BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Battle: Twilight Sparkle vs Optimus Prime

In Prime The T.V show it enplanes that the Star Saber can only be welded buy the 13 primes Optimums Being the last Prime is now the only one who can Wild the Sword In Season 2 Episode 20 Megaton, enraged that Optimums found the star saber, sent a huge boulder down a mountain in an attempt to squash Optimums. However, the sword's power was so great that it cut the boulder cleanly in half. The Matrix is a legendary talisman that is passed down to new leaders of the Auto bots, it is made of the Core of the plant the Transformers Live on and it like the star saber can only be welded buy a prime in the video Diamondback enplanes that his swords are ï¿½1000degrees Celsius and 1832degrees Fahrenheit" witch is Vary Hot as explained Optimums has to hold back his straight so he doesn't destroy the plant he lives on it was not explained how powerful his punches are but in the classic Dev show when the moon of Cy Bert Ron the the transformers live on comes crashing down to earth after impact everyone Except Optimums Prime has creaked armor and is bleeding
Death Battle: Twilight Sparkle vs Optimus Prime

Please use the "Check Your Spelling" option next to the Review button. It'll make you look more professional. Anyways, on to examining your argument for Optimus Prime.Cross Examination: "i would like to point out that evan without help Optimus Prime is equiped with the matrix of leadership witch is the most powefull thing in the univerce"Could you explain this further? What is this matrix exactly, and how is this powerful?"also acording to DiamondBolta youtuber Optimus has to hold back his stranght so he doesnot destroy the planit he lives on"So what's his full strength like, according to DiamondBolta?"his swords are 1000degrees Celceus and 1832degrees Farenhight"Is that true? Could you link me the page where you found this information?"while he does die....ALOT he can still hold up a fight as seen in revenge of the fallen and the 1986 movie"I'm not really thinking Optimus is all that powerful. If Optimus dies a lot, then he's not good at combat."he is also with the starsaber witch is made of the tip of the matrix of leadership and seean in trancefomers prime can cut a mountan in half"Impressive. But when did he cut a mountain in half?"p.s i dont know if wepons like the starsaber is alowd corect me if i am wrong"As long as they're able to wield a weapon, it will be allowed. Not sure what led you to think I'd forbid a weapon.Argument:My opponent's missing too much information. How much damage can Optimus withstand? How much damage can Optimus deal? How fast is Optimus? And a website is also recommended, since I want to make sure no information is made up.Onto how the Princess of Friendship could fight Optimus, she's got laser beam magic, as seen in A Canterlot Wedding: Part 2, and a few other 2 parters where she's fighting some villain. Twilight can most likely more than dent Optimus Prime, seeing as she was able to move the sun. She could also steal Optimus's sword if it becomes a problem, and maybe even use it against him.In conclusion, I feel that Twilight's magic abilities is more than what Optimus can handle.
Death Battle: Twilight Sparkle vs Optimus Prime

While you have a good argument i would like to point out that evan without help Optimus Prime is equiped with the matrix of leadership witch is the most powefull thing in the univerce also acording to DiamondBolta youtuber Optimus has to hold back his stranght so he doesnot destroy the planit he lives on his swords are 1000degrees Celceus and 1832degrees Farenhight witch is varry hot while he does die....ALOT he can still hold up a fight as seen in revenge of the fallen and the 1986 movie while not moast he is also with the starsaber witch is made of the tip of the matrix of leadership and seean in trancefomers prime can cut a mountan in half p.s i dont know if wepons like the starsaber is alowd corect me if i am wrong
Death Battle: Twilight Sparkle vs Optimus Prime

This might be more of a challenge than I first thought. Nevertheless, let's get into this.Argument:Magic:Twilight is very good with magic, as seen quite a few times. Most notable spells Twilight casts are levitation, teleportation, and she can fire beams. Currently being an Alicorn (a unicorn with wings), Twilight's magic is powerful enough to move the sun. It's been confirmed that Equestria's sun is the same size as our sun [http://imgur.com...], which has a mass of 1.989 × 10^30 kg [https://www.google.com...]So don't underestimate a pony. Especially if the pony defeated numerous villains (with help from friends and magic treasure, of course).Durability:I'm not sure if Twilight was ever attacked, but she does have force field magic if she needs it.Agility:Twilight's speed isn't very impressive, but she can fly (being an Alicorn), and teleport if the needs to.Twilight doesn't have a lot of feats I can recall, but I'll look deeper, maybe even rewatch some episodes to find any notable feats.VS Battles wiki: http://vsbattles.wikia.com...[When looking at the VS Battles wiki page, they have this symbol which seperates various versions of Twilight "|". Only focus on the first two statistics per category, which are Pre Magical Mystery Cure, and post Magical Mystery Cure (which is the episode where she becomes an Alicorn).]
Death Battle: Twilight Sparkle vs Optimus Prime

Ever since Starcream vs Rainbow Dash, some fans have requested the leaders of MLP and Transformers fight against each other. And I have been genuinely curious as to which one would win in a fight. The Princess of Friendship; Twilight Sparkle, or the head of the Autobots; Optimus Prime.Rules:1) We'll be using the latest showings of Twilight and Optimus. Twilight will be as she is in Season 7 of Friendship is Magic, and Optimus Prime will be as he is in the movies. (If you want to argue for a different version of Optimus, say so in the comments.)2) We'll be ignoring any morals the characters may have against fighting. No mercy will be shown by either side.3) No outside help. None of Twilight's friends will be fighting, nor will any Transformers be fighting along side Optimus.4) This fight will take place in some arena that's 500 yards x 500 yards in width and length, and 2,000 yards in height. (Going above the 2,000 yards limit is forbidden.)5) Any fan fiction will not be accepted as evidence. It's suggested that you link any information from a wiki (preferably MLP or Transformers wiki.)I'll be arguing that Twilight Sparkle would win this fight. (If you want me to argue in favor of Optimus, let me know in the comments before accepting.)
Sexting

It's almost interesting how invested Pro is about this issue. Usually I would go through and dissect these arguments one by one, but in this case there's no reason to. Between all of the uncited information, and the insults toward adults, there was a lot of repetition. I'm just going to focus on one major point that Pro introduced "People make it sound like people under the age of 18 can't think for themselves, but you know what we can." "Adults think they know so much better then what "kids", anyone younger then 18, do. Why is it that we suddenly can make our own decisions when we turn 18 like honestly nothing mentally actually changes. So I believe sexting should be legal." The reason that this is not allowed is because of the fact that this is literally the definition of child pornography. Child Pornography is defined [1] "as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor." There has to be a line somewhere so that we don't end up with seven year olds sending naughty pictures to 42 year old men and vice versa. Repealing child pornography laws would open Pandora's box for things like this. Can Pro please elaborate on their position? As of right now I am forced to assume that Pro is okay with child pornography getting into the hands of older men and women. [1] http://www.justice.gov...
Sexting

So I am a 16 year old girl and I say that sexting should not be illegal for someone under the age of 18. Sexting which is when nude or semi-nude photos are sent over the phone through messaging having a sexualized meaning. I believe that people should be able to have to send or possess pictures that were willingly taken or willingly sent. If it's a problem that someone threatens to leak the photos they should of thought harder about sending them to that person. People need to realize they can't save kids brains by censoring the hole God damn world from them. Sexting is treated like you are a messed up person if you do it, but I mean more then half the population probably have taken a nude picture of them selves and there is nothing wrong with that. People make it sound like people under the age of 18 can't think for themselves, but you know what we can. We can common sense and a God damn brain of our own and adults need to realize that. Sexting is nothing compared to actually having sex, but yet sex is socially except able. I do know that there are laws stating that sexting is illegal but I think they need to be removed cause what other rights do we actually have anyways? Government censors everything so why can't we have this one thing that is actually harmless compared to the consequences they have placed with it. If pictures get leaked maybe you will hear stuff about you for awhile but it would go away after a while where as if you get charged for having pictures it is stamped on your life forever. What is the sense in that. Adults think they know so much better then what "kids", anyone younger then 18, do. Why is it that we suddenly can make our own decisions when we turn 18 like honestly nothing mentally actually changes. So I believe sexting should be legal.
The Bible Is Not the Inerrant Word of God

A. The Big Bang account is faulty. First there was nothing and somehow it exploded into planets and stars and everything else.B. Global Flood can be proven through Genesis and many cultures have evidence to support it.Historical authenticityB. The best known conclusion is that the census was ordered 10 years prior to the birth of Christ, according to Josephus. However it was not carried out due to revolts and everything else.The con argument is posted and I rest my case for Round IIIThank you pro for the debate :)
The Bible Is Not the Inerrant Word of God

==YEC==a) This is begging the question. I've shown that the Genesis account is not reliable and have *proven* the Big Bang. Yet to be refuted. You already assume the Biblical account is correct, but I'm saying it's wrong. I have shown there is observational evidence for the Big Bang, i.e. the Cosmic Microwave Background. This argument is *dropped*.b) Begs the question again. Con *assumes* the Global Flood occurred while committing ipse dixit fallacy. Evolution is true, as I proved. Con must refute it, but it is *dropped*. == Historical Authenticity ==a) But the encampments were of *thousands* of people, thus covering the whole desert. Thus, it will have *had* to be recorded. There is *no proof* of Exodus. This argument is dropped. b) Ipse dixit fallacy, as Con is making bare assertions with no citations or proof. Con must *prove* there was a "second Quirinus". But Luke also claims it was during the reign of Augustus, and that it was *throughout* the Roman Empire, but the only such recorded census was 10 years after the death of Herod. ==Conclusion==Con's whole refutation begs the question. "The Big Bang account can easily be refuted. Reading Genesis 1:1 it says God created the heavens and the earth. Plain and simple, and God did not use the big bang. As Genesis unpacks, it says God made the earth in 6 days. So the Big Bang is not reliable." - I have shown how Genesis is *not* reliable via. this. The historical authenticity is based on ipse dixit. Thus, Con commits two fallacies. The resolution remains resoundingly affirmed.
The Bible Is Not the Inerrant Word of God

The Big Bang account can easily be refuted. Reading Genesis 1:1 it says God created the heavens and the earth. Plain and simple, and God did not use the big bang. As Genesis unpacks, it says God made the earth in 6 days. So the Big Bang is not reliable. Regarding Evolution there are some similarities. However, the Global flood of Genesis clearly stipulates there would be millions of fossils laid down in a very short time. Exodus has been a hassle even for biblical sholars. It is hard to piece things together on that book. However, the records show that in 1445 BC the city of Jericho was destoryed, around the same year Joshua suceeded Moses. The encampments are not recorded because they were in a desert, think about that. The Roman census is believed to have took place while Qurinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2). And it appears he was governor twice, because a roman official recorded a census under a man named Qurinius in 7BC but it must not have happened until 6 or 5BC the date of Christ's birth.
The NHL needs to bring back the Hartford Whalers, California Golden Seals and Quebec Nordiques

The NHL should bring back the defunct teams the Hartford Whalers and the Quebec Nordiques. Both teams were very very popular before being relocated. They didn't play well, but they should be brought back for the fans in the respective cities. The fanbase for the Nordiques and Whalers could grow quite a lot if they returned to their cities in the form of an expansion team. Both teams would have their original logos and jerseys. An existing team, such as the Arizona Coyotes or Buffalo Sabres, could also be relocated and become the Nordiques or Whalers.
gay marriage: ya, another one

Your argument was never explained in full. A "good debater" as you put it, needs to be able to put their argument into terms where someone who has never had any prior knowledge on the subject could have a clear understanding of the topic. I'll provide an analogy: I asked you for directions, and rather than giving me landmarks, road signs, and distances, you simply pointed your finger and said "It's over there" expecting me to have every bit of knowledge that you have on the subject. I will freely admit now that I'm not as well versed in what marital benefits are given and how they are exercised. I also have no clue as to what you may consider "an already wounded system". The only conclusion I can come up with from the vast expanse of knowledge you've given me to work on is that gay marriage would have no more of a devastating economic effect on this "crippled system" than if every heterosexual couple where to get married. Therefore it is logical that the overall effect would be no different than something that could, in theory, already happen, and thus should be legalized.
gay marriage: ya, another one

First of all, I specifically mention in my opening statement the distinction between the socail and economic aspects of the issue I am arguing. It is not my fault you chose to ignore this and proceed with a lengthy paragraph on you personal views on the social worth of GM. Second, anyone with any kind of rationality would realize that social programs in an economic sense would clearly mean ones like welfare and social security. Third, I expected, when you read my opening statment and the topic and subsequently accepted the debate that you both understood it and had at least a sliver of knowledge on the topic. Even if you thought my opening claim was unclear, it's not my problem you wasted your first two sessions crying about it, even after I clarified in my second post. This toaster and cell phone nonsense is clearly irrelevant as I refer specifically to welfare benefits and incentives. Any compitent debator would have been able to make relevant arguments based on my first claim (instead of blindly rambling) and then respond after I clarified (instead of whining and failing to make a single argument). As all of my claims have gone unanswered let me reitterate briefly and elaborate. The social justification of GM is irrelevant. These economic repercussions are what is important. As MOST know, and as I pointed out earlier, spouses recieve additional benefits from our government's social programs, such as social security, as opposed to single people. With these added benefits, combined with the terrible shape of the programs themselves, a flood of new gay marriages would kill an already wounded system leaving all social programs in shambles. The effects of these thousands of marriages, in and of themselves, is reason to keep GM illegal. Had you responded to my arguments in the first place (as they were given), you wouldn't have placed yourself in this situation. Despite my clarifications you have failed to make any real response.
gay marriage: ya, another one

First off, it would have been stupendous if you had mentioned the specific social programs in your opening statement. It'd also be great if you could mention specific examples of how these programs would "go down the tubes"; in your words, the "negative effects". For all I know, this could mean social security cards around America will explode the second there is a gay marriage in the US. And what social systems are you talking about? Facebook? Myspace? Those are social systems. Are they really that close to crumbling because of gay marriage? Shame. I'd also love to know what benefits you think are going to really screw us all over should these marriages come into place. COuld you be talking about the many "Buy 1 get one free deals" that can now be used on their partner? I can only imagine all the toasters and cell phones that would be given away free. Horrible. How this will effect the economy is unclear to me, and I don't believe the last session space will be sufficient enough for me to sum up all my counter arguments even if you were to give me specifics. These should have been given at the beginning of the debate. We're not all quite as good as you are at reading your own thoughts. Clearly, this whole debacle of a debate should be restarted. I don't have nearly enough satisfactory information on what I should be defending to make a good point.
gay marriage: ya, another one

All those observations are great. They fail to address the argument though. I argue that the legalization of gay marriage would have negative effects on our social programs (welfare, social security, etc.) I think we can all agree that our social systems are treading water (at the very best) and are, in most cases, drowning. Social Security will be in the red by 2012 and so on. When straight couples get legally married, the spouses get new benefits and priveleges under each social system. Could you imagine the effect thousands of new beneficiaries would have on these already crippled insitutions? Whether you morally agree with GM or not is entirely irrelevant. This economic issue is the one I argue, not the traditional moral one.
gay marriage: ya, another one

I am for gay marriage, though I personally do not fully agree with homosexual love. It is however, not a recent act that has suddenly sprung up. Homosexuality has been around for generations. Some English rulers, such as James I, and Edward II, where gay, and lived in a time when homosexuality was punishable by excommunication or even death. Japan also shows evidence that homosexuality was a regularly practiced exercise in many a dojo. There are some fellow mammals, including dolphins and primates, the more intelligent animal species ( source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com...). This leads me to believe that it is not simply choice, but a natural emotion, as odd as it may be. Yes, the feelings may violate the natural structure of the human body, but they are never the less as true as the deepest loves between male and female, and sometimes even more so. They have every bit as much right to love as the next man and woman. Should they choose to embark on the deepest symbol of human love, marriage, I say 'good for them" and let them do it. I fail to see what crisis marriage could have on the government and social programs of the nation, nay, the world. If you will please elaborate so that I may present my next argument.
Zelda or mario

A big problem for the recent games in the Zelda series is that they have lost their way. They have drenched the player from game to game further into piles upon piles of cutscenes and moving simpler and simpler tasks in the ones that the player receives hand-holding before she can continue. The best way to show the extent of the problem is to look at the time required from starting the game to finishing the tutorial areas. This time has increased to the detriment of gameplay from mere messages to welcome the player into the world to dozens of minutes of story cutscenes and slow step by step required learning of the way to control every tool at the player's disposal[1]. By comparison Mario games always step the player right into the thick of gameplay without much explanation, even the 3d ones. A different problem is the dumbing down of the sense of exploration in the moment to moment gameplay from the 2d Zelda games to the recent 3d ones. The way to the ending is through a very narrow way that is always brightly visible to the player so she will not get lost. There are no tricks in the world or overly difficult areas with some secret new gameplay element that would make the player learn the way forward[2]. Mario's worlds imagined by the designers always have by comparison a level of difficulty that is similar to the early games in the series and encounters that are bound to puzzle the experienced player. The Zelda series of today is focused on story in a way that makes the story the game is trying to get through to the player a detriment to the overall experience. An explanation of this problem is found in David Jaffe's presentation at the DICE 2012 conference[3]. By comparison in the recent Super Mario Galaxy 2 game the expanded focus on story of Super Mario Galaxy was ditched[4]. Therefore the Super Mario series has retained it's gameplay lineage intact from the very first game. By comparison Zelda has been dumbed down and reduced to an experience of watching cutscenes when not being lead through the world to the next simple puzzle that needs solving. [1] http://www.gamasutra.com... [2] http://kotaku.com... [3] http://www.gamasutra.com... [4] http://www.wired.com...
Zelda or mario

not only will the game have these futures but it will have traps, doors, shops, and etc. Also the game will have a princess getting captured and there will be a last boss but the excitement doesn't stop there. Zelda will control trains, ships, leafs, and etc and players will have a fun time playing zelda. The graphics of this game is very colorful and the designs are very creative also it makes players freely enjoy the game with no walls or lines it just lets you explore and finally the game lets you have fun