BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Super Mario Galaxy is more similar to Super Mario Sunshine than Super Mario 64.

Super Mario Galaxy goes more back to the roots of the great Super Mario 64 than it does to the not-quite-as-great Super Mario Sunshine. Contention 1: Flying Mario is unable to fly in Sunshine. In Galaxy and 64, Mario is able to fly. http://www.mariowiki.com... Contention 2: Goomba, Koopa Troopa, Thwomp, Pushy Wall, and Tox Box Sunshine has a surprising lack of them, unlike Galaxy and 64. http://www.mariowiki.com... http://www.mariowiki.com... http://www.mariowiki.com... http://www.mariowiki.com... http://www.mariowiki.com... Contention 3: Bowser Fights In both 64 and Galaxy, Mario fights Bowser three times, with the final time using him as the final boss. In Sunshine, Bowser is fought only once, at the end. http://www.mariowiki.com... Contention 4: Bowser Size See Video 1, starting around 4:05. In Sunshine, Bowser is freakishly huge. In Galaxy and 64, Bowser is much closer to Mario's size. http://www.youtube.com... Contention 5: Beginning of Plot In Sunshine, Mario is with Peach at the start when they go on vacation, but is later kidnapped. In Galaxy and 64, Peach sends Mario a letter, inviting him to the castle, and he never actually reaches Peach until the end. http://www.mariowiki.com... Contention 6: Speaking In Sunshine, as you can see from the same point in Video 1, there is a lot of speaking without subtitles .In both Galaxy and 64, only Peach does this, but not very much, and it is accompanied by subtitles. Contention 7: Bowser Music Galaxy uses some of the Bowser Music from 54 at least in the first Bowser stage. Contention 8: Requirements In Sunshine, one must defeat Shadow Mario seven times, once in each of the seven places. In both Galaxy and 64, Mario needs 60 Power Stars Contention 9: Rewards In Sunshine, the rewards are Shine Sprites. In Galaxy and 64, the rewards are Power Stars. Contention 10: Sleeves In Sunshine, Mario has short sleeves. In Galaxy and 64, he has long sleeves. Contention 11: Rabbits and Penguins Sunshine has neither. Galaxy and 64 have both. Contention 12: Number of places In Sunshine, there are seven major places. In Galaxy and 64, there are 15. Contention 13: Boos In Sunshine, Boos don't move, sleep, and must be defeated by a Yoshi. In Galaxy and 64, Boos follow you, unless you turn around, at which point you can see what's inside it and iit stops moving. Contention 14: Variety In Sunshine, all of the places are by the water, in a mostly beach-like fashion. In Galaxy and 64, there are lava-lands (Melty Molten Galaxy, Lethal Lava Land), deserts (Dusty Dune Galaxy, Shifting Sand Land), snowy mountains (Freezeflame Galaxy, Snowman's land), and a mechanical place (Toy Time Galaxy, Tick Tock Clock). Contention 15: Long Jump Does not appear in Sunshine. http://www.mariowiki.com... That is all for now.
Super Mario Galaxy is more similar to Super Mario Sunshine than Super Mario 64.

Super Mario 64 - http://www.nintendo.com... Super Mario Sunshine - http://en.wikipedia.org... Super Mario Galaxy - http://www.nintendo.com... This debate is about the similarities of the three games based on three aspects: Plot (Movie cutscenes, goals, etc.) Gameplay (How the goals are accomplished, what the player has at his disposal) Appearance (Visual and audio similarities) If I show SMG to be more similar to SMS than SM64, I win. If my opponent shows SMG to be more similar to SM64 than SMS, he wins. Otherwise, it is a draw. I hope that you accept, mongoose! You can either start with your contentions in this round, or wait.
country girls are hotter than city girls

During the course of this debate, I will attempt to prove that Pro is wrong. Arguments and RefutationPro is making broad assumptions and saying that all country girls "spend time in the sun and has fun in the mud" but this is not always the case. Rural areas are not always warm. Country girls in Minnesota do not "spend time in the sun and has fun in the mud" because if they do, they will get hypothermia. For example, someone from Miami would be tanner (and according to your argument more sexy) than a girl from North Dakota. Your painting of all people from urban or rural areas in a certain light really shows your ignorance."They also give good head" Voters, please note that Pro is a shockingly myopic loafer and a repugnant simple-minded cesspool of sub-human filth.
Should Hillary Clinton drop out of race due to email scandal.

You were nowhere near being clear about assumptions in this debate. Logical arguments use facts that have been deemed true beyond any reasonable doubt. The statement that Hillary Clinton had her server wiped is not yet a settled debate, despite what Fox News will tell you. Anyone who pays attention to how the House Republican majority operates has seen this behavior before. Republicans take a conspiracy theory and hammer it into the ground via repetition. The fact adverse elements of the mainstream press run with the empty Republican claims. Congressional investigations are launched. The facts do eventually come out, and the scandal vanishes into the black hole that is conservative media. I'd be open to debating about something else, since I'm a liberal and you're a conservative, judging from your pro/con list on your profile. But this debate topic was unclear. However, you may not have known about all the evidence that she didn't delete those emails, and that's not exactly your fault. Hopefully this misunderstanding has been cleared up, and I encourage you to repost something like "Should Hillary Clinton Drop Out of the Race if the EMail scandal is true?" That would be much more clear.
Should Hillary Clinton drop out of race due to email scandal.

You did not mention a single thing about what the topic of this debate is about. That's fine. I'll just prove my point. It is not only an embarrassment to Hillary, but to the nation, that this gross violation has occurred. As a country, how do we appear to the other nations, that we do not understand our own email system. North Korea sees this and laughs at us. ISIS is laughing at us. Iran is laughing at us. China is laughing at us. We have a person that is either lying through her teeth or is extraordinarily ignorant. Which one is worse? Either way, Hillary should bow out of her campaign and save some dignity for herself and our nation. https://www.yahoo.com...
Should Hillary Clinton drop out of race due to email scandal.

The Washington Post reported: The company that managed Hillary Rodham Clinton"s private e-mail server said it has "no knowledge of the server being wiped," the strongest indication to date that tens of thousands of e-mails that Clinton has said were deleted could be recovered. Clinton and her advisers have said for months that she deleted her personal correspondence from her time as secretary of state, creating the impression that 31,000 e-mails were gone forever. ". "Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped," company spokesman Andy Boian told The Washington Post. "All the information we have is that the server wasn"t wiped."
Kalam Cosmological Argument, take 2

Divine AttributesI am not arguing in this debate that the cause of the universe was any sort of god, still less "the" God. I am arguing only that the universe was caused to exist. So this point is moot.Premise 1Con cites the appearance of virtual particle pairs as examples of something coming from nothing. Even if these appearances are random, they don't come from nothing. Quantum vacuum is not nothing; it is a "rolling sea of energy."(1)These virtual particle pairs are not entities with discrete properties. Their "coming into existence" is a fluctuation event in the quantum foam, an entity's changing of nature from one type to another. It is not a beginning-to-exist event.(1)Finally, even if the "creation" of virtual particle pairs are random, this does not make them uncaused; they can be said to be caused by the quantum foam.Premise 2Con argues that there is there has always been something that has existed, referring to the quantum energy that exists in a perfect vacuum, from which the observable universe sprang. However, whether such energy existed prior (in a causal sense) to the Big Bang begs the question.This objection also fails to address the point that an infinite regress of moments cannot exist. Starting from now and proceeding into the future, we will never have created an infinite number of moments. Similarly, there cannot be an infinite number of moments in the past; if the universe began infinitely long ago, then an infinite amount of time would have to pass before we reached the present, which means we wouldn't be here.B TheoryPerhaps anticipating the above point, Con argues that the Kalam argument assumes the "A theory" of time, but most philosophers accept a "B theory" of time which allows for an infinite number of moments. First, however, this is an argument from popularity. Second, the relevant source for this argument(2) used a sample size of only 61 experts in philosophy, which hardly makes for a compelling survey. And third, this tells us nothing about why A theory should be rejected and B theory accepted. The Kalam argument stands.(1) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...(2) http://philpapers.org...
Kalam Cosmological Argument, take 2

I've already debated this recently with an atheist, but I would like to improve my performance, as well as expose myself to as many defenses as possible. :)1) Whatever began to exist has a cause for its existence.2) The universe began to exist.3) Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.Premise 1 is true by experience: we don't observe everyday objects coming into existence out of nothing, or we'd live in a very chaotic world. It's also true by metaphysical intuition: we can't conceive of a possible world where things come into existence uncaused.Premise 2 is true for two reasons. First, we have scientific evidence that the universe came into existence in a Big Bang singularity, which was the first moment in time for the universe. Second, we know that the universe can't exist forever, because if there was an infinite past then we would never get to the present, and no matter how long we wait there will never be an infinite number of future moments between now and an infinite point in the future.Thus the argument proves the existence for a cause of the universe.Craig, W. L. and Sinclair, J. D. (2009) The Kalam Cosmological Argument, in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (eds W. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
I am the best ever forever

My opponent claims he is the best but has not said what he is the best of... I am assuming he means he is the best of everyone in the world maybe, therefore I will argue against this. Using ardictionary.com I looked up the meaning of "Best". It said: "Having good qualities in the highest degree; most good, kind, desirable, suitable, etc.; most excellent; as, the best man; the best road; the best cloth; the best abilities." [1] So far my opponent has failed to show that he has any of those qualities, and I do not think he is taking this debate seriously. So it is clear to me that my opponent is not the "Best". I end my second round here... Sources: [1] http://ardictionary.com...
Should we be able to time travel

I believe we should use time travel, if it were available to us. Books and movies based off of time travel are not a reliable source of information on whether or not we should actually use travel in reality. Books and movies are fictional they are not a realistic depiction of the results of using time travel. Your point about the fact that we haven't actually discovered time travel is irrelevant. Just because we haven't discovered time travel doesn't mean we won't or that we should use it if we do discover it. Speaking in terms of human history we barely discovered how to fly. Just because we have not discovered time travel does in no way mean that we should not pursue it.
Abortions are wrong... No matter the circumstance....

Hello Kandace. I am willing to take de-bate (sorry)even though your last statement that anyone who thinks otherwise than what you think is not "too bright". You state that you "strongly believe"...well hooray for you ! Just because you believe it is not an argument as to why others should believe in the same thing. You offer no evidence, no facts, no NOTHING besides "I strongly believe" - other than a child deserves to be born. I would declare that an unborn child does not have rights under the law. The Supreme Court of the United States in essence said the same thing with Roe vs. Wade. A debate is to convince others that your point of view is the correct one. Not spout your belief and then insult anyone who refutes it. Do you want a "DEBATE" or not ?
Abortions are wrong... No matter the circumstance....

I strongly believe that abortion is wrong... If it involves a death of one party aka(mother) it should not matter.. the kid that is to be born; is not at fault.. the mother is at fault for getting preganet.. If the mother was rapped it is a little different but still the same case.. it is never the childs fault in this perdicament... The child has the right and should recieve the right to full life.. no matter the cost.. a real mother would never give up in anyway her one blood... (child to be born.) and anyone who disagrees is not a very bright person...
is prisons an effective form of punnishment

I hope you don't get effectively punished by my arguments. Good luck! I am for the notion that imprisonment is not an effective form of punishment. I have two arguments. I. Imprisonment does not change a person's view on morality II. Recidivism Arguments: I. Imprisonment does not change a person's view on morality There exists no strong evidence for the justification that a person's perspective on what is good and bad is altered. Inmates will not change for the better just because they are inside a correctional facility for a great length of time. It
Euthanasia

IntroductionEuthanasia is a particularly messy topic to debate on, due to the fact that it is a mostly moral argument. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Euthanasia should be legal in the US, because is it is moral and it is a better than the alternative. Canada is currently in a fierce debate about euthanasia, more than 2/3s of their population want euthanasia, but the leader of their political parties are avoiding the topic. Euthanasia is legal in many countries, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and 5 of the united states. I believe it is time to add some more places to that list.C1: MoralityA. Euthanasia is a moral option for someone that is about to die, euthanasia is quick and painless, compared to the slow torture of different terminal diseases.B. Doctors aren't choosing the fate of the patient, the patient decides whether or not they want euthanasia. They will have a choice of living connected to wires, or dying painlessly. It is the patient's choice, If they want to live artificially the can, but what if they do not?C2: The AlternativeA. Let's look at the alternative of euthanasia, dying connected to many wires on a hospital bed. More than 70% of the US’ population suffer this fate and is it a good alternative?B. Why do we prolong someone’s life like we do? The live artificially, and cannot work or do anything they would have wanted to do. People on life support are hardly alive, and cannot do any of the things they would have wanted. This is not moral, or good for the person in question, at all. C. Life support is also expensive, and can be a huge financial burden on the family of the patient. Life support costs about $3,000 and can sometime skyrocket to 10 grand, in a day(1). Euthanasia costs $45, tiny in comparison.Citations1.https://www.reference.com...
Euthanasia

Note: Contender is debating against the euthanasiaTermsEuthanasiaAlso called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by with holding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. LegalisedTo be permittedbylawRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No "K's" on the topic.9. All citations should be links, and may not be hidden behind a login10. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debateDebate FormatR1: Con AcceptsR2: Pro Arguments.
Liberty Vs. Security

I would like to start by pointing out that while I do agree that we shouldn't be allowed too many liberty's, our basic ones should be protected. I am against our government turning against us while fighting FOREIGN enemies. I don't think that I should have to wonder if the government is listening to my phone conversations or reading my private emails. I don't think that we can protect ourselves from every single threat. I would mostly like to see the government accept that and take more normal measures towards "protecting" us. .. We obviously can't put a metal dome over the country and keep out terrorists. Also, what terrorist already living in our country is going to discuss it before hand. Also, I agree with you about the John Locke thing. .. we just learned about that about 3 months ago. I have more to say but I'm going to say it till the last round. I disagree with you about the topic name. I really think that right now they are conflicting arguments. They just aren't flowing together right now. I would love to have both liberty and security but currently they are both up in the air. I find it hard to believe that I'm currently getting both. ..
Liberty Vs. Security

America is a liberty-oriented country. That's very true. However, liberty should not be our main focus. I believe in the value of security; keep in mind that security is defined through Merriam-Webster's dictionary as "the quality or state of being secure; safety." I'd like to point out first that American society and our Constitution are originally based a lot off of John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Civil Government http://www.constitution.org... , and Locke states that the first purpose of government is for the protection and enlargement of natural rights; life, liberty, and property; without the protection of government, man is free to take another man's natural rights without restriction; this is the state of nature. So, while my opponent claims that liberty is our most important value (and believe me, I agree that it IS important), security is a necessity, because without being in a state of security provided by the government, liberty can not be protected, and ultimately we would have no say in our government. I'd like to quickly differentiate between true security and 'American security'. True security is a state of safety from ALL threats, both foreign and domestic. Things like the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo Bay, Wiretaps; none of these are true security, because while the government may claim to be protecting us from terrorism and foreign invasion, the government itself has now become the threat; to be truly secure, we have to be without these measures, so that ultimately, the government can provide justice and liberty to American citizens. We need the security that the Constitution promises us; so while liberty is essential to American life, we cannot have liberty without the protection and security that just laws (those following our Constitution) would provide; thus, only with a CON vote will we ever be able to achieve both. A fundamental flaw my opponent makes in the wording of the topic is making it 'Liberty VS Security'. The topic is making the assumption that they are in conflict; that we get one or the other; however, this is completely to unfair to assume that either we are free and liberated, or enslaved (but safe). As I have already proven, only through security is liberty ensured. So, to quickly sum up, let me just say this: While, only with the security and protection of the Constitution can you have liberty, having too much liberty will undermine security measures, and ultimately the law and order upon which our entire American society is based. So, I ask you, please give this a CON vote, and I eagerly await my opponent's defense of 'Liberty first!'
Liberty Vs. Security

In my government class we are addressing the liberty vs. security issues that our country is facing. I personally am for liberty. However, I do believe it would be nice if we could have both. My main feeling is that if we lose our basic freedoms (stated in the constitution) then what is so great about America. The reason we are so "proud" to be American is because we are free and we have a say in the government. I would appreciate if the person who accepts this debate would take the security side. Looking forward to debating this!! ~Nikki~
The Bible Cannot Be Trusted

The Bible cannot be trusted and nor can the Torah, the Quaran, and other holy books for these reasons: 1 Before these holy texts were written, they were preserved orally then the teachings were written down. From the time God first told us these things and the books we have today must be tremendously different. 2 Archeology, anthropology, and other investigations that there are many parallels in religions such as the teachings of the Christians' Jesus and the Buddhists' Buddha. 3 Other than knowing God exists and the fact that we are souls that can go to heaven, the Bible, Quaran, and Torah are just stories of people and rules that the writers thought will make you a good person. This is common knowledge that you can learn yourself throughout life rather than read form a book.
The Bible Cannot Be Trusted

I am somewhat annoyed that my opponent has not finished this debate as she has only one argument left to post. I feel that there is nothing for me to say other than the fact that my opponent has completely failed to provide any solid evidence or even a point that the bible cannot be trusted. She has not refuted any of my points but has only denied them. Her points once refuted shifted to other points that only helped my side. Thus, I urge a con vote. Thank you.