BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: "Sonic Boom" should have been Metal Overlord's theme, not "What I'm Made of..."

It is a final boss fight, freeing players to focus only on the fight. They no longer care about what happened to lead up to the fight. Sonic Boom fits Metal Overlord because of the fast tempo, guitars, and parts that feel robotic. "Take a chance" details unstoppable tenacity in the face of near-impossible odds. "Sonic boom" details Sonic's speed. "Spinning through a world in motion" can refer to dashing through Metal Overlord's crystal blasts or constantly moving side to side. "Save the planet from disaster" can refer to saving the world from Metal Sonic's rule. As I stated before, "find the power deep inside and make it happen" can refer to Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles using the power of teamwork to fight evil. I did play Sonic CD, and I would have preferred Crush 40's Sonic Boom as the theme song.
Resolved: "Sonic Boom" should have been Metal Overlord's theme, not "What I'm Made of..."

Your arguments for Sonic Boom's connection only match vaguely to the fight itself, not the narrative. I'll be referencing previous Super levels to explain this further. Sonic Adventure 1; The introduction of 3d super sonic. This song reflects the power that many were unaware of due to the difficulty of getting all the emeralds in previous games. As the first appearance. The lyrics detail the intensity of the fight, which you even feel as you play it. You feel a rush of power as Perfect Chaos fails to damage your ring count, but the ever ticking timer spells you doom. This song is best for introducing an ability that only Sonic could use at the time. Sonic Adventure 2; Before this fight, Sonic and Shadow, who had fought until now, are forced to ally together to face the Biolizard, the harbinger of the earth's doom. The two fighting alongside each other allows them to learn that they need not be enemies afterwards. The introduction of new chaos powers by Shadow introduce new aspects to the Chaos Emeralds. Shadow uses them to manipulate space-time, and Sonic uses a fake emerald to do the same, although Shadow insists a fake emerald couldn't be used for Chaos Control. Sonic Heroes; Metal Sonic donned a new trenchcoat look and copied the abilities of Sonic and his allies in an attempt to use their strength against them. He fails to understand that it is the separation and co-operation of these skills that strengthen them. The copied abilities prove useless against Team Sonic and he is defeated. I'd go on, but I'm running out of letters My point is, the theme must reflect the narrative of the fight and in case you didn't play it, Sonic CD is one of the few games that doesn't involve the Chaos Emeralds, instead using the Time Stones. Your connections are vague and could be applies to any other Super fight. Both include saving the world from evil? EVERY SUPER FIGHT INVOLVES SAVING THE WORLD FROM EVIL. See you next round, Duncan.
Resolved: "Sonic Boom" should have been Metal Overlord's theme, not "What I'm Made of..."

Your argument is moot as Sonic Boom can connect well to the game and fit Metal Overlord. Connection to boss: If you're strong, you can fly- the presence of strong and flying members on each team or Team Sonic flying and standing strong against Metal Sonic. You can reach the other side of the rainbow- the need to fly to get through certain parts of the levels as if they were imagined as rainbows. It's alright, take a chance- Everyone is willing to take any risk to stop Metal Sonic. Cause there is no circumstance that you can't handle- the power of teamwork, as mentioned by Sonic before the final battle. Trouble keeps you running faster- the hurry to stop Metal Sonic Spinning through the world in motion- doing spin dashes Save the planet from disaster- Metal Sonic is trying to take over the world. The time is now, he can't hide- the search for Metal Sonic being over Find the power deep inside and make it happen- Team Sonic being much stronger as one It can also fit Metal Overlord because the intro and guest vocals from Alex Makhlouf fit with the fact that you are fighting a robot. It is better because it is much shorter, so you would get more music while fighting Metal Overlord. It is highly unlikely to hear the guitar solo with What I'm made of. Both songs make references to never giving up and saving the world from evil. Sonic boom also has a slow beginning, which could get the player a bit more pumped up while Metal Overlord said "Long time no see, Sonic, my loathsome copy!" After that we hear drums and much faster music, which fits with the begging of the battle better than just starting out with a guitar.
Resolved: "Sonic Boom" should have been Metal Overlord's theme, not "What I'm Made of..."

It's great to return to DDO after a long stretch of exams, and I'm looking forward to an engaging debate. I'm also a long standing Sonic fan. There are two fronts which I will argue from; 1; The narrative of Sonic Heroes 2; The contrasting narrative of Sonic CD 1; Sonic Heroes is a game centered on the theme that Sonic must rely on teamwork to overcome the obstacles presented, ending in a fight with Neo Metal Sonic, who steals the life data of each team to empower himself. Even with the powers of all four teams, Metal Overlord still falls to the heroes. The narratives here are Metal Sonic stealing powers and teamwork. What I'm Made Of makes reference to draining energy, an action used by Metal before the fight, but the song also states the futility of such an action. This matches the running concepts of the fight: Metal stealing the powers does little for him as the teamwork in using it is the key aspect. 2; Sonic CD was a game involving time travel, Metal Sonic and the Little Planet. It was a single player game where Sonic fought alone, Metal being a threat and Amy being the damsel in distress held as a motivator for Sonic by his Metal rival. The game was a focus on Sonic against Metal, which was reflected in the Metal Sonic movie, which I recommend. The solo narrative contrasts with the teamwork in Sonic Heroes, as not even Tails appears in Sonic CD. Repeating the song would reference a game which disagrees with the idea that Sonic needed allies to overcome Metal. Each Super theme must reflect the game it was present in. Adventure 1 was the first 3d super fight, so the lyrics reflect the nature of going super; the limited time bu the near invincibility of the power presented. Adventure 2's theme reflected Shadow, who desired the world's destruction in isolation, learned of reasons to abstain from firing the ARK. And so forth. The super theme has to reflect the narrative of the fight so the current one seems more appropriate. See you next round, Duncan
Is God real

Well we don't have Prophecies. Sometimes you might see the word Allah around you. My evidence is that if you look on your ear, it is the word Allah. Your fingers = Allah (In Arabic). There is much more which says Allah. Once I cut a tomato in half and it says Allah. More? Well, Jesus claims himself that he isn't a god. He said that he is a prophet of god. Jesus is real though. He did not die. He went to Allah and is watching him. When REAL Judgement Day comes he will come down. If this is not enough for you then wait until you die. Or wait till Judgement day. Proof that Christian is fake = A christian scholar said that their is Judgement day on May21 but it didn't happen, now October 21, it didn't happen. ROFL (whats so funny about that) Your making me laugh instead. YOUR AN IDIOT
Is God real

ROFL you really crack me up! what exactly do you expect me to respond to? you gave no evidence only your own opinion which I am not interested in at all. Show me some prophacys that fit the criteria I gave to you in round 2 I have given Islam that test and it fails on many points. The fact that you feel the need to simply spout about how your God is best without providing me with any proof shows that you have non and so you are wasting my time to argue with someone who will not share solid scientific historical facts with me.
Is God real

Some nonsense I see. Well it says that once you die, god makes you alive again on a different world (hell or heaven). A story in the Muslim holy book said that Prophet Ibrahim came to a retarded king and said that god can make life and can make death. The stupid king replied that he can too and he killed one of his slaves and let the other one free. That is a nonsense. Also Solomon (sulayman) could speak animal language because god gave him that ability. Also how come you are led to the wrong path???? God made you do it. Your just some nonsense bible talking. Oh and also bible was a mix of Torah, Gospel etc. and people changed it. IT IS COMPLETELKY WRONG. The Quran is safe from god so hats why it hasn't changed for many years. We have a 500 year old Quran. Any more nonsense of yours?
Is God real

I am an agnostic at this point because I see no evidence for the God of the bible however with that said I see no evidence for any other God either nor am I completely sold on evolution hence being agnostic. I would like for you to give me evidence for the God of the bibles existence. The things I need explained/proof of are... a) If God is real and loves us why so much suffering and why did he do things in the bible like killing David's so in a slow death to punish him and Bathsheba, or why all the firstborn of Egypt had to die for Pharaoh's hard heart? b) There is no geological or historic evidence of a world wide flood The bible has many inconsistencies in it such as the difference in Matthew and John disagree on what day Jesus was crucified, Matthew and Luke each give a different account of Jesus birth and the events after it. In 2 Kings 2:8 the bible tells about how Elijah went into heaven however years later Jesus was talking and he said "nobody has gone into heaven except he who descended from heaven even the son of man". For more errors go to you tube and look up brief bible blunders by profMTH. c) there is no prophecy in the bible that is not either vague so it could be taken many different ways, or done years after the fact so it was not real at all or one the people themselves could make happen like the Jews returning home after captivity (they did this because the prophecy said they would) I look forward to your response
According to the Bible, Jesus is God.

First of all, let it be known that I am not a bible believer, but I will try hard to be a sincere learner. So you can"t just pour me tons of bible verses, without support from other sources. That is why my debate always address both bible and logic. Anyway, let"s get the debate started, and let"s get to the point. But before that, let me thank you for your time and the opportunity the challenger gave to me so that I may argue, and sorry for bad english in advance. Yes indeed, within the biblical context, Jesus was distinguished from the father like you said. But no, in my view, never Jesus was identified as God. Now, if you are talking about the language, again, in my view, never YHWH was entitled to Jesus. Even John 1:1 clearly stated that "... the Word was with God, ..." which means that the word distinct in nature, so that the word may be "with" God. Now, John 1:18 said that "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, ..." which, again, it distinct both creature. Now, regarding John 20:28, where Thomas shouted "my Lord and my God", what justification does he had, when Jesus himself never claim to be God? Moving on to the point where you said divine agent, let me get this straight with an analogy. Suppose that I have a phone, and I will send you a message using that phone. Is this message is the same as the phone? Or me? Well, to simplify it, you can"t put the agent and the agency as the same, or a messanger and the sender are the same. God and his creature is different, don"t try to simplify the bible as "Jesus is God in human nature". When Jesus quoted Moses by saying that "the Lord your God is one Lord". It contradicted all of the disciples claim of Jesus divinity. Now you"re trying to get me to the cathicism, the Jewish and Christians creeds. Then, you try to distinguish between monotheism and unitarian. Then I will only give you one question to close this session, how will you put together "Jesus divinity, God"s oneness, and the clear separation of Jesus and God" in one frame? What is your theory? Again, I would like to say thank you for this debate. I will look forward for your counter argument. I recommend you to bring up the logical and scientific argument next time. Have a nice day.
According to the Bible, Jesus is God.

While it is true that the Bible distinguishes between Jesus and his Father, the Bible also identifies Jesus as fully God. The primary manner in which Scripture accomplishes the personal distinction between the Father and his Son, while simultaneously affirming their respective divinity by allocating the Septuagint's translation of Elohim (i.e., Theos) to the Father, and Yahweh (i.e., Kurios) to the Son. This paradigm is confirmed in most the of NT, and only occasionally is it not observed (e.g., John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28). Moreover, Jesus is identified as divine agent through whom the Father created all things (John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1:10-12). To suppose that since the Bible teaches monotheism (i.e., the existence of one God at all times and in all places) is not to suppose that God is unitarian (i.e., one person). Rather, monotheism does not connote the nature of God, but rather God's ontologically unique existence. Thus, the creed of Israel known as the Shema, "Hear O Israel, the LORD your God, the LORD is one" ( Deut 6:4), precludes only polytheism. So too, Paul recasts this creed within a christological framework in 1 Cor 8:6. There, the key terms of Deut 6:4 are distributed among the Father and Son with an economic distinction in creating all things-- and this within the context of idolatry.
Tomatoes are vegetables

Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? The confusion about 'fruit' and 'vegetable' arises because of the differences in usage between scientists and cooks. Scientifically speaking, a tomato is definitely a fruit. True fruits are developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and contain the seeds of the plant (though cultivated forms may be seedless). Blueberries, raspberries, and oranges are true fruits, and so are many kinds of nut. Some plants have a soft part which supports the seeds and is also called a 'fruit', though it is not developed from the ovary: the strawberry is an example. As far as cooking is concerned, some things which are strictly fruits, such as tomatoes or bean pods, may be called 'vegetables' because they are used in savoury rather than sweet cooking. The term 'vegetable' is more generally used of other edible parts of plants, such as cabbage leaves, celery stalks, and potato tubers, which are not strictly the fruit of the plant from which they come. Occasionally the term 'fruit' may be used to refer to a part of a plant which is not a fruit, but which is used in sweet cooking: rhubarb, for example. So, the answer to the question is that a tomato is technically the fruit of the tomato plant, but it's used as a vegetable in cooking. Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Tomatoes are vegetables

Tomatoes are vegetables also because of their taste. Fruits are known for having a sweet taste and containing natural sugars, yet tomatoes do not have these characteristics. They have a savory taste that goes better in ways that vegetables are used, not fruits. Also according to the Tariff Act of 1883, vegetables were ruled as vegetables, so it has been this way for a long time. Finally, the definitions of a fruit that a tomato has does not necessarily make it a fruit. It depends on how it is seen.
Do Humans Posses an Objective Morality

In this debate inspired by a comment discussion I'd like to debate the notion that humans have an objective morality whether it comes from religion, natural means, ect.Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; basedon facts; unbiased Morality: a doctrine or system of morals. I look forward to a constructive debate and good luck to pro.Layout for Debate:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening arguments Rounds 3-5: Rebuttals Sources:http://dictionary.reference.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Do Humans Posses an Objective Morality

Good luck. Subjectiveness of MoralityNow as I have taken the con side of this issue it is my responsibility to prove that humans have a subjective morality just as it is pros responsibility to prove that humans morality is objective. Now the main crux of the argument against objective morality is that humans definitely do not think the same things about what is right and wrong. Now as I've defined objective before we can see that if we did in fact have an objective morality it would be free from personal interpretations or biases. If something is free from every single persons own bias then the entire world should be in a consensus about said issue. This is not the case. Today in the world we see ourselves divided under many different controversial issues with both sides having fairly decent points; however when it comes right down to it the issues are more often than not just up to our subjective opinions on them. Take into account the terrorist organization ISIS. Now in ISIS punishments of death can be given for blasphemy, adultury, homosexuality, murder, apostacy, and "spying for the unbelievers". Now while most of the world think that these types of punishments for such things are immoral and atrocious there are actually some people who believe this is a moral and just way to treat people. Now while these people are in a vast minority they still do actually believe these things to be true. And that is only one example. We can also see divisiveness in the debate over gay marriage. Many people think gay marriage to be an abomination and immoral, majorly because of religious beliefs. Many still think that civil rights to all is a moral and just thing. Those against gay marriage have a personal bias, religion, that they use to interperate what is right and wrong. Those for gay marriage may have the fact that they themselves are gay as a personal bias. Both sides are influenced by societal, religious, economic, and social pressures and biases that help them form their opinions on what is right and wrong. . http://www.independent.co.uk...http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
God loves draxxt

I would like to offer flor my deepest of thanks. This truly will be an easy win. You see, my problem isn't the topic or its message, for I myself am a Christian, but the fact that this user most likely singles out Christian members in the hope that said members will forfeit or refuse to argue in the first place. Either way, she's getting God's message out but in a very annoying and detestable way. Thank you for the challenge and again, no bias, please.
God loves draxxt

Hello. I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for challenging me to this debate. Though, perhaps I should begin by asking my judges not to vote on their own personal bias but rather, on the logic that will exceed my opponent's debate. My opponent's entire first argument consisting of one contention and no further explanation as to why God loves me. "yes, god loves you! in every way. for everything you do. yes. everything. by him loving you, he exists. and loves you. :)" I would like to add that the smiley face is a nice touch. My opponent's first and only contention deals with a circular argument. In order for God to love me, He must exist. And for Him to exist, he must love me. God cannot exist unless he loves me and he cannot love me unless he exists. My opponent's logic is flawed for the following contentions.: 1) My opponent has not explained to me how God exists except through circular logic. A) We must first define love Merriam webster defines love as "strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties " B) We must define exist. exists as "to have real being whether material or spiritual " Merriam-Webster defines the spiritual side of existance as a question or an assumption. We cannot assume God exists without proof. 2) My opponent's case sounds like a thread that you send to umpteen people and your wildest dreams will come true. I believe I have said all that is necessary. Please, if you can answer any of my questions with logic, all circular logic aside, I would greatly appreciate it. For the above reasons, that is why I urge you to vote in Negation of this resolution.
Daredevil, The Man with No Fear vs Batman, The Dark Knight

You say that it is useless against Daredevil, but with Batman's arsenal of tools, nothing is useless. Your telling me that freeze grenades would do nothing to Daredevil? And he leaves the mouth and jaw open, but who's to say Batman doesn't dodge the throws of his billy clubs because of Batman's advanced technologies, he can see that he is going to throw them and counter them in any way he wants. Whethere it blocking the clubs with his gauntlets or even using his cape to block them. Batman is practically invisible, besides to fire and electricity or other superpowers. Batman has too many tools that Daredevil would not be expecting. This is how I see the battle playing out:Batman would be listening to Arthur in the ear peice he has, and Arthur would have looked up who Daredevil is, in the state-of-the-art computers that they have. Now, Arthur would report to Batman that Daredevil is blind and has a great sense of where things are. Daredevil only knows where things are by the supersonic hearing that he has, so Batman would take advantage and use his intelligence to his advantage. Batman would turn of the lights, and use his cowl lenses to see in the dark. He would then throw one of his Batarangs behind Daredevil, knocking something over, causing him to turn around and then bam, Batman shoots Daredevil with the tranquilizer and it's over. Because then, Daredevil would wake up cuffed to a pole inside the warehouse, not knowing what happened. It's not fair to fight against Batman.
Daredevil, The Man with No Fear vs Batman, The Dark Knight

Alright, now for arguments. Let's get this elephant out of the room right away, Batman's main advantage (stealth) is useless against Daredevil. Daredevil has been shown to sense even the slightest disturbances (even being able to predict Nightcrawler's teleporting by sensing the miniscule changes in air pressure), and with his blindness, even darkness wouldn't be a hinderance. You mentioned Batman's weakness to ranged combat, which is a major part of Daredevil's battle strategy. He can throw his billy clubs with enough force to break bone, and even kill if he wants to. No matter how much armor Batman has, he leaves his mouth and jaw exposed, which could lead to some major damage in those areas. Daredevil has been shown to easily dodge blows from superhuman opponents, something that will play into account against Batman. He can even dodge bullets, and Batman has no projectile that can even go nearly as fast as a bullet. I believe that Batman wouldn't even be able to touch Daredevil, must less land a serious blow. The way I see the battle playing out would be Batman immediately going to turn out the lights, not knowing Daredevil is blind, hoping to capitalize on his stealth capabilities. Even though this would typically give an advantage against normal opponents, Daredevil has even MORE of an advantage in this scenario. He could rapidly throw his billy clubs from afar, or even try his luck against Batman in hand to hand combat. I believe that in every scenario, Daredevil has the advantage. He can easily avoid blows from superhumans, making a mere man like Batman useless against him. None of Batman's gadgets give a specific advantage against Daredevil. No one, including Batman, knows that Daredevil is blind, so he wouldn't know to use a sonic grenade or something of that degree, and I believe that even if he COULD figure it out, the fight would be over by then, and Daredevil would be victorious.