BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
More states have ballistic missiles, but most are Western democracies

Philip E. Coyle. "The Obstacles To the Proposed U.S. Missile Defense Systems in Europe". 18 January 2008 - "To defend the need for missile defenses, in October 2007, the White House announced, 'America faces a growing ballistic missile threat. In 1972, just nine countries had ballistic missiles. Today, that number has grown to 27 and it includes hostile regimes with ties to terrorists.'
European missile defense reawakens Cold War tensions and conflict

Joanne Landy and Thomas Harrison. "Pushing Missile Defense in Europe". February 22, 2008 - "When the Soviet Union first built a limited missile defense system in the late 1960s, the United States responded by building up a nuclear strike strategy to overwhelm the new technology. The cycle of nuclear one-upmanship was partially halted by the ABM Treaty, but then the Bush administration withdrew from the treaty in 2002. Now, writes Hans Kristenson of the Federation of American Scientists, “history repeats itself, but the table has been turned. Today it is the United States building a limited missile defense system (more capable than the Soviet system, but purportedly focused on “rogue” state missiles), and it is the Russians who say they need to target it to maintain the effectiveness of their deterrent. The Cold War may be over, but military and policy planners in both countries still think in Cold War terms."
Missile defenses are inherently defensive, not offensive

Peter Brookes. "The Case for European Missile Defense". Heritage. March 14, 2008 - "despite the range of concerns about missile defense, it should be emphasized that missile defense is a defensive—not offensive—weapon. Indeed, the dominant design of the missile defense interceptor warhead does not even contain an explosive charge; traveling at 15,000 miles per hour, it destroys the missile warhead by the sheer force of the collision. Therefore, the idea that missile defense is an offensive system, as many have suggested, is patently false. In a way, missile defense is like an umbrella; it is only needed if it rains."
Missile defenses in Europe will advance US interests over host country

"10 Arguments against the US radar". No US bases in Czech Republic - "If our country plays host to this extraordinarily powerful and technically advanced U.S. radar base, we will become a tool of the unilateral U.S. foreign policy, which is aimed at military hegemony and the so-called war against terrorism. This war has thusfar succeeded only in increasing terrorism, destroying Iraq, destabilizing the region and giving rise to the prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib."
Iran poses a significant nuclear and ballistic missile threat

Peter Brookes. "The Case for European Missile Defense". Heritage. March 14, 2008 - "With Iran continuing to enrich uranium, the possibility of "loose nukes" in Pakistan, and a spate of ballistic missile tests (by Russia, China and Iran, among others) over the past year, the announcement of an agreement is undoubtedly good news. Concluding a deal this year will serve to bolster transatlantic security and protect the United States and Europe from the growing threat of long-range ballistic missiles and the unconventional payloads they may carry."
European missile defense would foster stability, not instability

Sally McNamara, Baker Spring and Peter Brookes. "Missile Defense: Debunking Arguments Against the Third Site in Eastern Europe". Heritage Foundation. November 6, 2007 - "Myth #4: Missile defense is destabilizing. [...] If anything, the opposite is true. Defensive weapons systems such as missile defense have a stabilizing effect on the security environment, as opposed to offensive weapons, which research has shown can be destabilizing. As a defensive capability, U.S. missile defense plans for Europe will act as a deterrent to rogue nations and non-state actors from acquiring ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction."
Natural gas cars perform comparably to petrol cars

"The Natural Gas Alternative". ConsumerReports.org - "The driving experience. Drivers are not expected to notice a significant difference in performance between a CNG-powered vehicle and one fueled by gasoline. Acceleration is comparable, and the car starts and drives normally. Gas mileage is about the same. As a bonus, in some states, drivers of CNG vehicles can use the HOV lane. A study of New York City taxis running on natural gas concluded that maintenance costs were also reduced."
More efficient gasoline cars and hybrids are better than NGVs

Samantha Rose. "The questionable benefit of natural gas vehicles". TG Daily. 14 Aug 2008 - "the benefits to natural gas vehicles over gasoline vehicles have dropped in the past two decades as new combustion engines are being manufactured to be more efficient and cleaner." Continuing to make gasoline engines more efficient, even by creating hybrid vehicles, will be easier and go just as far as attempting to move to natural gas vehicles.
Natural gas stations are unavailable in some places

Natural gas pumps are rare. In the United States, for instance, only 1% of all gas stations have natural gas pumps. This relates to the fact that the natural gas industry is young, and natural gas pipelines do not extend to all places where natural gas stations are needed. This severely limits the growth of natural gas vehicles, as people will not buy the vehicles unless they know that a robust refilling infrastructure exists to support them.
Natural gas vehicle fuel tanks are very strong and safe

"Natural Gas Vehicles The Clean Way to Go with a Domestic Fuel". Washington Gas. - "Is using natural gas in a vehicle safe?...Yes. First, the natural gas storage cylinders are very sturdy, a half-inch thick compared to an eighth or sixteenth of an inch for gasoline tanks. Second, natural gas is lighter than air, so even if a leak develops, the gas dissipates into the air instead of forming a spreading pool or vapor cloud on the ground, as other fuels do. Third, the combustion temperature of natural gas, 1200 degrees Fahrenheit, is higher than that of gasoline, 600 degrees Fahrenheit. An American Gas Association study reported no injuries or fatalities after more than a half billion miles driven with natural gas vehicles."
Refueling natural gas vehicles fast and convenient

"Natural Gas Vehicles The Clean Way to Go with a Domestic Fuel". Washington Gas. - "How do you fuel a natural gas vehicle, and how long does it take? A natural gas vehicle is fueled using a hose and nozzle that are attached to a natural gas pump. A natural gas vehicle can be fueled at a "fast-fill" pump in about the same time it takes to fuel any gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle. Or it can be fueled in five-to-eight hours using a "slow-fill" method. This method is often used for fleet vehicles that can return to a central station at the end of the day and be refueled during the night."
Natural gas is less flammable and explosive than other fuels

Natural gas is a safer fuel than gasoline and diesel fuels. This is related to the fact that it has a limited range of flammability; it requires the correct mixture of air and fuel to burn—somewhere in the 5 to 15 percent range, and an ignition temperature of approximately 1100 degrees F. This compares favorably to gasoline and diesel fuels which both have lower concentrations of flammability and lower temperatures of ignition.[4]
Technology minimizes environmental "footprint" of natural gas

"Natural Gas - A Fossil Fuel". Energy Information Administration - "Exploring and drilling for natural gas will always have some impact on land and marine habitats. But new technologies have greatly reduced the number and size of areas disturbed by drilling, sometimes called "footprints." Satellites, global positioning systems, remote sensing devices, and 3-D and 4-D seismic technologies, make it possible to discover natural gas reserves while drilling fewer wells. Plus, the use of horizontal and directional drilling make it possible for a single well to produce gas from much bigger areas than in the past."
Waste from natural gas extraction jeopardizes water resources

Mr. Gennaro, chairman of the Council’s Environmental Protection Committee responding to the concept of drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation by saying, “no” and “no.”...This is an activity that is completely and utterly inconsistent with a drinking water supply. This cannot happen. This would destroy the New York City watershed, and for what? For short-term gains on natural gas?"[2]
Liquefied natural gas can be a good fuel for vehicles.

Vehicles require a fuel that is easily transportable and that is capable of working with existing or modified combustion engines. Liquefied natural gas is capable of this. This is particularly important in the context of the fact that one of the largest contributors to global warming is vehicles. Because LNG is capable of being used in vehicles, while many other "energy" sources are not (or less so), it is a very important "clean" alternative.
Natural gas leaks are a fire and explosion risk

"Cleveland: Natural Gas Boom Has Hidden Danger". 2 May 2008 - "Our affiliate in Cleveland, Ohio is reporting on the hidden dangers of natural gas wells being drilled in residential neighborhoods...NewsChannel5 Chief Investigator Duane Pohlman interviews an elderly couple who lost their home after a massive natural gas explosion, which was traced to a new well located just down the road from their home."
Natural gas can cost much less than gasoline per gallon

The cost of CNG can be as little as half that of a gallon of gas if you use a home refueling device. And at commercial stations, the cost is still less than gasoline. Some research pegs the fuel savings at about 30 percent less than gasoline on average. In Utah, in August of 2008, compressed natural gas was selling for roughly 87 cents a gallon compared to gasoline, according to the New York Times.[3]
Unregulated natural gas car conversions can be dangerous

Brandon Loomis. "Mileage vs. safety? Number of natural gas car conversions explodes". The Salt Lake Tribune. 26 August 2008 - "Many of the [natural gas] vehicles [in Utah] - including the nearly 700 that earned one-time tax breaks last year - are professionally equipped, safe and certified by the Environmental Protection Agency...Others are backyard jobs with worn tanks and faulty exhaust systems, endangering both motorists and the Wasatch Front's air, Clean Cities Director Robin Erickson said. Those who buy old tanks or don't install kits properly are creating car bombs..."They could cause a serious explosion," Erickson warned."
Natural gas is abundant, cheap, and will last for centuries.

One 2007 study in the United States found that natural gas deposits are sufficient to supply 118 years of U.S. demand at 2007 levels. Natural gas is similarly abundant around the world. Essentially, it is as abundant as oil was 50 years ago, largely because it has not been exploited on a large scale yet. Such abundance means that it is likely to cost much less than oil.
Natural gas vehicles are commercially viable now

"Natural Gas Vehicles - A 'Now Solution' to Reducing Global Warming". IANGV. 02 June 2003 - "The world-wide organization says vehicles using compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) now total more than two million and are operating in more than 50 countries. "The natural gas vehicle industry is mature and commercially viable in many countries. More than 50 vehicle manufacturers are now producing factory-built natural gas vehicles," says the organisation’s New Zealand-based Secretary-General, Dr Garth Harris."
Odors added to natural gas to enable human detection

"Why Natural Gas Is Dangerous". Alliant Energy - "When natural gas first comes out of the ground, you can’t see it or smell it. That’s why gas companies add a chemical that smells like rotten eggs to the gas to make even the smallest leaks easy to notice...Luckily, natural gas leaks are rare. Fires and explosions are even more uncommon – the rotten egg smell helps people get help quickly before anything bad happens. A minute amount of odorant such as t-butyl mercaptan, with a rotting-cabbage-like smell, is added to the otherwise colorless and almost odorless gas, so that leaks can be detected before a fire or explosion occurs. Sometimes a related compound, thiophane is used, with a rotten-egg smell. Adding odorant to natural gas began in the United States after the 1937 New London School explosion. It is substantially improved the detection and safety of natural gas.
Natural gas vehicles have been around for decades

"Natural Gas Vehicles The Clean Way to Go with a Domestic Fuel". Washington Gas. - "Is using natural gas in engines a new idea? Not at all. The first natural gas engine was built in 1860, before the development of the gasoline engine. Natural gas vehicles have been used with much success in the United States since the 1960s and in Europe for nearly 50 years. In fact, there are currently more than 30,000 natural gas vehicles on U.S. roads and over 700,000 worldwide."
Argument: Natural gas can be harmful and even poisonous to ingest

"'Natural' gas may be harmful to your health". AEHA. - "AEHA-NS. and its coalition partners are investivaging the harmful effects of piper natural gas on environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity, asthma and allergies as part of the Environmental Assessment of the Sable Island Gas Project proposal....The effects of the transmission and use of piped natural gas upon persons with environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity (2), asthma or allergies can be significant and extremely harmful."
Compressed natural gas vehicles cost more

"The Natural Gas Alternative". ConsumerReports.org - "CNG-powered vehicles have generally cost more to purchase new than comparable gasoline models. Suggested retail for the Civic GX is $24,590 plus $635 for freight. A comparably equipped, gasoline-powered Civic LX lists for $17,760. Honda concedes GX resale values can also be $1,000 to $3,000 less than their gasoline counterparts. Add to that the cost of a Phill refueling unit at $3,400 plus the installation cost, upwards of $500, and the premium could easily top $10,000."
NGV's may reduce emissions, but still contribute to global warming

Natural gas vehicles run on natural gas, a fossil fuel, so emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, albeit smaller amounts than gasoline-fueled cars (roughly 30% less). If our goal is to aggressively fight global warming, does it make sense to invest in slightly cleaner technologies, or fully 0-emission ones? If we are serious about combating global warming, we should be focusing our energies and investments solely on 0-emission electric vehicles.
Most nations must import natural gas from abroad

Katie Fehrenbacher. "10 Things You Should Know About Natural Gas Vehicles". Earth2Tech - "4). Natural gas is still a fossil fuel: Natural gas might be cleaner-burning than oil but it’s still a hydrocarbon that has to be taken out of wells and is in limited supply. The California Energy Commission says that with the rising demand for natural gas (accompanied by high oil prices) more than 15 percent of our natural gas will be imported from countries other than Canada and Mexico by 2025."
Renewable Electricity Standard equivalent to an energy tax

Jonathan DuHamel. "National Renewable Energy Standard Will Mean Higher Electricity Bills." Tuscon Citizen. September 30th, 2010: "National renewable energy standards for electricity will have the effect of a national energy tax which will raise rates on families and businesses, cause loss of jobs, and further depress the economy. What was that promise Obama made about taxes and the middle class? Renewable energy standards are just another rip-off of consumers and taxpayers by rent-seekers, lobbyists, and radical greens."
National standard punishes states with less renewable energy

Karen Kerrigan. "Commentary: Renewable energy legislation would add to drain on small business." Washington Post. July 26th, 2010: "A federal renewable energy mandate would require that a percentage of a state's energy be produced from "renewable" sources. The federal government would arbitrarily decide what sources are considered 'renewable.' The mandate does not take geography into account and fails to consider that many states do not have access to affordable renewable energy sources. This means the legislation is inequitable; it will punish small-business owners in states where renewable sources are limited."
15%-by-2021 RES is insufficient to liberals

Paul Tullis. "Why the Senate's Renewable Electricity Standard Stinks." Change.org. September 27, 2010: "The second reason to kill the bill is that it’s actually worse than nothing. As has been noted here previously, the U.S. already averages about 12 percent renewables; getting to 15 in the next 11 years is a foregone conclusion. The low standard could actually slow the development of clean energy."
Renewable Energy Standard fosters clean energy economy and jobs

Amelia Timbers. "Why a National Renewable Energy Standard *Is* a Jobs Bill." Triple Pundit. February 25th, 2010: "Last week, the American Wind Energy Association held a webinar that went through a study by Navigant Consulting, pointing to the many ways passing a national renewable electricity standard would lead to an economic boon across the U.S. It seems that the FOXNews message that a climate change bill would hurt job growth is untrue. (Surprised?) Paired with rigorous renewable energy standards, Navigant Consulting suggests that 274,000 blue collar construction jobs could be added in areas of the country that need both jobs and renewable energy. While Navigant based its assumptions on the big “if” that climate change legislation passes both houses, however its study should increase the momentum toward such a result. The bad news is that without a climate change/ increased renewable energy standard combination, all states will see renewable energy jobs cut between the years 2010 and 2025, with the heaviest losses in California. Why? Because without increasing requirements for sustainable energy that drive up the demand for renewable energy in other states, California’s proliferating cleantech business is likely to plateau after meeting California’s needs."
Renewable Electricity Standard is more consistent than tax credits

David Roberts. "Does the RES stand a chance?" Grist. September 8th, 2010: "Policy-wise, [a national renewable energy strategy] should be a no-brainer. To date, U.S. clean energy industries have been supported, if at all, by tax credits, which tend to come and go contingent on the political atmosphere and the mood of the Ways and Means Committee."
Renewable Energy Standard increases energy prices, kills jobs

Karen Kerrigan. "Commentary: Renewable energy legislation would add to drain on small business." Washington Post. July 26th, 2010: "In response to challenging economic conditions, local Virginia retailer Barb Werner has cut costs to the bone, eaten every cost increase without raising prices and forgone her own salary to maintain her employees. Her shop, Black-Eyed Susan, on Church Street in Vienna, is known for its unique merchandise at reasonable prices. If energy costs go up, she says she will have to cut staff. Her margins only allow her to absorb so much. And she predicts that everyone she buys from -- mainly small U.S. manufacturers -- will be forced to raise their prices, too, which means she will be forced to raise hers and lose the competitive advantage she currently enjoys. Higher energy prices are one more cost burden she -- and all small-business owners -- would have to bear. 'It's a slap in the face,' she said. A comprehensive energy policy is critical for our nation, but it cannot come at the expense of the small-business sector -- the backbone of our economy. President Obama and congressional leaders say they want to help small businesses create jobs and grow, but the RES mandate along with other intrusive regulations that will raise costs are non-starters."
US Renewable Electricity Standard is popular

David Roberts. "Does the RES stand a chance?" Grist. September 8th, 2010: "Is it popular? Any politician should be so popular. Last month in a Pew/National Journal poll a whopping 78 percent of respondents supported an RES, including 70 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Independents. Requiring utilities to use more clean energy has been one of the most reliably popular energy policy options for years. The last few months have seen a stream of editorials, signed letters, and statements of support of the policy from prominent conservatives and industry groups."
Renewable energy standard ensures market certainty for clean energy

Daniel Goldfarb. "Renewable Energy Standard: Symbolism or Substance?" Huffington Post. September 28th, 2010: "In terms of the real effects of this policy, the passage of this bill would send a stable signal to companies that there will be a market for renewable energy in America ten years down the road, although it will do nothing to guarantee that it will be a robust market. With the impending changes in Congress's make up as well as the expirations of the Clean Energy Treasury Grant Program, the Production Tax Credit (PTC), the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and ARRA's funding for energy innovation and deployment, America's clean-energy sector may be heading towards a cliff. Although the RES will do little to push America's market for clean-energy past business-as-usual, it will ensure that the market doesn't begin moving backwards. For this reason it is important that this particular bill, in the words of Wentworth, provides a "floor, not a ceiling" for America's clean-energy economy." And, of course, growing America's clean energy economy in this way will help lower US emissions and fight climate change.
A national renewable energy standard will increase electricity costs

Ronald Bailey. "Forcing Consumers to Buy Renewable Energy." Reason Foundation. July 13, 2010: "So will renewables soon be cost competitive? There are reasons to doubt they will be. Taking EIA projections with the requisite grain of salt, the agency’s Annual Energy Outlook for 2010 estimated the levelized costs [PDF] of various generation plants in 2016. Levelized costs include the cost of constructing a plant, the time required to construct a plant, the non-fuel costs of operating a plant, the fuel costs, the cost of financing, and the utilization of a plant. The levelized costs per megawatt hour are $100 for conventional coal power, rising to $129 for advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration. On-shore wind costs are $149 per megawatt hour, and off-shore costs are $191. The cost of solar photovoltaic power is $396 per megawatt hour and solar thermal is $257. For what it’s worth, advanced nuclear comes in at $119 per megawatt hour. Crudely, these levelized costs suggest that substituting wind for conventional coal under a 20 percent mandate would boost electricity prices by 10 percent. Similarly substituting solar photovoltaic power would increase electricity prices by about 20 percent."
Renewable energy standard unifies scattered state standards

"Nation needs a standard for renewable energy." The Denver Post Editorial. September 29th, 2010: "While more than 30 states have a renewable standard of some sort, some of them are lower than 15 percent, are voluntary and have later phase-in deadlines. A national standard would provide certainty for renewable energy researchers and businesses and prompt private investment in the area. While we don't support long-term subsidies to prop up renewable energy development, we think a national standard would provide an important kick-start as the nation moves to diversify its energy consumption portfolio."