BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Advantages and Disadvantages of Solar Energy

List of disadvantages of solar energy: -High setup cost The equipment involved in the harnessing of solar energy is quite expensive. This can be attributed to the cost of the relatively expensive semi-conducting materials that are used to manufacture them. http://www.greenphillyblog.com... -Large space requirement The installations require a large area in order to attain an acceptable efficiency level. Areas with limited space or where space is expensive are usually disadvantaged. -Inconsistency Solar energy is also associated with inconsistency and unreliability. For instance, solar energy systems often depend on uninterrupted solar energy absorption from photons, but there can be frequent interruption of the photons. Sunlight availability is influenced by factors like latitude, clouds and night. https://www.smartwatt.com... -Can be hazardous if mishandled Some of the substances used in the manufacture of these systems include Cadmium and Lead. Cadmium is not harmful when inside the solar panel seals but if it leaks, it can cause great damage to the environment. Lead is toxic and it is present in most batteries that that are included in solar energy installations to ensure uninterrupted power supply. -Unattractive Solar panels are mostly installed on roofs to utilize the wide sunlit area. Many people may be reluctant to fix large panels on there attractive roofs. The orientation of the roof and the roofing material used may also deter home owners from carrying out this installations. -Low efficiency Solar panels absorb only part of the light and heat from the sun. Most of the solar panels available in the market have their highest efficiency rate of max 22 percent. https://greentumble.com... This implies that the remaining 80 percent of the solar energy is wasted. -Panel deterioration Materials used in the manufacture of panels are always exposed to various unfavorable conditions. The panels are gradually deteriorated by ultraviolet radiation,rain, fluctuation in temperature, snow, hail ,dirt, and wind.
Egoism is better then Utilitarianism

Negations:N1) Simple and easy do not equal better. It is easy to hate someone for a past wrong and it is our nature and habit to do so. It is harder to forgive which is the decent thing to do. In fact, many good things are harder to do. Ever heard the phrase "Sometimes its hard to do the right thing"? 2. This is incorrect. Egoism is the complete focus on oneself. Your family would never even cross your mind if practicing true egoism in the situation presented. Egoism focuses on the individual in the here and now. Thinking ahead about your family and future total happiness would be a form of utilitarianism which you have then admitted is better. N2) This is not the case. True egoism focuses on the individual only. Your family would again not be a factor in your actions. Helping others after yourself no longer falls within the realm of egoism and you have moved into something else. Once you start helping your family you are no longer practicing egoism and therefore it cannot be used in this debate. N3) Once you stop helping yourself and start helping someone else you've started practicing altruism and not egoism. Net Happiness"Utilitarianism is meant to bring the most happiness for a group of people but in many cases this fails to happen as in the case when it comes to picking between saving a hundred people you don't know and 50 of your closest friends, if people truly followed utilitarianism they would save the hundred, but because of human emotion and egoism most chose the 50 friends. "100>5050 more people benefit from saving the strangers than if you help your 50 friends. You are confused because utilitarianism focuses on the net happiness overall and not on the individual. Your individual happiness does not factor into the net happiness level. In this scenario utilitarianism is better because it saves twice as many people and therefore generates twice as much happiness making it better. Since utilitarianism generates more net happiness than egoism it is the better of the two. Egoism cannot compete. Thank you.
Egoism is better then Utilitarianism

Good luck! Rebuttals: R1) Doing something of habit would be easier then something not of habit there for making it better because it can be done easier and simpler. R1 point 2) If the man were truly fallowing egoism he would realize that the brief satisfaction leads to major discomfort while the brief want will lead to years of happiness with his family and not sleep with the woman because it wouldn't give the man as much happiness in the long run. R2)if the person were related to you (as is most likely the case) then it would be to your advantage to help them because of your love for them, if not related to you (also a very likely case) then helping them is still to your advantage because you would be avoiding any chance of guilt. therefore, the egotistical man can still help others after himself. R3) I see your point of altruism. Altruism-The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. With altruism I have to point out some things I said in R2 about how I could be in your own self interest and happiness to help someone else. R4) I high self esteem will make it easier to reach happiness overall and there for does help the case of egoism over utilitarianism. Net Happiness observations: I know go on record saying I agree that Happiness should be the way to pick which is better, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Agreed that egoism focuses on making ones self happy. Utilitarianism is meant to bring the most happiness for a group of people but in many cases this fails to happen as in the case when it comes to picking between saving a hundred people you don't know and 50 of your closest friends, if people truly followed utilitarianism they would save the hundred, but because of human emotion and egoism most chose the 50 friends. Concerning you example I refer back to my R1 point 2 Utilitarianism though is meant to make happiness fails more often then egoism and therefore, because egoism fails left often and provides happiness for you and those closest to you (because if those closest to you are sad you are sad, so you would make them happy to help you self) it is better. Utilitarianism once again doesn't always generate more happiness. Conclusion: Therefore, Egoism is better than Utilitarianism. Thank you.
Egoism is better then Utilitarianism

I will be arguing that egoism is better then utilitarianism for a few basic reasons 1) As it says in Philosophy. lander. edu on the ethics page discussing egoism, Egoism is a natural habit that you should do, though not all people are required to, you should . http://philosophy.lander.edu... 2) Air plane oxygen mask, Assist yourself before the person next to you. the reason it says this is because you must have your own self safe before you can assist others, or you can end up hurting yourself and the other person 3) Just because egoism is better, that doesn't mean you cant do the utilitarian thing after. once your self-interest is met you can help others with out hurting your self. but egoism is better simply because its the first step and without it you cant properly follow the utilitarianism value 4) Egoism builds self-esteem and self-worth just as much as, if not more then, utilitarianism because its less stress to only worry about your self and not everyone else around you too. I now hand over the round to the Con. Thank you again for accepting as this is my first debate and I was worried I had chosen a bad topic.
LOD (logic only debate): murder is an expression of sympathy

I'm sorry to hear that my opponent cannot continue! I hope we can pick this up another time. 1. Inanimate objects cannot murder people. They can be used by other people to murder, however they themselves are incapable of committing murders. 2. Since my opponent cannot prove that murderers kill for the said reasons, he cannot make the generalization that murderers kill out of sympathy for themselves. 3. Eh, boredom. Well, Pro, it's been fun while it lasted! Thanks for your interesting arguments and good sense of humor. Goodbye to you! :)
LOD (logic only debate): murder is an expression of sympathy

sadly, I wont be able to continue this debate, this will be my last post, I give the win to my opponent. However, I don't intend on letting his/her arguments stand >:) 1) "Inanimate objects cannot "express" anything," Yes they can, they can express sympathy by murdering someone. 2) " Murderers do not generally kill in order to help their victim, or even out of sympathy; they usually kill for selfish reasons. " Oh? Is that the case? Well then, it seems murderers kill out of sympathy to themselves, which makes the resolution true. 3) "This point is really kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. " Indeed, I don't know why you bothered. Concluding, Its been a really fun debate, I'm really sorry that I am unable to continue, best of luck to my opponent for future debates. Goodbye! :) PS.
LOD (logic only debate): murder is an expression of sympathy

I enjoyed reading his first arguments. Opponent's Argument 1: Inanimate objects cannot "express" anything, let alone sympathy or care, as my opponent claims. The expression of any feeling, including sympathy, is only possible through consciousness. Literally speaking, nothing that lacks a functioning brain can possess consciousness"therefore inanimate objects, ideas, and experiences cannot express sympathy; we can only perceive it as so. (By the way, I definitely (and unfortunately) know what you mean with the brainwashing thing! ) Opponent's Argument 2: My opponent is correct in saying that murder is not always necessarily depriving the victim of life, but awarding them with death"however, the majority of the murders that are committed are not done so out of sympathy. Murderers do not generally kill in order to help their victim, or even out of sympathy; they usually kill for selfish reasons. They often kill for money, relationships, drugs, religion, acceptance, fun, hatred, anger, happiness"None of which involve sympathy for the victim. Very seldom do murderers take action on the behalf of their victims--Jack Kevorkian being an exception (along with several others). Opponent's Argument 3: This point is really kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. The motives of the people/groups he has mentioned have nothing to do with whether or not murder is an expression of sympathy. We can never be sure, obviously. .. But I tend to think Hitler"s reasons for killing were more for himself than they were for those he killed.
LOD (logic only debate): murder is an expression of sympathy

Humans are not the only things that can express sympathy. Sympathy is a show of care, something that anything can do. The intents and purposes behind shows of sympathy are usually attributed to human beings, but that arises out of media brainwashing and brainwashing in the education system. To give my opponent an example of how pronounced this brainwashing is, I will use examples from my own school. They teach that: a) The earth is round b) The moon is not made of cheese c) Pythagoras theorem is a valid approach to dissecting the mathematics behind a triangle. (Preposterous, how can there be maths hiding BEHIND a 2D shape? ) going back to my argument, anything can show care to a human, care is shown by most things in the form of death, sweet lovely death. A respite to the horrors and pains of life. Most things have the ability to show this form of care to a human, so in that case, the resolution is true. 2) Murder is not what you think it to be. Most people think that murder is killing someone without their permission(or with it, in many cases), I argue that murder is actually just answering someones plea for help. When someone is alive, they are forced against their will by their brain to survive, so to properly attain freewill, someone must be dead. So if we killed someone, then asked them if they wanted to die, we could safely assume that we would get the correct answer. Hence, we should kill every human alive so we can find out if they actually wanted to be alive. My bets that not a single person will say yes. 3) Previous people who have held on to this philosophy have changed the world. Some of the most notable people who have caused change due to this philosophy include: Hitler The Mongolian Emperor Early cave men Hitler caused a very big change to the way we think. Nowadays, I can be arrested for making sounds similar to this one: N-a-z-i. Thats how pronounced his change was. The mongrel was famous for collecting human ideas and making them vanish. he also had a talent for turning life into non-life on a global scale. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to do that again? The cavemen were the foundations of human civilization. I will hear nothing bad said about them on pain of life. Concluding, I hope I have convinced everyone that I must be right, true, I may have strayed from the rules a bit, but lets take a philosophical approach to it: Rules are there to be broken. .. -by me. So I don't encourage my opponent to be me in his/her next post but I can't exactly tell anyone to follow the rules, how can you follow something intangible? Look forward to hearing from Con.
LOD (logic only debate): murder is an expression of sympathy

Neither my stance on the subject nor my arguments necessarily reflect my personal opinion--I will be opposing your points for the sake of the debate. So even if I agree with you, I'm not going to admit it. Instead, I will continue to deny it on the basis of my own arguments and pretend that you're incorrect. May the games begin, and good luck to my opponent! :) *Intimidating voice* I await your arguments.
LOD (logic only debate): murder is an expression of sympathy

The resolution is a good eye-opener I hope. In this debate I wish to have a little fun with logic and philosophy, so If you find that you are a practical thinker please don't accept. If you do accept, don't hesitate to use humor to support your arguments, and please provide thought provoking material, not literal garbage. Definitions are unnecessary, semantics are allowed. Don't troll or do anything like it, or else i will express my sympathy to you, and other than that, good luck! :D ....................../""/) ....................,/"../ .................../..../ ............./""/'...'/"""`"" ........../'/.../..../......./""\ ........('(..."...".... "~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........'...\.......... _."" ............\..............( ..............\.............\...
knowledge beats belief

I just believe... The word “Faith” is Grade-A final vocabulary, the ultimate way to stop wondering. Faith is considered a virtue, perhaps the highest virtue of all, and as such “I just have faith” is a proudly virtuous way of saying you’re done wondering. We don’t feel or experience faith, we have it, as though it’s a permanent possession. Your faith is with you always, not in waves of certainty amidst your doubts, but a conviction made and held once and for all. As a final vocabulary, faith is perhaps most useful when it’s left vague and ill-defined. People often simply say, “I have faith” without specifying what exactly they have faith in. Positive, Ill defined and without specifics it can be used to hault wondering about anything and everything. According to psychology, we all have faith in faith. We respect it and defer to it. When people say, “I have faith,” we are likely to stop questioning them, or at least lighten up. * Empirical studies of many groups dealing with major life stressors such as natural disaster, illness, loss of loved ones, divorce and serious mental illness show that religion and spirituality are generally helpful to people in coping, especially people with the fewest resources facing the most uncontrollable of problems. However, there are many forms of religious coping, and some are more helpful than others. People can draw on many religious and spiritual resources that have been tied to better adjustment in times of crisis. These positive religious coping methods include spiritual support from God or a higher power, rituals to facilitate life transitions, spiritual forgiveness, support from a religious institution or clergy and reframing a stressful situation into a larger, more benevolent system of meaning. * https://www.psychologytoday.com... www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/03/religion-spirituality.aspx * So, let's take a look at vi_spex. He has been in 557 debates and won..........69... If his win to loss ratio is indicative of anything, and he is claiming "knowledge", then knowledge is not beating anything. He claims some kind of knowledge while I claim belief. Vi_spex's rebuttle was: "You have defined retardation.. congrats." This is a negative rhetoric, a negative vocabulary, a negative viewpoint. Vi_spex has shown us a negative psychological characteristic called "Polarizing." You see things only as either good or bad. There is no middle ground. You feel that things have to be perfect or they are a total failure. http://www.mayoclinic.org... self-talk: Vi_spex has also shown us an example of "Filtering." This is when you magnify the negative aspects of a situation and filter out all of the positive ones. http://www.mayoclinic.org...
knowledge beats belief

"My attitude is that if you push me towards something that you think is a weakness, then I will turn that perceived weakness into a strength." -Michael Jordan "You are what you believe you are" video- http://youtu.be... * When people have a shared belief system, they are hard to beat. Belief systems unite. Belief systems give deeper meaning. Belief wins every time. What is knowledge? Knowledge today can become archaic bs tomorrow. "Glenn Beck. Belief wins every time" video- http://youtu.be... * Concerning the student loan debt crisis, people obtained knowledge. They went to school. They obtained information...and they became nothing. All that knowledge; nothing to show for it. Knowledge got them absolutely nothing. "Student debt Crisis" video- http://youtu.be... * Michael Jordan is known by many As the best basketball player of all time. He won 6 NBA Championships, 1 college national championship (of which he hit the game winning shot, and 2 olympic gold medals. "I've never lost a game I just ran out of time." -Michael Jordan "Never say never, because limits, like fears, are often just an illusion." -Michael Jordan * Peyton Manning was a 2 time Superbowl champion, played in 4 superbowls, and was a 5 time NFL MVP. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... "I committed my life to Christ, and that faith has been most important to me ever since." -Peyton Manning http://youtu.be...
If a woodchip is broken in half it becomes 2 pieces of a woodchip not 2 woodchips

First off, the definition from Wiktionary stands by the argument in saying wood chips are all mechanically produced. My opponent definition of wood chip may mean they are sometimes manufactured but what I am trying to argue is that a non natural, but mechanically produced wood chip is manufactured and once it is broken in half it is no longer the whole manufactured wood chip, and my opponent keeps using the general wood chip. So the water analogy does not work because you cannot accurately compare something non solid to a solid, or anything non manufactured to a manufactured source. I do agree with the fact that a wood chip that weighs 50 grams is no less a whole wood chip that one that weighs 100 grams, however this does not go against my argument either because a manufactured wood chip can vary in size, and shape, but doesn't change the fact that it is a whole manufactured wood chip just based on the fact one is bigger than the other. So this argument has nothing against my argument. In response to what my opponent says about my logic being self-contradicting makes no sense at all, because in the situation I state that my opponent stating, "By my opponent's logic, there is no such thing as a complete wood chip. This is true in two ways. ", is not supported because of the fact that I state in my argument the fact that my logic agrees with the existence of a "whole" wood chip. If my original definitions are not enough here is the definition of Manufactured via . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 1 : to make into a product suitable for use 2 a : to make from raw materials by hand or by machinery b : to produce according to an organized plan and with division of labor c : prefabricate 3 : invent, fabricate 4 : to produce as if by manufacturing : create and the definition of Wood Chip is as it stands from . http://en.wiktionary.org... A small mechanically produced piece (chip) of wood, generally from 0,5 to 10 cm by diameter, used primarily as raw material for pulp, paper and construction boards, as well as fuel and mulch. So when you put the two together, as I am trying to argue about a Manufactured Wood Chip and not a natural one, it is these are Chips of wood that are taken from their natural state, and used to create an organized plan. So once that manufactured wood chip used for an organized plan is broken in half it is no longer a manufactured wood chip that can be used for what is intended. My opponent keeps stating a wood chip is not always manufactured, but my argument is intended to be about manufactured wood chips themselves, but as I said before not mentioning that in the title is at my dismay. Nonetheless I have made it clear that this is what I intended since the second argument when my opponent argues about natural wood chips.
If a woodchip is broken in half it becomes 2 pieces of a woodchip not 2 woodchips

Against my opponents definition I have an opposing definition as made clear by http://en.wiktionary.org... A small mechanically produced piece (chip) of wood, generally from 0,5 to 10 cm by diameter, used primarily as raw material for pulp, paper and construction boards, as well as fuel and mulch. So as it says it is a mechanically produced piece of wood. My subject may not have been specific enough, which is at my own dismay, but I meant a mechanically produced wood chip, such as those used as protective playground flooring. With that argument against my opponents quote, "Let us take the analogy of an unspecified quantity of water: when this liquid is divided into two separate amounts, they are both still unspecified quantities of water -- and not pieces of a larger unspecified quantity of water." It is obvious that the water, the liquid itself, is not manufactured and is not an applicable analogy to a solid considering it is in fact a liquid. My opponent also states, "By my opponent's logic, there is no such thing as a complete wood chip. This is true in two ways.", which is nowhere in my argument in fact I am saying nothing contradicting the fact that a complete wood chip exists, but the sheer fact that once a complete manufactured wood chip is separated the pieces left are considered pieces of the original manufactured wood chip and not two separate manufactured wood chips. Also another definition from http://www.lenzing.com... states, Wood chips are defined as wood reduced to small pieces according to norm. They are produced from round wood or as a by-product of saw logs. So the wood chip is actually produced from round wood or wood in its norm, which means that once it is a wood chip it is no longer in its normal state so if the wood chip is broken the pieces will not be considered wood chips.