BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Inline 4 cylinder engines are better than a V-6

Before continuing, I would like to define the following key terms from the resolution:Inline 4 Engines: an internal combustion engine with all four cylinders mounted in a straight line, or plane along the crankcase. V6 Engines: a V engine with six cylinders mounted on the crankcase in two banks of three cylinders, usually set at either a right angle or an acute angle to each other, with all six pistons driving a common crankshaft. better: more advantageous or effectiveWith these definitions, we can make observations of the resolution at hand:Observation 1: The resolution does not specify one particular brand or type of Inline 4 or V6 engine. Thus, it is implied that we must look toward these engines in the general perspective and not at a specific level. Now, to my contentions:Contention 1: V6 engines have more advantages alone. One of the aspects of being better is to have more advantages, and as one will clearly see, V6 engines have many more advantages than the Inline-4 engines do, which makes it fit more alongside the definition of better and making it the better engine. Sub. 1a: V6 engines have more power. V6 engines tend to have a stronger amount of power in comparison to the Inline-4 engines in the general. They tend to be the engine of choice for automakers because of this reason (and my opponent even concurs that V6 engines have a strong amount of power). Because they have a stronger amount of pistons and power, this makes V6 engines better for larger cars and can be made into larger models, unlike the design of Inline 4 engines, which become more unstable as they increase in size and are not appropriate enough for larger cars that require the heavier amount of power. Sub. 1b: V6 engines have stronger stability. ". .. It suffers from a secondary imbalance which causes minor vibrations in smaller engines. These vibrations become worse as engine size and power increase, so the more powerful engines used in larger cars generally are more complex designs with more than four cylinders. .. Four cylinder engines also have a smoothness problem in that the power strokes of the pistons do not overlap. With four cylinders and four strokes to complete in the four-stroke cycle, each piston must complete its power stroke and come to a complete stop before the next piston can start a new power stroke, resulting in a pause between each power stroke and a pulsating delivery of power. In engines with more cylinders, the power strokes overlap, which gives them a smoother delivery of power and less vibration than a four can achieve. " Contention 2: V6 engines are improving in fuel efficiency. Not only are V6 more efficient and powerful than Inline 4 engines, but they have shown to be improving in emissions and fuel efficiency. V6 engines are starting to become as equally fuel efficient as inline 4 engines while still maintaining the power that they have in comparison. . http://auto.howstuffworks.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Inline 4 cylinder engines are better than a V-6

Firstly, i would like to say that Four Cylinder engines are not given their due credit. 1.) Argument 1- Four cylinder engines have power Four Cylinder engines are rarely seen as powerful, however there are some Four Cylinder engines that are extremely powerful for their total CC's. Here is an Example- the SR20DET(nissan) is a 2.0 liter Turbocharged, DOHC engine that produces roughly 250 hp, along with fairly decent gas mileage. V-6 engines are not so well on gas mileage, however they do pack a bit of horsepower. Argument 2.) Gas Mileage Since a four cylinder engine only has to inject fuel into four cylinders(which are usually very small) it makes sense that it uses less fuel to get the car moving, and with the right gear ratio on the transmission, it doesn't take much to keep it moving. V-6 engines usually have a larger bored combustion chamber, a larger piston, and also contain two more cylinders than a L4 engine. This results in much more gas being used for going the same distance. Argument 3.) Maintenance Most L4 engines are front wheel drive, meaning that the engine sits in the engine compartment with the cylinders lines up in a 1-2-3-4 fashion. Also, if a head gasket were to blow, a 4 cylinder engine would be easier to change the head gasket, because of the generalship that it is only one valve cover to remove, and the location of the air intake. Most V-6 engines have a throttle body with an air intake sitting on the top, which means more stuff that has to be removed. if a head gasket were to blow on a v-6, there are two head gaskets to remove, and the two headers to remove too. this causes big maintenance problems. a L4 is sitting out in the open, no digging required to get to the engine. Thanks for listening!
The bible cannot be considered to be a reliable tool to be evidenced in proving the existence of God

Rebuttal As I stated in the second round, the Bible cannot be seen to be God's word without accepting that God's word is flawed due to contradictions in the bible and therefore there is no God as God cannot be flawed by the virtue of the Bible which states that his word is flawless. OR you can accept that the Bible was written by men who were not told what to write by God, in which case the Bible cannot be considered to be a true representation of God's word nor his values, wishes, morals or ethics. Therefore the bible cannot be evidenced to prove the existence of God as it cannot be trusted to be reliable, I.E. provide information that can be trusted to be truthful about God or his word. The Bible is either wrong about God's word being flawless, making it unreliable, or it wasn't written by God at all, making it an unreliable account of his word as none of the writers would have any idea what God's word would be. Good luck to you in this debate and I hope the voters enjoy reading this debate. May the best argument win.
The bible cannot be considered to be a reliable tool to be evidenced in proving the existence of God

I would like to note that this debate is not about whether or not God exists, nor whether or not Jesus exists or existed. I believe there are plenty of debates out there for that purpose, though. This debate is to decide whether or not the bible can be considered to be a reliable tool in proving or disproving the existence of God. My Argument - We have two paths that we can travel down here, so let's approach them one at a time. If the Bible was written by men who were told what to write by God, then it should be flawless. However, the bible is strewn with contradiction. For example: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. " (2KI 2:11) . .. Or did he? "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, . .. the Son of Man. " (JOH 3:13) This is just one of many contradictions in the bible. So we have to assume that if the Bible WAS written as God told those who wrote it that it should be, then God is not faultless and he makes mistakes. As God is faultless as his word is said to be (As for God, His way is blameless; The word of the LORD is tried; He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him. - Psalm: 18-30) then this proves that either God does not exist as the bible should be flawless and it isn't OR God does exist and the Bible was written simply by men with no influence from God. So then, this debate not being about proving or disproving the existence of God, we should therefore assume the latter. God does exist but the Bible, being flawed by its many contradictions, cannot have been a product of God or men with God's influence. Therefore we must assume that the Bible was written by men, this would explain the contradictions without pointing towards proof of the non-existence of God. But then, how can the bible prove the existence of God if its writers have not been contacted or influenced by God. The men who wrote the bible must, therefore, have been influenced by myths, legends and assumptions which cannot be assumed to be reliable nor necessarily related to God in any way so their words cannot be held as endorsed or accepted by a Christian God and therefore the Bible's words cannot be accepted or held as necessarily true by any Christian or non-Christian as a reliable tool to be evidenced in proving the existence of God without that same Christian or non-Christian accepting that God is flawed and therefore that God does not exist which would prove further debate in proving the existence of God futile, with or without use of the Bible, for it indicates an acceptance of an absence of God's 'flawless word', the existence of which is indicated in the bible itself. As the Bible cannot be written by God or men with God's influence, the words of the bible cannot be held as necessarily reliable in upholding the true values of God. Therefore, the Bible cannot be considered to be a reliable tool to be evidenced in proving the existence, morals, values or ethics of a Christian God. Your turn.
The bible cannot be considered to be a reliable tool to be evidenced in proving the existence of God

The Bible is the Word of God. You don't have to believe it. One day your knee will bow and your tongue will confess to the glory of God the Father that Jesus Christ is Lord. You will bow at the sound of His name and you will say He is Lord willingly in heaven with joy or against your will in the fire of Hell with bitterness. He is God who died in your place to pay for your sins, so He is just to forgive you if you believe on Him and ask God in His name to save you from Hell, and He is just to give you the death you deserve in the fire of Hell if you finalize your death trampling His blood under your feet saying there is no proof that He is God. He is risen from the dead and He is LORD!!!!
The bible cannot be considered to be a reliable tool to be evidenced in proving the existence of God

The bible cannot be considered to be a reliable tool to be evidenced in attempting to prove the existence of God. Some definitions - Reliable - Able to be trusted to provide truthful information Existence - To exist, to be extant. God - The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority in the Christian religion; the supreme being. Bible - The Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments. Evidenced - To be sourced in order to prove something. The first round shall be for acceptance. The second round shall be for arguments, the third round shall be for rebuttals. Good luck!
Gay Marriage

First, I would like to argue that children of same-sex couples are just as happy as children with opposite sex parents. A multitude of studies prove this point (1,2,3), but since I know how you debate, I expect you to drive right past this and yell "Leviticus 18:22 says blah blah blah"! Well, guess what? Not everyone is a Christian. Before I continue this debate, I would like to mention that I am bisexual, so. .. you know. .. I'm expecting some homophobic slurs and drivel. I look forward to your arguments. . http://www.healthychildren.org... . http://www.bu.edu... . http://www.webmd.com...
population control

I have got limited time, so it will have to be fairly short. I believe that the population isn't out of control and it's just because we are wasting resources that people argue about it. I do agree with you, population is always growing but taking away peoples right to have children is a step too far. Many religions believe you should have many children and taking that away from the is ike taking the bible away from a Christian. Sorry this is so short but I only had seven minutes to post this.
population control

Human population control is the practice of artificially altering the rate of growth of a human population. Historically human population control has been implemented with the goal of increasing the rate of population growth. My idea of population control is to fix growth though education. you teach the dangers to our kids about over populating. if you have to many one animal in the wild it clasps. even thow I wont be alive in 200 years I know someone will and ever mistake we make will hurt them down the line. and growth until claps isn't a good idea. but if the situation got bad enough guess who would be forced to step in (like china) the government because the people cant be responsible. I have seen many people have more kids then just two every extra child after two kids is population growth. 2) 272,690,813 July 1, 1999 303,824,640 is the current population the population looks like its growing to me 3) supply is resources and demand is a person. you can never have more persons then supply are one day it wont work I ask u how is the current way right?? if I'm wrong improve my logic Birth rate: U.S. population: 307,212,123 (July 2009 est.) 14.18 births/1,000 population (2008 est.) Death rate: 8.27 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est so please stop being wrong and admit its growing. world population: 6,790,062,216 (July 2009 est Birth rate: 20.18 births/1,000 population (2008 est.) Death rate: 8.23 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
The color of water is clear, not blue.

First off, the reason you can see through a water bottle is because it is filled with drinking water, and drinking water is cleaned and put through many filters before it is put in a water bottle to rid the water of all the chemicals that could be potentially harmful to humans. Secondly, if the sand at the bottom would come up and make the water murky, then why would the color of the water not be sand color? Why wouldn't you be able to, lets say, if you were scuba diving, see the sand in the water? And then why would murky water be a problem when snorkeling/scuba diving if the water was, as you have said, murky all the time from the sand? Think about that. ..
The color of water is clear, not blue.

Welcome to the last round! There is so much pressure involved!! First off, you have said that when I (or anybody else) are on a boat, you can't see the bottom. Well, judging by my profile info, you need to trust me when I say that the reason you can't see the bottom is that the sand from the bottom comes up, therefore making the water murkey. Your reason, says that the color of water is black, or another dark color, when the topic is that the water is blue... My reasons are that the only way that the color of water appears blue is in a pool and the bottom of the pool is blue. Also, when you drink water out of a water bottle, you can see right through it, you would not be able to is it was blue.
People have the ability to exercise "Free Will".

I am against the notion that Humans possess "Free Will", and in this debate I will focus predominantly on the Philosophical standpoint of the possession of Free Will but will, when necessary, use neuroscientific evidence. My first point is the definition of "Free Will"; I take it as 'the ability to have done differently' - in that if I am able to go back in time, I would be able to make a different choice to the one I had originally made. Now that's cleared up, here are my main arguments: 1) You cannot control your desires. Imagine something you want and then try to not want it. Impossible. If at some stage you want a dog, it is not possible to at that point change your mind without external factors (that you cannot control) affecting your decision. 2) You will only ever do anything because of the following: - you are forced too - you want too Now since being forced to do anything is not Free Will in any sense of the word, we can disregard it. But since you cannot control your desires without uncontrollable external factors affecting your decision we can conclude that any decision you make cannot be down to "Free Will". I rest my case.
Should Gay people have the right to marry.

You say that a child must be raised by a husband and wife, the definition of a wife is as follows wife wīf/ noun a married woman considered in relation to her spouse. Married woman. Again, in history, gay marriages were not allowed, they can't produce people. While it is true that people marry for enjoyment, most people marry to create children, as that is the primary function of sex. America does include equality, but many people agree that Christianity is a large factor in America today.
Should Gay people have the right to marry.

Religion is not the law so saying that a qoute from the bible is enough to illegalize it is not a good arguement, and historically marriage has been documented to only talk about a husband and wife marriage because religion sinned gay people because of the bible so there is a reason that history does not talk about gay marriage. You say that a child has the right to grow up with a father and mother yet what law states that a child must be raised by a husband and wife, nor does it have to do with same sex marriage and who are you to deny them the right to have a child. And even though our county is vaguely founded on Croatian principles it was also founded on freedom and equality.
Should Gay people have the right to marry.

Point 1: The USA was vaguely founded on Christian principles, and the Bible is still used today, for the purpose of swearing presidents into office. The Bible says that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." This essentially states that gay marriage is not to be legal. Your argument is that people are created equal, to which I agree. But your argument did not include marriage equality. Historically, marriage was between a man and a woman, not between man and man, or woman and woman. The goal of human sex is to reproduce, which is the same in all of nature. Gay marriages do not allow for children to be born, as one parent lacks the compatible sex organ. I argue that a child has a right to grow up with a father and a mother, and to raise him or her in a gay or lesbian household is to deny him that right.
Should Gay people have the right to marry.

Someone who is gay should have the right to marry. The Declaration of Independence states "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." If all men are truly created equal then it is a gay mans right to Marry. As a fellow American i believe that a persons rights are truly something that we need to respect, if God created the universe then he has the power to accept Gay people.
Marijuana Legalization

I think marijuana should be legalized. For the purposes of the debate, let's assume laws under legalization would make pot similar to alcohol (21 age limit, no driving under the influence, etc.) 1. Other substances Alcohol impairs you more, yet is legal. Cigarettes offer all of the same health concerns, but offer no significant benefit (high) and most cigarette smokers smoke more than marijuana users on a daily basis. Also, marijuana has been medically proven to be non-habit-forming, unlike cigarettes and alcohol. 2. Tax revenue The government could tax and regulate the marijuana industry, generating state revenue at a time when it is needed. Also, the birth of a high demand industry would foster jobs and economic growth. 3. Criminals With the ever growing popularity of marijuana, middle-class people who are not drug or street savvy are having to deal with dangerous people and frequent the more suspect areas of town to procure their product. Legalization would stop this. Also, legalization takes away a large portion of criminal funds, without the cost of policing. By offering the legal sale of marijuana, the criminal organizations who deal it now are out that revenue. 4. Quality The medical purposes of marijuana (while they may be suspect) would be improved with improved quality. If people are able to grow it freely, it can be privatized professionally and developed at lower cost and higher quality yield. 5. Civil Liberties The political history of marijuana is suspect. Many believe it was outlawed under false pretenses (i'll go into detail if so requested). Also, in a free country, a citizen should be able to indulge/harm themselves in any way they see fit as long as they do not infringe upon or danger the rights of others. While other harder substances may offer this risk, the private consumption of marijuana doesn't. I'm looking forward to hearing from someone on this topic. Thanks in advance.
Marijuana Legalization

Man, really disappointed you didn't have time to respond. Extend all of my arguments. That: Other substances are more harmful and addictive, yet legal. Scientific evidence I provided proves marijuana is not addictive. Marijuana is illegal due in large part to legal precedent and popular misconceptions. The alleged increase in health care costs are offset by the $14 Billion annual revenue/savings generated by legalization. Freidman and other economists advise us to legalize. An entirely new high-demand industry would be created along with new jobs. Legalization deprives criminals of a major means of support and funding. Casual pot smokers wouldn't have to interact with a more dangerous societal demographic. Not everyone HAS to smoke under legalization, only those who wish to enjoy it. This makes all negative health effects voluntary and a matter of free will and civil liberty. Legalization and privatization would lower cost and increase quality. Everyone is entitled to make self-effecting choices in a free society. Marijuana does not significantly harm others to the point where we need to strip users of their civil rights. The evidence you provide is unsubstantial to prove your claims. The counter-resolution furthers the radical misconceptions of marijuana. The counter-resolution does not solve because a nicotine supplement is not a substitute for marijuana use. The CR attempts to side-step a fundamental civil rights issue and continues to deny rights to users. The CR costs money, failing to generate/save massive amounts of money like the original resolution. Thanks for the debate. Hope you get a chance to respond.