BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Electric vs. Combustion engines... Electric engines are the way of the future

Please forgive me for not responding in round 3. Thank you for elaborating on the efficiency of alternative carbon fuels. I agree that there are other carbons fuels that can be used in ICE. However, when you state that the EE is much further behind than the ICE, i find my self a little lost. Yes, I agree with the fact that there has been "100+" years of technological advances in the ICE that the EE does not have. But when you started discussing the new forms of fuel that can replace "standard gas", i became confused. If they are new fuels, wont they too require new technologies that will create challenges? making them a difficult alternative to EE. Please elaborate on how you expect they new fuels to become integrated into society better than EE. I can see that these production costs would be a problem. However, the EV provided monetary savings (in the link I provided above). Why would this not make EVs dominate? Also, I am a mechanical engineering student, am I not qualified?
Electric vs. Combustion engines... Electric engines are the way of the future

In the end, a switch over requires that all aspects of the production and cost of running of EVs is cheaper than the production and cost of ICEs. When this is the case, and only when this is the case can the EV dominate the market. The problem here, and this is my opinion (though well educated, my degree is Chemical Engineering), is that ICEs will continue to dominate for the foreseeable future. Because the technology is 100+ years old we have the opportunity to refine it in ways not thought of. Improving combustion, weight reduction of components, etc. And while the newer EVs certainly have a large capacity for improvement, it will take at least 100 years for them to catch up to where ICEs will be at that point. The depletion of carbon based fuels isn't really a major concern, as the ICE can be, and has been, adapted to other fuel sources as shown above. As such, only the ability to improve the engine becomes an issue.
Electric vs. Combustion engines... Electric engines are the way of the future

There are many alternative fuels possible, currently alcohol and water engines both exist. [5],[6] While suffering from some efficiency problems, with time the technologies will improve. It is also possible, but expensive, to switch to a pure hydrogen system, though doing so poses additional challenges for safety. The alcohol system works exactly the way your current engine does, except instead of burning long chain hydrocarbons, it burns ethanol (C2H5OH) which is easily produced at home. If you have a home brewery you make ethanol for consumption. It does require conversion of some of the parts, as ethanol isn't quite as explosive as standard gasoline (petrol). It is even possible to produce ethanol from certain bio-waste products. [7] This covers just the current line of products that are non-standard, there is also bio-diesel available as well. Will people convert? Only if the price comes down enough, relative to that of the ICE. Sources placed in comments.
Electric vs. Combustion engines... Electric engines are the way of the future

Thank you for your response. I certain see where your views are coming from and I feel as though you are familiar with this material. Can you possible elaborate more on other forms of fuel and the efficiency they have, in your next response? this will better help me see your point of view. I do agree with your claim that ICE efficiency at the moment is higher than an EE (electric engine). However my only concern is with the current ICE carbon fuels that we are using at the moment (i.e. fossil fuels/ natural gas). With resources for these current carbon fuels depleting at an alarming rate (https://www.ecotricity.co.uk...) and with the advantages that come from switching to EV (electric vehicles) (http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...) (w/ some disadvantages), do you not think that the drivers of today will see the more accessible alternative (at the moment) to be more suitable?
Electric vs. Combustion engines... Electric engines are the way of the future

I will show that electric engines, which will certainly become more prevalent, will likely never completely replace the internal combustion engine, for all future arguments ICE. The first misconception is that an ICE must use some type of carbon fuel, while currently the most efficient fuels available these are by no means the only ones. It is possible to produce an ICE that uses any fuel that oxidizes. While there are various safety concerns to be maintained many other fuels can be quite safe to implement, even Hydrogen. The practical maximum efficiency of any ICE is approximately 37% [1], compare this to the maximum power plant energy production efficiency of approximately 85 % [2] and transmission efficiency of 85% [3], and an energy efficiency of .45 [4] you get an overall electrical motor efficiency of 32% moderately worse than that of the potential ICE. Sources provided in comments
Electric vs. Combustion engines... Electric engines are the way of the future

I am arguing that Electric engines will be the way of future automotive power. This is because combustion engines require natural gas, and natural gas is dwindling (http://e360.yale.edu...). With natural Gas coming to its inevitable end, what will future sources of energy entail? I believe electricity will give the human race the well need source of energy they long for. Please tell me why you think I am wrong, or why you agree with me. Also please provide evidence of your claims so that I may be able to truly understand your views.
Socialism does NOT work (a devil's advocate debate)

I shall extend my argument.Among the ranks of socialists there are those who are against freedom and organic growth, namely, Hitler and Stalin. Hitler was a socialist of course, it was he who said 'I am a socialist' in a conversation with Otto Strasser(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...). Genocide carried out in the name of socialism, be it Communism, National Socialism, Fascism, Baathism or Juche were all justified by the utopian delusions of the planners.Again, returning to the argument at hand, Hitler and Stalin, the ultimate product of the failures to produce 'true' socialism, require sacrifice after sacrifice. Furthermore, the socialist planners, having to tell what the people what to do for the plan, will be granted absolute authority. With so few individuals in charge of so many, the only way to succeed is by not subverting. In the words of Daniel Hannan MEP, 'you have to suck up to the few people at the top, be they the bishops, princes or commissars'. The socialist society is very much like the medieval serfdom with the planner 'lords' directing the people in the name of the 'greater good'. There is no freedom or opportunity of creativity under planning, thus the economy will suffer as a result.Milton Friedman once said, 'who can say that the chains of the workers in the Soviet Union is weaker than that of those in the US, Britain or Germany?' (source: M'Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom).I'd like to apologise for paraphrasing some of the quotes, but I hope my opponent understand the points made.I now turn to my honoured opponent...
Socialism does NOT work (a devil's advocate debate)

I am challenging ChosenWolff to a debate, in which (I am a socialist) I shall assume the devil's advocate role and argue that socialism does NOT work, whereas my opponent will be arguing that it can. More specifically, I am arguing against what one might call state socialism (what most people think socialism is).The definition of socialism is: ' a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.' Source: http://www.google.co.uk...Also, I might suggest what my opponent believe socialism is, as the idea of socialism is rather broad and socialists nevertheless vary in ideas radically (if you'll excuse the pun), more so than Hayek had predicted.In this debate I shall mainly be arguing against what we might call 'orthodox' socialism, or state socialism according to the Communists, or 'planning' or the 'planned economy'.Round one is for acceptanceRound two is for opening argumentRound three is for rebuttals/new argumentsRound four is for further rebuttals and conclusionI await my opponent's response...
Abortion is illegal according to the Supreme Law of the Land

First, I should point out that Pro seems to have conceded the debate, claiming that: ("I do think that it is legally permissible to artificially induce a pregnancy when it is the only reasonable way to protect the mother's life. "). According to the definitions agreed upon from R1, abortion refers to the purposeful termination of a pregnancy. So Pro admitting of a Constitutional precedent for doing so (admittedly under restricted circumstances) essentially concedes the debate. Pro himself also seems to understand this, saying that "this may mean you win this debate". This probably isn't necessary but Pro also dropped the is/ought point as well as the presumption in favor of current legal precedent. On Pro's DOI point, you can't get around the fact that "rights" as defined in various American legal documents are rarely taken to be inalienable in practice. The right to life may be circumvented for the purpose of self defense, etc. Of course Pro conceded that a foetus' right to life could be circumvented under certain conditions ("it can be reasonably assumed that the mother is the only one who can possibly survive in any circumstance. "), we're essentially in agreement on this point.
Abortion is illegal according to the Supreme Law of the Land

I assumed you agree that all persons have equal rights under the Constitution; you haven't clarified your position on this. I claim all persons DO have equal rights under the Constitution, but I do think that it is legally permissible to artificially induce a pregnancy when it is the only reasonable way to protect the mother's life. This is not because the mother's rights trump that of the fetus; rather, it is ONLY because it can be reasonably assumed that the mother is the only one who can possibly survive in any circumstance. However, this is very different then terminating a pregnancy at the whim of the mother, which always obviously murder. I would say that since a proper interpretation of the Constitution cannot exist without the Declaration of Independence, and the Declaration of Independence clearly makes the deliberate killing of innocence wrong, the Constitution, having the Declaration of Independence so closely involved, presumes deliberately killing an person to be illegal. I do realize this may mean you win this debate, but I hope you bite and still respond to my other positions.
Abortion is illegal according to the Supreme Law of the Land

Is vs. Ought.I assumed Pro would claim that they made a mistake in the wording but this is interesting nonetheless. Abortion is not currently forbidden by the Constitution. Pro can argue that, on his view, the Constitution calls for a ban/law against abortion but it's clear to anyone looking that there currently is no ban/law to that effect. For a law to actually be in place there must be a mechanistic force by which said law is enforced [http://oxforddictionaries.com...]. As of current there is no official governing force in the U.S. to enforce this supposed 'illegality'.Supreme Court Precedent.I already mentioned in R1 that this point was not meant to be an exhaustive argument. It was merely meant to set up a presumption in favor of the Con position. Refuting a strawman does nothing to bolster Pro's case. Furthermore, Pro's statement here is also misleading: ("The Constitution is established on principles that are not subject to the whims of the Supreme Court."). While technically true (in the sense that interpretation does not necessitate correctness, Pro is wrong to dismiss wholesale the Supreme Court as a prima facie viable interpretation mechanism.Posterity Clause.First, Pro has conceded that the "posterity clause" doesn't exist as a categorical mandate. On the "equal rights" point, Pro has also failed to establish why the allegedly equal rights of the foetus outweigh those of the mother as in cases where the mother's life is threatened. This is why the "equal rights point" as applied to abortion leads to absurd conclusions. By taking the life of the to be of equal weight to that of the mother, the mother's right to life ends up being violated. The same is true vice versa. At the very least then, Pro's equal rights point lends credence to legalization of abortion at least when the mother's life is threatened.Note that my burden doesn't lie in Constitutionally defending abortion in all cases. Just defending abortion under certain circumstances (as in when refusing one endangers the life of the mother) is enough to refute Pro's case.
Abortion is illegal according to the Supreme Law of the Land

My argument is that Abortion is currently forbidden by the Constitution; therefore, I'm arguing that Abortion IS currently forbidden by law. The Constitution, being the Supreme Law of the Land, trumps all other laws made under it. The Supreme Court's opinion on the Constitution is not relevant to this debate. Supreme Court Precedent has contradicted itself many times; precedents have been struck down before. You imply that the meaning of the Constitution changes to fit these interpretations, but it doesn't. The Constitution is established on principles that are not subject to the whims of the Supreme Court. You're right, the Posterity clause is not a blanket commandment. But I used it because I think we both agree that all persons have equal rights under the Constitution, and the Posterity clause merely enforces my position.
Abortion is illegal according to the Supreme Law of the Land

===Definitions===The supreme law of the land in this context obviously refers to the Constitution of the United States. Pro's burden therefore lies in constructing a Constitutional case for why abortion is illegal. Con's burden on the other hand lies in deconstructing/refuting that argument.Illegal- contrary to or forbidden by law [http://oxforddictionaries.com...]Abortion refers to the purposeful termination of a pregnancy. ===Preliminary points===-Abortion is currently not forbidden by law, therefore it's not illegal in any real sense. Con's case, if successful, would only show that abortion should be illegal according to the Constitution. However, his case makes the mistake of equivocating normative with descriptive claims.-The Supreme Court (the body charged with interpreting the Constitution) has ruled that abortion is a right provided for under the Constitution [Roe v Wade http://www.law.cornell.edu...]. This isn't meant to be an exhaustive argument by itself, however it reveals a presumption in favor of the Con position. In order to refute established Constitutional precedent, Pro will need to provide more than just three sentences of unsourced and unsupported argument.-The "posterity" point that Pro brings up is obviously not a blanket commandment. There are several instances in which a child may be killed, such as in self defense. The intent of this point isn't to conjure up abortion as self defense, but to show that the "posterity" point clearly isn't meant to be taken as a categorical mandate.I'll go more in depth in the next round after seeing Pro's full case. So for now I send the debate back to Pro.
Stockholm, Sweden should host the 2026 Winter Olympics

Thank you for the debate-I am respectfully, not sure what you are trying to preach to me here, friend, especially in a debate regarding the Host City of the 2026 Winter Olympics. I will say this, I believe in God with all my heart. His continuous revelation to mankind ceased with the Holy Bible, his verbal, plenary, and inspired word. And I do not understand you with this Olympics full of dank memes either. I was going to post my refutal to why you disagree with me on Stockholm hosting the games, but kindly I will say I have nothing to refute. Back to you, Con.
Stockholm, Sweden should host the 2026 Winter Olympics

I am not familiar with roblox Olympics, friend :), is it some sort of game? Anyways, on to the opening arguments as to why I believe Stockholm Sweden should host the 2026 Winter Olympics. The last few Olympic Games have been in Asia and South America, and Europe has recently been left out at times, and has not been able to compete as strongly. London hosted the summer Olympics in 2012, as I am sure you are aware. Following this the 2014 winter games went to Sochi, Russia, and we all know that affair was not as good as it could have been. We then celebrated the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio, and look forward to February in South Korea for the Winter Olympics. However, we then head to Japan, then Beijing, for the 2020 summer games and 2022 winter games, respectively. This makes III straight Olympic Games in Asia, before we head to Paris in 2024. I believe the time has come to give Europe the spotlight in Olympic hosting rights. To begin with, according to insidethegames. biz the Kingdom of Sweden has bid for the Olympics a whopping six times, but without success. The Swedes have won the right to host an Olympics by those numbers alone, I do not know how many other nations have bid for the Games a similar number of times to be ultimately turned down, but Sweden has a fair case for finally being given the games. Secondly, Sweden is an ideal location for the winter Olympics because of it's geographic location and temperatures during the Western Hemisphere's typical winter months of early November to early March. The Kingdom of Sweden is situated in the middle of Scandinavia, in Western Europe. According to quora. com, Sweden has very long cold winters, and a lot of snow. To have a good winter Olympics, you need to have snow, and a lot of it, in order to do curling, skiing, skating, and that sort of thing. Not only that, the temperature in Sweden is perfect for the winter Olympics. In February, which is when the Winter Olympics are usually held, the temperature ranges from -7.6 degrees Fahrenheit to 26 degrees Fahrenheit. This is ideal weather for skating for example, as the ice will be thick, and frozen solid. Therefore, my opening arguments rest on Stockholm receiving the 2026 Winter Olympics because the nation of Sweden as a whole has been turned down six times for the Olympics, and thus they are overdue for the right to host one. They also lie in an ideal climate and geographic area for it. I turn the debate over now to my opponent and look forward to your arguments :).
Stockholm, Sweden should host the 2026 Winter Olympics

Hello everybody! To begin with, I wish to apoligize to everyone on here for being away from here for so long. I graduated from high school on May 27th 2016 and since then life has been crazy with college and all. I just completed my third semester at Maranatha Baptist University and am a Bible major, History minor. Now you know the reasons for my hiatus :). With that, let's get started, shall we? This is debate 50 for me and I hope it will be a fun, engaging, classy, and interesting one. We know the host cities for the 2018 Winter Games-Pyeochang, the 2020 Summer Games-Tokyo, the 2022 Winter Games-Bejing, the 2024 Summer Games- Paris and the 2028 Summer Games will be in LA. In September 2019, the International Olympic Committee is meeting to determine the host city for the 2026 Winter Olympic Games. As of right now, Stockholm-Sweden Calgary-Canada, Sion-Switzerland, Sapporo-Japan have announced they might bid for the 2026 Games. I will take the position that Stockholm, Sweden should be the host city of the 2026 Winter Olympics. I will outline my reasons for this in the later rounds. I look forward to a fun and interesting debate on this topic and hope that this debate will be courteous as well. Good luck! First round=acceptance Second round=opening arguments Third round=refutals Fourth round=further arguments Fifth round=closing arguments and statements.
The excessive use of technology has resulted in degradation of moral values in youth

My opponent unfortunately provides no sources, only emotional quotes, so you should reject my opponent's points from mere lack of sourcing. However, I'll go on to disprove each of these three points, and turn them AGAINST my opponent.Technology reduces social interaction and increases consumerism. (Or not.)My opponent defines social interaction as between people who are physically close. However, my opponent has not provided any reason why physical closeness is key to interaction, and admits that MORE interaction is possible when it's easier to contact people you know!My opponent provides no reason why technology increases consumerism, rather than merely the availability of goods. I'd imagine that living in a capitalist society causes consumerism more than anything. Moreover, my opponent has not shown that consumerism is bad!However, the increased availability of goods has MASSIVE benefits. For example, the average American is about 96% more wealthy today than two centuries ago [1]. What comes with this new technology and new wealth? A people less ravaged by hunger, a people where pain and suffering are uncommon, where the average Westerner (ie, those who have been more largely exposed to technology) lives almost three times as long as their ancestors did a millenium ago [2][3][4][5].Reject my opponent's first point.Technology reduces human mental capacity. (Or not.)IQ trends show the exact opposite. As life is less based on survival, we become more unbiased, scientific, and pattern-recognizing, as the IQ test measures [6][7][8]. This upward trend (aka the Flynn Effect) is most extreme in people in developing countries, who are most rapidly gaining access to technology.Reject my opponent's second point.Technology and its effects cause a loss of altruism and increase of aggression. (Or not.)If this was true, we should see rising crime rates and falling donation rates.Donation rates are consistently going up, and consistently outpace economic growth [9][10].Violent crimes are going down [11][12]. So are teen pregnancy rates [13][14]. So are burglaries [15]. In fact, the increase of sales of video games generally correlates AGAINST violent crimes [16][17]. So, in fact, the correlation between technology and aggression is NEGATIVE -- more technology, less crime.Reject my opponent's third point.Pro has failed to uphold the BoP. Vote Con.References:[1] http://images.huffingtonpost.com...[2] http://www.nih.gov...[3] http://krusekronicle.typepad.com...[4] http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com...[5] http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com...[6] http://blog.lib.umn.edu...;[7] http://philosophyforlife.org...;[8] http://1.bp.blogspot.com...[9] http://www.american.com...[10] http://devpolicy.org...[11] http://2378nh2nfow32gm3mb25krmuyy.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com...[12] http://namingandtreating.com...[13] http://www.cdc.gov...[14] http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk...[15] http://upload.wikimedia.org...[16] http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca...;[17] http://videogames.procon.org...