BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalize Marijuana.

You is just a pinko long hair. See they was talking all this same stuff back in 1960--you isnt even smart. See cause I knew that the the Bibie call us all to be good to each utter and I knows that you isnt any good if you is wanting to be legalizing all the mariwana. I is bettin you go and smoke it with all you little pinko friends and lie to you momma and poppa all about it. But they know and god know and you cant be living in sin forever. Seeing cause one day the whole earth jus gonna come to an end and you is gonna get left behind wiht all the devils and go to hell! All this if you dont stop you sin and confess you love for Jesus!!!!!!! He done died on the cross you sins and you jus gonna sit back and smoke you hooch stick and lie to you momma? Legal marawana jus gonna bring more sin to this earth and gonna let the devil work his mind trick on more of our kids! Marawana be the devil on this earth-it come and go0na get in you brain and then the devil control you and make you wanna legalize the marawana so all you friends can go and get high or watever. Bow to Jesus!
Some Christians have given the relgion bad name due to being pushy and degrading non-believers

Christians have been given a bad name due to the overzealous. There has been a tendency to push the religion down non-believers throats and to degrade and reprimand those who are not followers (with more and more fervor given the further the person is from believing or the worse of a person they are). The con side will be arguing that being pushy, threatening eternal damnation, and degrading/calling out the faults of non-believers (the worse the person, the worse the behavior) is the correct approach. (as it seems to be what a lot of those in the mainstream choose to do)
Some Christians have given the relgion bad name due to being pushy and degrading non-believers

Though I agree with you, that was not the context of the argument. It was that Christianity in essence is Pushy, and in your last argument, you admitted it was. These strong beliefs pushed on people in this harsh a manner will directly lead to those individuals being pushy. Christians don't put a bad name on it. It is the religion that teaches them to be that way.
Some Christians have given the relgion bad name due to being pushy and degrading non-believers

The church has sparked some of these wars. I have my fair share of issues with the church (a lot of them fall under the category of what i'm arguing for). I agree this is the definition of pushy. That's what I'm arguing for as stated in the original post. The message needs to be simple. Love and the truth. The simple truth being we're not good enough (none of us) by merit alone to get into Heaven. Jesus gave us this gift. Believe in him and you are saved. Everything else is lesser. We should treat each other well and encourage the non-believers by the merits of the religion. Not condemn the non-believers and kill in God's name. Terrible things. Unnecessary things. That was not how Jesus operated, nor should we. I feel we might agree.
Some Christians have given the relgion bad name due to being pushy and degrading non-believers

Christianity has sparked several devastating wars in the past all on the premise of belief, most notable of the wars, were The Thirty Years war, French Wars of Religion, and Second Sudanese Civil War, all three ranging the death counts in the millions. Not only has Religion caused millions of deaths, but has also set us far technologically back. All of this belief has shaped our world in a terrible way, and again, though people started the wars, they started the wars on the premise of belief. This is the definition of pushy.
Some Christians have given the relgion bad name due to being pushy and degrading non-believers

I believe that's too narrow of a view. Christianity shows both sides of how to live. Treat others as you would treat yourself (ideally meaning treat others well). The seven deadly sins are not meant to be avoided. We're human and we WILL sin. This is the entire reason Jesus needed to die on the cross. We, by merit, can not be perfect, so Jesus gave us this gift to get into Heaven. He was never pushy. It was always about love. Lastly, the note on going to hell. Hell is not a lake of fire in my mind, but is the eternal absence of being in the presence of God, which would be terrible. It's unfortunate that happens, but God did give us free will. It's our choice and the Bible just informs us of the final outcome based on our beliefs. It says no where to be pushy. Love others and show them the way. Nothing more.
Some Christians have given the relgion bad name due to being pushy and degrading non-believers

I would argue that Christianity is in essence, pushy. It teaches people the seven deadly sins, (which are not possible to avoid I might add). This example is one of many that the bible provides and teaches to impressionable people. The bible itself says that people who do not accept God before their death will go to hell. If the bible encourages these people to think this way, can you really blame it on the people themselves?
Homosexuals were better off obeying homophobes from the 1970's to present in the USA

In conlusion, Pro literally changed the resolution in the debate. He was mearly arguing the gays were the only people who had STD's. I had simply proved otherwise. Also, he ignored my WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF GAYS LISTEND TO HOMOPHOBES. He compleatly dropped my argument, which means he agrees that it's okay if homosexuals comitt suicide.
Homosexuals were better off obeying homophobes from the 1970's to present in the USA

"Pro really rebuts my points by expressing his own opinion, once again" This is a blatant LIE I clearly posted sources, links and MANY quotes from sources such as CDC "He does nothing about my arguemnt that STD's come from chimpanzee's. He only says this is faulty, yet provides no type of fact to show this is wrong" Con obviously doesn't understand fallacies. Con spewed a red herring fallacy. Red herring - In argument, something designed to divert an opponent's attention from the central issue. STD's coming from chimpanzee's is irrelevant to my claim because it doesn't change or challenge the fact that gays TRIGGERED the spread of hiv. Again, the origin of hiv is not the same as the spread of hiv. I posted quotes of the government hiv timeline, and sources such as 'how we got gay' documentary, the 'NBC earliest reports on aids 1982' and links and quotes from CDC. "I stated multiple times that hetrosexuals carry STD's as well. Yet, pro misunderstood that. He mearly is sugessting that I belive ONLY gays carry the disease" First of all, none of your claims changes the fact that gays triggered the spread of HIV and if they had have obeyed homophobes and stopped having gay sex, thousands of gay people's lives would have been spared. In the documentary, "how we got gay", gays admitted that they were told to stop having gay sex but they refused. As a result, 10,000 gays in one zip code in San Francisco died of aids. By the way, it was the gay community in San Francisco. I posted links and quotes showing that even though gays are only 4% of the population, they make up around 70% of all HIV cases. In conclusion, I posted links proving gays triggered the spread of HIV, gays marriage increases HIV among gays, source (how we got gay) proving that gays were told to stop having gay sex but refuse to do so and as a result, thousands of gays ended up dying of AIDS. The Documentary 'How We Got gay' also showed that the Stonewall riots led to gay sexual liberty in which contributed to the HIV epidemic. Gay sexual liberty started when gays stood up against homophobes and stopped conforming. Gay sexual liberty led to the HIV epidemic. Again, if they had have conformed and obeyed homophobes, there would have never been gay sexual liberty in which led to the HIV epidemic in which devastated the gay community the most
Homosexuals were better off obeying homophobes from the 1970's to present in the USA

Pro really rebuts my points by expressing his own opinion, once again. He does nothing about my arguemnt that STD's come from chimpanzee's. He only says this is faulty, yet provides no type of fact to show this is wrong. Again, I never said gays are the ONLY type of people who carry STD's. I stated multiple times that hetrosexuals carry STD's as well. Yet, pro misunderstood that. He mearly is sugessting that I belive ONLY gays carry the disease. Really, all i have to do is show statistics that hetrosexuals also carry STD's to win this round. "Inconsistent findings on the relationship of sex partner concurrency to infection with HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) may result from differences in how sex partner concurrency is conceptualized. We examine the relationship of reciprocal sex partner concurrency (RSPC) to diagnosed STDs among heterosexuals. Heterosexually active adults (N = 717) were recruited for a cross-sectional study using respondent-driven sampling (RDS) from high-HIV-risk areas in New York City (NYC, 2006-2007) and interviewed about their sexual risk behaviors, number of sex partners, last sex partners, and STD diagnoses (prior 12 months). RSPC was when both the participant and her/his last sex partner had sex with other people during their sexual relationship. Odds ratios (OR), adjusted odds ratios (aOR), and 95 % confidence intervals (95%CI) were estimated by logistic regression. The sample was 52.4 % female, 74.3 % Black; median age was 40 years. RSPC was reported by 40.7 % and any STD diagnoses by 23.4 %. Any STDs was reported by 31.5 % of those reporting RSPC vs. 17.9 % of those who did not (OR = 2.11, 95%CI = 1.49-3.0). Any STDs was independently associated with RSPC (aOR = 1.54, 95%CI = 1.02-2.32), female gender (aOR = 2.15, 95%CI = 1.43-3.23), having more than three sex partners (aOR = 1.72, 95%CI = 1.13-2.63), and unprotected anal sex (aOR = 1.65, 95%CI = 1.12-2.42). Heterosexuals in high-HIV-risk neighborhoods in sexual partnerships that involve RSPC are at greater risk of STDs and, potentially, HIV. RSPC, in addition to sexual risk behaviors and the number of sex partners, may facilitate the heterosexual spread of HIV through STD cofactors and linkage into larger STD/HIV sexual transmission networks. " (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) We can imply that NOT only gays carry STD's, but as well as Hetrosexuals. The debate is not about what sexual orientation carries STD's, but that they both do. Even if gays were to listen to hetros and not have sex with the same gender, hetros would be the only people to carry STD's.
Homosexuals were better off obeying homophobes from the 1970's to present in the USA

1. Homophobes opposed gay bath houses. The police began to shut down gay bath houses in which led to the Stonewall Riots. Gays were able to keep the gay bath houses open in the name of rights. Gay bathhouses turned out to be HIV distribution centers in which profoundly contributed to one of the worst STD epidemics in human history. 2. During the early days of HIV when only a few gays were infected, homophobes warned gays to stop having gay sex. Gays refused to stop having gay sex and as a result, the HIV epidemic switched into a mass epidemic and ended up killing thousands of gays and innocent victims who were receiving blood donations. Hiv eventually spreaded to the heterosexual community by bisexuals. 3. During the gay marriage battle, homophobes warned gay supporters that gays are too promiscuous to get married. A study by CDC shows the majority of HIV infecrions are happening within serious, gay committed relationships in which obviously includes gay marriages. According to the study, gay marriage influences unsafe sex.. the problem is, it doesn't guarantee loyalty.. Therefore, gay marriage is increasing HIV infection among gay men among gay men. In conclusion, if gays had have obeyed homophobes, they would have shut down the gay bath houses in which would have saved thousands of gay men's lives because many of them would have not contracted HIV. During the early stages of HIV, if gays had have obeyed homophobes, they would have stopped having gay sex so many gays who died from HIV in the 80's would be still alive. During the gay marriage battle, homophobes warned gay supporters that gays are too promiscuous to get married. Gay marriage increases the risk of contracting HIV because gay marriage influences unsafe sex but it does not guarantee loyalty.
Reptile is better than Scorpion (Mortal Kombat)

"So? " I provided an answer for this 'argument' in Round 2. Not refuted. "Silly and NIFTY trivia. " Call the piece of trivia whatever you like, it still in no way proves Reptile to be any better a character than Scorpion. "Also, Keith Cooke actually played Sub-Zero in Mortal Kombat: Annihilation in which his face was shown and was given dialogue. " Even then he was trying to escape the stigma that came with playing Reptile in the first MK movie. Alas, even the role as the awesome Sub-Zero couldn't save his career after playing Reptile. I have provided a number of good arguments as to why Scorpion is a better character than Reptile. I realise the term 'better' is broad and subjective, so my arguments were broad and subjective. My opponent was unable to refute these arguments satisfactorily or propose his own.
Reptile is better than Scorpion (Mortal Kombat)

1. So? 2. 2. Silly and NIFTY trivia. 3. In some cases my statement is true, however in some it is. For example, Jake Lloyd, who played Anakin Skywalker in the 1999 film Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was only in 4 films. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, Keith Cooke actually played Sub-Zero in Mortal Kombat: Annihilation in which his face was shown and was given dialogue. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Okay, you got me there. IT'S REALLY FUN TO SET PEOPLE ON FIRE!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOTE: I do not set people on fire in reality.
Reptile is better than Scorpion (Mortal Kombat)

"So? That just means he was more popular." There's a good reason for that... he was better. His moves were cooler and funner to emulate. "True, but he was the first hidden character in any video game." That has nothing to do with the resolution, which character is BETTER. I provided evidence that Reptile was literally only half the character Scorpion was. You gave me a silly piece of trivia. "So? Actors don't have to be in a lot of movies to be good actors. An actor could be in part of 1 movie and still be good." Well, let's just say there's a reason why Keith Cooke has found it hard to get work after the MK movie, while Chris Casamassa's career has flourished. Whenever Cooke goes to an audition, the scene goes like this: CASTING DIRECTOR: Ahh. It says on your resume that you were in the original Mortal Kombat movie. Very impressive. Who'd you play? KEITH COOK: Errm, well... CD: Come on, man, give me a name. They're all cool... was it Sub Zero, I bet it was Sub Zero. Or Kano? Were you Raiden, he's awesome! KC: I was Reptile, OK! F*cking Reptile, you happy?! CD: (Disgusted) Oh. Reptile. Well... (Awkward silence) KC: So I'll just be leaving, then, or... CD: I think that'd be for the best. END SCENE "Reptile fought fair by using just martial arts. Scorpion however, tried to set Johnny Cage on fire!" Exactly. Martial arts, boring, cliche. Setting pompous morons on fire, classic. Scorpion 1, Reptile 0. You then provided links to a bunch of pictures which show Reptile's 'evolution' throughout the series. First of all, Reptile didn't evolve, he devolved. [http://en.wikipedia.org...(Mortal_Kombat)] I'd agree with you if he'd evolved, but devolved, come on. The guy's a loser. You can't devolve and become any better for it, despite how 'cool' you may look. And you need to consider that there's a reason the creators felt the constant need to change Reptile, while keeping Scorpion much the same. Because nobody liked Reptile. He was a loser character that never really caught on. He was a crude amalgamation of Scorpion and Sub-Zero, and was thus unnecessary.
Reptile is better than Scorpion (Mortal Kombat)

1. So? That just means he was more popular. 2. True, but he was the first hidden character in any video game. 3. So? Actors don't have to be in a lot of movies to be good actors. An actor could be in part of 1 movie and still be good. Plus, Reptile fought fair by using just martial arts. Scorpion however, tried to set Johnny Cage on fire! 4. Here are some renders of Reptile, vs. some of Scorpion. UMK3 Reptile: http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com... Scorpion: http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com... They are basically the same. MK4 Reptile: http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com... and his other costume: http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com... Scorpion: http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com... and his other costume: http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com... Reptile has his new and more primal form, and his old costume. Scorpion's is just a palette swap of his other costume with a flaming head. MK:DA Reptile: http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com... Scorpion: http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com... Reptile devolved into a yet more primal stage, where Scorpion looks about the same as his old one, but a little cooler. MK:A Reptile: http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com... Scorpion: http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com... Reptile's is original, while Scorpion's is basic and pretty much his MK4 or MK3 costume. Thus, Reptile is better than Scorpion. NOTE: don't click on the URL's, or they won't work. Copy and paste them in a new window instead.
Reptile is better than Scorpion (Mortal Kombat)

As Con in this debate, I will be arguing that Scorpion is better than Reptile in the Mortal Kombat series. I realise this debate is pretty much just for fun, so I'll leave the whole "As instigator of the debate, the onus of proof is on you" stuff for more serious debates. I will give 3 reasons why I believe Scorpion is much better than Reptile: 1. 3 words: "Get over here!!!!" Best move ever. As kids playing Mortal Kombat in the schoolyard, running around performing pretend Fatalities on each other, every kid did "Get over here!!!". You could be playing as Kung Lao and you'd do "Get over here!!". No one did the acid spit. 2. From Wikipedia: "He was a merge between the original Sub-Zero and Scorpion characters. Mortal Kombat co-creators John Tobias and Ed Boon admitted in an interview that the "birth" of Reptile was when they took Sub Zero and Scorpion and fused the two into one and colored him green (yellow + blue = green)." Enough said there. Reptile is, quite literally, only half the man Scorpion is. 3. In the Mortal Kombat movie, Reptile was played by Keith Cooke. He is a mediocre actor, who has only ever starred in 5 films. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. The man who played Scorpion, on the other hand, was Chris Casamassa. He is a respected actor who has been in The Karate Kid, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Blade, among many other films and TV roles. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Clearly, voters, Scorpion is much better than Reptile.
Cohabitation before Marriage

So, as promised:Basically, my wife and I lived together for a year and some change before officially tying the knot. Before that, we dated for a yearish as well, each of us carving out a little "territory" in eachother's domiciles the more serious we became. The transition was also gradual before fully moving in with one another, that being we would spend a decent amount of time at eachother's residence, days at a time, just to get a better handle on how we live and work together, not to mention the pets involved, she has a canine, I have 2 felines.There was still a shock, evan as gradual as we introduced ourselves to it. With no forewarning as to how her or I lived, its quite possible that it would add to immediate stressors in our relationship. She has foibles that drove me batty, just as I am sure she has the same critique of me... but, with our time put in to making it work, and graduating compromise over those various issues, we have avoided the pitfall of "the honeymoon being over" and the real life interplay of our live in arrangements having a powerful influence on our feelings toward eachother.She has just turned 30, and I am 35. That isn't to say some of her habits still don't drive me batty, of course. :)Since there was no evidence presented contrary to my position, I think we all know where this vote should go.Should anyone wish to challenge me on this subject as well, you immediately know my first round of reply, I would like to more explore this topic more, should there be gentle readers out there in DDO world that are looking for a non political but very relevant circumstance in people's lives.Thank you.
Cohabitation before Marriage

Numerous studies over the past four decades agree that cohabiting before marriage can increase the risk of divorce by as much as 40% and leads to marital unhappiness. Furthermore, those of older generations that didn't cohabit had generations with astonishingly lower divorce rates. There is no coincidence that when cohabiting before marriage became normalized (around the mid to late 60's) that divorce rates peaked (in the 70's). While it may seem smart and it is certainly the social norm in America right now to live with someone before marriage, I propose that it is is not a necessity and merely a convenience with a likelihood of damaging a future marriage. One of my reasons for believing this is because cohabiting is a pseudo-marriage, in that it is trying to have everything a marriage has without the final and necessary commitment of marriage. When marriage does come along it then becomes difficult for a couple in the same situation with the same habits and living style to try to change their way of thinking about their relationship from everything but commitment to a relationship now with everything. This causes marital tension and is one of the causes of an increased risk of divorce.