BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tiger vs. Lion

And now, we are going to discuss the most important part of a fight; the animals' fighting skill. A big myth surrounds this field. Many people think that, because a male lion fights for his pride against other males, the lion has more fighting skill. It is also thought that "A lion fights and doesn't hunt, and a tiger hunt's and doesn't fight." This is a ridiculous theory. The world is not all perfect and orderly like that; just because a male lion fights a lot and doesn't hunt much, does not mean that a tiger hunts and doesn't fight much. In fact, male lions DO hunt, and they do so very efficiently. And as for tigers, the truth is this: The average male tiger fights more over the coarse of his life than the average male lion. Tigers fight with other tigers, sometimes to the death, to win the heart of a female. And female tigers fight off hungry males to defend their cubs. The shrinking habitat of the tiger is causing even more battles over territory, battles that both tigers AND tigresses fight in. And there are many other animals that these cats fight with. Lion prides have wars against packs of hyenas, and tigers deal with wild dogs and crocs. But perhaps the most impressive thing is that tigers have been known to attack and kill adult brown bears, animals that lions would not stand a chance against. Tigers and lions fight a bit differently, as well. Tigers seem to use a bit more 'skill' in fighting, for example, keeping their heads back while battling. Lions have been known to blindly charge into battle; it's just the way they fight each other. Unfortunately, this would be a weakness when fighting a tiger, because experts have noticed that tigers think things through a bit more when they fight.
Tiger vs. Lion

Now Jaw Force. I tell this to everybody. You don't need that much to kill. Lions can kill a well muscled cape buffalo with a muzzle clamp and throat bite. That takes a lot of force. Two, the tiger does not have a wider skull. That is just an illusion due to the fact that tigers have ruffs and lionesses(since they don't have manes) don't. However if you look at both animals from the side you will notice that the lion has the shorter muzzle. Tigers tend to have more hooked canines. This means that there is a higher chance of them falling off. This would also means tigers can't put too much force on them. Lion: Thick protective mane. It also makes a lion look much bigger, heavier and taller than it really is. This is of immediate psychological disadvantage to any animal fighting a lion. It's downright scary to see a lion coming towards you roaring. A lioness, even if it were of similar size, wouldn't inspire as much awe. From the fight videos, it does seem that the mane is of huge advantage to the lion. In the only fight-video of a maneless (shaved) lion, the lion seemed too easy to beat for the tiger. The mane is the biggest weapon for a lion - both for defence and for scaring off the opponent. More massively built shoulders. Both the cats have extremely powerful and muscular 'shoulders'. But a lion has it more developed and stronger than a similar-sized tiger. Again, this is an advantage for the lion. Role played as a fighter. This is the most important point cited by the ones who pick a lion to win. A lion is built to be a fighter - super-strong forequarters, protective mane, shorter ears, large head (compared to its body), a big muzzle and strong jaws. In every respect, it seems to have been built for pit fights. And lions do fight over territory and mating fairly often. Taller structure. This makes the lion more intimidating. Also, this somewhat compensates for the weaker hindquarters.
Tiger vs. Lion

First of all, the tiger is heavier and overall larger, so it has the size advantage. Though this is certainly not the most important thing in a fight, it is still important. You do not see a house cat beating a German shepherd, because even though cats move faster and more fiercely, the dog is simply much, much bigger. Basically, size DOES matter. But a Bengal tiger isn't THAT much bigger than a lion, so in this case, power and skill are the most important things. Many people think that the lion is stronger than the tiger because they appear to be more muscular. But the fact is, tigers are actually more muscular, their muscles are sometimes harder to see because of longer fur and vertical stripes. The tiger is more similar in build to the jaguar than the lion, and the jaguar is the world's strongest cat (compared to its own size.) A very important feature of strength is the animal's jaw force. The tiger has a wider skull, and the lion's is longer. Animals with wider skulls have a stronger bite, because the force of the bite is concentrated more on one area, instead of being spread out over a length. The tiger's canines are also a bit longer than the lion's, which is very easy to see in photos
Monarchies are superior than Republics

I'll argue that a monarchical form of government is much better than a republican form of government on the following issues:- Political stability- Political corruption - Economy- LegitimacyAny questions about this topics please write it con comments.The first round is for acceptanceSecond for main argumentsThird for rebuttals and, if possible, new arguments. Fourth again for rebuttals and new arguments.Fifth for rebuttals and conclusion.
Monarchies are superior than Republics

I apologize, thanks for Waiting, i went to a vex robotics competition this weekend, so no wifi. 1)Stability To address Brazil, AS MY OPPONENT STATED "there were no Coup d'etat in Brazil until the fall of the Monarchy" WHICH MEANS IT WAS UNSTABLE, I REST MY CASE. I do not need to state monarchs who killed opposition, because it is common sence, if you need a list look to The english empire before it fell. ALL OF HIS EXAMPLES ARE OF COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS, ALL WITH DICTATORSHIPS, I request my opponent actually learn about these governments before he decides to align a dictatorship with a republic. And CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES ARE NOT WHAT THE RESOLUTION CALLS FOR. WE CANNOT LOOK TO ANY ARGUMENTATION BASED ON CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES. 2)Corruption A DICTATORSHIP IS NOT A REPUBLIC! IT IS A SEPARATE TYPE OF GOVERNMENT ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE A MONARCHY. I again argue we cannot look to any argument my opponent makes that inst a pure monarchy as stated in the resolution. 3)ECONOMY MY JOB AS NEG ISN'T TO SAY REPUBLICS ARE SUPERIOR, IT IS MY OPPONENTS JOB TO SHOW MONARCHIES ARE SUPERIOR, HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THUS I WIN. 4)Legitimacy PRESERVING A RELIGION IS A ILLEGITIMATE ARGUMENT, THAT CANNOT SHOW THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY. MY JOB AS NEG ISN'T TO SAY REPUBLICS ARE SUPERIOR, IT IS MY OPPONENTS JOB TO SHOW MONARCHIES ARE SUPERIOR, HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THUS I WIN. 5)Representation In republics minorities are supported look to Athens and Romes stable republic befoer its monarchy, which led to its fall. MONARCHIES DO NOT GIVE ANY FORM OF REPRESENTATION. AND AGAIN, MY JOB AS NEG ISN'T TO SAY REPUBLICS ARE SUPERIOR, IT IS MY OPPONENTS JOB TO SHOW MONARCHIES ARE SUPERIOR, HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THUS I WIN.
Monarchies are superior than Republics

First YOU ARE NOT ARGUING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY! YOU ARE ARGUING FOR A PLAIN MONARCHY AS STATED IN THE RESOLUTION, They are completely different. If you continue arguing for the incorrect government then you default. 1) OK just to start, YOU STILL HAVE NO EXAMPLES OF A WORKING MONARCHY, if Brazil is so good then why was there Slavery? and a civil war overthrowing them? To address the Latin America argument, Latin America is bad because of a history of clash and poverty CAUSED BY SPAIN'S MONARCHY. Republics have a history of working unlike monarchies, They provide peace and prosperity THIS POINT HAS GONE UNREFUETED. My opponents only argument to saying monarchs believe they are above the law is an example of a monarchs daughter. THIS DOESN'T SHOW MONARCHS FOLLOW LAWS, IT ONLY SHOWS THEY CARE FOR THEMSELVES. MY OPPONENT DID NOT REFUTE THE FACT MONARCHS KILL OPPOSITION SUCH AS OTHERS IN LINE FOR POWER, This is political instability and corruption that doesn't happen in Republics. 2)His only examples of bad republics is CUBA, Which inst a republic but a dictatorship or monarchist government where leadership is passed through blood, And NORTH KOREA, Which is also a dictatorship or monarchist government. Thus this point Flows to my side. Again in a monarchy corruption is plentiful and monarchs kill one another in their own family for power. His Examples of working monarchies weren't even monarchies but constitutional monarchies which are not the same so you cannot look to his arguments. Thus this argument flows to me. 3)My opponent seems to think we live in the 1700 or renascences era, Maybe even before WWII, Both the UK and Japan Have moved from monarchies to a Republic Parliamentary system, Their king/queen/emperor have no political power in the state. The Act of Settlement Took the Queen of England power and gave it to their parliament. Thus I win this argument too. 4)Here My opponent tries to avert the burden of proof to me, however i am not proving anything, he must show monarchies are superior, but either way He does not readdress my argument that MONARCHS GET 0% OF VOTES, THUS YOU ARE BETTER REPRESENTED BY A REPUBLIC WITH 51% VOTES. He argues that you don't chose your parents but this doesn't show a monarchy as better, it essentially says EVEN IF YOU GET A BAD LEADER WHO DOESN'T ALIGN WITH HIS PEOPLE IT SUCKS TO BE YOU. BECAUSE HE DIDN'T CHOSE HIS PARENTS! Thus I win this arguement too. 5) My opponents only example of a Representative government is again, NOT A PLAIN MONARCHY THAT THE RESOLUTION CALLS FOR, AND IT COLLAPSED, so the only example of representation is a monarchy was a failed state. Republics provide this representation, I gave clear examples of this, thus I win this argument too.
Monarchies are superior than Republics

I Guess I will start by addressing the same issues and also expanding with the Representation. 1)Political stability Monarchies are the opposite of political stability, In a Republic sure the leader is subject to their party, HOWEVER there is more than one political leader. Thus representation is shared and thus equal. Leaders are not bought and we can see that in american elections, Obama was overspent by several hundred thousand dollars and still won. In a monarchy the leader is corrupt and subject only to their opinion. NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY HAS A MONARCHY WORKED AND BENEFITED ITS PEOPLE! ALL MONARCHIES AS OF PRESENT ARE EITHER STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE OR GONE. Stability in a monarchy is achieved simply by killing any opposition, hording resources, and forcing people below you into poverty. YOUR WHOLE CONTENTION ASSUMES ALL MONARCHIES ARE NEUTRAL, that's not how monarchies work. They are simply composed of a leader that looks out for his own good only trying to empower himself. They do not care what they have to do to achieve it. This is proved with Hobbes' law of nature, a monarchy is a clear example when law of man is ignored and we are placed into a state of nature, or chaos, NO MAN CAN BELIEVE HE IS ABOVE THE LAW no matter how talented or skilled. Thus your Contention falls apart. 2) Political corruption This is absurd argument, Warlords run the same government of fear Monarchies use and are the definition of corrupt, they accept funds to sway opinion, CORRUPTION IS NOT TO FAVOR A PARTY ALONE, IT REQUIRES A BRIBE OF SOME SORT. So again, a republic where Parliament exist show equal representation of the people, thus equality is spread unlike in a monarchy. 3)Economy This argument is so far out there I'm almost sad your arguing this, The only argument I needs bring against this is GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF THIS WORKING, All the examples in the past have LEAD TO REBELLION, REVOLUTION, DEATH, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REPUBLIC. Current examples of working republics; USA, UK, Germany, Japan, South Korea, France, ect. 4)Legitimacy This is also a ridiculous argument, Monarchies are the farthest thing from a legitimate government. a monarchy is 0% of votes for someone to be able to be unchecked and able to rule in any way they wish. A republic has a parliament or congress to check up on leaders and control the authority of the leaders. 5)Representation This does not exist in a monarchy! Representation leads to prosperity of the people and allow minorities that are in poverty to advance.
ban islam

First, I would like to make the facts clear for everybody reading: 1. The motion of this debate is 'This house would ban Islam'. 2. Pro's 'argument' consists only of a YouTube link of a random man (not even an official news reporter) discussing the case of a woman who was raped by Muslims. Definitions: Ban- to officially or legally prohibit something [1] Islam- a monotheistic religion founded by Muhammad and based on the teachings of the Qur'an [2] Muslim- an adherent of Islam [2] We now begin. Since Pro has not provided a proper argument for me to refute, I am going to assume that Pro believes Islam should be banned because of the rape described in the video. I'm going to make this point brief as it seems really obvious to be quite honest. Just because one member of an ethnicity, religion or whatever, carries out an immoral act does not mean that we should stereotype the whole group as being the same. For example, if a black man steals something (no offence intended), it does not mean that all black people are immoral beings and steal things. Similarly, just because a group of men who happened to be Muslims raped a woman and tortured her (which we can all agree was horrendous), it DOES NOT imply that all Muslims are rapists or that Islam is a bad religion and should therefore be banned. Islam, like all religions teaches excellent morals, such as being kind to one another and to have respect [3]. So what really makes a person a Muslim or a Christian? In Ireland for example, the main religion is Christianity and although most of the people were baptised at birth, a lot of them are atheists and do not believe in God or take the Bible seriously. Therefore, the definition of a Muslim or Christian can be controversial. Secondly, I hate to mention this but let's take the Holocaust as an example. Over 70% of the German population are Roman Catholics (ie. Christianity) [4]. But as you know, during that period of time, over 6 million Jews were murdered. So clearly, Christianity should really be banned judging by your theory- after all, the Holocaust has proved that Christianity is ten times worse than Islam. Finally, the majority of recent terrorism (excluding the Paris attacks of course) were due to political reasons and not religious reasons as many believe [5]. In conclusion, I think it would be absolutely absurd to ban a religion such as Islam for no good reason. I'm not sure about you but I know a lot of Muslims and they are all in fact, very kind and honest people. Within a group, there will always be the good and bad, no matter what. Thank you for reading. Vote Con! Citations: [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.questionsaboutislam.com... [4] https://www.internations.org... [5] http://handofreason.com...
Resolved: Resident evil 5 Los plagas people are better than Resident Evil 4 los Plagas people

My my, and i thought you had gone after forfeiting most of the debates.I shall show you why those RE5 Majinis are better then your Ganados.1. They are black!Black means they are awesom and since the Majinis also contains Hespanic people living in Africa, it means that they admitted that those black people are awesome!2. They look more dangerousBloody red eyes, potato sack with a white eye bulging out and feigning death after being hit by a rocket launcher, HOW ARE THEY NOT AWESOME?!! Not to mention that their 1 hit kills are epic compared to those Ganados wusses who cant even kill a person instantly on Professional.3. They are fun to kill!With those new fancy melee moves, how are they not funny to kill? I like using those pepper sprays on them or a bitch slap.Not really used to joke debates, but i guess ill just entertain you.
Resolved: Resident evil 5 Los plagas people are better than Resident Evil 4 los Plagas people

Well, the Ganados has an interesting way to infect other people, and thats through lethal injection, maybe with some cocaine added to it, but the Majinis will just stuff some good worm food in your face to take over your mind! My thats some strong stuff isnt it?!!Bigger means nothing! Your El Gigantes fell simply from a few rifle bullets. The Ndesu required a minigun to be taken down. Same applies to the rest of those crappy bosses of yours. Also, one of your bosses slipped from a banana and fell in a lava pool, i call that FAIL.Lol easy kills, idc, you support my argument that Majinis are more fun to kill :D
Resolved: Resident evil 5 Los plagas people are better than Resident Evil 4 los Plagas people

Los Illuminados are Spanish Their accents are hilarious even if you understand it. They have the old fashion killing tools. They are skilled. They have bigger Creatures. They have El Gigante, IT, and Los Diaglos(the japanese godzilla). They are all BA's and can kill in one shot. Not the Majinis. THey are easy kills. It can get you through the game easier and have more fun as you cruise through with head shots round hous kicks body slams oh ya.
Half-Full not Half-Empty

You stated that if a glass is filled to the half point it is then half full but what if the glass was full then you drank half of it? To your reasoning the cup would be half empty since you said "When one makes a change, it should be referred to in relation to that change." so it depends on the state of the glass. If you just painted a house then while wet it rained which caused half of the house's paint to disappear would you consider it half painted of half unpainted? If there was a car that is wet then you dry half of it is it half dry or wet? I think if it was full then halted then it should be called half empty if it was empty then filled halfway then it should be called half full. Before there was a lake there was a patch of dry land.( Sorry for my bad grammar.)
Half-Full not Half-Empty

I would like to argue that it is in better context to refer to a container, filled with liquid up to a halfway point, to be considered half full. My reasoning is that the default state of a cup is empty. When one makes a change, it should be referred to in relation to that change. Say, you're painting a house. At the halfway mark, would you consider it half painted or half unpainted? Say there was a car, and one side was sprayed down with a hose. Half dry or half wet? It would be silly to call something that's only half the trait of it's default state. A cup is not filled ultimately before being filled. A case where half empty would be appropriate would be on a noun like a Lake. The default state of a lake is filled with water, so in a draining process, it'd be considered half empty. I rest my case.
God Exists

Rules/ StipulationsGod will be defined as a maximally great being (who has necessary existence, if possible). God is also defined as the tri-omni (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) cause of the universe. This is the classical philosophical definition of God. The burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that it is more plausible that God exists than not. My burden is to show that it is more plausible that God does not exist that does. Basically, the burden of proof is shared. The first round will not be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his/ her opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."
God Exists

"No argument will be posted here as agreed."In a plea for fairness, the instigator made the request that I don't put my sources in the final round like what I indicated in my closing statement in Round 3. I have little interest in technicality or in winning. For those who may be interested in my sources, I made them available in the comments but I plea to the voters/adjudicators to considet that I failed to include my sources within the debate rounds.
my words are a god gun

To be God, you must be perfect in every way. You may have never lied, but every other tiny sin you have committed counts as well. "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one;'" ~ Romans 3:10 There is only one God, and no one else can even come close to being his equal. Perfect is the standard. In logical terms, if you are perfect, than you must be God. However, since no one can be God, then it is impossible for you to be God.
The Number Zero is the Most Dangerous Threat to the Numbers World

Good choice, but not good enough.THE HISTORY OF THE ZERO WARSBy 9spaceking A long time ago, there were The Zero Wars. The Zeroes were practically unstoppable. At first there were only a few handful of zeroes. But soon eough, the zeroes gathered in power and teamed up with multiplication to spread their terror. And boy did they spread, the spread like viruses, damaging the positive and negative alike, turning them into mindless drones of zeroes. http://d20uo2axdbh83k.cloudfront.net...; alt="" />The zeroes grew in power so much that they elected the great king known as The Zero King. The Zero King was a mighty king, strategically putting the zeroes in our most secretive and powerful military base areas, slowly converting the whole government into nothing but zeroes. Our citizens panicked, but we were sure we could handle the Terrible Zeroes. We send in divisional-sign troops to hope to blow a gigantic ERROR hole in the system or create the legendary infinity. Unfortunately the zeroes were prepared. They bribed a few complex mathematical theorem spells so that we could only create infinities, and what were the use of them? Although uber powerful and unstoppable when faced with roots, log's, and negative numbers, against the mighty zeroes even the Infinity stood no chance. They simply disappeared into thin air. The equation still stands to today...Zero times infinity equals... From: http://www.wolframalpha.com.... As we send more troops in to kamakize, it did not work out very well. The zeroes still spread like bullet heaven while our troops were disappearing one by one. And so we tried stopping them with their same crew--the complex numbers. We knew they could build complex three-dimensional cubes, so we hired those complex numbers to sneak into Zero territory to build giant cubes to keep them in. And at first it worked. Zero times cube is not zero. Cube is not a number, it is a shape, it is from another world. We thought for sure they were done for. Unfortunately the Zero King sought faraway technology too. He sought far and wide and found a mysterious wizard, one who knew the far future, and he told him the great secrets of the fourth dimension. And so, he told his inventors to build great fourth-dimensional staircases that managed to warp around and go through the cube, enabling all those Zeroes to escape. Ah, it was a great loss for us. We could not stop them. We were forced to go into exile and hiding, and zeroes ruled over, and they still ruled over now. We are lucky to survive.
The Number Zero is the Most Dangerous Threat to the Numbers World

My thanks to 9spaceking for this pivotal debate topic regarding this immanent threat to the numbers world! However, the dangerous (dare I say dire) threat to the world of numbers is not from zero. Zero is like a thug with a pocket knife in comparison to the thermonuclear super power rogue state known as INFINITY -> Incalculable Numerical Felling (of) Indeterminable Natural Integers - Terminally. Yo!Where their symbol of terror appear all numbers should fear!∞I invite 9spaceking to make his opening arguments.