BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kirby Could Beat Sonic In A Fight

Any and every attack Kirby can launch, he has to swallow a specific enemy to get that ability. And Sonic's super form is invulnerable, which, by definition means impossible to harm, damage or defeat, stated by Marriam-Webster. Sonic would also be able to dodge or counter any attack Kirby could possibly use via time control. Out of all of Kirby's powers he never gets the ability to control time or space while Sonic has power over time. Now to for the counter argument against your points; 1.)Kirby would have to find a specific stone enemy to swallow and ingest before the power was available, which being so fast, Sonic would not allow him to do in a serious fight. 2.)The Super Sword ability, once again has to com from a specific enemy type. He can't just use that power. And secondly Sonic can stop and slow time so hitting him with a sword that big with Kirby swinging it at any speed would be impossible to hit him. 3.) 9.8 x 10 what, mph? m/s? Either way if that was the correct calculations for warp speed, you could hit warp before even sound. and if it was 10 x 9 to the 8th power, Sonic would still have been faster without trying. 4.) Kirby would have to swallow a fighter type enemy powerful enough to do so. Which if these abilities are taken into the argument, might I add that Sonic has the Excalibur, which is the most powerful mythical sword in existence and he can stop time before Kirby could land the hit and slice him to bits. 5.) He might be able to send Sonic to the sun if he can hit him and if he wasn't using his super form. 6.) I've played through Kirby Triple Deluxe and can explain that it was not an explosion that Kirby survived. It was a plume of darkness dissipating causing a shock wave that sent out flower pedals. There is a huge difference between an explosion and a shock wave. Which a shock wave is just an energy wave breaks the sound barrier in a gas, liquid, or a plasma. And for arguments sake, say it was a complete full on explosion. Sonic has invulnerability, as I mentioned on every round so far. Kirby could not get past that. And if that's not enough, Sonic could use time stop and freeze Kirby in time and render him completely helpless while Sonic finished the battle with the Excalibur or the chaos energy blast. And not to mention that Kirby only has running endurance. He can't fly forever and when he drops he's way more than just slightly vulnerable, leaving ample opportunity for the blue blur to launch an offensive. the tricky part is landing a hit on Kirby. But time stop and soul surge makes that more than possible. And even if Kirby was resistant to fire enough to survive a large explosion, a sword can still cut through him fairly easy so the Excalibur can slash right through the pink little puffball with little to no effort. Invulnerable definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of shock wave: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Kirby Could Beat Sonic In A Fight

Alright, I'll list some of the offensive capabilities, and show how Kirby is no pushover. 1.) As stone Kirby he could negate any and all of Super Sonic's attacks, nothing in the game has even slightly damaged him when in Stone Kirby mode. 2.) Super Sword Kirby could kill Sonic if he got one hit one him, the creator confirmed it can cut through ANYTHING, and he can swing it as extremely fast rates. 3.) I think it can, warp speed is around 9.8 x 10 or something like that, according to Star Trek. 4.) Kirby, in fighter mode has hit the planet Popstar and send a huge fissure through the center in Megaton Punch. 5.) He has hit somebody to the sun with a frying pan, he sent then moving heavily F.T.L . 6.) He survived a HUGE explosion, seen from space. () This and much more leads me to believe Kirby could survive any blows from Sonic and keep up, if not go faster than him, while providing a good offense and defense.
Kirby Could Beat Sonic In A Fight

Actually I did say the warp star could go that fast, but does the warp star top 67,061,662,900 mph? What is the top speed mph the warp star can go? And though he can shoot stars, Take into account what Sonic's abilities are in his super and his normal form. 1.) Super Sonic is invulnerable. 2.) He has unlimited endurance. 3.) Using the chaos emeralds Sonic can stop time, slow it down, speed it up and even tear through time and space to warp without the super form. 4.) Super Sonic can also shoot energy beams and deflect projectiles. 5.) Sonic can slow and stop time without even having the chaos emeralds with his abilities time break, time stop, and soul surge from Sonic and the Secret Rings, Sonic Adventure 2, and Sonic and the Black Knight respectively. 6.) Both Sonic and Super Sonic can use the light speed attack although Sonic has to build some momentum first, Super Sonic can do it on command. And when it comes down to a air battle between the warp star and Super Sonic, the warp star shoots stars yes, but Super Sonic can deflect them as seen in Sonic Rush Adventure. And in Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood Super Sonic is shown being aggressive in close combat and he can fire a charged beam of pure chaos energy. Follow that up with warp speed and time control and I'm fairly confident when I say Sonic can win almost any fight. Sonic's abilities: http://sonic.wikia.com... Super Sonic's combat: http://sonic.wikia.com...(move) Super Sonic on Dark Brotherhood: (please note Sonic's health bar also as it says ???, to emphasis the invicibility.) Sonic '06 Time slowing: Soul Surge: Time Break: (11:17) Chaos Control: (3:23)
Kirby Could Beat Sonic In A Fight

Rebuttal: "If you include the warp star he can't attack from it unless you include Kirby Air Ride, But in including Kirby Air Ride, the fastest warp star which is the Hydra has a top speed of 150 mph." I could why you may say this, but the warpstar is VERY fast, let explain, in Kirby Super Star, () watch the first twenty seconds and you will see it accelerates very fast and exits the planet's atmosphere in a mere seconds and I would say that is easily faster than sound. "However It is also known that when Kirby is going that fast he latches on to the warp star and cannot attack." This is a false statement, watch this: 4:45 and you will see the warp star is not only able to be used in a fight but it can shoot out stars. In SSBB, in the description it says the Warp Star is a "warp-speed item" and warp speed, is indeed faster than light. As seen Here () he can move from the surface of Popstar to the moon within seconds. Here, the Warpstar can break through a metal barrier effortlessly ()
Kirby Could Beat Sonic In A Fight

Kirby can only be faster than Sonic if he is on the warp star, and yes Kirby can fly, but what you need to remember is Kirby can only fly by himself for a short time while holding his breath. Holding his breath cancels out his swallow ability which is his only means of defense and if you include the warp star he can't attack from it unless you include Kirby Air Ride, But in including Kirby Air Ride, the fastest warp star which is the Hydra has a top speed of 150 mph, whereas Sonic's fastest running speed is said in the Sonic Adventure DX Game manual to top out at 3840 mph. Also since accelerating should also be important, Sonic is also said to be able to run fast enough to break the sound barrier immediately after beginning to run in the first episode of Sonic X. Kirby's best accelerating warp star in Air Ride, the Swerve Star, goes from 0 to 31.18 km/h instantly. Convert that to mph and you can round it up to 20 mph. Pretty pathetic acceleration for a vehicle that is supposed to compare to Sonic. And if you use the original warp star, the top speed comes out at a pathetic 25 km/h, or 15.5 mph. If your using the Kirby's warp star from Kirby Right Back At Ya then it is said to move faster than light, however It is also known that when Kirby is going that fast he latches on to the warp star and cannot attack. And if you are using full speed an full power then i bring up his light speed shoes, which also breaks the speed of light. Add the shoes to Super Sonic and he can literally cross planets in a matter of seconds. Sonic's super form has a 1000% speed increase over his normal form with the light speed shoes. Super Sonic with the shoes can fly at 2,997,924,580 m/s or 67,061,662,900 mph. Hydra top speed: http://strategywiki.org... Sonic's top speed and acceleration: http://www.answers.com... Kirby's fastest acceleration: http://wikirby.com... Warp star top speed in game: http://wikirby.com... warp star top speed in the anime: http://www.screwattack.com... Sonic's light speed shoes and Super form speeds:http://www.screwattack.com...
Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.

I assume that this topic is deriving from the 2008 December Public Forum Topic. Since I am to debate this topic next weekend, I gladly accept my opponent's resolution, while simultaneously extending a good-luck "cyber handshake" towards his general direction. The topic states as resolved: Social Networking Websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth. Resolutional analysis: ï¿½The resolution States that social networking Website CAUSE in an increase in nature-deficit disorder. Thus my opponent will have to show without a doubt that social networking websites themselves induce nature- deficit disorder in the youth of America. If my opponent fails to show the direct link of causation then it is your obligation to vote con. Definitions: Nature-Deficit Disorder: Nature Deficit Disorder, a term coined by Richard Louv in his 2005 book Last Child in the Woods, refers to the alleged trend that children are spending less time outdoors, resulting in a wide range of behavioral problems. http://www.csmonitor.com... Social Networking Web Sites: web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. http://jcmc.indiana.edu... Now that I have the definitions and analysis of the round out of the way, I look to my opponent to make the first arguments, whereas he is supposed to be affirming this resolution. It is only my job to negate it. Thank you, and Good Luck!
Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.

To begin with I will make a few details of this debate clear. 1)Nature-deficit disorder is the condition of children in this day and age spending less time in the outdoors and the impacts this has on their behaviors and decisions. 2)This debate is dealing primarily on social networking sites (not the internet as a whole) and whether or not these sites are causing an increase in nature-deficit disorder and if this is a negative thing. 3)Youth is dealing with anyone under the age of 30.
Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.

It is quite alright my esteemed opponent! First to attack I will concede the fact that on average some student are spending three hours a day on the computer, however my opponent gives no statistics, no professional analytics, no evidence AT ALL to substantiate that student spending time on social networking websites results in a direct causation of nature deficit disorder. Additionally, my opponent has yet to actually prove that nature deficit disorder actually exists. Seeing as nature deficit disorder is only an alleged trend, my opponent has the burden to show whether or not social networking sites themselves are leading to a "wide range of behavioral problems" as stated in the provided definition in RD 1. since my opponent has not been able to establish that link, or a direct link between the two, it is your obligation to vote in the negation. To futher legitimize the Negative stance, social networking websites do in no way lead to nature deficit disorder, for the exact purpose of of these sites is to create new relationships and socialize. Thousands, perhaps millions of relationships have been formed over sites like myspace and face book, and if the trend does exist, socializing is critical to mental devolpment and human health, so social networking websites are not the problem. NEGATE. Thanks!
Social networking websites cause an increase in nature-deficit disorder in our youth.

Sorry for the delay, my internet was down so i had trouble getting on. Anyways, thanks for accepting and good luck to you once again. According to cbs news the average time a teen spends on the internet every day is roughtly 3 hours. This translates into over 6 hours of time spent on the computer. In fact, the most amount of time young people spend on the internet is on social networking sites. As said by Top-20 Websites: Where DO we spend our time online? MySpace is the most winner for people spending the most time on it. A whopping 11.9% (it blew sites like youtube and wikipedia out of the water since both they only had a combined 1% of time spent on the internet even though youths spend a lot of time on each either watching videos posted by others or reading the various articles on wikipedia), this means that over one tenth of the time spent on the internet is spent on just one individual social networking site. This does not take into consideration how much time is spent on other social networking sites such as facebook. So when you take this into consideration it and then apply it to the fact that the average teen spends 3 hours on the internet it becomes clear that social networking sites are drawing our youth away from nature and drawing them towards these sites. Therefore, causing directly causing nature deficit disorder.
The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

My oppoent's round, once more, is entirely disgusting and off-topic - replete with personal attacks, but without the slightest bit of substance. He even concedes the argument, but expects you to vote for him. That isn't how a debate works. He clearly had the burden of proof and never once denied this, but in lieu of providing evidence for his claims - as is typical in a debate - he devote all of his round space to attacking me. That doesn't advance a BOP, and it never will. This isn't about me being a "tool," a "patsy," or a "sucker" - though I urge you to award me conduct for these disgusting insults, along with his assertion that I have autism - nor is this debate about comedy. We could both laugh about some of the nonsense he's written, and I do indeed find much of it funny, but that isn't the point of a debate. In a debate, you present facts to prove your side. If you don't do that, and instead lay waste to civility and the conventions of debate by devoting your rounds to attacking people, you deserve to lose. He hasn't advanced his BOP at all: he provided zero evidence that there are "lizard people," or that they are actively taking over. He didn't defend himself against a single rebuttal, and he even conceded the debate. Let me accentuate this line from him: "I concede the argument entirely from start to finish and declare my contender to be the winner therefore you must vote PRO. "This is a concession, followed by a non sequitur. Obviously if one concedes the debate, the voters must cast a ballot for his or her opponent.
The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

My contender is too young to have fully developed the cognitive facility to detect and process such things as satire/parody when he reads them. Most people never develop the faculty at all. He lacks creativity and imagination. He is probably suffering from an autistic-spectrum disorder therefore doesn't understand jokes. He has missed the point in everything I've written here entirely. He is like all those people from decades back who used to watch Gilligan's Island on TV and then called the Coast Guard in order to demand that they do something to rescue those poor people [because they didn't know entertainment from reality]. If he doesn't know an SNL skit from the end of his own nose [in any so-called intellectual debate] then you must vote PRO. Don't believe in his BS. Don't believe in my BS. Don't believe in your own BS. That is why you must vote PRO. I concede the argument entirely from start to finish and declare my contender to be the winner therefore you must vote PRO. Only a TIE can be right for this debate. Final point, only one minute long [contender is too lazy to watch it of course]: Contender is such a clown/constipated in his thinking/full of himself that he is offended by comedic insults. He is a tool/patsy/sucker.
The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

I find it disgusting that every single word out of PRO is a personal attack. He wasn't once denied his massive BOP - and because he has failed to uphold that burden, and because he cannot post new arguments or provide evidence in the last round, you must vote CON - but he hasn't taken any steps toward substantiating his claims. Rather, he is deflecting case for his paltry defense of this baseless conspiracy theory onto me. He says that I don't know what I'm talking about. The irony on this is strong - I did nothing more than point out that he provided zero evidence for a single thing he said, and that he was using a thought experiment from Descartes as though it were a factual narrative. When he says that X or Y is the "best explanation" or that objective reality doesn't exist, he needs to provide more than a bare assertion. Yet, he hasn't, and claiming otherwise is to be, ironically, dishonest. He then accuses me of ideological extremism based on reductive materialism. I don't know how that could be relevant to the resolution with respect to lizard people, nor have I advocated such a position, nor must I advocate such a position to win this debate - though he's condemning it, nevertheless, as "pseudo science" based on nothing more, of course, than an assertion. This isn't playing the victim card, and it's disgusting for PRO to assert as much. This isn't a matter of agreement as the basis of objective correctness, because it isn't. If something is objectively true, it's true regardless of whether people beleive it. This is a debate on a debating website, and PRO has made a positive assertion about lizard people taking over. He basically concedes here that he has not the slightest bit of proof, and he's actually spent more time attacking me than he has defending his arguments.
The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

My contender doesn't get it. He's also dishonest/doesn't know what he's talking about. Has an ideological extremism which is fanatic and based on objective/materialist-reductionist pseudo-science. He is also taking refuge within the collective herd and the safety of polls being "proof" that anything is true or anyone is right ["if enough people agree with me then I'm right. "] He's playing the victim card.
The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

PRO doesn't even engage a single thing I've said. Note that he never once denied that he had the burden of proof or that my criticisms are valid, but he has now resorted to ad hominem attacks. For this, please consider awarding me conduct. I'm going to respond to a few of his remarks in my limited character space, though obviously I'm going to ignore the personal attacks.The "spirit of the debate" is that he must be able to prove that lizard people are taking over. He didn't deny his BOP. As with any debate, if he doesn't prove this, you vote PRO.I don't understand where Anton Wilson comes in: he never made this argument. H didn't apply Descartes's thought experiment to modern physics: he didn't even present it as a thought experiment. He used it to try to prove a positive claim that invisible people exist. There are no "nuances" to his arguments - he's just making bold, unsubstantiated assertions. This has nothing to do with intuition. This debate is about proof, and he has none. This isn't a false validation, but demanding evidence. I don't misunderstand quantum physics - he's just asserting things without backing the resolution, so obviously I'm going to point out (a) that he's asserting things are true which are unproved and (b) that his remarks don't prove the resolution. He provides zero evidence that the objective universe doesn't exist - and an appeal to "First Principles" is enough to invalidate this. He falsely claims that something perceived in the mind exists - but existence is a matter of *objective* reality. He's, again, only making assertions about this "lizard people" hypothesis being plausible or the "best explanation." He doesn't even show how this clashes with other viable theories. He is literally substituting the unknown for the unknown, which *cannot* carry the standard of proof necessary to win. PRO does nothing more than make baseles assertions and personal attacks. He doesn't even touch his BOP. And, once more, he provides irrelevant links.
The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

My opponent forfeits the argument for he is: Humorless Too skeptical Not skeptical enough Lazy Boring Unrealistic Unable to adhere to the obvious spirit of the debate Unable to understand the nuances A horrible cook Unable to grasp Robert Anton Wilson's supreme truth [of 'maybe logic'] Fails to see what happens if you apply Descartes' thought experiments to modern physics Is vexed Is incapable of intuition Incapable of either inductive or deductive reasoning Has resorted to false invalidation of my arguments Is unable to pull the wool over his own eyes Fails understand theoretical quantum physics and there is no way to explain it to him here Fails to understand the lizard people work for the evil demon out to deceive us Fails to see the "objective" universe is illogical/a form of madness Fails to understand: That all evidence is faulty/tampered with That the "objective" universe doesn't exist That only my subjective consciousness and the experience of it has validity That a thing perceived in the mind thereby exists That the evil demon hypothesis with his lizard people minions is the best explanation for why we can know nothing except that our imagination functions better than empirical science Skepticism is ultimate reality and quantum physics, the evil demon, and his evil lizard people working to deceive us constitute the best argument for the supremacy of skepticism YOU MUST VOTE PRO BRIEF, CLOSING STATEMENTS: TRUTH WORKS LIKE DUMBO'S feather: And: Finally: