The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Intermediate's Debate Competition R1: US Gov should implement solar road highways within the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,266 times Debate No: 42958
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)




This debate is a part of the Intermediate Debate Tournament, R1, instituted by TUF.

As Pro, I will be arguing the following position:

Resolved: The United States federal government should implement solar road highways within the United States boarders.

Debate Structure:
R1: Acceptance
R2: Opening Contentions
R3: Rebuttals and Rebuilding Contentions
R4: Rebuttals, Rebuilding Contentions, and Closing Statements

In addition, if Con is not satisfied with the structure of the debate, he may make suggestions to alter the arrangement in the first round.

I look forward to a thoughtful, respectful debate. Good luck!


I hereby accept this debate. Lets begin.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, a big thanks to Con for accepting and I look forward to a thoughtful, respectful debate.

Secondly, my absolute sincerest apologies. I feel the quality and length of this round could have been much better. We are in the midst of moving and whatever I managed to get to in between packing/unpacking boxes is written below. Thus, the content is very simple, and limited (particularly the environmental benefits which I didn't have time to get into as much as I would have preferred.) Hopefully the coming days will be a little less hectic and once again, my apologies. I hope the simplicity of the first round can be pardoned and apologize if it is an inconvenience.

Let's get started.

I will be debating in favor of the implementation of solar road highways within the US.

First, a brief explanation of what a solar roadway would entail:
A solar roadway is a road surface that generates electricity by solar power photovoltaics. [1] The idea, according to the company Solar Roadways, is to replace existing asphalt roads, highways, parking lots, and driveways with solar road panels.
Each panel, 12'*12', would consist of three layers. The top layer is the road surface, the middle layer (also known as the electronics layer) contains the microprocessor board, and the base plate layer distributes the power collected. Both the top and bottom layers are weatherproof in order to protect the electronic pieces between them.

Contention 1: Safety

The solar road panels provide many benefits, one being increased safety on the roads. The surface layer of the roadways will be textured in such a way that it increases traction, allowing tires to grip the surface with more durability. [2] In addition, LED lights will be included within the surface layer, designed to light up roads at night and create electronic highway signals, alerting drivers of weather conditions or any interferences on the road. [3] The solar roads also contain a heating element, that could warm up in cold weather to melt snow and ice, preventing cities form shutting down during bad weather, such as heavy snowstorms.[1] [4] Such implementation could go a long way in preventing accidents, and increasing overall security for drivers and pedestrians alike.

Contention 2: Economy

Being of renewable energy, solar roadways are generally self-maintained and will ultimately end up paying for the cost of production and repairs of the panels. The amount of energy gathered and stored would provide excess electricity that could be sold, thus becoming self sufficient. [3] Another benefit to the economy involves employment. New jobs would be created in the manufacturing of panels. The Solar Roadways website [5] estimates that in regards to panel production alone, the implementation of these highways could result in 2.5 million full time jobs for at least a ten year period.

Contention 3: Environmental Benefits

Solar energy has obvious benefits on the environment, and such a large scale operation offers a wide range of benefits as well. The most obvious among them is eliminating the necessity of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere in order to produce electricity.
Another, less conventional, idea involves the increasing production of electric cars. Though currently electronic cars have a relatively short range and must be recharged often, the implementation of solar roadways could eliminate that. Owners of EV's can plug their cars into solar road panels and recharge them at rest stops . Engineers are currently evaluating the possibility of charging cars as they drive. The increased use of EV's and solar road highways could theoretically eliminate the need for oil as an energy source. [6]

Contention 4: Convenience
There are several reasons why the utilization of solar road panels are convenient.
1) Durability. [1]
The life span of these panels are estimated to be about 30-40 years, about three times the life span of current asphalt roads (7-12 years).
2) Panels can be built upon the roadways that are already in place. [1]
The current roadways can be used, destroying them to put the solar panels in place is not necessary.

I'm running against the deadline here with five minutes to post. So, a quick spell check and up it goes.

Looking forward to Con's arguments.



First I'll start off with my case then go on to my opponent's.

Contention 1. Environment

Via the debate topic we can assume that the US federal government will be making solar roads, but you might just ask yourself "What are these solar panels made from?" Well I have the answer, Jelly Fish proteins. The reason for this is that Jelly fish proteins are the cheapest and easiest to use when making solar panels since they absorb light. ( and These are also known as solar cells and it has been proved that solar highways use these solar cells and according to one of the Co-inventor of solar road ways, Scott Brusaw, he has stated that these highways will need 3 layers of the solar celled panels. (

Now you must be asking yourself why is this important? Well it is on the matter of fact that the over fishing of jelly fish will lead to the collapse of the fishing industry and not just in the US, but in Japan as well. Due to already over fishing the jellyfish population has increased 6 fold since the year 2002! ( This has resulted in the loss of jobs, industry revenue loss, decline in fish prices (which is what can kill the fishing industry), and putting beach goers and fishermen lives in danger. ( So you can see here that not only does it hurt the environment, but it comes around to hurting the economy and the average Joe.

Also to remove existing roads it will be deadly to the atmosphere! Solar panels use NF3 which warms the atmosphere 17000 more times than CO2! ( So may I ask what environment positive affects does this actually have?! They are also ineffeciate at collecting energy which they only collect 14% of what they receive (

Contention 2. Economy

(this is adding to what has been added from the last contention) According to Investors Business Daily they have reported, "Three years ago, when Obama's Department of Energy started approving roughly $16 billion in federal loan guarantees for solar energy companies, the DOE agreed to put taxpayers' money behind startups that were working on ways to make solar panels cheaper. Two, Solyndra and Abound, have now gone belly-up." ( We can already see that the federal government has tried their hands at solar roads and green energy, but they have failed!

Here is another bomb shell. Brusaw, the co-inventor of solar roads, have stated that it would cost $5,000 per square foot of road and that there it might fail. ( When the founder states that it might fail and it's going to be costly then it seems like a waste of money and a major strain on the economy that is just now getting out of a recession and starting to recover

Investors have already estimated face loss of billions if this plan goes into effect (

No onto my opponent's arguments (except for the two arguments that I've already attack in my contentions)

Contention 3. Safety

My opponent brings up that they are safe, but lets think about one things everyone hates, pot holes! According to Discovery current solar panels are not durable and creating ones that are would sky rocket their prices and the up keep would send profits into the tubes! (

Another thing that my opponent has failed to factor in is glare! Yes, glare. We have solar panels so with the light shinning on the panels we will see that the number of accidents will increase due to glare. (

Debate Round No. 2


A big thanks to my opponent for his responses. Let's get right to it.

Rebuttal 1: Jellyfish

As this (the farming of jellyfish) was a rather unconventional argument, and not one I was familiar with, I began my research from the sites Con sourced. After reading both articles several times, it is revealed that the increasing number of jellyfish has nothing to do with overfishing of jellyfish, but overfishing other species of fish. As predators of the jellyfish decrease in number (due to overfishing), the jellyfish population increases. Further reading proves that it is precisely the sheer number of jellyfish that would cause the issues Con mentions (loss of jobs, danger in the water, decline in fish prices, etc.). As such, using jellyfish protein would seem to have the opposite effect Con proposes, actually benefiting the fishing industry tremendously by removing unwanted and burdensome jellyfish from the areas.

Rebuttal 2: Removal of Existing Roads

As stated in round one, one of the many conveniences in building solar roadways is that the panels can be built on top of the asphalt roads. The removal of existing roads in unnecessary.

Rebuttal 3: NF3 in the Atmosphere

While it is true that NF3 warms the atmosphere about 17,000 more times than CO2, it's important to note in what context it is being used. Firstly, the solar panels themselves don't produce the gas; the use of a solar power wouldn't be emitting any nitrogen trifluoride. The NF3 is used during the production of solar panels and there are many options available to reduce emissions.
In addition, the majority of solar panels don't actually even use NF3. It is only used in a particular kind of panel that is not common.

Rebuttal 4 and Rebuilding Contentions: Economy

As a rebuttal, I'd like to turn our attention to the Golden Gate Bridge. This suspension bridge allows travelers to cross the three mile distance between San Francisco to Marin County. It has been declared one of the 'Wonders of the Modern World'.
The reason I bring this up is because the construction of this bridge started in 1933 and was completed in 1937. This places the time frame right at the heart of the Great Depression. Even during the time of economic despair, great things were in the process of being made. Just because economic times are hard for us now should not prevent us from paving the way to a brighter future. And while there must obviously be limitations (self-preserving ice cream isn't our priority), the sheer number of benefits solar roadways offer make them a worthwhile pursuit.
First of all, running the solar-energy route means that these panels will pay for their cost over time. Secondly, by implementing solar panels as roads, we'd be able to cut back/eliminate costs on asphalt roads, power plants, and power and data delivery systems. There would also be additional costs saved by solar roadways in health insurance. The many possibilities of the solar roadway include illuminating night roads, automatic removal of snow and ice, and pedestrian/ wildlife avoidance systems which will inevitably lead to safer driving conditions, further eliminating costs of production.
Most importantly, the same tax money that is used to build, repair and resurface roads can instead be put into building solar road panels. All in all, the implementation of solar roadways can not only pay for itself overtime, but save countless costs along the way as well, while creating a cleaner environment, less pollution, safer driving conditions, eliminating oil dependency and providing a road that pays for itself.

Also, in response to Brusaw stating that the road might fail, the website cited says no such thing. The website also admits that though it might take several years, the return on investments will eventually cover the costs. For such large returns, it seems to be worth the effort.

Rebuttal 5: Durable Solar Panels

The solar website cited doesn't say that the panels aren't durable, but that the 'full extent of their durability is unknown'. The solar panels themselves are being tested now and retested in laboratories. They will only be implemented once they are proven to be strong enough to carry the necessary loads. The website mentioned also does not say that creating durable panels will skyrocket prices, nor does it say up keep will more or less eliminate profits.

Rebuttal 6: Glare

The design for the panel is to be shatterproof and glare proof.

Rebuilding Contention: Environment and Energy Production

My opponent mentioned that solar panels only collect 14% of what they receive. Scott Brusaw estimates that they will have 18.5% efficiency and with that assumption, plus an average of only four hours optimum sunlight a day, he calculates that the panels would produce 13,961 billion kilowatt-hours. That figure is after subtracting 31% from the total number due to lack of slant in the solar panels.

Brusaw estimates that this is enough to produce three times the electricity we have ever used! And that solar roadways placed in driveways and parking lots could power not just the roads, but homes and businesses!

I'd like to once again thank my opponent for his thoughtful answers. Looking forward to his response.


Contention 1: Jellyfish

My opponent tries to turn this on me, but she doesn't seem to be getting the point here. Over hunting the jellyfish will not help it will just desturb the ballance and threaten the ecosystem again. You see orginally we have this problem because of overfishing, but if we attack jellyfish it will lead to an increase of HAB (harmful alge blooms) which release poisionous chemicals killing the ecosystem around them! ( Jellyfish eat the alge and the phytoplankton which keeps the ecosytem up. ( The jellyfish help keep them under control keeping the ecosystem from collapsing and we all know that the ocean has absorb half of all man made CO2 pollution and destroying that will spead up Global warming up drematticly which outweighs Pro's benefits. (

Contention 2: NF3

Actaully according to a study done by Ray Weiss and his team at the University of California–San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography most companies do use NF3. The reason that most companies state they do not have it is that most of the NF3 is either destroyed or reused, but not all of it is! The ammount that escapes to the atmosphere is 4-16%, is still overall a terrible thing because it warms our atmosphere 17,000 times more than CO2! Over the span of 30 years the NF3 levels have increase from .02 parts per trillion to .452 parts per trillion in 2008 and this is due to our lust for green energy. They also find that it is growing at the rate of 11% per year! We must counter this number not skyrocket it this is exactly what Pro's plan is going to do! ( and (

Contention 3: The Economy

Though this plan seems to good to be true Pro still hasn't answered the world's most important questions. Where are we getting this money? How much will it cost all together? When and where will it take place? Who will be adminstrating the plan? You see these are some important economical questions that can't go unanswered. You see we are just getting out of a recession. Republicans in the House would most definately block this plan asking for millions per mile when you have no money left in the reserve and trillions of dollars in debt it looks impossible like this plan would be popular. You can also see that we are trying to reduce our debt in the US (as rediculious as that might seem), but we want numbers to go down not up in those figures and a plan like this we want money back pronto. As extend across my solar arguement from last round. Obama has given the green industry money and they've gone bankrupt! Proving that this plan fails when funded via the federal government!

Contention 4: The Envirnment

You can easily tie this with my ecosystem/ jellyfish arguement. You can see that it is not very efficant. The inventor predicted it's failure which can't be good and though it produce good clean energy it has a few other things that come along with it causing the disadvantages to outweigh the advantages.

At the end of the day solar roads gives you energy, an increased debt, probably won't pass or work due to banruptcy, and they destroy the envirnment with NF3, and overfishing jellyfish causing an alge boom that kills the ecosytem.
Debate Round No. 3


Fast response! Thanks!

Rebuttal 1: Jellyfish

While it is an interesting argument, it is also a speculative one. There are at least three problems with this argument. One, of all the sources cited, not even one implies that the use of jellyfish in any projects at all will disturb the ecosystem. Two, no one has said that every jellyfish or (even the majority of jellyfish) will be needed to make the solar panels for this project. Three, we don't even know that Scott Brusaw is using jellyfish proteins in his solar roadways.

Ultimately, if, in fact, jellyfish are being used for their proteins, they will not become extinct, and whatever is being used will also put a dent in the disastrous economical impact Con mentioned in Round 2, concerning the large swarms of jellyfish.

Rebuttal 2: NF3

Though there was no source for the CSDS Institution of Oceanography study, let's assume for a minute that most companies DO use NF3 and that Scott Brusaw WILL be using it in his solar panel pieces. Let's look a little at the history of NF3. It was never thought to have such high global warming potential. With that considered, companies weren't too concerned with how much was being released into the atmosphere. It is only recently that they have been able to measure the atmospheric concentration of the gas, where they discovered the effect is was having on the environment. Greenhouse Gas Emissions have now amended their standards to include NF3 on their list of gas emissions in order to combat that.

Meaning that, once again, assuming Scott Brusaw actually IS using NF3 in his panels, his company will be required to meet a certain emission standard during production. The previous emissions of this gas weren't the spiteful intentions of fraudulent green-energy managers. It was due to lack of knowledge within the scientific community about the ramifications of nitrogen-trifluoride. They have now taken steps to reduce that. (

I'd like to point out however, that it is still disputable whether or not NF3 will even be used in solar panels, and, specifically, the ones used on solar roadways. According to the World Resources Institute: "NF3 is used in a relatively small number of industrial processes. It is primarily produced in the manufacture of semiconductors and LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) panels, and CERTAIN TYPES of solar panels and chemical lasers. " (Emphasis added). (

Rebuttal 3: Economy

My opponent brings up valid questions in regards to the financial aspect of implementing solar road panels. Some questions at this time cannot be answered definitively, but only speculated. Solar Roadways, the company created by Scott Brusaw was awarded a $100,000 research contract in 2009 to produce a prototype solar road panel. After successful completion, the company received a follow-up grant to take it to the next step by implementing a solar road parking lot. ( The company in question is currently in this phase II (solar road parking lot). Until they receive further go ahead from the US Department of Transportation, many questions, including the total cost, when the construction will begin and take place, and who will be administering the plan can only be speculated.

As stated in the previous round, the initial startup can be funded using the money already set aside in taxes for transportation and even green energy. President Obama included $1.83 billion in his budget for funding major transit projects in 2010. ( An additional $16 billion in federal loan guarantees was granted to solar companies. (

The Solar Roadways website lists at least five possible ways for generating revenue from the solar roads:
1) Electricity generation
2) Transportation of cleaned waters to municipalities and/or agricultural centers
3) Leasing conduit to entities (Telephone service, Internet, cable, etc.)
4) Advertising in the road with the LED's
5) Charging companies and/or people to recharge electric vehicles (in place of gas)

The company came up with the following, and this is worst case scenario: The company bases revenue on electricity generation alone, targets the cost at $10,000 per panel (a generous figure - Brusaw estimates the panels will be about $5,000-7,000), and assumes that the price of electricity will NOT increase in the coming years (thus bringing in more revenue). They conclude that based on such a scenario the panels will pay themselves off after 20 years. Once again, note that such limitations on the criteria make it very probable that the panels will pay themselves off well before that. This also is supposing that material cost for production don't decrease as they become more widespread. (

Stating that some green industries funded by Obama have gone bankrupt is proof that solar roads will fail when funded by the federal government is a non-sequitur. The companies in question were not creating solar roadways, rather involved in other forms of green energy, and the cause of the bankruptcy most probably had little to do with the fact that they were funded by the government.

Rebuttal 4: Environment

As I have already shown that farming jellyfish should not effect the environment negatively, (and if anything, it will be beneficial) that argument no longer stands. I also already stated in the previous round that the article in question did not quote the inventor predicting its failure, so that argument does not stand either.


Being a conservative myself, I often cast a skeptical eye on what may look to be costly and laborious projects. Solar Roadways, however, offers more than just a cool idea. They offer a new future. They offer added safety in all weather conditions by heating up the roads. They offer the possibility of eliminating oil as an energy source (which can decrease terrorist funding). They offer the opportunity for electric cars to be a realistic alternative to internal combustion engines. They will pay for themselves over time. The LED lights within the panels can warn drivers of impending wildlife, pedestrians, construction and accidents. They can produce 3 times the amount of electricity that is required in the United States. Solar roadways seem to be the epitomization of American creativity, productivity, and resourcefulness; they can pave the way (literally) to a brighter future.

I would like to thank my opponent for a thought-provoking, enjoyable and respectful debate.


Contention 1: Jellyfish

My opponent repetitively fails to respond to this argument throughout this debate. First I stated that the panels will use jellyfish proteins in round 2, ( then I showed that in the last round that killing off jellyfish leads to a massive amount of plankton build-up which causes an environmental collapse! My opponent states that Brusaw will not use them, but my opponent has been vague throughout the debate and has not stated how much road, how much cost, or where, so we can only assume that they will go cheap and use solar cells which are jellyfish proteins as stated before.

Pro states that this won't be a problem due to the swarms, but I told you a story in round 2 to tell you another story in round 3. The massive jellyfish population is having a hard fight to keep the plankton in line that if you start killing them you will see a massive plankton boom. This, as stated before, will damage the ecosystem.

Contention 2: NF3

My opponent said that there was no source given for the study, but let me repost it again since I had done so in the last round, but apparently Pro did not see it. ( and ( My opponent yet again makes an assumption when her assumptions are actually a reality! This study is real and the panels do use NF3. Yes there is certain amount of restraint, but that is here in the US. ( If you look the US is not the leader in solar panel producers and that means that we have to look to the leaders. According to the article the winners of that title is Australia and China. China the nation known for it's massive pollution known as smoggedon is one of the leaders and they do not care about the environment so that means my opponent's argument about regulations is invalid. ('s%20Pollution.pdf) As pointed out again that most panels use NF3 and most say they don't, because they don't release a highly large amount into the atmosphere. It's just like the food we eat. It can still have fat, but be called fat free just because it meets a government minimal standard.

Contention 3: Economy

My opponent brings up the funding so I shall now assault that. As I have brought up before in round 2. Obama gave solar panel companies big money ($16 billion), which is the amount Pro is stating and they have gone bankrupt. What makes Pro believe that this plan will even work when a similar one had been done and the two companies entrusted with this program had gone bankrupt! ( Secondly, the amount of money that was offered up was for solar companies, the money was meant to go around and be shared between many different solar companies not just Brusaw's project. The website Pro offers states that electricity will not, but that is not true. In 2008 it was found that it cost 2 cents per kilowatt to produce solar energy, but only cost .064 cents to produce a kilowatt of natural gas. ( So when the prices add up you can see that overall one that use to be on natural gas for their electricity will see an increase when it changes over to solar. This is a fact that outweighs Pro's speculation on the solar roadways site. Pro states that bringing up the example was invalid since it was not solar roads, but this point itself is invalid because it shows that they are like projects doing things that actually cost less than what Pro is predicting and still went bankrupt! This shows that a project like this cannot survive.

Contention 4: Environment

I have show that the over fishing of jellyfish will hurt the ecosystem and that the project will fail causing a loss in the fight against Global Warming due to the overproduction of NF3 in China and other nations. Just because the US is trying to save the environment doesn't mean that other nations are on board. The US will buy from China for this technology, because lets face it. In today's world almost everything is made in China.


In conclusion, we can see that we have to look at all the points of a solution when we try to fix a problem. Though it is project to produce tons of power we can actually see that when it is made abroad and even in the US it is produced with NF3 which warms the atmosphere 17000 times more than CO2 and when you compare the cost of living with those two power sources the cost of solar is much more than the cost of natural gas which will warm the Earth less than the NF3 that the panels produce. The panels also use jellyfish proteins, or also known as "solar cells", which an overhunt of the jellyfish will lead to a population boom of plankton which release dangerous chemicals which kill the ocean ecosystem around them. Plans like this have been tried before with the same amount of money and failed!

So if you enjoy mother nature and want to protect her for future generations and would also like to protect the economy while doing it. Then please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bullish 5 years ago
Dat RFD.
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
S/G- Pro

I know this seems pretty brutal. But I have voted on many of lannan"s debates, and this has been a consistent problem with his debates. One that I have even ignored at time in RFD"s. It"s safe to say that after even acknowledging this himself at time in the past, that this should no longer be a problem, however it STILL is" Time and time again, I have explained that simply clicking on the spell and grammar check button prior to reviewing the argument, could save the Pro a good point. For some reason, lannan still hasn"t learned to do this. Laziness does not pay off in a debate however. Again, I am sorry if this seems harsh lannan, but I hope you take this as genuine feedback and look to improve this in future debates, because you are a good debater. Your debating skill often gets undermined by the appearance of your arguments however and I think if you could improve in this area you would be taken a lot more seriously as a debater. In actuality, yes I can still read and interpret your argument, so in general is legibility the issue here? No. But this is a tournament debate, thus making the professional nature of the debate more serious, which is why I am giving this point to the Pro.

Despite my somewhat harsh feedback on both sides, I have to say that as a beginning impression of MoralityProfessor"s debating skills, I am very impressed." Keep it up, you did great! I hope you can take some of the feedback I have given you here and apply it to make you an even better debater! Lannan, you too. This is probably the best debate I have read from you. There are obviously a lot of things you can do to improve, but you are getting better in the argumentative area. First and foremost, I recommend a little extra time spent into researching your arguments, followed by proof reading. Good luck to both debaters in future debates to both of you! Cest La vie.
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
Sources- Pro

I like to be generous on source points, and would normally not award source points in a debate like this, but Con"s fatal flaw with understanding the jelly fish point really makes it unfair for Pro if I don"t give him either the conduct or sources point. I am not going to cast a conduct point against Con here, because I think it was a genuine mis-understanding and not intended to cast doubt on the reader"s ability to click on a link and read. But this also shows that his sources were fallible, and didn"t accurately represent the arguments he was making. Sources in a debate like this (non philosophy debate), are really important, and if you mess that up, I can"t see how I cannot give a source point to the opponent.
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
Onto the RFD:

When weighing this debate, there are several arguments that can go both ways.

Arguments- Pro

For example I think Pro easily wins Environment contentions based on mis-information and bad arguments from the Con, however Con debunked Pro"s Safety argument pretty well and many of the arguments still stand. The Economy point is where the debate is a little more complicated, because Pro did a great job of explaining the benefits and increased income post completion while Con focused more on attacking not having the money to begin with. While Con"s concerns are certainly important for this debate, I think there was more of an impact from the Pro"s side. The golden Gate Bridge analogy was pretty strong , and for me demonstrated that in order to fix a problem something at least needs to be done, rather than complaining further about the project. Con"s concern of "where this money comes from", is something that in reality would be pushed aside (as accredited by our national debt), but to me wasn"t an answer for paying back any of that national debt, where Pro proved that this is a probable option. The ONLY reason I am giving this argument to pro is because Con didn"t directly give enough evidence for me to believe that the benefit of this cannot be achieved. No sources or data that would seem to contradict that these goals could be completed were presented, meaning I am forced to have hope that the plan pro presented is real and plausible with that data she provided.
Posted by TUF 5 years ago

The first rebuttal that is entirely important is the embarrassing aspect that I was waiting to see if Pro would bring up, is that Con had mis-construed the information in his sources. It seemed almost like he was hoping the sources and the information would be taken at face value with the actual sources ignored. This rebuttal did numbers for me losing credibility in the Con"s arguments.

The next rebuttal I think worth honorable mention is the NF3 arguments. From weighing this argument, it appears that a problem is an imminent in building solar road ways. Pro did a good job at de-escalating the problem, but at the end of the argument, it remains that the problem will still be present, and is therefore something worth evaluating in any official decision, especially during the construction period.

I"ll save the impact some of these rebuttals had for me in the RFD, but as of right now, I have to say that Pro had some great answers to the Con"s presented problems.
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
C2: Economy

This was the argument I mostly foresaw coming against the Pro, and as it is, I think it is the most important contention of the debate, and Pro"s rebuttals to this might determine how my decision goes.

C3: Safety

Con Presented very valid arguments to Pro"s contention, that will be interesting to see them" develop as rebuttals come. I do think however there were many more problems that Con could have pointed out in this contention.

Overall I my assessment of Con"s rebuttals were that they were weak compared to what he could have done. There were many arguments that were overlooked, many problems that he could have pointed out. He not doing this gives Pro a serious advantage, however Con did point out many things that will also influence bring this debate some good argumentative analysis.

Posted by TUF 5 years ago
Despite being a critic of some of the minor details (and also recognizing pro was conflicted with moving, I was actually pretty impressed with his opening round, because it 1. Established problems within the current system, and 2. Set plans in place to fix these problems. Overall, I think Pro could best benefited in debates like these, by looking at potential conflicts that may arise with his arguments, and focusing on getting pre-emptive plans made up to combat these specific arguments. All of this combined with decent sources to validate his arguments, made for a pretty good opening case.

Con- The con naturally has the advantage in this debate given the resolution. With that said I am eager to see what ways he does or doesn"t locate the problems that can be found in Pro"s round 1, and address the arguments that did work well for him.

C1: Environment

Let"s debug and compare a little bit here. The main problem I have here, is that Con works this contention around presenting problems with solar energy sources (which is fine), but completely forgets to defend against current systems. So when comparing and analyzing these points, I get a coherent enough rebuttal to Solar Panels, but not a data source to tell me which produces more harms. Concluding myself, I have to if the harms from the current system above outweigh those of the harms presented in Pro"s opening contention. I also have questions on the validity and exaggeration of some of the stats argued being pulled from the physical sources, as well as the sources themselves. Outside of that, I think the problem attacking Solar Panels was a pretty decent argument, just lacking of the other end of the spectrum.
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
C2: Economy

Pro did a great job here outlining several ways this could be helpful to the economy. However it seemed that Pro either purposely or absentmindedly forgot to include the cost of implementation. This I think was more important than outlining their income, because ultimately if the government cannot fund such a project, the money made each year might be far less important. Remember, the resolution is talking about implementing these across the U.S., which is quite a bit of ground to cover.

C3: Environmental Benefits

This contention seemed pretty obvious and straight forward. I didn"t see many problems with this one initially, and am interested to see what the Con has to say in response to this.

C4: Convenience

Despite this points brevity, I think this was one of the most impacting contentions that Pro had, as it gave a straight forward plan backed by realistic options, while simultaneously outlining how they would be an improvement to the current roadways. As Pro, more contentions like these are what is needed for substantiating his BOP.
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
C1: Safety

The pro outlines a few examples that outline safer features of solar roadways, including increased traction, LED lights on the roads, and heating features. While on the surface these features seemed nice, my inquisitive nature had me asking many questions, that I didn"t initially find answers to in this contention. First, the idea behind the increased traction had me wondering what specifically this might look like. Because I cannot initially think of a problem with the current traction on roads, I had a hard time imagining what increased traction might look like. This raised questions such as "will increased traction be better for all tires? How do we know that this won"t just end up tearing the ribbons up worse than before? So the real question is, where in the current roads is the texturization so bad that this is something that might need to be immediately implemented? Then the LED lights also had me asking their complete necessity. What is wrong with the headlights that are currently built on vehicles? Many roadways already have reflectors built across them that help amplify light already. I am comparing in my head the cost effectiveness of these tiny pieces of plastic, to replacing them with millions of electronic bulbs all around the United States. And finally I had an even harder time picturing how the snow and ice melt thing could work effectively. At what point does the tire stop melting the snow and ice and begin melting the rubber on the tire? Isn"t there multiple other dangerous things that can be caused from this? Without a specific plan on implementing this, I have no idea of how to even assume the solar panels themselves will not freeze. But the biggest question I had is "if the energy to power these panels is purely solar generated, if on a winter days with no sun, and frozen roads, where does the energy come from to supply all these features?" I saw problem after problem with this contention, and questioned if there is really an oppor
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
RFD on: The United States federal government should implement solar road highways within the United States boarders.

Lannan VS morality Professor

To start, if you have seen my RFD"s before, I do them slightly different then others. I like to start off my giving a case analysis from both debaters giving my own opinion of the debate and the arguments in them, and then I do my actual RFD based the physical arguments, and who did a better job comparatively.

Case Analysis:

Pro- My initial reaction to reading and hearing about Solar Roadways was "wow that sounds like an interesting idea!" Then immediately after, my brain started picking out all these potential problems with the implementation of this system. Not knowing much about the concept, I decided that I will watch the debate unfold and look at this debate from all angles, but in order for my mind to justify this being built, the side that is able to better demonstrate why or why not there should be solar roadways through cost effectiveness, the work put behind implementing compared to the good it will achieve, and ultimately how realistic it will be to set these up. This is the criteria I will be looking at most when weighing my decision in this debate, but I think this criteria is set up on fair grounds.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bsh1 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments...Good debate!
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I am of the opinion that both arguments had good points and bad points as such this is really difficult to decide. Con brought up the point of jellyfish repeatedly and Pro downplayed it. Pro showed economic benefits and Con downplayed it. I am going to have to give shared points for arguments. For Pro saying Con did not provide a credible source for the NF3 study I am giving Con the conduct points. The study was published in Geophysical Research Letters according to the article, a link to the original research article would have been better though Con. Sources points go to Con for variety and relevance. I am surprised no one brought up the point that at present solar roads should not be implemented as its still in its testing stages.