BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A crocodile could beat a shark.

A saltwater crocodile could killed a equal size bull shark, tiger shark, and it could kill a great white shark. A bull shark will put up a better fight because of its aggression. I have written documents on this category. The saltwater crocodile are very fit and much more aggressive then a great white sharks. A 16 foot saltwater crocodile will weigh about 700-1000 kilograms. I have talk to crocodiles scientist who have weighed wild 16 foot crocodiles, which are about 1700-2200 pounds and the people who said a 16 foot saltie weigh only 1000 pounds are wrong! They have the strongest bite force of any animal in the animal kingdom and in the water don't get tired fast! They swim 15-18 miles underwater. Crocodiles are also real agile in the water and very fast. The shark is more agile and have shaper teeth. Saltwater crocodile (Salties) kill 2200 pound water buffalo and can kill a person in one good chomp! They have been know to eat and kill tigers, large wild boars, humans, sharks, horses, etc... Great white sharks are not as aggressive and will have problems biting through the crocodiles bony plates and under the bony plates are thick, rough skin, which are much tougher than a female great white sharks! The average fully grown male saltwater crocodile is 15.4 to 16.6 ft. A 16 foot great white shark will weigh 2500 to 2700 pounds, it might weigh more than the croc but the crocodile makes up for it with power! On animal-face off ( t.v show )the great white shark, because they like it better. I think the crocodile was 21 feet and 3000 pounds, which the saltie should of weigh more! And the great white 21 feet and 7500 pounds, which the shark should weigh around 5000-6000 pounds. Crocodiles are stronger with pulling things, it takes more than 10 fully grown people to pull and restrain a 14-16 foot saltwater crocodile. THE SALTWATER CROCODILE WILL WIN! 8/10 times the croc will win if the great white shark is 14-15 feet and the saltwater crocodile 15-16 feet. The same length the crocodile will win 7-8 times/10 I have written documents on this category. The saltwater crocodile are very fit and much more aggressive then a great white sharks. THE CROC WILL WIN FOR SURE! I HAVE CONTACT SCIENTISTS FOR THIS MATTER AND THE SCIENTISTS PICK THE SALTWATER CROCODILE. If they fought to the death- the croc. But most likely they would not kill each other, ending in a stalemate. They will both hurt each other, but the crocodile will probably do the most damade and be more aggressive.
A crocodile could beat a shark.

To begin, we must set the definitions of this debate down. Not to engage in semantics, let's assume (for my opponents sake) that "beat" is a term used for a fight. Thus I must prove that in the unlikely case a salt water crocodile and a shark would get in a fight, the shark would "beat" the crocodile. Saltwater crocodile: The largest crocodilians on Earth, saltwater crocs, or "salties," are excellent swimmers and have often been spotted far out at sea. . http://animals.nationalgeographic.com... Shark: Any of a group of elongate elasmobranch, mostly marine fishes, certain species of which are large, voracious, and sometimes dangerous to humans. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Given that the term "shark", is defined loosely, literally any species of sharks can be used to "beat" a saltwater crocodile. For example, some of the most dangerous. The great white shark, the tiger shark, the bull shark, the requiem shark, the sand tiger shark, the blacktip shark, the narrowtooth shark, the hammerhead shark, the spinner shark, or the blue shark. . http://www.allaboutwildlife.com... The salt water crocodile, may be big fast and strong, but it simply just may not be nearly as fierce. For example the whale shark. The whale shark is the worlds biggest shark, growing to be up to 60ft. This shark could demolish a puny little crocodile, and probably even swallow it whole. . http://library.thinkquest.org... # Even the great white, could destroy the salt water croc. It's not only bigger, stronger, and faster, but it's also more aggressive. The salt water crocodile while may be found at sea, doesn't make it well equipped in oceanic territory nearly as much as a shark would rule the waters. The crocodile couldn't stay under water for a vast amount of time, and would eventually need air, The shark ins in all aspects. The crocodile's weak spot (it's belly) is exposed when it tries to return to surface for air. Thus the crocodile clearly loses. The great white has tougher skin all around making it less susseptible to fatal attacks. The video link belows illustrates it nicley. . http://animal.discovery.com... Thus, I conclude, a salt water crocodile fails inadvertantly to a shark. Thankyou.
Being big brother is better than little brother

"Round 2 was supposed to be all arguments... If those are all your arguments, you are in pretty deep sh*t." i'm glad you notice that, but i didn't see why you didn't follow by such rule than but to state "if those are all your arguments, you are in pretty deep sh*t." Now on... 1. More Freedom. 2. Make your own decisions. 3. Put yourself in control (you can take the remote anytime, tell 'em you gotta use the computers, tell 'em to clean" 4. Big Brother can move out if he wants. unlike little brother. 5. Big brother can get a job to make money. 6. Big brother can have a car 7. Big brother can drive and go anywhere 8. Big brother can protect himself 9. Big brother show kindness to little brother (buy him stuff, take him out, have fun with him) 10. Only a few in the world get to experience it 11. Self-assured. 12. Be an example or Hero to little brother 13. Big brothers gets to go to parties! 14. Big brothers don't have to be told what to do from little brother 15. Parents give you money and you spent it how you want. unlike little brother, they pick for you. 16. Getting ready to go to college! or maybe already in college. 17. You get to watch porn. Unlike your little brother. 18. You get to watch rated 18th or 13th movies. 19. Older brothers are always there for you.
Being big brother is better than little brother

Round 2 was supposed to be all arguments... If those are all your arguments, you are in pretty deep sh*t.Anyway I shall go forth and present mine. Little brother has a bigger brother to protect him from bullies from birth. Little brother doesn't have to learn how to act tough from scratch, they can learn by mimicry. Little brother doesn't have to think as much to outsmart parents, big brother does it for them. Little brother can always ask big brother for advise. Little brother can ask big brother for help with homework. Little brother can steal big brothers porn collection at earlier stage in life than big brother could steal Daddy's (because Daddy is always smarter). Little brother doesn't have to learn how to pick up women from scratch, they have a similar aged role model to mimic. Little brother doesn't have to worry about life, big brother has to look out for them or parents will be angry with him. Little brother and big brother fight; big brother gets blamed. Little brothers will always have more of their life left, naturally-speaking. Little brothers don't have to kick butt, their big brother does it for them. Little brothers don't need driving lessons, big brother teaches them anyway. Little brothers don't need to buy flashy car to impress women, just borrow big bro's. Little brothers are usually brought up better than big brothers since parents have experienced how to deal with a crying baby and things like that already from the mistakes they made with big brother. Little brothers don't tend to be as narcissistic or inflated egotistically as big brothers since they experienced being the weakest in a household for much of their life and know how to display respect and genuinely deal with inferiority at a much earlier age than the big brother learns this life lesson. Little brothers are far less likely to end up being bullies at school. Bullies tend to end up in trouble.
Being big brother is better than little brother

Resolution: Being brother is better than being little brother. BoP is shared. Definitions: There's no word in here that seems. if you don't know any of them search it up. Rules1. The first round is for acceptance and appreciation. (only) 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. All resoultion, definitions, rules, and structures are as stated. Voters, we hope you enjoy the debate. And that your vote is as stand. This debate is to be simple.
Abortion

Rape is very traumatizing. This maybe the only acceptational reason, but it is still not right to kill such an innocent person. There laws that send us to jail for murdering someone like our next door neighbor. Why is it any different when someone kills a child within them? Also this is most defiantly not your body or the government's or society's, it is the child's body. You say "it's my body" IT IS NOT! Are you killing yourself? Hmmm, I don't think so. You are killing something that you were meant to protect with your life. Do you see animals having abortions because they don't want it or because some other animal raped them? No, you don't. This is our purpose as a species, to reproduce and protect our offspring.
Abortion

1. Rape can cause depression anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Keeping the product of a rape would only serve to prolong and make worse these issues. "Only about 5% of women who are raped get pregnant." This 5%, when converted to the actual number is 17,342. 17,342 rape survivors will become impregnated. 17,342 women will be put at risk of depression, anxiety, and ptsd over the opinions of others, many of which are based off of a book that mentions talking bushes and snakes. 2. No. The thing about this world that makes it sad is that some people think that their opinions should be able to dictate what one can and cannot do with their bodies. A woman who does not want a baby should not be forced to carry and keep that baby. It is not your decision to make for her. You cannot bully a woman into keeping an unwanted child, which is exactly what you suggest in saying that the fear factor would make them want to keep the kid. 3. "It's not your body." Alright. Whose is it then? MY body does not belong to the government, and it doesn't belong to a mythical man in the sky. It is MY body, and if I choose not to carry around a constant reminder of my rape, then I should not have to. I am not under any obligation to make any choices for anyone other than myself before, during, or after conception. 4. While many women do keep their children, they do not care for them as much as they would under different circumstances, such as circumstances in which the baby was not an inconvenience.
Abortion

1:I know women personally that say the comfort of the child has helped them and numbed the pain of their rape. Also only about 5% of women who are raped actually are impregnated. 2:If a woman would seriously risk her life in order to get rid of another that is pure this is a very sad world we live in. The risk of an abortion would be higher, yes but maybe that would make the women change their minds convincing them the risk is too great. 3:It is not your body. Are you killing yourself? No, I'm pretty sure you are killing an innocent child who has done anything to harm anything or anyone. It stopped being just your body at conception. Now you must make decisions that are right for you and the fetus. 4:Many woman keep their babies. They make a strong bond with them over a period of nine months. They could not bear to part with them, this also happens with surrogates.
Abortion

I suck at intros, so lets get right into contentions? Contention 1: Women who are raped should not be forced to keep the baby. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, 293,066 people are victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year. How many of the women raped per year become pregnant? Why should they have to carry a baby that is not theirs? Would carrying around the memory of a rape not cause you any psychological damage? Contention 2: Laws against abortion do not stop abortions. All they will do is cause more and more women to have illegal abortions performed. In a majority of cases, these underground abortions are not sterile. On average, 78,000 women die each year due to unsafe abortions. Why increase this number any more? Contention 3: It is my body, and therefore my choice. Why should another person get to tell me whether or not I have to ruin my body over a baby I do not even want? At which point did my body become the people's body? Contention 4: Orphanages will fill at a large rate due to the large number of unwanted children. The best option is to terminate the pregnancy and not subject a child to the psychological damage caused by being put in an orphanage because their parents did not want them.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

I don't think my opponent knows how debates on DDO work. When a person accepts a debate with a certain set of rules, then those rules are to be followed. If my opponent did not like the rules, he did not have to accept the debate. Also, my opponent has his own set of rules he wants you to follow. He says whoever has the better arguments should win, not whoever has follows the rules. Ironically, that is a rule in itself. In this debate structure, the person with the better argument false second to the rules. Why is it like that for the debate? Because the rules specifically state that a full 7 point concession is what occurs if a rule is broken. My opponent can spend all the time he wants on long rounds, it is nothing more than a distraction from the fact that he already lost the debate after the rules were broken. My opponent said that I put rules over critical thinking. That is clearly nonsense, because it is not using critical thinking to accept a debate structure, only to try to refute it afterwards. It would be like playing a game of chess, only to argue that a knight shouldn't be able to be move in a L shape to win the game. It is a rather sketchy move indeed. My opponent fills his rounds with useless poems and statements about freedom and what not, but the debate is already over. He broke the rules. Now, I will say one more thing, my opponent says I set this debate up with slim chance for my opponent to win. That is clearly false. How hard is is to tYpE lIkE tHiS, not contest a rule, and just use the first round for acceptance? Not only does my opponent lose argument points anyway (as the rules state), but he blatantly engaged in misconduct by not using the first round for acceptance. Any reasonable voter would dock my opponent for that, and any reasonable voter would give me the full 7 points. Again it is utterly bizarre to state that I set this up with a "slim chance" for my opponent to win, considering how simple the rules were to follow. You wouldn't accept a game of chess just to contest the rules after, so why do the same with a debate? This is a clear loss for my opponent, and no amount of long winded rounds can change that unfortunately. ConclusionThe reason my opponent lost this debate is because the debate was set up like a game. The rules of the game state that my opponent must do certain things. He did not do them. Therefore, he loses the game, and the debate. That is a knock down argument for why I should win this debate, since argumentation and critical thinking is important, as my opponent points out. Thank you.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

As per the rules of the debate, my opponent loses, as he broke rules. Therefore, a full 7 point score on the ballet is deserved for me. Now, the voters might decide to troll and vote against me, but that could be the case for ANY debate. I take it on good faith that the voters will do the right thing, as I do on any debate (just because this is supposed to be a funny debate, doesn't mean the rules don't have to be followed). I gave a very simply set of rules. My opponent broke them, therefore, as rule 1 states, the debate is over (my opponent can write as long as of round as he wants, and argue whatever he wants, that won't change the fact that he lost the debate necessarily as he broke the rules, so his last round is useless with all due respect). I gracefully ask the voters for the full 7 points deserved. Thank you.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

I will make my arguments in this round brief and to the point so readers will be able to read them quickly and thoroughly before the more thorough analysis next round. Firstly, I want to point out that my opponent and I completely agree that I am braking all five rules that he set up. My opponent could have gone farther. In addition to breaking the rules my opponent has set up, I am also disregarding the site rules that demand no profanities when I wrote "f.uck." I also agree with my opponent that the rules that he set up demand that breaking the rules carries a penalty of a 7 point forfeit. My opponent assumes that I will therefore lose the debate. However, my opponent has ignored something that I think is central not only to this debate, but all debates on DDO--that is, the Role of the Ballot. The Role of the Ballot is basically how a voter should evaluate a debate. My opponent seems to take for granted that debate is a "game," wherein debaters follow a set of rules and then "win" or "lose," regardless of consequences outside this round. My opponent has in fact labeled this debate under "funny." He admits in the comment that this debate is "stupid," and that that is the "point." If debate is all a game--if debate has no consequences outside of the debate round--then my opponent would be absolutely right that the rules should be followed with no question. However, if debate were all a game, I would be playing chess instead. *** In fact, debate can be far more than a game. Debate is an opportunity for us to seriously consider important issue in the world. Debate, rather than being a contest, is a way for us to re-evaluate the way we think. I have learned much from debating. Through debate I have become a vegetarian, a feminist, and someone who is critical of capitalism and authoritarian government. Other people have experienced different kinds of changes. However, the point of a debate is not to most effectively follow a set of rules and strategies, but actually effecting real change. The people on this debate site, especially my experienced opponent, may become policy-makers or voters, and many already are. This debate site is not a bubble--the way we debate has a real effect on the world. Making that real change is what debate is all about. Therefore, the role of the ballot should be to judge the winner as one who most effectively changes the world for the better. If you are to judge me the winner now, you will in fact be part of an advocacy--an advocacy of making debate about effecting real change, and not meaningless points. I chose not to write "I accept the terms and conditions" because I did not accept them. I am not content with the way the debate has been framed here, or in general. By challenging the way we debate through a debate, I am allowing us to re-conseptualize rules. Were people to assume the authority of rules, I would not have the freedom to be on this website. Were it not for individuals challenging the way we think and the rules society makes, no change would actually occur. My advocacy will to bring real change by rethinking the role of the ballot and the debater and rules. Thank you.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

First of all, I am not sure how this is supposed to be an "almost forced" victory. All my opponent had to do was just use the first round for acceptance, type like tHiS, and not contest the rules to avoid a definite loss. Yes, the rules were essentially just for my opponent to follow, but this was supposed to be more of a challenge to my opponent than a "fair" debate. Also, nobody put a gun to his head. If this debate was so "unfair" then why accept just to complain? Well, it is clear that my opponent will lose this debate based on the rules outlined. This is because basically broke every rule. .. He didn't just use the first round just for acceptance, didn't type like tHis, and contested the rules by talking about how unfair it was. Therefore, as per rules, this will be an automatic loss.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

My opponent clearly is looking to noob snipe or to garner an easy, almost forced victory using an unfair resolution and an equally unfair set of "rules." Rather than giving my opponent what he wants--that is, my desperately attempting to win an already-lost argument whilst dEbAtInG iN aN uNdIgNiFiEd MaNnEr--I will use my rounds to re-think the role of the debater, the debate space, the voter, the ballot, and the rules. I will justify the use of this debate space to operate outside of the norms set up by my opponent and also DDO in general, and will further justify a ballot in my name.Although you, Rational_Thinker, are obviously able to use the normative tools at your disposal (e.g. reporting content or demanding of a moderator the a priori sovereignty of rules) to easily force a win in your name, in doing so you would miss a thought-provoking, maybe even life-changing meta-debate. So with that I say f.uck the normative artificial sovereignty of these so-called "rules." Let the debate begin.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly), then an automatic 7 point forfeit results for whoever broke the rule, assuming that rule applies to them. Rule 2: Rules with a * directly beside them only apply to my opponent *Rule 3: First round is just for acceptance *Rule 4: In every round, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters, starting with a lower case letter (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). This rule must be applied to each line individually. Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been acceptedHave fun, and good luck! I don't why I decided to do this but it should be entertaining ha
We are NOT the only intelligent living beings in the universe.

I mostly agree with my opponent, I would simply like to state, that I find it very unlikely that we have observed a location in the universe and failed to see signs of intelligent life, thus intelligent life is only probable outside the know universe. However, the point about how the things that we see appearing older than they really are is very strong. I feel as is it is simply up to probabilityVote pro if you think it is likely that intelligent life exists in the known universe thus we "missed" them when we observed that location.