BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mario is better than sonic.

We have all played Mario, He after all is the subject of some amazing games. Sonic on the other hand has gotten bad games like Rise of Lyric and Sonic 06,a game so famous for being one of the worst games of all time. Sonic has been the subject of a couple good games but the number of functional games without glitches that break the game to your favor or to the games makes it clear that Mario is indeed better. Ask anyone who Mario is most people will know. Also the Sonic games lie to you Sonic is not the fastest thing alive. Mario is the far superior game
US Involvement in Wars

As a power, the US should be involved in war. First of all, the US is a global power and the residents of the country feel a sense of security. That feeling exists because the US has a strong following and it's a part of the country's culture. If a country tries to engage in disputes with the US, there are strong consequences. It's like branding for a company. Take a company like Apple for instance. If a smaller phone producer comes up with a new idea, Apple will jump right in and create a better version of it. That's just like the US and their military. If the US wasn't involved in so many conflicts, they would be just like any small country. They wouldn't be a global power. Without the title of a global power, the people in the country start to feel less confident in their country's ability to keep them protected. Additionally, the US keeps the world safe due to the fact that 73% of the public has trust in their military. They help stop the spread of terror by having their presence in various countries across the globe. For example: US presence in Afghanistan has stopped terror groups like Al Qaeda from spreading. Another main thing is that when the US is involved in other wars, it keeps American soil safe because US residents don't want wars in America. Ultimately, the US should be involved in wars to keep the world safer.
Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File.

With thanks to my opponent for such a prompt reply, I should like to respond as follows: At the beginning of his argument my opponent wrote: "Firstly the obese are like vehicles, now they are like drunkards. My opponents sole case rests on asserting obese individuals are like something they are not." And at near the end… "Assuming all obese will react similarly is to say BMI is a personality motivator. Clearly that is not correct either." Of course, one should not generalise in debates, but on the basis of absolutely no research, I had no choice! My opponent, on the other hand, did do some research: "Foresight: Tackling Obesities: Future Choices project, 2007, predict that if no action is taken, by 2050, 60% of men and 50% of women and 25% of children will be obese. Department of Health, UK Government." Interesting that the British Government agrees that the obese need to be tackled, perhaps they were inspired by watching rugby or American football matches, who knows? Certainly, the figures quoted in this document just go to show how bad pavement congestion caused by slow-moving obese people will get unless the problem is addressed as a matter of urgency. Ideally, this would be done by explaining the health risks associated with being overweight, in the same way as has been done previously through public information campaigns which outlined the dangers associated with smoking, taking drugs and drinking to excess. In this way, the obese will be able to make an informed choice about their weight, and those that choose to slim down rather than to continue to stuff their faces full of junk food in an continuous orgy of gluttony and greed, will find they will be able to walk quicker and not take up so much space on the pavement and, therefore, not be subject to summary punitive action at the hands of anti-fat-related-pavement-congestion police snatch squads. I don't quite agree with my opponent's analysis of the legislative system so I have supplied a link to the Parliament website for those who may be interested. http://www.parliament.uk... However, Acts of Parliament usually apply across the entire country, rather than just one city, which is why I proposed a by law instead. Furthermore, I do not agree that this law would be unpopular with the obese. After all, my favourite pastimes are driving and drinking, yet I agree that drinking and driving should be illegal, so even though I believe I am perfectly capable of motoring quite safely after a few pints, I nevertheless obey the law. Anyway, thanks Puck, for the debate and thanks in advance to the voters for your generous support!
Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File.

Many thanks to my opponent for his considered reply. He wrote: "So people who run on pavements should be legally stopped and fined for exceeding a pedestrian speed limit?" Ha, ha, ha! Or strolling whilst under the influence of alcohol? Or walking without due care and attention? No, naturally, I wasn't suggesting that pedestrians should be subject to road traffic regulations, though it could be argued that people who swerve about the pavement and bump into other pedestrians because they are either drunk or they are texting on their mobile phones are almost as big a nuisance as the obese! My opponent went on to suggest that the Mayor wouldn't have the authority to introduce a ban. Perhaps he is right, otherwise I'm sure just such a ban would have already been introduced –after all, what a vote winner! That said, it is still my understanding that the Mayor of London does have some limited powers in matters relating to transport, for example he introduced a ban on drinking alcohol on public transport a couple of weeks ago, so a ban on the obese walking side-by-side might not be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. My opponent continued: "…by what right do you claim moral and consequent legal authority over obese individuals? Is it simply because they annoy you?" Only when they get in people's way. It's just like people drinking alcohol. It's fine in a pub, but not on a tube or bus, which is why the Mayor banned it. My opponent then wrote: "Batons would certainly be innefective as a pro social motivator, tasering an individual would essetially create a sidewalk block stopping pedestrians walking both directions which is opposite the benefit you infer." I'm aghast that my opponent thinks that I would advocate the wholesale and indiscriminate targeting of obese people. My idea is that, only after a fair warning, would the police bludgeon uncooperative overweight people to the ground using batons or Taser them - to kick them senseless while they are down would be barbaric. The idea is that the abnormally fat would be left unconscious or otherwise incapable of continuing their journey (and thus causing their prostrate bodies to create further obstacles for hard-pressed commuters) is simply abhorrent. My opponent's final argument was that Londoners inconvenienced by the walking chicanes that the obese represent should ask them to move aside. This would not be advisable. Asking a bunch of drunken yobs on the tube to chuck away their booze may provoke a violent reaction. Similarly, if someone asked a couple of obese pedestrians to disguise their ignorance of common courtesies and kindly step aside and allow more important people to get past, they are liable to lash out, especially if it is a hot day or they are hungry (which is almost always). I look forward to my opponent's reply.
Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File.

I understand this debate is meant to be 'light hearted'. I would hope so anyway. Still, it is Pro's position that he advocates a form of discrimination. "The obese are the human equivalent of vehicular wide loads" We have separate laws for humans and vehicles because...well simply they are not analogous legally. "The same principle should be applied to the narrow, crowded pavements (sidewalks) of central London." So people who run on pavements should be legally stopped and fined for exceeding a pedestrian speed limit? "The Mayor of London should pass a by-law that would empower the police and Community Support Officers to force abnormally fat people to keep out of normal people's way by walking in single file, with the use of batons and Tasers being sanctioned to enforce the law." To start with in the UK, the Mayor of London cannot simply "pass a by-law". There are no specific stages in creating subordinate legislation; however there are two procedures for it coming into effect: Negative resolution: the subordinate legislation has immediate effect, but is brought before Parliament and may be annulled if a resolution against it is passed within 40 days Affirmative Resolution: the subordinate legislation must be affirmed by resolutions in each House of Parliament before it may come into effect. Secondly, by what right do you claim moral and consequent legal authority over obese individuals? Is it simply because they annoy you? This is hardly a sound legal basis. Batons would certainly be innefective as a pro social motivator, tasering an individual would essetially create a sidewalk block stopping pedestrians walking both directions which is opposite the benefit you infer. "thus forcing decent, hard working commuters to risk their lives by dodging onto the road in an effort to get past them" No, that is an individual choice, one would argue based upon impatience and a societal norm where you don't ask the person in front of you to move aside. In each case it is certainly not due to the obese individual. "decent" and "hardworking" are merely fallacious ploys that appeal to emotion. Unless wife beating welfare cheats have a secret anti obese pedestrian sidewalk technique we don't know about.
Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File.

Clearly, a slow-moving convoy of trucks hauling abnormally wide loads should travel in single file, because if they drove side-by-side they would effectively block the entire carriageway. That is why they are prohibited from doing so by law. The same principle should be applied to the narrow, crowded pavements (sidewalks) of central London. The obese are the human equivalent of vehicular wide loads and yet they are allowed to impede the progress of ordinary Londoners who are in a hurry to get to work by plodding along the pavement at a snail's pace side-by-side, thus forcing decent, hard working commuters to risk their lives by dodging onto the road in an effort to get past them. The Mayor of London should pass a by-law that would empower the police and Community Support Officers to force abnormally fat people to keep out of normal people's way by walking in single file, with the use of batons and Tasers being sanctioned to enforce the law.
Discontinue Development-related Aid to Africa

Just to clarify: I'm a girl. My oponent says that we need to instsitute education in Africa. We are already doing that, and there have been no signs of continuance improvement. We've tried everything, but we can't help a country whose leaders are not willing to accept our help. He says that the only way to solve the problem in Africa is to implement education, but we are already doing that, and as I just said, it's not working. There hasn't been any sign of significant change in Africa, The government is corrupt in places, and the government has used their power in the past to intercept our efforts. Trying to help develope Africa is like trying to knock down a solid brick wall with a feather. He says that the U.S. has used the majority of its money for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the U.S. is already $9 trillion in the whole, and we can't afford to continue to waste money in a futile, yet good-hearted effort.
Discontinue Development-related Aid to Africa

I accept. As the Negative I only have to prove the opposition wrong. If I do that Vote in Negation. He says, that Africans abuse U.S. Aid but that's not true. We need to be instituting education in Africa. The only way to do that is by education, and aid. They won't abuse us if we do that. Then, he says Africa can not lean us forever, that's true but, reducing aid will not solve the only way o solve is to implement education in the region. And he says its to expensive and the U.S. can not afford it. That's ridiculous reject that notion look to the fact that we have spent more money in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are the reason that we have so much money spent is not Africa it's other nations and voting affirmative would not solve for that. We will still see the impacts of a bad economy.
Discontinue Development-related Aid to Africa

Sorry, about the guy thing. Line by Line: She says, were trying to implement education right now, but that's not try what we have been doing is giving food. When you think of Africa you automatically think of giving food, not education. Voting neg is key to solve that physiological mindset. And she says, that the leaders aren't accepting the Aid but, that's also not true Africa wants as much Aid as they can get the last G20 meeting proves. And she says, that the Government is corrupt, yes it is and the only way to solve that is to implement education. The Africans don't know what aid is and only education can solve that. And she says, were 9 trillion dollars i the hole but also says, they we've spent 9 billion dollars in Africa since we have been there. The problem with that is voting affirmative won't solve 9 billion dollars is not substantial to 9 trillion. Counter Plan: We should reduce our military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. The reason why is because, she concedes that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the only way to access her economic advantage is to vote negative.
I will not win this debate.

-"since u are con u must have losignm streak but since i am pro i hvae winning streak buts incei ave mere 5 and u have 20 which is bgiger than 50 i have won this debate almost ceritaningly so plaesa womceb ack when you chtink you can lose this debate which you cant so i win hahaha votep ro"- -My opponent seems to belive i can not read retard.. he is false- -Or my opponent thought he could "faceroll" his was to victory by repeatedly bashing his skull off the keyboard- -Another thing would be that my opponent wants me to win.. this would cause the sun to give up on earth and make pluto laugh at us for takeing it off the planets list- -i have lost for i posted no evidence that i would win nor lose this debate but my opponent clearly states that he wants to lose by telling me to win.- -I urge a pro vote immediatly if you like your sun.-
The Recommendation of a 2 hour screen time is outdated

I accept this challenge. This will be fun. I define screen time as the amount of time spent watching TV including videos and DVD"s; playing computer games on video consoles or on computers and using computers for other purposes. Screen time also refers to using telephones for texting and social networking. Outdated is defined as old-fashioned or obsolete, and recommendation is defined as a suggestion or proposal as to the best course of action. The proposal of a 2 hour limit for the use of electronic devices is old fashioned and obsolete. I disagree to this topic and will be arguing against it. Good luck, and let the best debater win! Mikicat10
The Recommendation of a 2 hour screen time is outdated

Today's children are spending an average of seven hours a day on entertainment media, including televisions, computers, phones and other electronic devices. To help kids make wise media choices, parents should monitor their media diet. Parents can make use of established ratings systems for shows, movies and games to avoid inappropriate content, such as violence, explicit sexual content or glorified tobacco and alcohol use. Studies have shown that excessive media use can lead to attention problems, school difficulties, sleep and eating disorders, and obesity. In addition, the Internet and cell phones can provide platforms for illicit and risky behaviors. By limiting screen time and offering educational media and non-electronic formats such as books, newspapers and board games, and watching television with their children, parents can help guide their children's media experience. Putting questionable content into context and teaching kids about advertising contributes to their media literacy. The AAP recommends that parents establish "screen-free" zones at home by making sure there are no televisions, computers or video games in children's bedrooms, and by turning off the TV during dinner. Children and teens should engage with entertainment media for no more than one or two hours per day, and that should be high-quality content. It is important for kids to spend time on outdoor play, reading, hobbies, and using their imaginations in free play. Television and other entertainment media should be avoided for infants and children under age 2. A child's brain develops rapidly during these first years, and young children learn best by interacting with people, not screens. http://www.aap.org...
The Recommendation of a 2 hour screen time is outdated

The recommendation of a @ 2 hour secreen time is beneficial and trustworthy as long periods of electronic use is linked to medical and mental problems. The average 8-year-old spends eight hours a day using various forms of media, and teenagers often surpass 11 hours of media consumption daily, according to the authors of the AAP statement. More than three quarters of teenagers have cell phones, and teens ages 13 to 17 send an average of 3,364 texts per month. Several studies have linked high media consumption with poor health outcomes. For example, children with TVs in their bedrooms are more likely to be obese. The American Academy of Pediatrics discourages media use by children younger than age 2 and recommends limiting older children's screen time to no more than one or two hours a day. Too much screen time has been linked to: Obesity. The more TV your child watches, the greater his or her risk is of becoming overweight. Having a TV in a child's bedroom also increases this risk. Children can also develop an appetite for junk food promoted in TV ads, as well as overeat while watching TV. Irregular sleep. The more TV children watch, the more likely they are to have trouble falling asleep or to have an irregular sleep schedule. Sleep loss, in turn, can lead to fatigue and increased snacking. Behavioral problems. Elementary students who spend more than two hours a day watching TV or using a computer are more likely to have emotional, social and attention problems. Exposure to video games is also linked with an increased risk of attention problems in children. Watching excessive amounts of TV at age 4 is linked with bullying at ages 6 through 11. Impaired academic performance. Elementary students who have TVs in their bedrooms tend to perform worse on tests than do those who don't have TVs in their bedrooms. Violence. Too much exposure to violence through media " especially on TV " can desensitize children to violence. As a result, children might learn to accept violent behavior as a normal way to solve problems. Less time for play. Excessive screen time leaves less time for active, creative play. http://www.mayoclinic.com...
Your choice out of some of my favorite topics

Well, I must say, it's been a fine debate. I have enjoyed it greatly. I would like to thank pro for such an interesting topic, and I think offering a choice between topics for the acceptor is a great idea for the future. Let's take a look at the evidence pro presents. Pro claims that heating and buckling would not have a significant impact on the structural integrity, as the source I cited claimed, but cites no source or evidence himself. His claim is therefore baseless. Pro provides no evidence that every single piece of steel should have been bent. This claim is also baseless. Pro ignored my ethical argument as to why NORAD wouldn't have shot down the planes. Therefore, it is dropped, and my point is considered true. The man in the confession tapes is bin Laden. [1] Pro provides a picture of the North Tower with small objects falling. He provides no evidence, however, that these objects are actually columns. They could be anything from window panes to rebar in the floor. For the molten metal question, there is simply no official report of any molten metal being found at the site, as I have established last round. Pro has failed to dismiss the reliability of my source. In conclusion, none of pro's arguments are valid. The best he can come up with to support his conspiracy theory is isolated evidence and rumours. Summary Conduct- As pro didn't forfeit whilst I did, I concede this point to him. Sources- Pro's sources generally consist of isolated pieces of evidence without context and pages making demonstrably false claims, such as the molten metal. Therefore, this point should go to me. Arguments- I have refuted all of pro's weak evidence and arguments. As the burden of proof is on him, I have succeeded in winning the arguments. Once again, thanks for this great debate. Sources 1- http://www.google.com...
Your choice out of some of my favorite topics

Heating and buckling would not have a significant impact considering that the strength of the steel was NOT weakened considerably. About the molten metal, here is a site with many witnesses that saw these "pools". http://www.historycommons.org... While it may seem ridiculous, considering the crash, every piece (enormous steel pillar) should have been distorted/bent. Not cleanly cut like the one in the image. The fact remains that NORAD is obviously successful at conducting interceptions but failed twice in a single day. This is very suspicious. The plane was flying around for 45 mins but NORAD did not take any decisive action. About the CIA tapes: I do not believe my opponent has successfully refuted my point. The man in the video is obviously a different person. Also, if no explosives were used, then the steel columns would be BENT, but not SHREDDED like in this image. http://911research.wtc7.net... Don't forget that the buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. Nothing can move mass out of the way that fast except explosives. http://911research.wtc7.net... Let's sum up the points: 1. The CIA's Bin Laden tapes seem fake considering the man who is supposed to be Bin Laden does NOT resemble Bin Laden. 2. The buildings were built to take much larger forces than that of the plane. 3. The fire would NOT have significantly weakened the structure of the building. 4. NORAD is famed for successful interceptions (67 interceptions in the 2000) but suddenly fails twice in one day. 5. Pools of molten metal were found weeks afterward, a phenomenon that jet fuel is not hot enough to cause. 6. The floors and steel rods would be stacked, bent but not shredded if nothing but the plane was used to take down the building. 7. The building fell very fast, too fast to just be a non-demolition collapse. In conclusion, the theory of 9/11 being an inside job is very plausible. I'm sorry for the very short response as I am extremely low on time. Thank you for the good debate.