BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Super Mario game series is better than The Legend of Zelda series

I will not argue that Mario games do take you to different worlds and universes, but the fact is that how long do you spend in them? Now yes, we all get stuck at some point (or even rage quite when to frustrated) but do really ever get to look around and smell the flowers/piranha plants (though why would you want to). Now I do commend Super Mario 64 and Galaxy 1&2 because in those games you can actually get a handle for the original world/space station you start on; but when is the amount of worlds/universes to much? I believe that because there is only one world; it makes Zelda’s universe better. You can get handle on the culture, people, and even history of a land that you walk on. Though in all fairness there are other locations in the Zelda universe, but I believe mentioning them would not go along with the main story line and thus against the agreed conditionsAnother season why The Legend of Zelda series is better is the items that you have at your fingertips. Though you can run through it, why would you want to(exception being Majora's Mask),doing the side quests only benefit the player. They also bring you deeper into the world. It is items like Iron Boots that help to keep you in place when Gorons roll at you or when you need to walk up a strong current. Shields that are wooden, iron, mirror, etc. tunics or armor that help you breath under water or are fire resistant. Lets not for get the Master sword and all its glory. Sure it looks different in each game but it still hurts like a B***** to enemy's. All these items, if not most, are used in the carefully crafted puzzles within the game. Now to make myself clear you don't always use every item for just one puzzle. Different items are use to solve certain puzzles. Hence why The Legend of Zelda is the better of the two.
The Super Mario game series is better than The Legend of Zelda series

Indeed, there is no doubt that The Legend of Zelda franchise has its place in history. Its place, however, is lower than that of Mario. It is quite impressive that the Zelda franchise has sold nearly 68 million copies, but what if I told you that the Mario Brothers series has sold that much for the NES alone (those games being Super Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros 2, and Super Mario Bros 3) [1]. Of course, that is only for one game system, as the series continues to have staggering sales numbers throughout the rest of the other game systems. For example, Super Mario 64 is the best selling game for the Nintendo 64 (yes, even more than Ocarina of Time), and Super Mario Sunshine is the second best selling game for the Nintendo GameCube (second only to Super Smash Brothers Melee) [1]. The Legend of Zelda franchise also limits the player to the world of Hyrule. In the earlier Mario games, there were 8 distinctly different worlds with different challenges that the gamer can submerge themselves in. Even in Super Mario 64, where most of the game takes place int a castle, this idea still takes shape. Through jumping into portraits, the gamer can be taken to a myriad of different worlds, including a desert, an ocean, and volcanic environment. Needless to say, Super Mario Galaxy allowed the imagination of the gamer to practically jump onto the screen, as exploration into the Super Mario universe was introduced. In addition, Mario is simply a better protagonist. In most of the Legend of Zelda games, Link is the "child of destiny," meaning that he was destined to save Hyrule from destruction. It is not necessarily because Link is such a hard-worker that he ends up being a hero. In fact, he is usually portrayed as a lazy person at first. It just happens to be luck (or fate if you prefer) that he becomes a legend in the first place. Mario, on the other hand, was not destined to become a hero. He had to work hard to become a hero. He went from being a plumber to being the iconic figure that he is today. And he did not do so because fate deemed it that way. He worked hard at it, even when all the odds were against him. This is what allowed him to save his world (and eventually universe) time and time again. It is also the reason that Mario relates to gamers in the way that he does, and a way which Link does not. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Super Mario game series is better than The Legend of Zelda series

Let me start by saying that, yes Link may not have gotten his start by climbing ladders and dodging barrels to fighting a monkey(Ape for those how like Donkey Kong) that obviously has issues with finding a mate. Just so he can save the girl he loves for the dangers of the animal that took her. Link on the other hand is a nobody; a boy that hasn't found his place in the world until one day he finds himself in a situation that makes him a hero of a kingdom.Now to the nit and grit: The Legend of Zelda franchise is just as easily recognized as the Super Mario Brothers. The fact of the matter is that The Legend of Zelda is just better. Its gameplay mechanics blend together a perfect balance of puzzle solving, action, and adventure in the action-fantasy world of Hyrule. The franchise it self has sold over 67.93 million copies, may have changed since post, since the first game [1]. Another thing that makes it better is the music. Kijo Kondo* himself wrote the opening title music,"The Legend of Zelda Theme" which on ScrewAttack's "Top Ten Videogame Themes Ever" is ranked as #1 [1]. Also the Symphonic Legends, when focusing on Nintendo music, play the full 35 minute epic tale [1]. We shouldn't stop there with the music aspect, how about the combination of music and puzzles that is very apparent in the games which allow access to hidden areas as well as changing the seasons. The setting is another ingredient in the equation of the franchise. The new world of Hyrule allowed players to be transported to something new a fascinating. The location you go to give depth to the world. Instead of just running through the levels to get to a castle just to defeat the boss and have the biggest F*** You with "your princess is in another castle". The Legend of Zelda allows you to get to know the people, talk to them if you want to and help them to gain items that ultimately help you in your adventure. This leads to back stories on villagers of the towns you enter. Also the fact that Link doesn't talk allows you to connect to the game even deeper, almost as if you are Link. *Kijo Kondo is consider "greatest legend in the video game audio industry"[1][1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(series)
The Super Mario game series is better than The Legend of Zelda series

I believe that is is fairly well known that Mario is one of, if not the most easily recognized video game character out there. There is a reason that a fat, Italian plumber is the mascot for their most successful gaming company, Nintendo. The reason is fairly simple; the games that he was featured in built that company from the ground up. They were, and still are revolutionary. Here are a few examples: 1. Super Mario Bros. - All you need to do is play the first stage of Super Mario Bros. to see the impact it had. World 1-1 is the famous Super Mario Brothers theme song that everybody is aware of. On top of that, this game is one of the most famous side scrolling games ever (in a time when the vast majority of games made were side scrolling). This game alone has sold 40 million copies [1]. In addition to that, this game is also home of the most infamous glitch in gaming the "World -1" glitch. 2. Super Mario Bros. 3 - To continue with the theme of famous side scrolling games, this game is just as good as its prequel. Armed with many new power-ups, including the Raccoon leaf that allowed Mario to fly, and a wide assortment of puzzles to solve in the game's eight worlds, this game really needs no introduction. 3. Super Mario Galaxy- Mario's transition into the third generation of gaming could not have gone better, as Super Mario Galaxy is the second-highest rated game of all time on GameRankings.com [1]. It's easy to see why, with a glorious display of graphics, an amazing soundtrack, and a wide variety of challenges made possible with the Wii's motion controls, there's no doubt that this is one of the greatest games ever made. Those are just a few examples, as the list goes on from there. Along with several others, these games helped give the Super Mario series the top rated game franchise by IGN [1]. That, by default, would make it better than the Legend of Zelda series. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should abortions be legal in cases of rape and incest

Resolution:Abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest.It will be Pro's burden to prove the resolution, and it will be my burden to rebut the resolution. If Pro is willing to take the BoP, please respond in the next round.Definitions:Abortion: a killing of a child while it is still in developmental stages.Legal: permitted by law.Cases: an instance of a particular situation.Rape: sexual intercourse where either partner does not consent or is under the age of consent (18).Incest: sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.Arguments:Crime does not take away rights/value from a person.Allow me to present a hypothetical:Let's say someone kidnapps a child. That is a heinous crime, and luckily, the perpetrator is found and arrested. The child is then rescued and saved. This crime (kidnapping) does not take away the child's rights because he has now been involved in a crime. In the same way, a child that is born as a result of a crime does not take away that child's rights. The argument that "you ought to be able to kill an unborn child because of a crime" not only shows an obvious double standard, but also doesn't stand up under examination.This is my main argument. I want to allow my opponent to accept definitions, so I'll end my argument here.Pro?
Abortion should not be legal

Alright, well first, thank you for accepting my challenge! On to the argument... __________________ Con did not address my principal argument that abortion is no different from homicide. My argument still stands. Instead, Con proposes another exception. In doing so, she seems to concede that abortion should be illegal in all other circumstances. If that is not what she intended to argue, I would ask for clarity. Her proposed exception, though, is flawed. Allow me to refute: 1) She seems to be arguing that a teen who cannot provide for a child should be able to abort that child. I would ask quite simply: why? If she concedes that abortion is no different from homicide, why should a teen be able to commit homicide, simply in order to avoid the consequences of a mistake (Con even seems to imply in her second argument that a pregnancy is "deserved suffering" for not practicing safe sex - I'll leave that up to the audience to decide personally; I don't necessarily agree)? 2) She even goes so far as to provide a solution if one is unable to provide for one's child. Adoption. But her argument against it seems to be that if a woman (or teen) goes through 9 months of pregnancy, and the pain of birth, she should not have to give away her child. Who's saying she has to? No one is forced to put their child up for adoption. If a woman has given birth to a child, it is her own choice whether to keep it or give it away. 3) I honestly don't see the reasoning here. Con says quite rightly that if a woman has (and keeps) a child, it will change her life drastically. She emotionally calls this "murdering" herself. Unfortunately, she also states that a woman who has an abortion isn't "murdering" anyone. Since she has so far not offered reasoning why abortion is different from homicide, that statement is simply unsupported by her argument. Second chances do exist - but you can't kill an innocent, defenseless human being to get that second chance. I look forward to Con's argument!
Abortion should not be legal

Although you assumed my argument correctly, there is more to it then just those circumstances. Yes. Women who are victims of rape should have the undivided right to choose whether or not they would like to bare a child they didn't want to have in the first place. Nevertheless, I also believe that a teenage pregnancy, although easily avoidable, can be a great hassle as well. Not only to the couple that made the child, but also the parents to both the mother and father. A victim of this circumstance should also have the right to abortion because of the following reasons: 1) if either parent can't afford to raise a child nor have the moral thoughts to begin to collect income, the teen should have to somehow abort the complication some other way. 2)Some parents don't have the physical or emotional stability to handle birth so if your thinking "adoption" then think again. Because the 9 months of suffering, although well deserved for not practicing safe sex in the first place, should not be put upon someone who is not ready to stand everlasting pain of baring a child and then watching them walk away with another insignificant person, with just a hope that you will one day meet again. 3) The kids aren't "murdering" anyone but themselves if they go through with having the baby. They have their whole life ahead of them, and they obviously don't want to live with this huge mistake on their backs their whole life. Second chances DO exist.
Abortion should not be legal

First off, I realize this topic is overused. But perhaps I can still find an interested opponent for my first debate :) __________________ As Pro, I will be arguing that abortion should not be legal. My opponent will argue specifically against this position: Abortion is justifiable only in few, clearly defined circumstances. These are a pregnancy resulting from rape, and a pregnancy that significantly threatens the woman's health or life. Under all other circumstances, abortion should be illegal. The Argument 1) Abortion is no different from homicide. Homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another (1). Since a fetus is an individual member of the species homo sapiens - a human being, that is - intentionally killing it is homicide. 2) The argument that this is a woman's rights issue is a red herring. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Bipolar vs Unipolar. A unique argument of unfactoids.

The link I posted is from the National Institute of Mental Health explainging various things regarding Bipolar Disorder. (Causes, Populations at Risk, Signs and Symptoms, Treatments, and Clinical Trials)The link states nothing of unipolars. Nor does 'unipolarism' have any relationship with one's wealth.I am not sure what change my opponent is referring to.My arguments have not been refuted.
Bipolar vs Unipolar. A unique argument of unfactoids.

There is only one note of a premise, and a side that Pro has taken to this debate:"I would suggest that if you do not get mad or sad at anything then you are unipolar. " Pro is suggesting "Unipolar" means having one emotion at all times. Inversely, any of us who feel any range of emotion towards happy or angry are to be considered Bipolar. I am arguing this point. Unipolar, while not considered a diagnosis, is the general normalcy of one's emotions. Good things making one happy, bad things making one sad/angry. However, Unipolar, as Pro describes, is a controlled response of emotions. Bipolar (disorder) is considered to be a "manic-depressive illness. " Extreme ranges of emotions that are unusual and mostly unprovoked causing detriment to ones daily life and activities. Bipolar disorder is a hindrance caused by one's own unstable emotions. . http://www.nimh.nih.gov...
Bipolar vs Unipolar. A unique argument of unfactoids.

Science tells us if you are Bipolar, you have a problem, a medical one that only those with the big brains of Unipolarism can diagnose. I would suggest that if you do not get mad or sad at anything then you are unipolar. I have not been diagnosed, by capitalist or communists. I know myself. What is your self diagnosis? A) Not bipolar? B) Unipolar? C) Undecided? D) none of the above? Lets have a verbal skirmish. The truth in my mind is that Unipolar people, those with all the power and control over the many have not the courage to debate this. The truth in my mind is that folks that are gleeful or pissed off, make the biggest difference. The truth in my mind is that if you have been diagnosed, then you have been labeled by they as not receptive to the establishment, Unipolarists. Those without feeling, except self esteem. The lesson is that you should not let anyone diagnose you, or you will be hooked on their pills, and be a commodity to they. Welcome all debaters, over the age of comprehension. The BoP, whatever the poop that is, is on the taker of this.
The US was meant to be a Polity not a Democracy

Is there much of a difference between constitutional rights and a democracy, though? They both support and acknowledge the same things. Our rights, freedoms, etc. So why does this change have to be made in your opinion. No facts, no charts. Jut why does this make sense to you at all. Stating that the united states is instead of a democracy all about constitutional rights, they all fall under the same category. They do the same things for our country.
Physically harming your spouse, is worse than cheating on her.

Definitions:Worse: adjective, compar. of bad and ill. 1. bad or ill in a greater or higher degree; inferior in excellence, quality, or character. 2. more unfavorable or injurious. 3. in less good condition; in poorer health. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Cheating on her: we'll take to mean adultery. I accept. I will be taking my opponent at his word. He states that, "I am arguing that physically hurting a spouse in any way, is worse meantally abusing your wife through cheating." I will show that hurting a spouse in 'any way' is not worse than infidelity through statisics involving the reason for divorce, for suicide compared to the effects of minor hurts such as accidentally stubbing your spouse's toe or bumping into your spouse in the hallway, or banging your spouse's head against the headboard during intercourse. The conclusion will be that physically harming your spouse in any way (doesn't specify intentional harming) is not worse than cheating on your spouse.(Why yes, yes I am a bit of a tool.)
One Direction is a better British boy band than The wanted

When 1 face palm compilation doesn't cut ithttp://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Gasp!!! It seems that One Direction is also contributing to the death of the English Language for my opponent believes that Satire is supposed to be news. It seems that my arguments weren't read by my opponent since my opponent has continuously kept the subjective arguments without facts and still persists with it when I have sufficiently shown through Satirical videos, a forum showing the opinions of those exasperated with directioners and subjective opinions of the first round that One direction is in fact so horrible that it is worse than the Wanted. The wanted on the other hand are off the radar so they haven't been contributing to the garbage of today's pop culture, and the death of English (Good for the Wanted, for respecting their "native" language). <For my opponent I have been sarcastic this entire time, and am horrified that I have to explain that I have been using trenchant and satirical arguments this entire debate>Now then I shall post a good song to counter that abomination that is one direction. I'm certain there are readers of DDO who remembers the song Sweet victory or remember the old Spongebob bubbledome (when Squidward was actually successful) episode where Sweet Victory plays at the very end of the episode. http://www.youtube.com...So my fellow DDO members vote for con, messenger of the disgruntled people who dislike one direction, defending the wanted with the motto the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and a man who has an eccentric taste in music. (This is all in jest for readers who take my arguments seriously)http://www.youtube.com...
One Direction is a better British boy band than The wanted

you know all those videos are fakes right not real news. oh and also you havent said anything about the wanted... just said they suck. how rude of you to bring up a fan like that and then judge them!!! who do you think you are judging other people! BULLY! if you someting mean to say keep it to yourself or dont speak at all. i got to admit your videos are more funny than anything. im a directioner but i know thats just a bunch a crud. lol. here is a parody of what makes you beautiful " math song" sorry if this disturbs anybody dont take this the wrong way but its kinda funny http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
One Direction is a better British boy band than The wanted

It seems that you will not be convinced regardless, so I will now use Satire to show that One Direction sucks to the amusement of the readers, and take the rest of this debate in stride. Disclaimer: I do not Endorse the jokes of the second video regarding women or mean any harm to those who may be offended by the video.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Comments regarding One Direction Fans from http://www.the-top-tens.com... "Directioners are very annoying they think that these 5 boys that look like they're 12 that I can sing better are the most perfect things ever. News for you, they're not. Directioners screw up other artist stuff and stalk 1 Direction. For example, the So Sick music video by Ne-Yo, a talented artist, was flagged with comments like " Niall sang this song" or "Thumbs up if you came here for Niall". That's rude to Ne-Yo and annoying. They should just keep 1 Direction comments on 1 Direction videos. How would you like it if we flagged your videos with Ne-Yo commits. Also they stalk 1 Direction. They know more about them then they know about themselves. They know facts like the exact moment they were born, have their 6th grade science fair projects, can name all their family members, friends, and classmates. Strange for a band with no talent." For more visithttp://www.the-top-tens.com...So now I pass it back to my opponent as these videos will suffice.
One Direction is a better British boy band than The wanted

ok why did you bring up her i mean thats not part of the topic. so i say that one direction is better because of their looks. harry styles has nice curly hair and a wonderful smile ask any girl! liam payne has nice abs he has got a freaken six pack!!!!!! six pack ! HOT! louis tomlinson has the best eyes ever they are so dreamy. nial horan has the best laugh ever. zayn malik has the best style ever i mean the way he does the sexy no smile at camera thing is h-o-t hot! about their fans they are famous in every country! so dont tell me they dont have any fans. they are most popular in their hometown and in the states and in australia. for twitter they have over a 7 million fans on twitter. remember not all their fans have twitters so that about 1/5 of their fans. they also have celeb fans like justin beiber, katey perry, demi lovato, big time rush,taylor swift,ed sheeran, kelly klarckson, etc. when they were having their up all night tour concert they had sold 1.5 billion tickets in seven seconds. im not making this stuff up. i dont know about you but i have done research and learned a couple of things. the best art about them is that they dont repeat the same words in the songs unlike the wanted. for example im glade you came, i mean thats all they say . i understand they need to do that evebody does that but still they sing to much and its cool at first but after a couple times you here that song your all like ughh again!!!! its kinda old and annoying!