BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Solar Energy polluting the world

The proposal queries whether solar energy is 'polluting' the world. To be quite frank, I was abhorred at the wording of the proposition. Pollution is the contamination of air or water by toxic or dangerous substances or materials. Solar energy is a completely innocuous form of energy generation that does not entail any side effects of hydro or aero-pollution. Solar energy is a harmless process of harnessing the electrons from the Sun, boiling them into a liquid state and extracting large amounts of energy from it. Solar energy is relatively clean, and is fully renewable, unless the Sun ceases to exist. In juxtaposition with the ecological and environmental detriments of fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and geothermal energy, solar power should not be even considered as a contender for global 'pollution'.
Is Solar Energy polluting the world

We need to debate how much power and pollution is generated to make Solar Photovoltaic Panels, and at what point can Photovoltaic Power supply enough power to make cells and eliminate pollution in the process. The PV ingot of sand must be raised to 1470 degrees, impregnated with silicon, cooled, sliced or cracked, etched, soldered strips, and contained. Knock-Offs with fake results such as boron masking, or Amorphous cells with temporary outputs hinder the results.
Is Solar Energy polluting the world

Once more, my recalcitrant opponent attempts to change the premise of the debate. He has proven himself to be both illiterate and stubborn. The proposition is written at the top of the page, 'Is solar energy polluting the world'. It is against the community guidelines of debate.org to change your premise mid-debate and thus, violating such a term will cost you the debate. I wholeheartedly wish this is not all you have.
Is Solar Energy polluting the world

Sorry to disappoint you. If you remove the "I" in your rebuttle, it will help. This is not about you, your choice of subject, how you feel, or what you control. The subject as stated is:" how much power and pollution is generated to make Solar Photovoltaic Panels". Again, consider the amount of power, the amount of pollution, and the point at which a benfit is derived from this or any process consuming energy and yeilding a pollutant. The number of people concerned about Global Warming, as you seem to be, is growing. It is therein a valid concern as to what pollutants are created and how much. In 1975 the USAF theorized that orbiting lenses in Space could focus solar power to receptor points on Earth and that the Moon could be utilized as a source for the materials. In this sceanrio the Shuttle Craft could gather a higher grade of sources then here on Earth. How are we to consider the validity of any arguement for an energy source without a consideration of the process and the pollants manufactured also? Again; the subject is:" how much power and pollution is generated to make Solar Photovoltaic Panels"? This debate yielded no gain on the subject, and could be an indicator that mankind is simply irrational to the point of being unable to effect self preservation attempts.
Is Solar Energy polluting the world

This debate is about the amount of pollution generated to create a Photovoltaic ingot; requiring 1470 degrees before doping with silicon. Prior to consuming a huge amount of natural gas to run a brick oven to melt sand/glass creation, it is necessary to collect pure silicon sand. Again the debate is; at what point the PV Cells generate enough power to equal the amount of power consumed to create the cells. I'll start with a guess of 7 years, in view of the number of cells made and the power consumed. And therein the next seven years of the same cell power collection to fuel the creation of a new set of cells. I have an Arco 1ft by 4 ft panel that is 30years old. The efficiency has declined to about 1/2 power output. Meaning perhaps that each cells generates about 3 times its power consumed before becoming useless. And perhaps therein suggesting that a re-capture energy rate of 3:1 if so,our Solar PV scenario is limited. OK, so you are not happy with the assumptions; however assumption scenarios yield opinion as to investigation; which is the subject of this debate. The value of Solar Photovoltaic Cells versus other power sources is not in question.
Mental disorder

Debate accepted. Pro begins his argument by stating that 'mental disorder is common as the common cold', which in itself is contradictory and without *any* evidence in support. The fact is that the comnon cold is far more widespread than mental illness, which though a significant issue for many, is not suffered en masse or by every single individual--which the common cold undeniably is. Moreover it's extremely misguided to actually use the two 'illnesses' in the same sentence and draw comparisons between them. The impact of the common cold is *much* less than that of mental disorder and for most people it will only last for 2-4 days, whereas as mental illness is for life. Moreover, Pro asserts that somehow people with 'mental disorder(s)' are being deprived of their 'human rights', which again has absolutely NO evidence in support. On the contrary, significant progress has been made in the recognition and treatment of mental illness [1.] https://www.nami.org... and that the rights of mentally ill patients are indeed a priority, with specific laws put in place [2.] http://www.cchr.org... In addition, there exists a number of mental health organizations that ensure the rights of people with mental disorders are protected.
abortion

Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women. "Alice Paul It"s not good for women to go through the procedure [abortion] and have something living sucked out of their bodies. It belittles women. Even though some women say, "Oh, I don"t mind to have one," every time a woman has an abortion, it just crushes her self-esteem smaller and smaller and smaller. "Dolores O"Riordan. A person is a person no matter how small. "Dr. Seuss Abortion is legal because babies can"t vote. "Joseph Bonkowski I couldn`t have said it better myself, in my opinion those brave people have a fantastic sense of justice. I am an Irish 15 year old girl and a humanitarian. I am not religious but I do not need to believe in God to know that abortion is in no way right. I believe that being pro life goes hand in hand with being pro lgbtq, being anti racist as these are all views just letting people live their life, because we have no right to decide to undermine, persecute or slaughter these humans just because we do not want them there or they re inconvenient for us to have to deal with. Something that I found extremely hateful and wrongful is that 90% OF BABIES WITH DOWN SYNDROME ARE ABORTED, now talk about ableism! I would not be alive today if my granny did not survive the old style of abortion. How can we have any human rights without the right to life. The upcoming referendum in Ireland to repeal the 8th amendment is just like giving a blank cheque to our government to do whatever they like to the only thing making Ireland an extremely safe place to be pregnant in 2018. Our government~ who are for the most part pro choice~, are only pro choice, because they only value surface appearance and hence,go along with the trendy opinion. If you have any sence of justice or can see past the shockingly biased national media i.e. RTE, ~who my parents still have to pay their taxes to~ If you want to prevent 3700 children from dieing per day due to abortion(amount of children dying everyday from abortions in America), if you want to keep Ireland as a world leader for care in pregnant women, if yo want to prevent full term abortion and euthanasia~which I believe will be our next referendum~, then vote no! As Nell McAfferty a very famous Irish liberalist, who is famous for bringing a train of contraceptives into the Republic of Irelend from the North, recently said : "Abortion was beyond our consciousness and here we are, 100 years after slaughters like the Somme and places like that, offering abortion on request." "I really don"t believe in abortion. It"s like killing a baby?-Justin Bieber
Gundam is better than Transformers

I have come to be familiar with both the multiple Gundam and Transformers animation series and I weep for the youth stuck with Transformers. During the pivotal age children turn to young adults and begin to form their own opinions of the world, the media that they are exposed to influence both the existence and direction of the opinions yet to be formed. Gundam, beyond its entertainment value, surpasses Transformers in multiple aspects including, but not limited to: 1. Moral: the morals and themes portrayed in Gundam instill a sense of grand responsibility for the individual (the viewer). The viewer is shown how his actions or inactions can affect the outcome of the human race as a whole, supplying the viewer with a sense of worldly dignity. Furthermore, independence, duty and the pursuit of peace are constantly involved, evoking a higher level of thinking from the viewer. 2. Plot: the story of Gundam centers around two factions vying for peace and international security in different ways. Each faction fights and dies in the name of peace. The Gundams are an ultimate and independent source of good in the universe, independent and able to survive through superior skill and technology. This superior skill and tech is a direct result of the human spirit pushing forward. Transformers on the other hand takes the over-simplified approach of an all-powerful oppressive dictator, which is a dated concept in most parts of the world. Evil is never so clear cut as black and white, especially in the more personal aspects of life. Furthermore, all characters are either born stronger or weaker, based solely on (electric?) genetic coding. 3. Mechs: Gundams are special built mobile suits, common in the Gundam universe. While the few Gundams are more powerful than a normal unit, the skill of the pilots is what puts them over the top and makes them heros. Other characters in the universe have the opportunity to compete with them based on will and skill, not genetics. Furthermore the Gundams are tools, controlled by human pilots, so that the human element stays with the people, the plot and the story. Transformers turns characters into walking weapons. Besides the occasional exchange of "good vs bad" dialogue seen in the two main characters, there is no substance; only battle after battle with the occasional cliche line. The Transformers have the ability to transform freely and interact with humans, whom are treated as squishy intelligent apes.
best joke, crude but not vulgar

Okay, I'm assuming by crude that dirty humor is allowed, so here goes.A family is driving behind a garbage truck when a dildo flies out and thumps against the windscreen. Embarrassed, and to spare her young daughter's innocence, the mother turns around and says, "Don't worry; that was an insect." To which, her daughter replies, "I'm surprised it could get off the ground with a cock like that."
best joke, crude but not vulgar

No ethnic slurs, no denigration of a person or their beliefs, and no disrespecting any recognised group of people (except Christians, just kidding). Best funny wins.. A cowboy rides up to the bar, gets off his horse, walks around back, lifts the tail and kisses the horse right on the bung hole. His friend, having witnessed this says "you must love that horse". "No it is not that, I have chapped lips" he says. "And that cures them". "No but it keeps me from licking them".............................End of joke laugh here.
Black and white - outdated inaccurate terminology hampers progress in racial issues

Thank you for the information about the origins of the term, but you see, part my point is that it is very old, and outdated, and despite it's original meaning and use, how it's used today is what matters (in regards to to racism/racial harmony). I didn't mean to imply that I actually think of the words in a literal sense, just that they do have literal meanings and that it obviously refers to skin colour. "Red Indians" is on old, outdated term for the Native American people. Why was it changed? Because they're not red and they're not from India. Likewise, it is considered racist to say that Oriental-Asian people are yellow (because its not true and is seen as racial stereotyping). Why are people of European and African descent the only two races still commonly referred to by their skin colour? I see your point about generalizing things for the sake of clarification, however, when you say someone is grey-eyed you expect to see eyes so close to grey that there would be no argument about the truth of it. Same goes for black-eyed. "White" and "black" people have a huge range in skin colour. I admit, at a glance, the palest of the pale in Europe do almost look white, and in Africa their skin can get very dark, but I've never seen an "actual" white or black-skinned person, just very pale and very dark-skinned people. The generalization of people as black or white is basically just "too much" of a generalization. Then there's still my point about black and white being "opposites" that needs to be addressed. Again, I know that most thinking people know not to take such things literally, but I think there is a very negative sub-conscious connotation to it. Extreme racists can use it to justify their mindset, that black and white people are, to put it simply, "opposites" and can never mix without losing their identity.
Black and white - outdated inaccurate terminology hampers progress in racial issues

Ancient ethnographic studies show that the word "white" in refence to light-skinned people was used in the Greco-Roman times (1). This shows that the word wasn't made up recently, but has always been there. That said, the word wasn't always a racial classifier. Once a word starts flowing in the mainstream, it loses its original meaning to the one being used among its users. For example, the word "bitch" used to mean "female dog". The word started being used as an insult in the 14th century, being used as "a sexual female". Now, I'm sure telling your friend to watch his bitch would get you a fist in the face.Similar to what was stated above, the words "black" and "white" may have been made to mean racial classification (although they weren't; see (1)), the lost their meaning as people started using them as a characteristic rather than a classification method.You pointed out that no one was really black or white. Well, I can see where your argument is coming from, but I'm going to have to point out how absurd it is to take societal terminology this literally. For example, is they say someone is grey-eyed, do you expect to see a pair of grey eyes? Black-eyed people are rarely black-eyed; they're usually dark brown. Does this mean it's wrong to call those eye colors grey and black? No! Because, by saying their eyes are black, the person you're talking to totally understands what you mean and can now imagine this person; it's a socially accepted word that has a specific society-imposed meaning. After all, if I were to create a word - say, "koo", to mean toilet - and people use it, it suddenly gains meaning that wasn't inherently there.As a conclusion, the word Black is used as a characteristic, just like blue-eyes and flat-nose. It isn't meant literally, and isn't meant offensively. It isn't offensive and does not promote racial separation, just like calling someone "American" and another someone "Arab" doesn't promote ethnic separation.(1) "On both sides of the chronological divide between the modern and the pre-modern (wherever it may lie), there is today a remarkable consensus that the earlier vocabularies of difference are innocent of race." Nirenberg, David (2009). "Was there race before modernity? The example of 'Jewish' blood in late medieval Spain" (PDF). In Eliav-Feldon, Miriam; Isaac, Benjamin H.; Ziegler, Joseph. The Origins of Racism in the West. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 232–264. Retrieved 16 September 2014.
Black and white - outdated inaccurate terminology hampers progress in racial issues

"White" people do not literally have "white" skin. "Black" people do not literally have "black" skin. It's pretty obvious (not many grey-skinned people running around are there?). In this day and age when we all seem to be so touchy about racial issues and skin colour, why are these inaccurate archaic terms still being used? To make it worse, "black and white" are opposites. These words also do nothing to define ethnicity. They should be made obsolete like the term "Red Indian".
The existence of free will as proposed by the bible

1) If you have a chicken allergy, you are still free to eat chicken if you want to risk the consequences.2) You must live within your means. You may have the will to consume chicken, but if you can't afford it you have to have what you can afford.3) Chicken and fish can still try to get away if someone is trying to kill them and eat them.4) Your dog does have a choice of what to chew up, even though you may chastise them and put them outside if they do.A baby has not developed enough to be able to pass any sort of exam. You can't honestly expect a baby to pass. However, once we are old enough, we know the difference between right and wrong.
The existence of free will as proposed by the bible

Contention1) What about if you have a chicken allergy (This is unavoidable, its word play to say this isnt forcing) 2) What if fish is the only thing you can afford (is god going to make sure you get it anyway, because many people want things theywill never have, just because god placed them there, third world countries ,Bums)3) Did the chicken and fish have a say in this, or where they the subject to causality. 4) anything that takes 1 of 2 possible paths have choice (so a dog is free if he chews my shoes over sandals)Baby takes MCAT's Exam Im not forcing him to fail it, but I send him to an etrnity for Hell for it, When I know he will only pass with luck (not choice). if he didnt pass then i should have known better. Maybe an abortion...
The existence of free will as proposed by the bible

We may be playing out according to what He sees, but He does not force us to do anything. We are still free to make choices. If I'm deciding between having fish or chicken for dinner, God knows that I'll go for the chicken, but He did not force me to choose the chicken. I had the free choice to do so.God also does not want anyone to perish, but all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), yet there are still those who reject Him and go to Hell. God does not force a choice on anyone. An atheist who rejects God's salvation has no one to blame but themselves, because we've been warned.Even a person with no arms has a future, and they are free to make decisions that will affect that future freely.
The existence of free will as proposed by the bible

If he knows what things will happen then we are just playing out according to his superior understanding, if we are just his plan in action, We have no choice.We start our life not knowing our arms are actually us, and that they're attached. That is learned in time. If god knows us better than we do, then it is really just him that we mistaking for us. The contradiction is that we are operating with a brain that has only one means of understanding, "Relating". By this linear model of relating over time, its mutually exclusive to assume that the state of the brain in Time(A) can ever know the state of the brain in Time(B). If we are anything it along for the ride, patterns in patterns.If you believe in Free Will then don't picture an orange
The existence of free will as proposed by the bible

I don't have very many characters to works with, so I'll get right to it. God is all-knowing. He knows everything, even what will happen in the future (1 John 3:20, Daniel 2:45). There are also times in which God has set things into motion, which could not be changed (Jeremiah 1:5). However, this was the exception and not the rule. Just because God knows what will happen does not mean it must happen that way. If I know you're going to the store next Saturday, you can still change those plans. The difference being that God knows whether you will change your plans or not. God does not force anyone to do anything, He just knows what things will happen.
The existence of free will as proposed by the bible

I challenge any who propose that the Christian deity, and Free Will are anything but mutually exclusive. The bible is full of contradictions, this is just one example that comprises a married, bachelor contradiction. In the case of gods existence, the theist must admit that god had only itself to use. A perfect being that makes imperfect beings, is doing so with the fullest of intention taking away our choice to be imperfect in whatever way we have been designed and placed. In short If god has superior foreknowledge, someone dying an atheist, would be serving an eternal punishment by gods design, or intentional lack there of. Just a little something to dress your straw men.
Christopher Columbus is less remembered becouse of the mission failure.

But would that have happened without Columbus? Certainly. Columbus is not as remembered as one might think for being the first to "discover" North America because so many others could have don the same, and the consequences would have been the same. Columbus was not even proving that the earth was round, as the intellectual elite of Europe at that time had knowledge of this, passed down from the Ancient Greeks. Columbus is significant as a point in history, but as an explorer himself he pales in comparison to others whose exploits were far greater than his. Had he truly reached Asia from Europe he might well have been better remembered, because the effects would have been more immediate - Christopher in reality did not make contact with any of the great nations or empires of the Americas. In fact, Christopher was not the first to arrive in the Americas, what with the Vikings in ca. 1000 CE and (possibly) a Chinese vessel in ca. 1422 CE.
Christopher Columbus is less remembered becouse of the mission failure.

Although Columbus' explorations may have led to industrialization and capitalism, his immediate effects were far less dramatic. On an immediate level, Columbus did in fact very little and this is why his explorations are less flaunted than those of other explorers who do not necessarily mark critical points in history but did do a lot of exploring, and achieved their purposes. One might suggest that the creation of the first European settlements in North America and thus the beginning of the exploitation of their resources was what caused the eventual usage of those resources to transfer from feudalism to capitalism. Columbus marks an important point in that transition, but anyone else could have marked that point and who knows what could have happened if Columbus did, in fact, open up a trade route to the east. Had Columbus begun trade with the east rather than "discovering" the Americas, industrialization and capitalism might have occurred regardless due to the competitive nature of feudal Europe at that time. In fact, other civilizations became capitalist/industrialist without having to exploit the resources of an entire continent. Feudal countries have become capitalist without the help of resource exploitation, examples of this range from capitalism in the medieval Islamic world to capitalism in mid - 19th century medieval Japan, although one could argue that the latter was influenced by Europe. However, there is no saying that trade between west and east couldn't have had dramatic effects as did colonialism, and there is no saying that this could not have increased the possibility of the rise of mercantilism and merchant capitalism just as colonialism did. Columbus, as I have argued, might have been just as remembered, if not more, if he had connected east and west, maybe even more so depending upon what you would put in place of North America, although that can be left to the realm of speculative fiction.