BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear waste should be reused to create more electricity.

There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source.[1]   The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required.[2]   [1] Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html [2] Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution
Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary

Underground nuclear storage is not the only way to store nuclear material. Economically speaking, it is more expensive, but likely much safer to store nuclear waste above ground in facilities that can be easily monitored and dealt with. Unlike in underground storage facilities, should something go wrong above ground, it can be responded to quickly and efficiently and it is likely that problems will be detected earlier as well.   Further, widely implementing underground nuclear storage would also encourage states to be more cavalier with their nuclear energy policies. Specifically, whilst nuclear energy generation may result in zero carbon emissions, the mining and milling of uranium that initially starts the process is environmentally damaging.[1]   [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010 http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Europes-Nuclear-Waste-Storage-Problems.html
Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe

Journalist Jeremy Shere describes the problems with most methods of nuclear storage:   "There have been a few other interesting ideas –such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country.”[1]   The point with underground nuclear storage is that geological conditions are often very different between states and regions; this would often mean that in some states underground nuclear storage would be completely inappropriate because it could leak due to geological changes. Further, underground nuclear storage as mentioned in the first opposition counterargument, actively encourages a state to become reliant on nuclear power.   [1] Shere, Jeremy. “What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?” Moment of Science. 23/03/2010 http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/nuclear-waste-storage/
Underground Nuclear Storage is Expensive.

The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable.[1] As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being.   [1] Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/econ_costs_cc.pdf
There Are Better Alternatives to Underground Nuclear Waste Storage

Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground.   This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.7
Zero tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals.

Minor offenders, gang members, and the poor are extremely unlikely to be aware of the punishments for the crimes which they commit so deterrence doesn’t have much effect there. Many crimes are a product of necessity (through poverty and drugs) and therefore can be reduced only by structural changes to the society, not by threatening punishment. The idea of a ‘short sharp shock’ is unconvincing. Labeling people as criminals at an early age actually causes them to perceive themselves as such and gives them fewer other options by placing them outside mainstream society. This leads to ‘deviance amplification’ where convicts increasingly commit more serious crimes as a result of their contact with law enforcement.[1]   [1] Becker, Howard S., ‘Labeling Theory’, from Becker Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, The Free Press, 1963, http://fasnafan.tripod.com/labelingtheory.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011
Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role

Only idealists believe that prisons have rehabilitative role; we have to look at the reality. Juveniles sent to prison are less employable afterwards, and thus more likely to resort to crime. They meet established criminals in prison who both encourage the lifestyle and teach necessary skills for criminal behaviour. Prison often fosters resentment of the police and the courts and anyway the harassment of juveniles associated with zero tolerance already creates an extremely antagonistic relationship with the police. If punishment is not proportionate it simply breeds resentment.[1]   [1] Maiese, Michelle, ‘Retributive Justice’, Knowledge Base, May 2004,  www.beyondintractability.org/essay/retributive_justice/, accessed 20 September 2011
Zero tolerance improves the standard of policing

They are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero tolerance Sydney’s has been similarly racist[1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers. If the police are to be fully respected they should behave in a courteous and fair manner. While treating all citizens in a respectable and decent manner – never using unnecessary force. Zero tolerance policing reduces police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation.   [1] Kennedy, Michael Hartley, ‘Zero tolerance policing and Arabic-speaking young people’, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, 2001 http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/html/zero%20tolerance.htm
Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime

There is no point building in inner cities if we don’t protect these resources from graffiti and vandalism by concrete and certain means. Zero tolerance reduces the amount of dead ground used for drug dealing and so returns parks and open spaces to the community. Unless businesses are protected from vandalism and petty crime, it is usually uneconomic for them to return to the worst areas. It is these businesses which are vital to raising the standard of living. Zero tolerance policing is often seen to lead to the return of public transport and services to deprived areas because it can be protected through a guaranteed means.[1]   [1] Kurki, Leena, ‘Restorative and Community Justice in the United States’, 2000, 27 Crime & Just. 235, www.julianhermida.com/polnotesbrokenwindows.htm, accessed 21 September 2011
Zero tolerance policing is enormously expensive

Protecting businesses and creating a reputation for low crime and sound policing attracts inward investment and immigration both to a country as a whole and to individual areas. The cost to a country of theft and vandalism per year is a significant chunk of GDP, in the United States for example a 1994 report estimated the annual cost at $674 billion.[1] Deterrence reduces the number of crimes that police are forced to investigate and although prisons are expensive the reduction in recidivism should start to empty them in time. [2] However, with economic hardship comes higher likelihood of petty crime. It is for this reason that those in the lower classes are more likely to commit crime than those in higher classes. This effect is heightened in the aftermath of a recession. As people feel less and less willing to pay and put the blame on society, they are more likely to steal. It is cost effective in as much as it is less expensive than prison and is ultimately less expensive to society than ignoring the criminality.   [1] Shapiro, Emily, ‘Cost of Crime: A Review of the Research Studies’, Information Brief Minnesota House of Representatives, August 1999, p. 15, www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/costcrime.pdf, accessed 21 September 2011 [2] Friedman David D., ‘Rational Criminals and Profit-Maximizing Police: Gary Becker's Contribution to the Economic Analysis of Law and Law Enforcement’, Cambridge University Press 1995, http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Becker_Chapter/Becker_Chapter.html, accessed 21 September 2011
There is no concrete proof that a zero tolerance approach to crime exists0

Economic and demographic changes will always impact crime rates and of course, these factors would have played their part in the noticeable improvement in New York. However, zero tolerance has proved successful in many instances and provides a more stable promise of crime reduction less susceptible to transient factors (such as economic and demographic ones). For example, the Swedish parliament introduced its ‘drug-free society’ as the official goal for the drug policy in 1978. Long before such policies were called ‘zero tolerance. The Attorney General in 1980 stopped allowing for waivers for possession of drugs for personal use. Meanwhile, police were to prioritize the crack down on those in possession of drugs. In 1988 all non-medicinally prescribed usage became illegal. Finally, in 1993 the police were permitted to take blood or urine samples from suspects.[1] This zero tolerance approach is now cited by the UN as one the main reason for Sweden's relatively low drug prevalence rates.[2]   [1] Wikipedia, ‘Zero Tolerance’, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance, accessed 21 September 2011 [2] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy: A Review of the Evidence, February 2007, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/Swedish_drug_control.pdf, accessed 21 September 2011
Zero tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals.

Zero tolerance creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground. If people perceive that they have a greater chance of being caught, they are less likely to commit an offence. Strict punishments provide another firm deterrent because they make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a minor irritant. Convicts are less likely to re-offend because zero tolerance catches them early on in the escalating cycle of crimes and provides the ‘short, sharp shock.’ There is a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. If a law is to exist at all then it ought to be enforced. Otherwise they will be held in contempt.[1] There has to be a meaningful mechanism in place to punish actions that don’t merit criminal punishment, but that damage the quality of life of others, especially through constant repetition. In this way a slide into more serious lawlessness and criminality can be prevented, and the rights of the law-abiding majority to walk the streets and live peacefully with their neighbours can be secured. It is the law-abiding majority who should be the prime focus of the protection the State offers.   [1] Marshall, Jayne, ‘Zero Tolerance Policing’, Information Bulletin, Issue 9, March 1999, www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB9.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011
Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role

A custodial sentence, particularly for juveniles, takes them out of the atmosphere (often surrounded by drug use and living in poverty and or abusive homes) that encourages criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central tenet of many penal codes. Education and discipline are both vital to our prisons. The large number of police on the ground also allows for a supervisory role in the community after the prisoner is released to reduce re-offending. The earlier on in the chain of criminality that people are given help, the greater chance there is of success that a cycle of re-offending will not develop.[1]   [1] Petersila, Joan, ‘When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences’, Sentencing & Corrections, No.9, November 2000, www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184253.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011
Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime

Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime, and zero tolerance policing detracts from that effort. The most important element of urban regeneration is the way individuals come to take pride in their area. This is far more likely when it is not associated with police persecution, antagonism with the government and constant fear of arrest. No police presence is sufficient to properly defend a business which has not fostered good relations with the local community. Regeneration has worked on its own to solve crime problems; this can be seen in Hong Kong and Brixton in London.
Zero tolerance policing is enormously expensive

The enormous expense of zero tolerance in money and manpower and prisons actually makes policing worse. Either we have to throw limitless money at doubling the number of officers (it is almost impossible to recruit and train so many even if we could afford it). Or we have to divert officers away from investigations and serious crime prevention in order to put them back on the pavement. This reduces detection of important crimes in return for catching graffiti artists. Even when reported crime rates drop this does not prove that zero tolerance achieves anything because it is corporate crime, large scale drug dealing that is ignored and these are rarely reported. [1]   [1] Croall, Hazel, Understanding white collar crime, Open University Press 2001, www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204279.pdf, accessed 21 September 2011
There is no concrete proof that a zero tolerance approach to crime exists0

There is no proof that zero tolerance is effective and yet it comes at the great expense of full police accountability and practical financial outlay. An examination of the main ‘success stories’ of zero tolerance reveal that not all success can be attributed to the zero tolerance approach. In fact, the vast majority of the improvement in these circumstances were largely attributed to simultaneous social and economic changes. In New York, the decline of crime rate started prior to 1993 and the arrival of Rudy Giuliani to his post. During Giuliani’s time in power a similar decrease in crime was happening in other major US cities. The main factors that can be attributed to this decrease in crime were economic and demographic ones. With huge economic growth millions of jobs were being created and taken by young people. Simultaneously, there was a move from cocaine to other drugs and this also reduced street crime. The economists Steven Levitt and John Donahue even famously argued that the primary cause of the decrease in crime in New York during the 1990s was actually the legalization of abortion in 1973.[1] Therefore, it is these social and economic problems which should be targeted if we are to see a successful reduction in crime.   [1] Donohue, John J., and Levitt, Steven D., ‘The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508&http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime, accessed 21
Could be cheaper

The reason why the death penalty is so expensive – 13 executions since 1978 in California costing around $4bn[1] - is the “super due process” that is necessary in capital cases, especially with the large flaws in the US justice system. Blacker makes no coherent proposal on how he would modify the appeals system. Removing or reducing it would make it very likely that more innocent people would be executed. To accuse people who want to prevent criminals deaths of wasting money is more or less victim blaming. [1] Alarcon, Arthur and Mitchell, Paula, “Executing the will of the voters? A roadmap to mend or end the California legislature’s multi-billion dollar death penalty debacle”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2011, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/LoyolaCalifCosts.pdf
Can be reserved for the worst of the worst

While Blecker proposes a three step test in a draft statute, it does not feature much legal certainty – it features a large amount of jury discretion, which was deemed to be a violation of the US constitution[1]. Any such elastic definition would allow prosecutors to make an argument that pretty much any case is within such a category. It also continues due use of “death qualified juries”, exclusively made up of death penalty supporters[2], which are racially skewed toward being whiter. Would this then end up really being for the worst of the worst? [1] See Furman v Georgia, 408 US 238 (1972)  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/238/case.html [2] See Witherspoon v Illinois, 391 US 510 (1968) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/510/case.html
Killers must die to satisfy society

Those who are murdered are not some public resource – they are not our relatives. We may feel sorrow for the victims and their family but uninvolved members of society have no reason to demand punishment on account of them being members of ‘our family’. What of all those who do not feel such resentment, should society enact a death penalty simply to gratify a part of the population that feels this way. This is not a rational grounds for a death penalty even for the very worst. In order to claim that the society wants the criminals' blood, you have to make sure that a)everyone does; b)the person killed deserves to be avenged.
Hypocrisy

The state using the legal process being trusted to do something is different between an individual doing so. The state executing people is the only way that justice can be achieved; there is a moral difference between execution in support of society and murder against society. There is an immense difference between a murder and a lawful killing by the state. If the death penalty makes the state no better than a murderer then a soldier is one too. In a more absolutist view, if capital punishment devalues life, do fines for theft devalue property?
Too many innocents killed

As in any activity in life, a risk will exist in any justice system – many innocent people are in prisons. But there are also risks inherent in being too lenient and letting the worst of the worst out again in the future. However, capital punishment can be used less, and a higher standard of proof can be used in capital cases. “In the end, we must risk a minuscule possibility of error for the near certainty of justice.”[1] [1] Blecker, p.275
The death penalty is racist

This is not a higher discrepancy than imprisonment, meaning the problems may well be socio-economic rather than justice related. A reason for this discrepancy may be the felony murder rule – that any death caused by a felony, even if it would normally amount to manslaughter, constitutes murder (in some cases, first degree murder) – if that is the case, the felony murder rule should be abolished. If capital punishment were reserved for the worst of the worst then this racial bias would be almost eliminated.[1] [1] Blecker, p.237
Necessary for punitive justice

The concept of punishment is inherently based on retribution. “We don’t punish to prevent crime or remake criminals. We inflict pain-suffering, discomfort-to the degree they deserve to feel it.”[1] Retribution can be distinguished from revenge – retribution does not always seek to impose punishment that is the same as the original act, and never more. The punishment must fit the crime so capital punishment is therefore an appropriate punishment for the worst of the worst – an eye for an eye. [1] Blecker, p.28
Could be cheaper

While budget should not be the primary concern of the justice system, The death penalty, when applied properly, can be cheaper. A lethal injection, or a few bullets, costs far less than keeping a person incarcerated for a long time, especially if they need long term health or other care in old age. The longer someone is in jail the greater the cost to the state.  The costs of the implementation of the death penalty are driven up by anti-death penalty activists using the appeals system.  Since the death penalty would only be applied to the worst of the worst when there is absolute moral certainty there would be less need for extensive appeals because there would be less marginal cases.
Can be reserved for the worst of the worst

For those who are concerned about some of the practical objections to the American death penalty, it is possible to restrict the death penalty to those most deserving of it: “the worst of the worst”, those like Anders Behring Breivik, Charles Manson and Harold Shipman. The death penalty should not be for people who are convicted as a result of three strikes - in 2004, someone was convicted of first degree murder with a whole life sentence for lending a friend a car[1] – it should not be a default sentence.[2] [1] Liptak, Adam, “Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers”, The New York Times, 4th December 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04felony.html?_r=0 [2] Blecker, p.210