BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No possible over abuse on the resources, just a utilitarian, global benefit

When the Proposition agrees that “certainly it will be their [powerful states’] companies that will win the calls for bids” they put strength on our fundamental accusation. Despite what Proposition claims Antarctica will only be exploited by powerful nations. Then they so naively claims Tonga “will be able to acquire the resources according to their needs”. To which we have two contentions. First if Tonga was “able to acquire resources according to their needs” then they would already have done so and we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place. Since when have powerful companies given up their benefits freely to the less fortunate? Especially benefits that are so difficult to acquire as those from Antarctica. So then the only way for poor countries like Tonga to get resources is through international distributive system, OF WHOSE ABSENCE has been the fundamental issues that the Opposition has been pointing out from the very beginning. The problem is not that there is no resource—as mentioned millions of tons of food and water are wasted every year—the problem is that there is no way to distribute them. Therefore unless this flaw is remedied first, there is no point in mining for more resources in Antarctica, at least no point for countries like Tonga. Second if the companies who won the bid were forced to give up their earnings to the international community to help poor countries, what company would make their bid in the first place? If companies were forced to give up resources acquired at their own expanses they wouldn’t acquire them in the first place. Such problem is especially aggravated by two unique situations. One Antarctica has an extremely harsh climate and terrain, mining for resources there already poses huge costs. Two, in order for the resources from Antarctica to be meaningful in helping poor nations, significant sums has to be given up by companies. Rather than suffer such losses companies would simply not bid.
México Summary

Will these resources benefit all mankind? We defended Antartica as a resource heritage for all and its resources need to be used not only because it is owned by all of us but also because it will mitigate non-renewable resources scarcity. For that last point we showed how 70% of the world's drinking water is there and millions die because they can't access it; Opp replied that the current problem is lack of infrastructure however we said that by 2030 billions would die because of lack of access to water due to supply and demand of the world population and the scarcity it will have even if in 2011 lack of infrastructure was the problem (which we don't agree is) and that contemplating their alternatives of desalination and rainwater, which are not feasible alternatives where there is no water at all! We pointed a world economic boost at all levels including world powers gaining profits from their companies exploring and also developing countries from the global distribution of the majority of earnings (without the need to explore) and also the access to more resources. Opp's contentions were that companies usually don't distribute their earnings, failing to note that as of now they have not been under that obligation since they haven't explored on internationally administered territories (such as space or int'l waters) so this is a very different case; and Opp also said that it wouldn't be economically profitable if part of the earnings had to be distributed however better technologies will make it cheaper and with the scarcity of resources, obviously everyone will be interested in gaining those calls for bids, especially if they could eventually turn out to be the only distributors worldwide (how can that not be profitable?). Are environmental costs affordable? Every human activity has environmental impacts but we don't go banning everything. Besides, we said how non-renewable resources will make this exploration imminent so the best is to be realistic and take every mitigating effort as possible, such a the calls for bids for environmentally-friendly companies. Opp said that the urgency for these resources will make everyone not follow the guidelines creating a catastrophe, but as we said it won't be in the immediate future but after investigations and when this is needed more, say, three decades (which is still soon but not immediate, so we don't contradict ourselves). We pointed fishing and tourism as current industries that haven't had bad environmental consequences, except for illegal fishing, which is different from explorations since you can go do it and run, unlike installing a drilling platform. Will prevent diplomatic crises? Being imminent; without a world consensus proposal like this one, powers would fight to get the resources or go explore wherever, however absolutely no one wants that situation so a compromise like this is feasible and a good intended possibility of order, unlike not passing this, where the guarantee is chaos.
Miscellaneous Points

First, we are not looking for diplomatic procedures when we accuse Prop. of being unreasonable and impractical. The question of distribution is essential to the motion. If that problem is unresolved, global conflicts will result from opening Antarctica. The proposition chose to suggest a model to deflect this backfire, and it surely does bear responsibility for that choice. If we can just propose a model that should happen and not care about its feasibility and efficacy, what is the point of debate? Can we just say we’ll create an international council that regulates war to win on the motion mankind should ban war and not care about implementation? It’s irresponsible for the prop. to even try to get away with a naïve claim on equal shares. Prop. said it only has to show “a better outcome”; we are asking if that “better outcome” will ACTUALLY HAPPEN. When its basic assumptions regarding resource mining, distributing and company behaviors are flawed as communism was about human motive, how does Prop. blatantly argue it does not bear that burden? Fishing: Prop. misunderstood us completely. “Fishing is a different case”--we didn’t mean it was okay, but that EVEN fishing which is a less severe case of exploitation than oil drilling has severe consequences. “Almost extinct” is still a significant problem, and certainly we don’t understand how the problem is mitigated because the danger to a specie comes from illegal activity. In fact such existence of illegal fishing supports our point that Prop. will not be able to control exploitation. The same point applies to tourism. Let’s not forget our ultimate point: fishing and tourism are too different from other resources to make successful examples. The main resources in dispute are oil and minerals that sustain the framework of modern industry yet face severe limit in amount. The fact that prop. can only present such trivial “successes” actually proves uncontrollable competition we anticipate.
Risk-assessments take priority over education

While many activities are banned because of the resulting health and safety threats, the extent of the UK’s knife culture falls into a significantly higher-risk category. When school trips are banned owing to pupils’ deaths, there is no question of doubt over the decision. Knife crime has demonstrated its tendency to end in death; it has proved a fatal activity to participate in. On these grounds it seems any event which may trigger involvement in knife crime must surely be dismissed.
Risk-assessments take priority over education

While teenagers in modern society have access to a wealth of opportunities, they are also restricted to some extent by rules of health and safety, often in relation to sport played in schools. As a result, it is no surprise that children are being labelled obese. By assigning the blame for knife crime to Romeo and Juliet, teenagers will be further prohibited from educational entertainment; perhaps they will even be discouraged from Shakespeare altogether. If teenagers are turned away from the theatre, it is probable they will indulge in less intellectual pursuits. We are sacrificing their potential capacity by drawing tenuous links hinting at danger.
Presentation of fictional events glamourises knife crime

Critics of the current Romeo and Juliet production have ignored the play’s severely tragic ending. If the events had resulted in a positive conclusion there could perhaps be some weight attributed to claims that stabbing is glamourised in the sense that it provides a means to an end. It seems illogical to suggest knife crime is promoted as its use in the play only causes further trauma. Additionally, it is tenuous to relate today’s stabbings with those intended for an Elizabethan audience; if this were the case surely the prevalence of knife crimes in Britain would have begun centuries ago. Boris Johnson argued those responsible for stabbings should be portrayed as moronic rather than glamourous, though he fails to notice Mercutio’s role as a comic foil within the play. (2) (2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/15/knifecrime.justice
Presentation of fictional events glamourises knife crime

The Globe Theatre’s efforts to introduce teenagers to Shakespeare have gone drastically wrong. At first sight this seems an ingenious plan to broaden the minds of youths with historical literature and increase their academic capacities whilst keeping them off the streets. However, it appears a crucial oversight has been made. The play is centred around enduring family feuds and stabbing is a recurring event within the plot. In Elizabethan Britain, scenes of stabbing would have instilled shock in the audience, while in the UK today knife crime is no rarity. Actors staging events teenagers see and hear about on modern streets are communicating their acceptance of such crimes with the audience. Furthermore, it could be argued that the play itself with is extravagant setting in Verona and involvement of two wealthy families provides circumstances to which young teens may aspire.
Social learning theory supports such a correlation

While social learning theory can encourage certain conduct, it can also discourage it. Surely by witnessing the negative consequences which ensue after the three stabbings, the modern audience will lack the motivation to commit knife crimes. It is no defence to argue that rising statistics would be absent if we were unaware of the possible option of resorting to knife crime; the play has hardly introduced a new method of attack. Furthermore, if the adaptation of a Shakespearian play causes teenagers to react violently, the same could be said of crime documentaries such as CSI and Crimewatch which also provide visual scenes of similar actions.
Social learning theory supports such a correlation

Observational learning is of particular significance in childhood as we look to figures of authority for guidance on how to behave. This may be the case for many of the teenagers watching actors wielding knives to defend their relatives and uphold family values. Such conduct may be respected for its motives and successful outcome of putting an end to the particular dispute by killing the opponent. Evidence for such a theory derives from studies in which children that played violent video games or watched violent scenes on television were found to exhibit similar behaviour. (3) If we accept this view, it seems reasonable to identify a link between current knife crime and what is being portrayed in the theatre. (3) http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/bandura.htm
Modern teenagers do not relate to Shakespearian plays

While it may be the case that Shakespearian plays are far less popular with today’s minors than for previous generations, the argument that crime is being glamourised and thus promoted need not be so specific. Films such as Kidulthood and the earlier Quadrophenia depict teenagers engaging in all varieties of immoral and criminal conduct and are far more likely to attract teenage attention. (5) However, it cannot be said that these portrayals of fictional events persuade viewers to indulge in similar pursuits. Moreover, if a theatre production has such an effect, what were the consequences of Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation? (5) http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article736252.ece
Modern teenagers do not relate to Shakespearian plays

Teenagers on average have a notorious aversion to Shakespeare; it doesn’t follow that they would look to one of his plays for inspiration governing behaviour. Nevertheless, the play concerned was intended as a modern adaptation to provide ‘an honest reflection of what the 14-year-old audience may be experiencing’. (4) Crucially though, the scenes involving knives remain in the play with the object of promoting awareness that knife crime affects numerous London teenagers. Consequent knife crime instilled by a viewing of Romeo and Juliet remains highly unlikely (4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/4592467/Romeo-and-Juliet-production-sparks-fears-over-knife-crime.html.
Critics are merely looking to pass the blame

It appears Boris Johnson’s zero tolerance policy on knife crime is failing. Nevertheless, it was he who commented ‘this is not the death of Mercutio taking place on the streets of London’, when attributing the cause of knife crime to glamour surrounding gangs. (6) It seems plausible that he is trying to shift the focus of responsibility away from himself so as to protect his reputation, whether accusing the Shakespearean adaption of glamourising stabbing or the attitude of gangs in general. The UK’s blame culture requires someone to be held responsible for the various evils within society; if the theatrical adaption could be deemed culpable, the problem appears easier to solve. (6) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/4592467/Romeo-and-Juliet-production-sparks-fears-over-knife-crime.html
A slippery slope argument inevitably follows

We are concerned here with knife crime alone; not prostitution nor any other immoral activity. Romeo and Juliet has been identified as a potential source of motivation for the stabbings that occur on London streets; it is irrelevant that it is classified as entertainment. The issue of suicide differs hugely from acts of stabbing; knife crime can be part of a lifestyle while suicide clearly lacks the same capacity. It seems unlikely an audience could be provoked to take their lives by seeing similar conduct on stage; in contrast, carrying a knife could be viewed as a simple accessory.
A slippery slope argument inevitably follows

If actors, directors and playwrights are responsible for promoting knife crime, we must question the effects of numerous sources of entertainment. Songs containing explicit lyrics, films displaying unsightly activities and plays exhibiting violent scenes must all be carefully vetted. To say that Romeo and Juliet glamourises knife crime is to say that Moulin Rouge glamourises prostitution. While both perceptions may be true to an extent, there is nothing to suggest viewers will consequently aim to replicate their observations. If we accept that stabbing is encouraged by the play, we must then consider whether suicide is also promoted, as Juliet’s death is a major concluding scene. If such a stance is taken, all forms of entertainment must display only positive behaviour, causing naivety to wrongs of which all should be aware.
Drone Use is Cheaper than Engaging in Ground or Manned Aerial Combat

There is around 5 billion dollars that is allocated for drones in the defense budget. This is only about one percent of the whole military budget. By comparison, the military's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program by itself costs the United States 9.7 billion dollars a year. US manned military attack aircraft cost up to 42 times more than drones to operate. Al Qaeda spent around half a million dollars to carry out the September 11th attacks. The US spent around 2.2 trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq and on homeland security in response. The disparity is enormous.
Drone strikes Are Subject to a Tight Review Process and Congressional Oversight.

President Obama, in 2013, set up five conditions that must be met before lethal action can be used on a foreign target: 1) We must be almost certain that the terrorist target is present, 2) We must almost be certain that non-combatants will not be injured or killed, 3) Capture must be an alternative that can't be carried out, 4) The country where the problem exists will not take care of the problem itself, 5) No other reasonable alternatives exist to control the problem. Intelligence committees and members of congress are informed of every attack that America carries out. A long time before Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen, the Obama administration passed on information for analysis to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice analyzed the information to make sure that the action was consistent with US laws.
Drone Strikes Make the United States Safer by Destroying Terrorist Networks Internationally.

Drone Strikes Create more Terrorists than They Kill. People who experience the loss of a loved one by a drone become incensed against the United States and become motivated to join actions against the United States. According to author Jeremy Scahill, the great majority of fighters operating out of Yemen currently are people who want to avenge the destruction of their homes. The number of Al Qaeda core members in the Arabian Peninsula more than doubled between 2009 to 2012. This resulted in a greater number of terrorist attacks in the area. This seems to correspond with the use of drones in the region. Also, the "Underwear Bomber" and the "Times Square Bomber" cited drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia as the drive behind their plots.
Drones Keep US Military Personnel Safer

Drones Kill Many Civilians and Disturb Local Populations While drones definitely keep US forces safer, at the same time, they terrorize civilian populations. According to ProCon.org, it is estimated that between 174 and 1,047 civilians have been killed in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Apparently, people who live in areas where the drones are active experience a lot of distress from possible drone attacks. In those regions, the children are too afraid to go to school, and the adults are too stressed to lead normal existences. Local leaders actually consider the drone presence to be a form of terrorism.
Drone Strikes Are Legal under International Law

Drone Strikes Violate International Law. According to international humanitarian law, a targeted individual must be directly participating in hostilities with the United States. Under international human rights law, a targeted individual must be an imminent threat that only lethal force can halt. If it is merely the case that an entity is suspected of a connection to a "militant" organization, that is not enough of a reason to use lethal force against them. Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." This applies even in times of armed conflict. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force by one state against the other, with a few exceptions. These are 1) the consent of the host state, and 2) when the use of force is in self-defense from an armed attack or imminent threat. Therefore, members of militant groups who are not in armed conflict with the United States are not permissible targets. Amnesty International has declared drone strikes as being classified as war crimes.
Drones Limit the Scope and Scale of Military Action.

Drone Strikes Violate the Sovereignty of Other Countries Drone strikes are many times carried out against the wishes of the target countries. Pakistan is one country that has been very vocal about this. The United Nations has called US drone strikes a violation of sovereignty. It has asked for investigations into the legality of the strikes. Apparently, only six out of about 40 countries approve of the US drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
Drone Strikes Make the United States Safer by Destroying Terrorist Networks Internationally.

ProCon.org states that drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia have killed more than 3,500 militants. These include many important commanders who have been suspected of organizing plots against the United States. When President Obama was in office, he said that many highly skilled Al Qaeda fighters have been eliminated through the use of drones. Plots against the United States have been disrupted that could have killed many people.
Drones Keep US Military Personnel Safer

Drones are launched from bases in allied countries. They are operated remotely by personnel in the United States. This reduces the risk of injury and death that results from using ground troops and pilots. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their affiliates usually operate in rough terrain. In these places, it is very dangerous for the United States to employ teams of special forces to locate and capture terrorists. Drones eliminate the risks that are associated with all "boots on the ground" deployments.
Drone Strikes Are Legal under International Law

Article 51 of the UN Charter permits a country to defend itself when it is attacked. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions has stated that Article 51 pertains if the targeted country agrees to the use of force in its territory. This is also the case if the country is unable to control the threat themselves. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have agreed to US drone strikes within their borders because they are under threat from terrorist groups. Apparently, a country that is under a threat does not need to provide targets with legal processing before using lethal force. The United States also has the right under international law to "anticipatory self-defense." This gives it the right to use force against a real and imminent threat.
Drones Limit the Scope and Scale of Military Action.

Since the time of the September 11th attacks, the main threats to the United States are terrorist networks that function in various countries around the world. The US has not been fighting major countries. To invade a country with troops to control small terrorist groups would be very expensive for the United States. Also, the United States might become responsible for destabilizing the governments of other countries. In fact, the attempt of the United States to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan by invading the country has resulted in a war that has dragged on for a long time. Using drones to control terrorist groups allows the United States to achieve its goals in a cheaper way. It also costs less manpower and lives.
Drones Result in Fewer Civilian Fatalities than Other Weapons.

Drone Strikes Target People who May not Be Terrorists. The government's policy of "signature strikes" permits the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command to target people who fit a specific terrorist profile. This is the case even if they have not been identified conclusively as an enemy combatant. Classified documents that were leaked in 2015 showed that, in one period of drone strikes in Afghanistan, as many as 90 percent of the casualties were not the intended targets.
Drone Strikes Are Legal under US Law

Drone Strikes Are Carried Out in a Secretive Way. They Lack Oversight. Drones are implemented in situations where war is not openly authorized by Congress. This lets the executive branch have control over secret wars across the world. The CIA can carry out these attacks without any information being divulged by the government. This is because they are covert operations. The CIA does not give out any information currently about its drone programs.