BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Opponent picks Topic

Darkspine argument: well, sonic usually never turns dark when facing Dr. Eggman, an evil genius with 400 IQ, why should he turn dark whilst facing Mario, a random plumber?Now, even if Sonic decides to turn dark, Mario can STILL stop him and render him useless using power-ups such as the Sleepy Sheep, which puts all of his enemies to sleep for an amount of time. Another power-up Mario could use is the Stop Watch, which paralyzes enemies. Both of these power-ups would leave Sonic the Hedgehog entirely vulnerable, thus allowing Mario to punch away, defeating Sonic even if Sonic turns into a .Oh, and since Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario both have the ability to obtain invincibility, but if they can both become invincible, their battle would be a battle of immortals, rendering neither of them victorious. At this point, I would like to remove invincibility from the debate, as it is becoming an annoying point in this debate that really isn't helpful. Plus, Mario could use a lightning bolt from Mario Kart 64 to shrink Sonic the Hedgehog and inevitably slow him down leaving him vulnerable to Mario's stomp or hammer smash. Mario could use a Speed Flower (instead of a slow flower) so that he could catch Sonic the Hedgehog and squish the stuffing out of him. These are just a few of the more than 1,000 things Mario has in his arsenal. In addition, it wouldn't matter which world they fight in, whether it's Mario's or Sonic the Hedgehog's, Mario has a slight advantage:A. Mario's worlds are generally square being a jumping platform game. Sonic the Hedgehog can only truly express his powers on round levels where he can roll at high speeds.B. In Sonic the Hedgehog's worlds, surfaces are usually rounded, making it a prime environment for Sonic the Hedgehog to perform, but Mario also has the ability to sit down on a hill and slide down at a high velocity to take out his opponents.So in Mario's world, Mario has the upper-hand, and in Sonic the Hedgehog's world, they can still only tie at the most due to the environments.
Opponent picks Topic

"Sonic is not afraid of anything"....I never said Sonic was afraid of that tiny bomb. I was inferring because the bomb is so tiny, Sonic doubt it can do any damage to him, and laughs at Mario for his puny bomb. However, the bomb could explode before Sonic could throw it back at mario, stunning Sonic and giving Mario time to throw his fire flowers and jump on Sonic so as to damage the poor hedgehog. As for Darkspine Sonic or Super Sonic, Mario could just eat an invincible star and just wait. Both these invincible forms would be at a forever standstill.Mario's strongness--mario is extremely strong. If sonic was rolled up and tried to jump and smash Mario, and Mario jumped up...who would win? The outcome is unclear, but we know Mario can smash coins out of bricks and not break his bones, so he must be incredibly strong! Sonic would damage himself in this "roll-up smash" move, allowing recovery time for Mario to damage Sonic even further.Now, I was really busy, but now that I have time, I can analyze further. You say Mario can NEVER win against sonic. How about we look into every game ever and analyze their power ups. http://www.mariowiki.com... So...what if they were fighting in water? Mario could use his frog suit. What about up high in the clouds? Mario could just use the P-wing and fly away, never to be seen again, and Sonic couldn't chase him! And what about the Cape Feather? It "Slows Mario or Luigi's descent from the air, can fly, damages enemies around while Spin Jumping." And what about the ice flower? Sure, Dark Sonic has pyrokinesis, but is it more powerful than Mario's ice flower? Nothing proves this.Sonic's fastness--sure, sonic is about the fastest character in any game, but what if Mario uses the Slow Flower? Then, Mario can easily dodge Sonic's hit, as time is slowed down tremendously.Oh, and did I mention the "Invincibility Leaf"? The description is "Mario or Luigi transform into White Tanooki Mario or White Kitsune Luigi, which grants him all the powers of the Super Leaf as well as unlimited invincibility." I believe this will be the crucial powerup Mario will use, making him undefeatable. Therefore Sonic cannot win in this particular setup. His super sonic will run out of time, and Mario would eventually beat Sonic down. In conclusion Mario can win Sonic in some cases. Back to you!
Opponent picks Topic

Counterpoint 1: "Mario can power-up by eating mushrooms, making him harder to kill... He gets loads of mushrooms when he's beaten up," Sonic could easily counter this tactic by waiting for Mario to get bigger, and then do a striking dash and run between Mario's legs, then collect a lot of the mushrooms before Mario could get them. Another possible way Sonic could find his way around the mushroom tactic is by waiting until he was just he right distance from Mario and then use his strong legs to jump onto Mario's shoe and run into his overalls, and then run around in his clothes until he returns to his normal size. If there were too many mushrooms for this tactic to work for long, Sonic could simply run to the back of Mario's shoe and kick himself off of it for a boost and then collect enough mushrooms to match his size to Mario's. Therefore, his would not help Mario win by any means. Counterpoint 2: "Mario can obtain firepower by eating a sun flower," that would also be useless. Because Sonic is fifteen, he is old enough to know that if he catches fire, he should roll, not run. Because Mario probably would not think of this, his guard would be low enough to leave him vulnerable to Sonic doing a spin dash, then rolling on his side. Rolling that quickly on his side would allow him to either knock Mario on either his back or his belly OR grab him and throw him at something. Counterpoint 3: "Mario has tiny but extremely powerful walking bombs... Sonic would be completely unprepared for this and be extremely confused," actually, Sonic is not afraid of anything. And as I stated earlier, Sonic's legs are very strong from all of his running. Therefore, he could easily kick all of Mario's bob-ombs straight back to him, no matter how many he had. Counterpoint 4: "Mario...would... Sneak attack using his tiny bomb..." Actually, Sonic's never-give-up attitude would drive him to think that the fight was not get over when he saw that Mario had disappeared, and would go Super Sonic just to make things more interesting. As Super Sonic, he is invulnerable and much faster and can project chaos energy, plus he is much more acrobatic, can fight hand-to-hand [1]. Also, there is a chance he would become Super Sonic just before Mario dropped his bomb, thus alerting Sonic of Mario's position. Since he is much faster and invincible in his super form, the bomb would not harm him, and Sonic could therefore easily catch Mario, and since he also has enhanced strength, augmented power, and the ability to grind as Super Sonic [1], he could kill Mario in plenty of different ways. He could repeatedly crash into him, he could grab him, and then gain enough speed flying in the air, and then throw Mario into space or into the ground or at something. Or he could become Darkspine Sonic because he is greedy for thrills, angry at Mario for not giving him a good fight, and also sad that he didn't get a good fight. As Darkspine Sonic, he has pyrokinesis, hand-to-hand combat powers, and of course, enhanced strength [2]. Sources: [1]- http://sonic.wikia.com... [2]- http://sonic.wikia.com...
Opponent picks Topic

I will argue that Mario will in some situations beat Sonic the Hedgehog in a fight, since you said "never".Now, we all know Sonic is very arrogant and impatient. When facing Robotnik/Eggman, he usually tries to insult/talk bad of him a bit before proceeding to destroy him. If there is something that needs to be done, he'd rather rush off than wait. Mario, on the other hand, it's very hard to tell his personality, but from the movie, we can infer he is loyal, brave, and helps others when they need it. MARIO'S POWERS -Mario can kill his enemies simply by jumping on them. Exceptions are shell turtle, Bowser and other hard-core enemies. I doubt this will be helpful in this battle, so let's cross it off.-Mario can power-up by eating mushrooms, making him harder to kill. This would be pretty helpful, considering he'd be practically invincible if he gets loads and loads of mushrooms and eats them when he's beaten up.-Mario can obtain fire power by eating a sunflower. This would be very helpful, and very damaging to Sonic if Sonic fails to use his defenses in time.-Mario can become invincible using his star power. And defeat anyone who comes into his way. However, Sonic can turn invincible as well, so they technically tie in this.-Mario can become insanely gigantic using a giant mushroom and crush all platform that comes into his way. Unfortunately, sonic's invincibility can still fight him off.-Mario has tiny but extremely powerful walking bombs, as shown in the movie. Sonic would be totally unprepared for these and be extremely confused. "Ha! You think that would harm me? You dumb plumber!" He would insult, and be blown to pieces.In conclusion, as long as Mario has enough stars, giant mushrooms and mushrooms in his inventory, he would be unbeatable. And if he figured out Sonic's arrogance, he would use it against him and sneak attack using his tiny bomb. As you can see, in this peticular scenario, Mario has defeated Sonic. However, had Sonic been careful and on his guard the whole battle, he'd either run away from the bomb or throw it away. It is possible that Sonic can win in this case, or, a forever standoff, but Mario can also win.Onto you con.
Opponent picks Topic

I will be arguing that Mario will never beat Sonic the Hedgehog in a fight. Rules: 1. Neither debater is allowed to give cases in which there is a sure way to know who would win. Posting YouTube videos of this happening is also not allowed. 2. All example fights created by debaters or posted from YouTube must have the outcome resulting with both Mario's and Sonic's free will. 3. Mario and Sonic will be allowed to use power ups, but cannot get help from their friends or get help from each other's enemies. They will also be allowed to use each other's power-ups. 4. Both characters will be allowed to use all of their techniques. 5. All types of fights are allowed. 6. All arguments must be scientifically valid. 7. All arguments concerning the scientific probability of their abilities and feats are irrelevant. These rules are not meant to twist the debate to my advantage. They are simply meant to keep the result accurate. My opponent will be the first to argue.
Civil Unions

Everybody has the same marriage rights. A man can be married legally to a woman. A woman can be married legally to a man. A man can be married to a man without recognition from government. A woman can be married to a woman without recognition from government. Notice how homosexuals were not singled out. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights. It's just that homosexuals want the rights to be extended further, to where they want them, which doesn't necessarily need to be done. "The requirement of government is to be fair in all regards." The rights are the same for both parties. No party deserves special treatment. From the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org...) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Having a marriage acknowledged by government is neither Life nor Liberty nor the pursuit of Happiness. Furthermore, if we start to allow homosexual marriage, we just moved the bar for what determines a marriage. You can't just expect a bar that you've pushed down a hill to stop where you want it. It's wisest to leave the bar where it is. Let's say that you have a preacher who preaches his sermon at church every Sunday at 9:00 A.M. He does this for years and years. However, one day, a lazy man approaches the preacher and asks if the preacher could hold a Tuesday session for him and his buddies. The preacher is reluctant, and says, "I'm sorry, but you should just come to Sunday sermons. You don't deserve special treatment, and besides, it is tradition to hold weekly church services only on Sundays." But through pathos arguments, the lazy man convinced the preacher to hold Tuesday sermons. Word spread of this, and people started asking for Thursday sermons, and Wednesday sermons, and midnight sermons, and daily phone calls. The preacher ended up working longer and longer, becoming more and more frustrated with what he had started, until he finally yelled, "Enough!", and changed his sermons to Sunday only. Because people were so used to multiple sermons, they got mad, and murdered the preacher in the streets. So, if we push the marriage bar down a little to include gay marriage, the bar won't stop there. It will keep rolling. People will start up polygamy again. Then people will start marrying animals. Then a lady will want to marry a rock. (http://www.popfi.com...) Then a man decides that he wants to marry the Sun. Eventually, we'll have the situation described by 1:00 of my YouTube video, and we'll have a marriage between four guys, three women, a dog, a cat, a frog, a quesadilla, five horses, two turtle doves, a colony of fire ants, the White House, the Great Barrier Reef, the Pythagorean Theorem, and Polaris. http://www.youtube.com... That is why the bar must be set. It is already conveniently set at the traditional, natural, and successful standard of heterosexual marriage between humans only. Let's keep it that way. Vote CON. Civil unions just give some people special treatment, and, if allowed, will end badly.
Civil Unions

Any rights which the government deigns to give to the citizens being governed by that government must be given to all citizens. There are at present hundreds of rights which exist for couples by way of the government and they must be universally applied for gay couples as well. If a couple wishes to enter a civil union it should not be for the government to say that you can't have rights because we don't allow those rights except for parties of opposite genders. We can understand the arguments against marriage from the point of view of society. But, there's a significant issue when it comes to the rights given by the government to the citizens being governed. The fact that I could enter into a union with a woman and were I to die, all my affairs would be dealt with automatically. Children would switch custody, property would be transfered, decisions about my remains and care would be made. There is no excuse for denying couples rights you give to other couples. It is injustice in its purest form. We aren't talking about approval, acceptance or endorsement rather we are talking about the basic rights of every individual. The requirement of government is to be fair in all regards. Without granting the same governmental rights as marriage to every couple that fairness is violated. Civil unions are basic fairness.
Capitalism is a better economic system than communism

America is famously known as the land of immigrants. More people immigrate to America then any other country. They do this for the one thing freedom. These people want to experience the Capitalist aka American Dream. The right to come to his country while having nothing and be able to start a business and become better off then they ever were in their life before and be able to hand that down for generation. This is part of the basis of a capitalist society. The countries that get the most immigrants are all capitalist societies like America, Canada, New Zealand. This economic system thrives off of work ethic. People who are willing to put in their time and make the money they deserve. These are the people who suceed contibute to growth of a corporation and then receive their individual benefits. You see the blatant contrast all the time when you drive past road construction and wonder on a workday at 2pm where are the government workers and you realize there is no benefit to their job so they will slack off as much as they can. This is one of the examples of the classless society idea. No matter how hard they work or don't work they get paid the same. There is no motivation, no room for growth. In the capitalist society all the society does is look for a way to better itself it's not selfish it's individual freedom that contains a network of other businesses and jobs that all look to be the best. Which now allows them to moivates.
Capitalism is a better economic system than communism

I will argue that capitalism is better than communism I will define the key terms: Capitalism- an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit. Income in a Capitalist system takes at least two forms, profit on the one hand and wages on the other. Communism- Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate The five rounds will consist of 1- Acceptance 2- Opening Argument 3- Rebuttal 4- Rebuttal 5- Closing Argument Good luck!
Resolution: Scientists should debate young earth creationists in live formats

Young Earth Creationists do very well in live debates, but not for the right reasons. Scientists should engage them with a different strategy than they do now. This is my first debate. My opponent can make the opening statement for the con position. If this is not proper, please tell me and I will withdraw the debate with a lesson learned, and will present a better resolution. If my opponent can show that debating YEC's is detrimental to science then I will concede.
Resolution: Scientists should debate young earth creationists in live formats

http://en.wikipedia.org... It is a public forum. It is a debate. Besides the whole http://www.talkorigins.org... evolution thing. It's too enormous a topic to even get near in a single debate. And it's a gigantic waste of time. If people want to believe in stupid things I believe my opponent would argue that they should be allowed to. Try and make up a story that someone won't believe. I can't be running around correcting everyone that makes a mistake although I try.
Resolution: Scientists should debate young earth creationists in live formats

"Yes YEC should be debated in public fora. No scientists should not be the ones debating them.." The con position has agreed to one portion of the resolution so I will not belabor the point further as we are in agreement that the debate should happen in a public forum. "No[,] scientists should not be the ones debating them because [i]t is not what scientists do. Scientists have other much more important things to do like science" I disagree with all three points concerning scientists and science. Scientists have an obligation to ensure science is not being distorted by fringe groups. Distorting science for religious reasons has the potential for far reaching abuse; the scientists are best equipped to challenge fringe science and distortions as they are embedded in the subject and have to most to gain by confronting pseudoscientific claims. In addition, doing science must include education and not just in a classroom. Public debates showing the absurdity of some YEC claims provides a perfect opportunity to educate others by showing how misconceptions lead to false conclusions. YEC depends on the ignorance of the audience concerning many scientific theories and laws; the scientist can expose those misconceptions and provide the most accurate scientific answer. Although she will be debating, the scientist will be educating and that is what scientists do. "My opponent is doing just fine and maybe my opponent is the one who should debate them." I appreciate my opponent's confidence in my knowledge of this subject, and if the scientists will have me, I will do it. I am not a scientist, but I can claim knowledge of some aspects of evolutionary biology. I would gladly help the scientists with handling rhetoric and ridicule, in addition to dealing with some debate tactics, but I am not sure I can take their place at the podium as a proper representative of the scientific community. But I would love to try. My opponent mentions some forums and I have ideas as to how to deal with each forum listed, other than Sesame Street; Big Bird owns and scientists should avoid being targeted by her yellow fury, but debate strategies for each is not really to topic of this debate. I have shown that YEC should be debated in a public forum. I have shown that scientists should debate YEC. I urge voters to support the Pro position and comment. I thank my opponent for a solid debate and appreciate his candor. I look forward to debating him again. Thank you and please vote.
Resolution: Scientists should debate young earth creationists in live formats

Yes YEC should be debated in public fora. No scientists should not be the ones debating them because It is not what scientists do. Scientists have other much more important things to do like science. My opponent is doing just fine and maybe my opponent is the one who should debate them. Maybe in schools if teachers were bright enough. They can't teach it but they can moderate a debate. Or in your local church, or on any of those many religious shows on television, or on the evening news. Or at religious retreats or summer camps or on Sixty Minutes. Or on Sesame Street.
Resolution: Scientists should debate young earth creationists in live formats

This debate about debates can get messy. The YE guys and the scientists have a debate, and we are having a debate about their debate. It is the arguments put forth by the YE people that have no value. Are there any (Young Earth) Scientists? The captivity of the "captive audience" is the problem. The Universal Truth In Religious Claims Act as well as the Universal Maniac On The Loose Control Act are applicable here. The Universal Truth In Religious Claims Act provides a religious forum for the debating of religious issues. Both of these imaginary acts are implemented worldwide by imaginary means. The Rude Comedian Act requires all points of view to be expressed including the Flying Spaghetti Monster believers. http://www.venganza.org... Nobody wants that, we will tell them. But IF we have to, and I stress if...