Luigi is better than Mario

This debate is tough to follow, because both participants have a habit of lumping a large number of small arguments into a single convoluted paragraph. Also, Pro's grammar, spelling and general sentence structure were massively baffling. As such, I think it is fair to award the S&G category to Con right off the bat. As for arguments, I'll do my best to follow them...

Pro attacks the emotional differences between Mario and Luigi, specifically that Mario is a "jerk." Con seems to concede that at least one example of this accusation is valid, but argues that Mario's actions are justified and that having the "guts" to act that way actually makes Mario better. This rebuttal only makes sense if being a "jerk" actually makes someone a better person, which seems like a poor argument. I have to give this one to Pro.

Pro claims Luigi jumps higher than Mario. Again, Con seems to concede that this is true but counters that jumping higher is actually a disadvantage due to the possibility of encountering an enemy in the air. From what I recall of the 2D Mario side-scrollers, characters tended to have a lot of "air control" that allowed them to control both the direction of travel while jumping as well as the height/length of their jump. That being the case, I can't see a reason why less jump height would improve chances to evade enemies in the air. Another point for Pro.

Con argues that Mario is the protagonist for "99%" of Nintendo games. Pro's (badly spelled) rebuttal was that Luigi was also a protagonist for several of the games he appeared in, as well as having several spin-offs dedicated to himself specifically. Con came back to say that some of the spin-offs weren't made by Nintendo, so they supposedly don't count. Con pointed out that even if Nintendo didn't develop the game in-house, they still own the copyright on the franchise, so it doesn't matter who made the game. Pro seems to effectively negate this point.

Con argues that Luigi started as just a different colored version of Mario in the early 2D games. Pro rebuts that Luigi has developed into a full character since then. Given that the plot and backstory of the games has obviously developed greatly since the original 2D games, Pro seems to have a valid point to negate Con's argument.

Both sides claim their champion has saved the other on previous occasions and both sides provide sources to verify this fact. These competing claims seem to negate each other.

Pro claimed that Luigi had his own year. Con rebutted that Pro provides no source to support this claim and since I'm not aware of any such event, I have to agree that Pro should have provided a source. Point negated.

In the last few rounds, things get pretty confused talking about the powers that Luigi may posses in various games, and I'm not familiar with all of this as I stopped playing video games about 10 years ago. Pro at one point makes a confusing statement about a vacuum that kills things which are already dead. Con, in pointing out this apparent contradiction, actually helps clarify that the vacuum is used to defeat poltergeists, which appears to be a concession that Luigi does indeed posses such a power. Con also admits that he has "0 knowledge" of Mario games, which doesn't really help his overall position in the debate.

In the final round, several new arguments came up about the position of the characters in the tier list and Luigi's mansion. Since introducing new arguments in the final round is usually considered poor form in a debate and there was limited opportunity to make rebuttals of these points, I didn't consider these.

Overall, Pro made more effective arguments (Mario being a jerk, Luigi jumping higher, and ghost-killing vacuums) while Con mostly seemed to be looking for excuses as to why some of Mario's shortcomings were either irrelevant or actually advantages. Arguments to Pro.