BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was a better Mario RPG than Paper Mario

Rebuttals I do not know what my opponent is trying to convey here. At first I thought he was committing a category mistake, but i am just plain confused. 50 Shades of Gray is NOT an original story. Twilight might be, i don't know. But to say Star Wars is not original, especially in comparison to 50 Shades of Gray and Twilight. I agree it is a better movie, but that proves my point. Super Mario RPG is an original story, which makes it a better game (among other reasons) When you have only one member of your party with you like in Paper Mario, you are often out numbered. While in Super Mario RPG, having 2 members of your party as opposed to one, you may still at times be out numbered, but you are less likely to be so. It's simple statistics. Your allies in Paper Mario do not have access to the items that can be used in battle. In Super Mario RPG, the can. Which is an advantage. Furthermore, in Super Mario RPG, you can have one party member use an item in order to help another party member, since you cannot do this in Paper Mario, this is an advantage in Super Mario RPG. My opponent mentions the badges and how you can increase BP when you level up. There are a few problems with this: You cannot equip badges on your partners In Super Mario RPG, when you level ANY of your party members up, not just Mario, their stats go up AND you can give one area a special boost. In Paper Mario, you do not get that automatic upgrade when you level up, just selecting one area to upgrade AND YOUR PARTY MEMBERS STILL CANNOT LEVEL UP. I never disputed whether Paper Mario had mini games. Super Mario RPG has more, which are more fun,[1] The point I made with my last point, is that in Super Mario RPG you can level up all your partners a near endless amount of times, while in Paper Mario you can only do that twice. 1. http://www.smrpglegacy.com... 2. http://www.mariowiki.com...
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was a better Mario RPG than Paper Mario

First thanks to TN05 for taking this debate. Super Mario RPG has an entirely different story than any previous Mario game. You don't save Peach. She is a member of your party. As is Bowser. They both are your allies. You are also introduced to two new allies, Geno and Mallow. Going back to the fact that Bowser and Peach are your allies, In Paper Mario, you again have to save Peach from Bowser. In Super Mario RPG, you encounter a new enemy and a new mission: Smithy, who has destroyed the Star Road. Granted, in Paper Mario, Bowser steals a the Star Rod and destroys the Star Road, but you still go through the same tired formula of having to save Peach. The Star Rod and Star Road serve as more of a secondary quest. So in Super Mario RPG you have: Mario Mallow Geno Bowser Peach In Paper Mario you have Mario Goombario Kooper Bombette Parakarry Bow Watt Sushie Lakilester So I can concede that Mario gives you more allies, but there is a problem with the battle format of Paper Mario In Super Mario RPG you are given Mario plus TWO allies to take into battle with you at a time. Paper Mario only allows for one extra ally into battle So you are given more options in Super Mario RPG for battle partners. In Paper Mario you have to switch partners thus wasting a turn. In conjunction with that, you are able to learn more special moves with your allies in Super Mario RPG, and your allies can use items collected and bought in the game. Paper Mario does not give you this option. In Paper Mario, Mario has two types of attacks, Jump and Hammer. In Super Mario RPG, Mario You can use a variety of attacks, Punching attacks, fire attacks, hammer attacks and of course jumping attacks. Your allies in Super Mario RPG can also use a different number of attacks, in Paper Mario, your allies are limited to three. You can equip armor, weapons and accessories on each of your members that increase certain attributes in Super Mario RPG. This cannot be done in Paper Mario, instead using a badge system which is in comparison, useless Additionally in Super Mario, you have several mini games and puzzles such as Midas River, Yo'ster Isle the Moleville Mine Carts, Goomba Thumpin in the Pipe Vault, and the symphony game in Tadpole Pond just to name a few. In Midas River there are caves you can go in and collect items coins or even risk losing coins. The design in that particular area is really neat Finally In Paper Mario when you level up, you only level Mario up. In Super Mario RPG, you have the opportunity to level up each of your party members. You can give each member more HP FP etc.
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was a better Mario RPG than Paper Mario

I would love to debate anyone who has a vast knowledge of video games, RPGs, and Super Mario games, as well as an informed opinion on said topics. The topic of the debate is stated above in the title. I am taking the pro position. I will allow my opponent to make his opening arguments in round one and I will make mine in round two as well as refutations of his arguments. Definitions can be made by my opponent as well. Good luck!
Bruce Lee is Overated

I agree with you on one point, and that's bringing martial arts to the west. But he only did it through his films and not actual fighting, He is credited by many fighters as being the best martial artist that ever lived. Even though he never had a fight record or win a championship.Bruce Lee's fans also falsifie his strengths by spreading false rumors that have no evidence to support it. For example, many fans say that Bruce can kick a 300 pound punching bag to mid-air. But this is simpely impossible. Another rumor is that he can knock down any person with a 1-inch punch, which is just a parlor trick and is just pushing the oppenent away.http://www.ewmaa.com...Now let's compare him to a real martial artist, Rampage Jackson. In every poll, comparing Bruce Lee vs a very experienced fighter. Bruce Lee would win the poll. Even though he has never fought competition before. If Bruce Lee is not overated, then why do people favor Bruce over ACTUAL fighters ?https://answers.yahoo.com...In conclusion, Even though Bruce is a great martial artist. He has not fought any competition at all, or fought pro. He shouldn't even be called a martial artist. Let's be real here, without his movies. He would be irrelevent. He is no different to Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris, IP man, or Jackie Chan.
Bruce Lee is Overated

Topic: Bruce Lee is Overatted Con: Bruce Lee is NOT OverattedPro: Bruce Lee is OverattedRules: NO RULESOpening statement: Bruce Lee is overatted. People say he is the best martial artist that ever existed, but he has fought no one that is even noteworthy to speak of. His battle with Wong Jack Man was not proof of his skills. Because both both sides say that their side won. He has no fight record, the only record he has is his dance record.In Conclusion: Bruce Lee is overated and should not be considered the best martial artist that ever lived because that title belongs to Anderson Silva, because he actually FOUGHT.
Legalize consensual incest in all Countries around the world

Biology was never behind the almost universal incest taboo ,until modern times in the occidental world especially. Incest can be and was also attached to social structure and organization like, forbidding step parents marrying their stepchildren and the same for step siblings between each other,also men and women from the same clan. Maybe I could understand the organizational purpose behind this,and that family should be composed from a father,a mother and children,but let me ask everybody: what about having only 2 fathers or 2 mothers,I mean being reared among an homosexual couple,for example? Doesn't this also disorganize the social structure and especially family,that if family only means:2 parents,male and female from one side,and children from the other. Anyway,these reasons have not any foundation when children leave the household,and no biological aspect which I find,like I already said, only little more probable than in non blood related couples,and non existing in cases of step relatives: parents with their adult children,and adult children together;so why forbid those people from loving and even marrying each other,after many years of not living as a family anymore,this argument becomes more accurate when people aren't at all blood related,or with very distant biological liaisons. I must mention that first cousins marriages are legal in the Middle and Near East,Europe and in many states inside the USA,and was socially and legally accepted in all these places 100 years ago,still is it the case,even lesser than in the past,in Middle and Near East. Also,for example in Islam,marrying a step child isn't considered incest at all,but it isn't socially accepted in Muslim countries or in countries where the majority of the population is Muslim, nowadays. Recently,some biologists in USA have argued that first cousin marriages are more fertile than non blood related ones and that the risks of birth defects in the first ones isn't much more than in the second ones,and I found this to be somehow true. Finally in times where people can use,if they only want,many different kinds,of natural as from ancient times,and artificial kinds of contraception,and if we are to always believe the biological reasons behind the American panic from incest. N.B: search for the article"Go ahead cousins,kiss each other!"
Legalize consensual incest in all Countries around the world

Again, towards your comment about testing to grant the right to have a child is taking away someone's natural rights. No one should ever be denied by the law, only by nature, to have an offspring. And to your statement about it being the right of parents to raise their kids to their moral standards should be limited. Children can be raised to be slaves, and that it's okay to beat someone just for not listening. No child should be raised to think it's okay to beat a woman or child just to assert their authority. That is asinine. Please understand that I am not trying make negative comments toward you, I just do not condone the actions of people to raise children in their hateful ways. It has been proven that racism is learned, not natural, and people raise their kids to be racist. This is not okay. People raise their children to be sexist, and that is not okay. Being intolerant of someone's sexual orientation is not okay. If someone was being in an incest relationship, I would not be intolerant of them, I would just disagree with their ways. In fact, there was a couple in England that fell in love at first sight. They dated, and planned to get married. It turned out that they were fraternal twins separated at birth, and they somehow found each other not knowing they were twins. Incest was illegal, but there was an exception, and I personally find it an exception as well. But in a household, people can have the idea forced against them. It's not okay, it is not natural, and forcing anyone to do anything period is wrong. Either that's the case, or I grew up in a bad household where my parents did not force me to believe anything, and I turned out to be a great harmless person. But lets not trail off. If you can find naturally consenting, no force, no being raised in to the situation, and no testing, because denying someone the natural right to have a child is a horrible thing to do, then maybe, just maybe, you will get my vote. But, because of the way the world is, I am not going to vote for that side. I don't care what other countries do, or what some states do, I don't care how whoever punishes it, and even though I am extremely liberal, and I do not want any government in anyway interfering with someone's harmless to others happiness, I have to say this is morally wrong, especially giving the modern circumstances.
Legalize consensual incest in all Countries around the world

Putting procreation aside,every two or more consenting adults in their respective jurisdictions,meaning they are legally adult to consent to sexual activity,have the total right to marry each other officially,have sex with each other ,and if,after complete and detailed health tests,proved to be completely healthy and free of hereditary and genetically conduct illnesses and diseases;that they be granted the right to have children of their own and that these children would legally be recognized as their children and that they can officially and legally proclaim themselves as their parents,whenever necessary ,in front of any public or private institution,office,agency,etc and in front of all people and anywhere in the world. Some examples of legal ages for sexual relation around the world: USA between 16 and 18,most of Europe 16,France 15,Spain 14,most of Latin America 14 or 15,Brazil 15,Peru 14,Cuba 12?; Denmark 14,Japan 12,Australia 16,Lebanon 18(must be lowered to 15-16),Netherlands 16,Sweden 15,Turkey 18,etc
Legalize consensual incest in all Countries around the world

Thank goodness for internet where people can post their ideas, and strangers and friends alike can easily and peacefully shut them down. I do accept. Now, I noticed in the comments that you said that homosexuality was legalized and that contrary to what people believed it did not cause children to become gay themselves, however, homosexuality is not a choice. The partner you choose is, but the choice to like people of your own gender is not (though that is a separate debate, if you disagree with it not being a choice, do not say so because I will no longer use that as a part of my debate). But, as people have said, a father can nurture his daughter in to choosing himself as a partner. It is well known that a lot of times, a partner someone chooses comes from their own ideas of what a good partner is, and that is partly assisted by the child's upbringing. Children can be brought up so that they are only attached sexually to a parent or an older sibling. Though it is illegal, these things have happened already. Getting people tested in order for them to have offspring is wrong, too, especially if you grant them the right to do so. Having children is a natural right, not a right given to us by the government. By the way, anything that is given to us, but can be taken away, is a privilege, not a right. A right cannot be taken away, other wise it's called a privilege. I personally believe that the Bill of Rights should be the Bill of Privileges, because if you get arrested, you lose them, and although you deserve to lose them if you do something wrong, having them taken away means they are not rights, but that was a short rant unrelated to this really. A parent or older sibling can also force themselves on to the younger ones and teach them that that is how life goes, and the child will accept it until someone teaches them other wise.
Legalize consensual incest in all Countries around the world

putting procreation aside,every two or more consenting adults in their respective jurisdictions,meaning they are legally adult to consent to sexual activity,have the total right to marry each other officially,have sex with each other ,and if,after complete and detailed health tests,proved to be completely healthy and free of hereditary and genetically conduct illnesses and diseases;that they be granted the right to have children of their own and that these children would legally be recognized as their children and that they can officially and legally proclaim themselves as their parents,whenever necessary ,in front of any public or private institution,office,agency,etc and in front of all people and anywhere in the world. Some examples of legal ages for sexual relation around the world: USA between 16 and 18,most of Europe 16,France 15,Spain 14,most of Latin America 14 or 15,Brazil 15,Peru 14,Cuba 12?; Denmark 14,Japan 12,Australia 16,Lebanon 18(must be lowered to 15-16),Netheirlands 16,Sweden 15,Turkey 18,etc
free will

Seeing as this is the last round, I'll begin with a refutation, and then closing arguments. 1) faith=guessIn case Pro has forgotten, we've already defined this term asFaith: a belief that is not 100% proven. (Round 2, Con) Now Pro brings a new, undefined term into the debate: "Guess." Let's define it as follows:Guess: an opinion that one reaches or to which one commits oneself on the basis of probability alone or in the absence of any evidence whatever.We can see that this is completely different from faith. A guess relies on probability alone, or the absence of a counterargument. We can see that 1) probability is not the only factor when it comes to faith, as demonstrated in my previous arguments, and 2) there are many counterexamples to faith. There is a) Secular Humanism, b) Post Modernism, c) Marxism-Leninism, and so on and so forth. And yet, all of these "counterexamples" require faith as well! NONE of these can be 100% proven by any means. They can only be proven more or less likely than not. See this link to find a sheet on the prevailing worldviews in today's society: http://www.summit.org...2) truth can only be in the past, claims about past events beyond my memory of it goes to future, as I can at best imagine and believe in itSo then World War 1 never happened? By Pro's logic (If I didn't see it it holds no truth), all of history, science, and philosophy that did not occur in his lifetime is not true. Then believing that the Industrial Revolution occurred requires faith, believing that Edison made the first mass-producible lightbulb requires faith, and believing that Einstein discovered relativity (which Pro believes in) requires faith. Pro's arguments are contradictory. In closing, faith does not strip away free will. It does quite the opposite. As a matter of fact, it gives you the biggest choice to make: Do I choose to follow God or Satan? Also, it's Pro's burden to prove that free will is stripped away when you believe in something, and simply put, Pro has failed to do so. Vote negative.David_Debates
free will

I'm still not entirely sure what you are arguing and whether or not it even has anything to do with the topic (Free will). So instead of refuting the few points you made, I'll make a counter argument. Free will is in existence. I don't disagree with that. But when you say that faith removes free will is where your argument falls apart. I myself am a believer in Christianity. This doesn't mean we don't have free will. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite! We can see this laid out quite clearly in the scripture. Take for example, Proverbs 16:9: "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps." In modern English: "A man's heart chooses his way: but the Lord directs his steps." Here's another verse on the subject, 2 Timothy 2:26: "And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." The Bible makes it clear: You chose to follow God or Satan. You have the choice: no one else, and you are responsible for that choice. Christianity doesn't take away free will, it gives it to you. Would you rather be a slave to the devil, or a follower of God? My opponent keeps making the same point: that, in his own words, "faith=future=unknown you have no memory of future, no knowledge.. truth can only be in the past" He states also that truth is only in the past. But faith relies on the past! The Bible, if you haven't noticed, writes of the past and present. The past, being the Gospel, the Laws, etc. The present, being the Proverbs, the Psalms, and the philosophy it preaches. There is one book in the bible that talks of the future, and that is Revelations. In case you are unfamiliar, Revelations follows the journey of John the Apostle, who is shown Jesus coming to earth, and Heaven and Hell becoming reality. Revelation 21:1 states, "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea." The parts of the Bible that talk of the future are the Prophets. The Bible is not all prophesy. In conclusion, faith does not take away free will, but instead gives it to you, as demonstrated by the verses Proverbs 16:9 and 2 Timothy 2:26. In addition, faith is not "unknown," but holds much truth, seing as it writes of what has come, what is, and what is to come, not only what is to come. There are more Bible verses, but I need not put all of them in this debate. I'll redirect a link to the verses I used. Free will: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... New earth: http://bible.knowing-jesus.com... Looking forward to your Round 5 argument. David_Debates
free will

Well, I'll do the same as last time. I'll refute the arguments you made. 1) fact=personal memory Once again, let's define. Fact: A true statement. Personal Memory: A person's belief, understand about a topic, or worldview based on what they have observed in their life. From this I infer you believe in relativity. That is, truth is relative to the person you ask. Once again, I don't see how this shows "free will." However, I'll refute it. 1+1=2, right? Wrong. There may be a person who believes that 1+1=3. There may be a person who believes 1+1=4. There may be a person who believes 1+1=5, 6, 7, and so on. Based on what you stated, "fact=personal memory," all of these are true and false at the same time. 2) future is unknown.. no evidence I don't know what the future holds. Still don't see what this has to do with free will. 3) knowledge is certain, faith is guessing.. Faith isn't void of any knowledge. What is your worldview? I'm sure it relies on belief (or faith), and I'm sure you are able to assert some truth to it. Truth being facts, knowledge, etc. "...there is not enough evidence anywhere to absolutely prove God, but there is adequate evidence to justify the assumption or the faith that God exists" (Thomas, 1965, p. 263, emp. in orig.). That's right, EVIDENCE. Not conjecture, guessing, or speculation, but evidence. See you in round 4. David_Debates
free will

I'll attempt to rebut the argument you've brought forward. 1) obviusly faith is not knowledge, imbecile troll. I take your argument to mean that faith is the opposite of knowledge. That in mind, I'll start with some definitions so we don't get each other confused. Faith: a belief that is not 100% proven. Knowledge: having certain facts, data, and anyalisis of a given topic. Opposite: completely different in every way. That in mind, I don't see how this inflects the title of the debate: "free will." But I'll respond to this statement. Faith doesn't mean you have no proof whatsoever. As a matter of fact, all worldviews cannot be proven by the scientific method. This doesn't mean they hold no merit, truth, or right. Even Darwinism (which I assume is your worldview) cannot be proven by it's very own ultimate authority, science! If there is strong evidence for both sides, it is not by definition 100% proven. One counterexample is all it takes. 2) you do not understand that knowledge is faith, this is insanity of hallucination Hold on a second. If I understand this correctly, this argument is that knowledge IS faith. When just a moment ago, you stated that faith is the opposite of knowledge! As I'm not sure what you are arguing, I don't know how to refute this point. Looking forward to your refutation. David_Debates
free will

I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing, but I think this might be what you're getting at. Tell me if I got it right. a: Free will is an illusion. It doesn't exist at all. b: Faith is a "cop-out," if you will. In other words, you believe faith to be a replacement for hard proof, evidence. If this is what you are arguing, please let me know. I'd love to have a good, understandable debate. Thanks. David_Debates