destroyed during the Vietnam war, Canada probably could have won that. Could America have won Vimy Ridge, with as little casualties as Canada did. On D-Day only three units made it to their objectives all three were Canadians. Canada was the army the Germans feared most http://www.canadaatwar.ca... http://www.warmuseum.ca... http://www.warmuseum.ca... http://www.warmuseum.ca... http://www.warmuseum.ca... http://www.battlefield-tours.ca... http://secondworldwar.co.uk... Conclusion I was only pointing out how unpredictable people can act, Russia or China could also randomly go to war with you which would mean you would lose as together they would have more men then you. FBI = Mounties, CIA = CSIS, Special Forces = JTF2. https://www.csis.gc.ca... http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca... http://en.wikipedia.org... Canada will have Allies Canada will have great soldiers fighting for their home, our soldiers will fight harder than yours because it is to defend their home land.
Could Canada and it's allies beat America and it's allies in a war.

You have been in Two wars with them we still have the same head of state as them the Queen. This would mean that Britain could very easily defend an old ally and colony. America isn't very open you keep trying to block immigration with bigger walls. Canada encourages people to come and not to change to suit what other's culture is. http://www.cic.gc.ca... So basically Europe isn't democracy because it is socialist. We Canadians love our socialism, you do to do you like any of the following: Social Security, Health Care, Welfare, and Unions. In the world Socialist countries are happier than america is. https://emsnews.wordpress.com... Taking our socialism would likely cause massive riots and rebellions. Francis Pegahmegabow - WW1 sniper http://en.wikipedia.org... We also have men like these guys showing just how good we are at fighting. http://listverse.com... We have also proven ourselves through history in such battles as, http://www.theglobeandmail.com... Conclusion You have not proved Canada would be alone for all you know Zimbabwe might randomly decide to join Canada. Canada will have allies Military isn't everything sometimes bravery and intelligence can overcome numbers, Canadians would not like your rule we would fight back as long as it took.
Could Canada and it's allies beat America and it's allies in a war.

British CommonwealthThis point was addressed via the allies point. The British Commonwealth includes Great Britain (United Kingdom) who would not oppose their greatest ally, the United States. [1] , [2]Multi-CulturalThe multi-cultural argument falls so heavily on the Con side, as the US is world-renowned for being the greatest multi-cultural country in the world, the "Great Melting Pot." [3] , [4] Furthermore, my opponent fails to back up his/her side by providing evidence. Thus, this point must be awarded to the more credible side (Con).HappinessOnce again, happiness would succumb to manpower, which the United States owns. Furthermore, however, democracy is generally preferable to citizens because they have more freedoms. Under socialism, these views and opinions are stifled if not prohibited.AlliesMy opponent keeps drawing up new allies to assist Canada, but each are on good terms with the United States and would decline entering the war to maintain such relationships. The same is true with India, who has just recently entered into a global strategic relationship with the US. [5]SnipersMy opponent brings no card of evidence to support his claim that Canadian snipers are "better." This subjective opinion holds no merit when compared to factual manpower and superiority of the US. Moreover, out of the top 6 deadliest snipers, Canada has only one winner, at 5th position. [6] On the other hand, the United States holds 3 positions, 6th, 4th, and 3rd. [7] This proves that Canada does not have "better" snipers than the US. Prefer the Con side becuase evidence was provided.Conclusion:I have already proved that Canada would face the US alone, which my opponent has not refuted.The commonwealth my opponent speaks of includes many of the United States' allies, who wouldn't help the Canadian cause.I have refuted all of my opponent's points, whereas my opponent has left many of mine standing. They are as follows:1.Canada must face the US alone.2. US is a super power (conceded).3. Military presence belongs to the US.Sources: [1] http://thecommonwealth.org...[2] http://www.pewglobal.org...[3] http://mrl.nyu.edu...[4] http://www.economist.com...[5] https://www.indianembassy.org...[6] http://www.therichest.com...[7] http://www.therichest.com...
Could Canada and it's allies beat America and it's allies in a war.

You forgot to address the British Commonwealth and how it would be drawn into a war. This would be dangerous because the commonwealth has a total population of 2.2 billion. http://thecommonwealth.org... Canada is much more multi-cultural encouraging citizens to be individuals and keep their old culture, it has been specifically founded on multi cultural beliefs. With happiness I was pointing out that Canadians like our socialism and will not be happy with america who will likely take it away this could easily anger Canadians making america have to deal with millions of rebels. Manpower wise if Canada gains the commonwealth we would have an incredible manpower, especially from India. Canadian Snipers are better than Americans this helps because we can just bump off your officers meaning your command structure collapses, Snipers are also a nuisance when they attack because soldiers have to stop and eliminate them which can take hours. Conclusions Canada is likely to have many allies to aid us. America's individual military may be powerful but not enough to combat the commonwealth, or in the case of rebellion hold of millions of angry people.
Could Canada and it's allies beat America and it's allies in a war.

BoPI will accept my opponent's suggestion that the BoP will be shared.Military Super PowerMy opponent concedes this point, it must be awarded to Con.AlliesI accept my opponent's apology and wish the debate to continue unaffected by this.He next brings up, in concurrence with this point that North Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East could join in. However, the simple fact is that North Korea is skittish. They are afraid to launch any attacks on the United States. [1] Furthermore, Vietnam doesn't have sufficient military to attack the US [2], nor would they like to get into another major conflict after the Vietnam War. [3] As for the Middle East, they are already dealing with a number of problems, most of which pertain to the Islamic State. [4]Multi-culturalIt is indeed the United States that is multi-cultural. [5] It as also been referenced as the "melting-pot" of the world. [6] This promotes unity and pushing beyond social and economic differences to create one unified system. This combines natural talents of each race into one strategic army. Thus, these strategies can be combined to create an elite force like no other. This refutes the argument my opponent brought up.HappinessThough happiness plays a minute role, we must consider factors that are more important to war than rebellions within countries. Manpower is a more important statistic, one that the US owns. In fact, manpower and resources were the primary reason as to why the Union won the Civil War. [7]Manpower:Manpower is one of the most important statistics. The United States has 145,212,012 available manpower comparative to Canada's mere 15,786,816. [8] I encourage voters to visit this linke [8] to read further statistics rather than list them all here. This manpower also outweighs "better" snipers and health care reforms. Conclusion:Conclusively, we find that I have refuted my opponent's points while he has left many of my points either conceded or unargued.1. Canada must face the US alone.2. US is a super power (conceded).3. Military presence belongs to the US.Sources:[1] http://www.antiwar.com...[2] http://www.globalfirepower.com...[3] http://www.history.com...[4] http://www.theatlantic.com...[5] https://www.boundless.com...[6] http://photos.state.gov...[7] http://www.historytoday.com...[8] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
Abortion Should Be Illegal

Some consider abortion to be murder since the being inside the mother is living. The definition of something living includes the ability to grow, which is exactly what is going on inside a woman who is pregnant. An abortion ceases the growing process, therefore ending the future life of a human being. This little being may not start off with a heartbeat or brain activity, but cells are still dividing and allowing it to grow.Children can't and don't ask to be born, this is purely an option only adults have. Whether the woman chose to get pregnant or not, pro-life individuals feel that abortion is taking the right to live from a human being. This is a right that an embryo cannot defend. Some people say that humans only get to exercise the right of choice once they are old enough to reason, but others feel that a competent adult can also speak for those who are unable to do so on their own. Adoption is always brought up when people talk about aborting an unwanted child. The idea of aborting a child who would make a welcome addition to another family's household is expressed by many pro-life individuals. There are tons of people who get rejected when they apply to adopt a child, which makes the idea of adoption seem far-fetched to these individuals. However, most people feel putting a child up for adoption is much better than going through an abortion. Not all abortions are handled in a manner that is both sanitary and done by a professional. Abortions can be very expensive, which causes some women to seek services wherever possible. There have been quite a few cases of women dying, becoming sterile from a botched abortion, or ending up in the hospital with further complications. I don't know if making abortions illegal would help this though. I do think that it would lessen the numbers of women who endanger their lives by looking for abortion services that aren't up to par. The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath doctors take doesn't specify that doctor are only to save people and make them better, but it is expected of them. The classic version of this oath actually has the phrase, ‘…I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.' and the original Hippocratic Oath states, ‘…I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.' Any mention of not performing an abortion has been taken out of the Hippocratic Oath, but not from the minds of people who expect doctors to save lives. Everything else has evolved over the year, so why not the idea of abortion? Sure, abortion, child abandonment, and even infanticide were all once permitted under Roman law, but that doesn't make them humane. Leaving your child on someone's doorstep or committing murder are both considered a major penalty, so why not abortion? Women who go through an abortion have to always carry that thought with them. They often wonder what their child would have looked like, acted like, and what type of person he/she would have been. No matter how strong a woman is, an abortion causes mental anguish that never truly goes away. At least with adoption a mother or father has the chance to see what their child has become.