BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Weapons reduce American security

The whole probelm with this is why would any other nuclear state disarm? It is stated that the only threat to the United States' military capabilities are nuclear weapons, removing them from the world would ensure American military dominance. If this is the case then why would any other nation wish to see the United States have an unrivaled military dominance over them? Surely it would be better for the others to keep hold of their arsenal and therefore their detterent. In addition, as shown in Vietnam, American military dominance is not all it seems against non-conventional forces. Also the wars mentioned were not defensive, therefore in terms of protecting itself they aren't really applicable. To say a weapon is not used does not mean it is not useful and indeed if the USA had not had a nuclear cabability during the Cold War the prospect of Soviet Russia being much more active militarily has a far greater likelihood.
Nuclear weapons are morally repugnant.

Robinson The goal, even the aspirational goal, of eliminating all nuclear weapons is counterproductive. It will not advance substantive progress on non-proliferation; and it risks compromising the value that nuclear weapons continue to contribute, through deterrence, to U.S. security and international stability Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil; the doctrine of mutually assured destruction prevented the outbreak of nuclear war during the Cold War because in the face of an immoral threat adversaries could place that of an immoral response. Nuclear weapons therefore act as a check upon the very institution of war, restraining aggressors through fear of mutual escalation and certain destruction.
Nuclear Weapons reduce American security

The United States is the world's conventional super power. The only thing that can truely threaten our existence and our military capabilities are nuclear weapons. Thus, the United States shoudl be leading international efforts to rid the world of all nuclear weapons under strict verification. Doing so would help ensure American military dominance and its ability to protect its allies and its security interests. Moreover, the United States does not need nuclear weapons to protect itself. In al of the wars fought in recent memory, nuclear wepaons have not been useful. From Vietnam, to Iraq, to Somalia to Kosovo, nuclear weapopns have been useless. Why have them if you can's use them, and why have them if they only serve to legitimize the nuclear arsenals of others.
They save money

This simply isn't true. Since the end of the Cold War all the enemies of Western states have been located outside of American and Europe - such as in Asia and the Middle East. There have been no military operations whatsoever by these enemies into Western states throughout history (except a few skirmishes around Turkey in the 19th century). To argue that nuclear weapons have prevented conflict and thus saved money is to plagerise the story in which a child sits outside his front door (in a Western country) with stones, in order to keep away the tigers. There haven't been any tigers, thus his method must be cost effective and beneficial. Just to add to this. "missions now assigned to nuclear weapons." Unless my head has been been in a bunker I must have missed all the nuclear attacks alluded to here. Equally the cost effectiveness has been shown to be lacking in cases such as Korea in the 50s or any other conflict where nuclear weapons have been actiively considered where the US has paid for the weapon yet is still using large amounts of man power and conventional weapons instead of its apparenlty cheap and effective option.
Nuclear weapons are morally repugnant.

Over the past fifty years, we have seen a general tendency towards limited warfare and precision weapons, allowing military objectives to be achieved with minimal loss of civilian life. The entire point of nuclear weapons, however, is their massive, indiscriminate destructive power. Their use could kill tens of thousands of civilians directly, and their catastrophic environmental after-effects would harm many more all around the world. These effects could never be morally acceptable, particularly as the basis of one’s national security strategy. They place ‘humanity and most forms of life in jeopardy of annihilation’ (Krieger, 2003).
Nuclear weapons are required for deterrence

The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies. Peace during the Cold War was maintained only by a balance of power - neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be confident of victory. This eventually became the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: both sides had sufficient weaponry to totally annihilate one another, and potentially the whole world. However, there is no longer a balance of power. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of their own. It is not clear that the major nuclear powers would then strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups. Would it ever be acceptable to kill thousands of civilians for the actions of extremists?
Moral Authority needed to combat a nuclear Iran

The logical falacy in today's debate is that it is simply chasing shadows and grabbing sand. One thing we have to state clear is that we cannot be assured of a nuclear free world. And even if there's such a chance it is slim as slim can be. Politics, governance, personal interests and of course, skepticism, forbids countries from openly demonstrating their nuclear power and subsequently surrendering them to some interim organisation to "take care" of the problem. and that interim organisation, international or not, has no credibility nor guaruntee whatsoever that the weapons shall be "destroyed" without any speed-bumps. And speaking of destroy, perhaps anyone would like to hazard a guess at how to eliminate nuclear weapons? simply we cannot. Of course we can still do it and bring down half a world at least along with the weapons. But that's your funeral. Proposition may now cower behind one final shield where this is a theoretical debate and all we have to do is to justify morally the elimination of all nuclear weapons. But may I also remind you that today is a policy debate likewise. Aside from ambitious promises, we need strong framework and legal backing, to ensure that the elimination, if it will happen, to be convened with least obsturctions and with full cooperation in stamping out cumbersome technicalities and so forth. But for now, we don't have anything like that. Ratherm I would suggest a more lenient attitude towards nuclear weapons. To limit them rather than to destroy them is a good starting point to build up with.
Nuclear deterrence encourages proliferation

States seek nuclear weapons not primarily in order to use them, but in order to take advantage of the security they offer. If states existed in a world post-disarmament, the incentives to develop nuclear weapons for reasons of security would not have disappeared, in fact they would have increased. As Paul Robinson notes, ‘conventional armaments…will remain the backbone of U.S. defense forces, but the inherent threat to escalate to nuclear use can help to prevent conflicts from starting, prevent their escalation, as well as bring (them) to a swift and certain end (Robinson, 2001)’. Such potential advantages will not be lost on states in a nuclear-free world.
Nuclear weapons are required for deterrence

The use of nuclear weapons would indeed be a great tragedy; but so, to a greater or lesser extent, is any war. The reason for maintaining an effective nuclear arsenal is in fact to prevent war. By making the results of conflict catastrophic, a strategic deterrent discourages conflict. The Cold War was in fact one of the most peaceful times in history, particularly in Europe, largely because of the two superpowers' nuclear deterrents. Record During the Cold War, the principal function of nuclear weapons was to deter nuclear attack During the Gulf War, for example, one of the factors which prevented Iraq from launching missiles tipped with chemical weapon warheads against Israel was the threat the USA would retaliate with a nuclear strike. Although there is no longer as formal a threat of retaliation as there was during the Cold War, the very possibility that the use of nuclear weapons by a rogue state could be met a retaliatory strike is too great a threat to ignore. Moreover, although the citizens of the current nuclear powers may be against the use of force against civilians, their opinions would
The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies.

The deterrent principle still stands. During the Gulf War, for example, one of the factors which prevented Iraq from launching missiles tipped with chemical weapon warheads against Israel was the threat the USA would retaliate with a nuclear strike. Although there is no longer as formal a threat of retaliation as there was during the Cold War, the very possibility that the use of nuclear weapons by a rogue state could be met a retaliatory strike is too great a threat to ignore. Moreover, although the citizens of the current nuclear powers may be against the use of force against civilians, their opinions would rapidly change if they found weapons of mass destruction being used against them.
Moral Authority needed to combat a nuclear Iran

The United States need to increase its moral authority if we are going to prevent countries like Iran from becoming nuclear powers. As the only country to ever use nuclear weapons (to end WWII) and as a country that has recently stated its willingness to use nuclear weapons to advance the regime change agenda, the UNited States has lost a lot of the moral authority it needs to convince other coutnries to join in efforts to convince Iran to end its nuclear program. We must make it easier for non-aligned states to side with us. Right now, it is politically harder for leaders in middle powers like Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and South Africa to side with the US.
Expense

Actually the cost of disarmament could be made fairly small, dismantling warheads is a fairly complex process, true, and good technical minds would need to be employed. Disposal of nuclear fuel is also, in real terms, fairly cheap, with the prices massively inflated simply because there is nowhere to dispose of it TO right now. For those who don't know much about nuclear waste disposal, this would basically be a giant hole in the floor in a geologically stable area, covered in concrete. There are no suitable sites, at least to my knowledge, in the US, however, there are many in Canada, Europe and Oceania. Once built, the whole thing is really self explanatory.
Nuclear deterrence encourages proliferation

By maintaining a strategic deterrent, the current nuclear powers encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Krieger, 2003). To be a part of the so-called 'nuclear club' is seen as a matter of great prestige; when India and Pakistan recently declared their nuclear capability, it was seen in both countries as increasing their international status. Also, nations opposed to a nuclear power feel that they need to develop their own capability in order to protect themselves. The declared nuclear powers must therefore take the lead in disarmament, as an example for the rest of the world.
Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge proportion of crimes. Exact figures vary from country to...

Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge proportion of crimes. Exact figures vary from country to country, but in many countries alcohol is a contributory factor in 60-70% of violent crimes, including child abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault, and murder. Alcohol is far and away the leading cause of public disorder, street fights, etc. In short, alcohol is one of the prime causes of violence and crime in modern society, and its banning would reduce the incidence of these crimes at a strike.
Despite the fact that advertising campaigns such as those run in the UK over the past 30 years have ...

Despite the fact that advertising campaigns such as those run in the UK over the past 30 years have been successful in reducing the incidence of drink driving, this success has not been mirrored in all countries. And even where it has, deaths and serious injuries caused by drunk drivers still run to the thousands each year. This is an unacceptable situation - alcohol should simply be banned.
It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. Howeve...

It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. However the fact that an immoral industry employs a lot of people is never a good argument to keep that immoral industry going (similar arguments apply to the cases of prostitution, arms dealing, fox hunting, battery farming, etc.) Instead, a gradual process would have to be implemented, which would include governments providing funding for training for alternative careers.
It is also true that tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned. However, again, this is not...

It is also true that tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned. However, again, this is not a principled reason to reject the proposition, simply a practical problem. It should be pointed out that governments would save a huge amount of money on police and health spending (through the reduction in crime and alcohol-related illness) which would go at least some of the way to offsetting the decreased tax revenues.
Alcohol is just as potentially addictive as many illegal drugs. Those who do become addicted to alc...

If one were sitting down to design the perfect society from scratch, one might be tempted not to allow the production and sale of alcohol, However, the main reason why the case of alcohol is different from that of other drugs is a social one rather than an empirical fact about the nature of the drug. Alcohol, unlike other drugs, is socially entrenched. It is an integral part of the social life and culture of most countries and to try to ban it is completely impractical. To criminalise billions of people around the world over night and create the biggest black market the world has ever seen (for the benefit of the criminal underworld) would be crazy.
Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge proportion of crimes. Exact figures vary from country to...

Human beings are naturally inclined towards violence and conflict. Sex and violence are primal parts of our genetic make-up and we do not need alcohol to bring them to the surface. At worst, alcohol may slightly exaggerate these tendencies - but that makes it the occasion not the underlying cause of violent crimes. The underlying causes are biological and social. Making rape and murder illegal does not eradicate rape and murder, so it is unlikely that making drinking alcohol illegal will do so either.
Despite the fact that advertising campaigns such as those run in the UK over the past 30 years have ...

The progress made against drink driving in recent decades has been very encouraging. We should continue to campaign against it and have every reason to hope that the current trend towards its eradication by a process of attitude-change and stigmatisation will continue. The fact that there are still some injuries and deaths is not a good enough reason to take away the civil liberties of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens by depriving them of the pleasure of drinking alcohol.
It is also true that tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned. However, again, this is not...

Currently governments raise large amounts of revenue from taxes and duties payable on alcoholic drinks. To ban alcohol would take away a major source of funding for public services. In addition, the effect of banning alcohol would call for additional policing on a huge scale, if the prohibition were to be enforced effectively. If would create a new class of illegal drug-users, traffickers, and dealers on an unprecedented scale.
The social implications of second home ownership are also particularly troublesome, particularly in ...

The social implications of second home ownership are also particularly troublesome, particularly in situations where foreigners buy second homes in countries other than their own. While cities more easily adapt to dealing with foreign popu+lations, rural communities find themselves trapped between having to change their local culture and sometimes even language (by posting street signs or menus in different languages) and trying to maintain some of the local character of the place. In some areas this creates tension that can often degenerate into dangerous movements such as nationalist or xenophobic groups. For example, Welsh nationalists made a point of burning down holiday homes in North Wales in the 1980s. The presence of too many incomers (whether of the same nationality or not) in these areas significantly alters social relations, leading to a clear loss in local culture and customs and a reallocation of social priorities from the quality of relations between people to profits and maintenance of individual space.
The environmental devastation often caused by second home ownership also endangers communities that ...

The environmental devastation often caused by second home ownership also endangers communities that have until then sought to preserve beauty in a natural state. As second home buyers often expect similar services to the ones available in cities, the construction of infrastructure and the transformation of natural areas into amusement parks for the rich (from golf courses to artificial lakes, and well manicured gardens) leaves little of the surrounding nature untouched. Natural havens of wilderness are thus transformed into bio zoos for the prying eyes of strangers who are there merely to enjoy its aesthetic properties, often ignoring important aspects of nature preservation.
Second home owners create environments without coherence that are overpopulated in high season (wint...

Second home owners create environments without coherence that are overpopulated in high season (winter or summer depending on the property location) but transformed into ghost towns during low season. This often drives out the locals and bringing in tourists, a cheap temporary labour force and other transient populations. Marketing themselves towards different kinds of people turns these places into a paradise for the Japanese one season and for the French or Germans the next. The transformation of the Caribbean and other exotic islands into mere tourist destinations as opposed to living environments speaks greatly to the danger of turning other environments into just that.
Imposing a tax along with regulations on second home ownership would be an efficient way of reducing...

Imposing a tax along with regulations on second home ownership would be an efficient way of reducing the increasing destruction of rural communities, as well as addressing the costs of the social, economic and environmental devastation that come along with it. The political process of imposing these taxes and regulations would also help raise awareness on the issue and draw the wider population’s attention towards the need for an overall policy on development and rural issues. In Europe this might mean the creation of an EU mechanism to deal with it – such as a possible reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to include dealing with this issue as well.
It is immoral for some people to have an excess of housing while others are homeless. Many poorer f...

It is immoral for some people to have an excess of housing while others are homeless. Many poorer families are forced to live with parents for years because they cannot afford their own home, or else are forced into poor quality bed and breakfast accommodation with no proper security or privacy. Yet many richer families have additional homes which stand empty for months on end. The right to shelter should be recognised as a basic human right by governments, but no one has the right to accumulate additional empty properties. Governments should act accordingly to prevent the few distorting the housing market to the detriment of the many.
Second home ownership has troubling economic implications for the local communities exposed to it, a...

Although second homes do raise property prices in the areas where they are built, they also contribute to bringing better services to the local community (including improved health care and in some cases better education). They also create much needed job opportunities in communities that often suffer from chronic unemployment. A higher property tax is unlikely to slow down the rate at which second home are built and bought and might even lead to an even sharper increase in the cost of homes, creating more problems for the local communities. The issue of second home buying is part of a larger problem that has to do with the decrease in quality of life in cities, with increasing pollution and less and less access to nature. The solution might be to focus on creating more of a balance between development and nature within the urban areas as opposed to targeting rural areas alone.
The social implications of second home ownership are also particularly troublesome, particularly in ...

The freedom of movement guaranteed by the EU is an essential component of what the EU stands for. Placing increasing regulations – on top of the ones that already exist – on acquiring property abroad threatens to challenge that freedom. Countries like Spain, Italy, France, Croatia or Poland that have experienced much of this second-home ownership wave, are clearly split between the benefits and the disadvantages that they have to deal with. While local communities are not always pleased, there is a consensus that economically speaking, they have enjoyed large benefits from the incoming seasonal tourists and new members of the community. For example, incomers can help to reinvigorate rural areas suffering out migration to the cities (e.g. France), or abroad (e.g. Poland), as young people have left in search of work and increased opportunities. \ As people are more and more attracted by pristine places with access to water, forests or unspoiled nature, maintaining local communities and cultures will inevitably become more difficult. This is not something that can be avoided through a simple increase in tax or regulation. One must remember that cultures are fluid and that modern developments cannot be avoided or ignored because of the whims of certain secluded communities. Second homes are only part of the changes these communities face, and they can sometimes offer solutions to the problems from which they suffer.\
The environmental devastation often caused by second home ownership also endangers communities that ...

While this is certainly true in some cases, in other cases, second home owners have come to those communities precisely because they were interested in preserving its natural beauty. This is the case of second home ownership in places like Wisconsin, and many rural areas in Canada, where second home owners often come in with more knowledge about environmental preservation and help the community learn to treasure elements of nature and resources that they simply took for granted before. Learning how best to manage these resources, even for economic benefits, might help better preserve these areas in the future. Unfortunately, there is no fiscal mechanism for the state to control the direction in which these communities will go: devastation or preservation. Campaigns aimed at raising awareness towards these issues might prove to be more efficient than cumbersome tax regulations.