BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A tiger will defeat a lion

More Mates"How does a lion having more mates make it a better fighter?"It's the other way around. A lion that is a better fighter will be able to have more mates which means that it will pass on its genes to more individuals than a lion that is not a good fighter. This means that because this kind of sexual selection is stronger in social species male lions will become better at fighting other large cats.Using Two Paws"I would like you to show me a video where the lion uses both front paws."For a start I have already shown that you have overplayed the significance of using two paws. In the first 30 seconds of this video especially between 10 and 15 seconds you will see a lion using two paws both while on its hind legs and after being wrestled to the ground [1].The Number of People Taken to Hold Down an Animal"You can't compare a crocodile to a tiger or lion"The reason I was using the examples of a crocodile and a basking shark was to show how the number of people taken to hold the animal down is not a good way to determine how effective its fighting style is I was not comparing my examples of a basking shark and a crocodile to a lion and a tiger. My Argument"I don't actually understand what your argument is, you've tried using long words but it doesn't do anything for me."My main argument is that because of sexual selection which is more active in lions than tigers traits which make an animal a better fighter would more selected more often in lions than tigers.My opponent hasn't given me much to respond to.[1]
A tiger will defeat a lion

You have not provided any evidence for what you've said. How does a lion having more mates make it a better fighter? you keep saying what I've said is not true, but where have you proven it wrong... Two paws is definitely better than one otherwise a martial artist would use one hand to punch with and one leg to kick with. Most experts favour the tiger just for this reason. You should try getting on all fours and imitate a swipe then you will notice how weak a lion must be. They are also built closest to cheetahs, while a tiger is built towards jaguars and smilodon which are the strongest cats. Balancing on the hind legs also means gravity is on the tigers side, if you watch a fight between tigers and lions you can see the tiger controls the fight. Lions aren't capable of standing on their hind legs, they can only do that if their front paws are holding on to something like a wall or cage. Their backlimbs are not strong enough, that is why you've never seen them leap six meters horizontally or jump five meters veritcally like a tiger can. I would like you to show me a video where the lion uses both front paws. You can't compare a crocodile to a tiger or lion, they are already on the ground and can't try to stand up. It's actually called alligator wrestling where the man is trained to smack it on the nose, put his hand and head in its mouth all while not being attacked. Same goes with a shark, being underwater is completely different than being on land. If you compared controlling a big cat to a bear or gorilla I could understand but you're doing no favours for yourself. I don't actually understand what your argument is, you've tried using long words but it doesn't do anything for me.
A tiger will defeat a lion

Mortality rates actually show that tigers fight more than lions. In Khana National Park 25% of tiger deaths are from other tigers and only 5.5% of lion deaths are from other lions. Out of 21 lions monitored by scientists, only three of them were killed by fighting, in five years. Lions also avoid fighting through bluffing. "Since a fight usually hurts both the attacker and defender, they mostly use other methods of dissuasion - particularly bluffing. The male may stand broadside to a stranger displaying his mane and making himself appear large and impressive. Such bluffs usually succeed. " (Page 60, Wonders of Lions. George & Kay Schaller). If a lion is adapted to fighting then why do they have a terrible fighting style. A tiger can rear up on its hind legs only making both front paws available. A lion must stand on three legs an maul with the fourth. In the documented fights, in most of the cases where there are details of the fight, the tiger seemed to gain advantage for this reason. The tiger's fighting style not only theoretically doubles the number of swipes, it increases the reach, increases the force, and allows a tiger to defend/block a swipe and make an offensive swipe at nearly the same time. "I may add that five men can easily hold down a lion, while it requires nine men to control a tiger. " I would like to bring up strength now. A tiger is stronger by - 30.10% in shoulder joints 34.7% in hip joints 31.91% in forelimbs 34.91% in backlimbs A tiger has 72.6% muscle mass and a lion has 58.8% muscle mass. A tiger also has 7.7% body fat while a lion has almost double at 13.7% but it doesn't end here. The lion's humeroradial index (measure of its limb proportions), at 98.3, is closer to that of the cheetah (101.3) than to that of the tiger (89.8). S. fatalis (78.9) - P. tigris (82.4) - 3.5 S. fatalis (78.9) - P. leo (89.5) - 10.6 A. jubatus (100.1) - P. tigris (82.4) - 18.7 A. jubatus (100.1) - P. leo (89.5) - 11.6 The tiger is closer to S. fatalis (smilodon) and the lion is closer to A. jubatus (cheetah). Source(s) . http://jackjacksonj.webs.com... . http://jackjacksonj.webs.com... . http://indrajit.wordpress.com...
A tiger will defeat a lion

I will argue that while the tiger is seemingly more likely to win on paper as a pack animal the lion would experience more conflict with other large cats and as such would be more adapted to that kind of conflict. I will be selecting a male lion for the purposes of this debate. With a male lion the point I made earlier is far exaggerated as the male lion does not hunt the evolutionary advantage would to me more effective in fighting other big cats as a male lion that could more effectively fight other lions would get more mates and therefore produce more offspring. My point is that a male lion is more adapted to fighting other large cats than a tiger which is more adapted to taking down prey.
The State of Massachusetts should be ceded in order to create a homeland for Roma people

My opponent contends that the Roma face prejudice and persecution wherever they have gone. Why, then, establish a homeland in America? This would be a divisive act, and would add to their persecution. My opponent contends there are 1 million Roma in the US, yet there are 15 million worldwide. The US is hardly a likely homeland. Most of the Roma in the US are concentrated in Virginia and Louisianna, why establish Massachusettes- one of the original 13 states of the United States of America- be ceded for a Roma homeland? My opponent contends that the British "donated their land" for the Jews. This is not true. Palenstine was not British land, it was a colony occupied by Britain. Palestine was ethnically Arab and to a smaller extent, Jew, before England ceded the colony for the creation of a Jewish state. Massachusettes is largely Irish and other Western European. There are many minorities in Massachesettes, but none claim the state as their homeland except for maybe some Nipmuc and Wampanoag Indians of New England. The Jewish had in the very least a documented religious claim to the land, the controversy of which is not the subject of this debate, though very relevant when considering a State of the Union as the homeland for a nomadic peoples from half a world away. My opponent claims that somehow the Roma "deserve" their own nation state. I contend that the Roma are ethnically Punjab Indians, and therefore already have a nation and a region within that nation to call home. Overpopulation is one reason why ethnicities are found outside of their home regions. Overpopulation is not an excuse to create multiple home nation states. Furthermore, neither the displacement of Arabs in Palestine nor the displacement of US citizens in Massachusetts can be morally justified to make room for someone else. I understand this debate may be an act of revers psycology on the part of my opponent, but if he really feels displacement is justified, then why use genocide as an excuse? Displacement is simply a non-lethal form of genocide. My opponent mentions US policy towards Israel as hostility toward Palestine, and uses this as justification for displacement of US Citizens. If my opponent wanted to have a debate about US policy toward Israel he should have started a debate regarding that issue. This debate is simply a show of cowardice and veiled support for Palestine, and a true debate would have been much more interesting and honorable on his part. My opponent contends that the US Federal Government should cede the State of Massachusetts to the Roma people. This is impossible. The US Federal Government has no power to cede a State of the Union. That power resides in the hands of the government and citizens of the State of Massachusetts. Secession from the Union would be viewed as an act of war, and would be treated as such.
The State of Massachusetts should be ceded in order to create a homeland for Roma people

For centuries, Roma people (otherwise known as Gypsies) have travelled far and wide and have faced prejudice and persecution wherever they have gone. In many ways, their experience mirrors that of the Jewish people. However, whereas the Jews were granted their own homeland when the State of Israel was created after World War II, even though the Nazi's exterminated over 600,000 Roma people in the Holocaust, the Roma still have nowhere to call "home". http://www.romani.org... The Jewish people originated in what is now Iraq, but it was agreed that the British Mandate of Palestine should be withdrawn and the land ceded to the Zionists in order to create a Jewish state. The Roma people originated in what is now the Punjab region of India, but that is already an extremely over-populated part of the world. As there are already 1 million Roma in the United States, whose ancestors were shipped over by European countries during colonial times, and since the US has plenty of spare land, there is no reason why the United States shouldn't donate some of its territory to create a homeland for the Roma people in the same way Britain did for the Jews. http://www.tshaonline.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.punenvis.nic.in... Israel is about the same size as Massachusetts (with land areas of 20,770 sq. km and 20,300 sq. km respectively), both have productive agricultural hinterlands, both have direct access to the sea and, in Jerusalem and Boston, both can boast urban centres of historical importance. For this reason, I believe Massachusetts would make an ideal homeland for the Roma people. https://www.cia.gov... http://www.convertit.com... Of course, like Jews, the Roma deserve their own nation state, but in its formation many of the incumbent occupants of the land will need be displaced, as was the case when Arab families were driven off their farms and out of their homes when the State of Israel was created. However, the US has always been unwavering in its support of the State of Israel and both Republican and Democrat politicians refer to Palestinian resistance fighters as "terrorists". No doubt, there will be similar resistance to the creation of a Roma homeland where what is currently known as Massachusetts is, but I am confident that the government and people of America will extend military, political and financial support to the fledgling Roma state, just as they have done for Israel over the past 60 years. I therefore resolve that the US Federal Government should cede the State of Massachusetts to the Roma people so that it can become an independent nation and a refuge for deprived, oppressed and persecuted Roma from around the world. Thank you.
It's not possible for hollywood to make a successful adaptation of an anime

I agree that pretty much all anime adaptations presented so far have been quite poor; especially the recent Dragonball movie (shudders). I might even agree that Hollywood are unlikely to every produce a fully adequate movie anytime in the near future. However, I disagree that it isn't POSSIBLE for them to do so. Unlikely, perhaps, but in the immense range of possible scenarios, there is undoubtedly one or two where they actually made a blistering, well produced Dragonball epic that both pleased fans and drew in new ones. Furthermore, Pro has not defined 'successful'; Hollywood has made adaptions which made a reasonable amount of money, so they could be successful in that way. They have undoubtedly made adaptions that pleased some fans of the original anime, so it could be considered successful in that way. Pro has placed a huge burden of proof on himself, saying that it isn't 'possible' for Hollywood to make a successful adaptation, and has effectively tied his hand behind his back by failing to provide a definition for successful.
It's not possible for hollywood to make a successful adaptation of an anime

I'll respond to my opponent simply out of amusement. First off, con is not getting my entire argument . despite all I've said con still insists that I dont know what im talking about and that i must elaborate on what i mean by impossible,despite all ive said which pretty much makes it clear that im talking about every aspect of anime adaptations films.Second he mentions what Dragon ball evolution has made, 57 million worlwide now perhaps i would be impressed had i not known the production companies (Fox) expected to make prior to the films theatrical release. 57 million is a far cry from what they had orginally thought it could make which was about 80-90 million. they also anticipate the fans huge negative response to the film. it made 9.35 domestically and 57 worldwide sure they got there money back and a little bit of extra cash buts its pathetic to what they orginally hoped for. And i know con will still insist that or possibly try to prove im wrong by saying that ive contradicted my entire arguement but no, because in the end it didnt make enough to encourage 2 other sequals.I work at a movie theater the Arclight in Hollwood, California and it performed poorly while it wa there finally after a month of only 2-3 people a day showing to see the film we finally got rid of it. However, it did encourage a re-boot which most likley will involve an entirely new cast. I want to be as hopeful Con and i welcome the chance to be proven wrong reagarding hollywood's (sorry) attempts at anime adaptations. Until that day comes i will not change my opinion. and im also a true anime fan, now It is rumored that some production company will attempt a live action naruto film. ill get into that in my final arguement. My oponent has conceded this argument by using dragon ball evolution of all as his model of great anime adaptations. He has failed to present other films as evidence of his opinion. Come on con this has been a really good debate im sure you have other films you want to mention. My arguement stands this hollywood without a doubt cant make a successful anime adaptation. Based on all the films ive seen so far i believe truly it is impossible. It cant be that hard to please the fans and that is why they will fail in the future they will never try to plese the fans with something good. alright con final round next make it good thankyou for participating
It's not possible for hollywood to make a successful adaptation of an anime

Before I begin, let me note that Pro has effectively conceded the debate by not responding to the point that the resolution says it isn't POSSIBLE for Hollywood to make a successful adaptation. This is clearly false, so at this point I'm really only responding to my opponent's arguments out of courtesy. Also, let me note that Hollywood hasn't created very many adaptations of anime at all: it is simply to soon to tell if they could potentially do a good job on them. Of the few adaptations that have been made, profit was made: Dragonball Evolution made over $57 million worldwide. Profit is an aspect of success. Pro's entire post seems to hinge entirely on the failure of current adaptations, but he must show much more than that: he must show that any future endeavours in the future will fail as well. He must show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any future attempts to succeed. Until his does that, the resolution remains negated, and Con wins.
It's not possible for hollywood to make a successful adaptation of an anime

First off con mentions that I fail eloborate on what success really means when I talk about hollywood making a successful adaptation. Well its completely clear that i mean everything about an anime adaptation. No reason to explain myself there. my oponent mentions that there have been a few adaptations that have been successful when it comes to money. Which ones? Because as far as Im concerned none have been successful when it came to making money. Okay, if you think of the matrix maybe because it did have quite a few elements from "Ghost in the shell". Yet even then it wasnt an "anime adaptation" thus, exclude that as a possibile choice in this debate. Nothing has been successful, money or quality, hollywoods attempts to make anime adaptations have never succeded. They just dont appeal to the fans what so ever. Thus it affects the profit production companies expect to make. the studio that did dragon ball expected to do so well that they planned two sequals. Unfortunatley it sucked so bad and pissed of the fan base that they dropped the idea of two sequals and have resorted to a re-boot of the Dragon ball series (which hopefully this time hollywood doesn't mess up).
We should make cigarettes more lethal.

Well, the previously stated phrase, "yo mama is obama" could be considered a nonsequiter. A nonsequiter is a logical fallacy involving drawing conclusions or making transitions that are not logical results of facts. The fact that you stated that my "mama is obama" is not a logical result of the previous statements. Therefore, you committed a logical fallacy. You may also be committing a "red herring," which is another logical fallacy where an opponent introduces an irrelevant point to divert attention from the main issue being discussed. You have just committed two logical fallacies. Now, returning to our MAIN issue. Just to recap, cigarettes should be made more lethal to encourage smart people to quit, and let natural selection take its course in killing the less capable who insist on continuing to smoke, despite the added dangers. This will create a better, cleaner, and smarter world.
We should make cigarettes more lethal.

Of course, some will die, but less than are dying already from smoking. By making it known to the public that smoking is more dangerous than ever before, smokers have a choice to quit or die. We are not killing them. They are choosing to die. If you are smart, then you will quit. If you are... less intelligent... then you will die. Do not see it as the murder of smokers, see it as evolution taking its course through natural selection.
America is a lunatic state

For quite a long time, I have known that other countries view mine as the "Bully Nation" of the world. Americans has for a long time invaded other countries. Sometimes the reasons were justified and sound. Other times"not so much. Sometimes we were led to war on false pretenses, by the neoconservatives, so they could profit off their war machines. If I step out of my shoes and look at my country from an outside perspective, I could imagine other countries thinking of mine as an a**hat of a country. The main difference between being an a**hat and being a lunatic is that I believe my country was of sane mind when it went to war so many times. I believe my country is sometimes cruel and sometimes very, very stubborn. Sources: After rechecking the TOU of this site, I decided to take a screenshot, blurb out the bad parts, and upload the modified screenshot to my profile. Here is a link to the modified screenshot: http://www.debate.org...
America is a lunatic state

I would like to argue that "America is a lunatic state" here before you today. I would like to bring up the oxford dictionary to define the word lunatic. Lunatic (noun) - A mentally ill person http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... America Has Been At War 93% of the Time " 222 Out of 239 Years " Since 1776. In other words... 93% of its time, on earth, in this world, it is at war with someone else. If you had a friend (or knew a person) who spent 93% of their life fighting other people you would call them a "lunatic". That individual would be locked up in a prison or a mental facility for mental illness or in other terms "for being a lunatic". The list of these wars can be found in the link below. http://www.washingtonsblog.com... Thank you very much for this round!
America is a lunatic state

The Japanese army was surrendering with white flags up across the country by august that last year of world war 2. Japanese soldiers were dying more of starvation than bullets all across the pacific islands. The Americans were ready to engage in combat and could have flattened Japan easily. But again America being the Lunatic that it was thought it would just drop a nuke like cowards rather than face the fierce desperate Japanese solider who was a warrior ready to die in the heart and face of battle and willing. It also needed to tell Stalin who the new boss in town was going to be. Ive never seen a crazier nation in modern history than the USA. However ISIS thinks its crazier than the USA and the USA is going to prove them who "The Real Crazies Are" I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate. I apologize for my controversial style tonight... then again why should the truth be controversial ? Vote to have it be resolved. America is a lunatic state.
America is a lunatic state

Since this is not a debate about WWII and I do not want to digress too much" The reasoning behind the two nuclear bombs was that invading Japan was (under)estimated to cost 1 million American soldier"s lives and countless numbers of Japanese lives [1]. A Japanese Army officer in Yokohama believes that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would have caused the death of every Japanese citizen and soldier [2]. I feel the 2nd link is very accurate to the horrors of what would have happened if Japan had not honorably ended the war. While the reasoning for dropping the nuclear bombs was horrible and the long-term effects and suffering for the innocent people of Japan has also been horrible, they were dropped by sane people making calculated decisions. Pro asks "Who are we going to invade next?" and with a great sigh. . . .probably Uganda to fight the LRA. We sent some military advisers there recently and military advisers usually come before significant troop deployments.
America is a lunatic state

I would like to acknowledge my opponents grace in having much humility over historical facts. However I still feel like "**s-hat" is an understatement, at best, on a good day. Only a lunatic would drop a nuclear bomb on civilian populations. Not once but twice. And under the same of "saving lives". This is the language of a crazy person. Look at the American news today. Who are we going to invade next? "Afghanistan first, then Iraq, oh no now Syria, but then there is ISIS should we bomb them, Iran we have to watch out for Iran, Russia is the biggest threat, no wait Libya, OH NO it's actually North Korea again!" The madness doesn't stop. If I was an alien and I picked up the American Media's news in space, it would sounds as if, "All hell on earth is breaking loose". It would sound like the world, was in a state, of lunacy. Hence why I would like to again, enforce the proposition to be true.