BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science can measure and analyse the effect of certain moral behaviour on others.

Sam Harris 'Moral truth entirely depends on actual and potential changes in the well-being of conscious creatures. As such, there are things to be discovered about it through careful observation and honest reasoning .' [[http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape-q-a-with-sam-harris]] Scientific analysis can identify the moral laws that bring about more overall happiness or more suffering than others. This means that we are able to know the truth about the effectiveness of those systems. The example of the Taliban, a group who use a moral system that is deemed to have failed: Sam Harris 'The Taliban are a perfect example of a group of people who are struggling to build a society that is obviously less good than many of the other societies on offer. Afghan women have a 12% literacy rate and a life expectancy of 44 years. Afghanistan has nearly the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the world. It also has one of the highest birthrates. Consequently, it is one of the best places on earth to watch women and infants die. And Afghanistan’s GDP is currently lower than the world’s average was in the year 1820.  It is safe to say that the optimal response to this dire situation—that is to say, the most moral response—is not to throw battery acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning to read' [[http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape-q-a-with-sam-harris]]
Science can produce practical solutions and propose new policies to improve overall happiness.

Morality suffers from vagueness when it comes to looking for practical solutions to moral problems. Either it is deemed taboo to make judgements about the moral codes of other societies because of extreme political correctness, or it is believed that because of the difficulty of the task and a lack of success so far, it is actually impossible to map a morality system using science. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape-q-a-with-sam-harris/ 'I think there are two primary reasons why scientists hesitate to do this. The first, and most defensible, is borne of their appreciation for how difficult it is to understand complex systems. Our investigation of the human mind is in its infancy, even after nearly two centuries of studying the brain. So scientists fear that answers to specific questions about human well-being may be very difficult to come by, and confidence on many points is surely premature. This is true. But, as I argue in my book, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a huge mistake. The second reason is that many scientists have been misled by a combination of bad philosophy and political correctness. This leads them to feel that the only intellectually defensible position to take when in the presence of moral disagreement is to consider all opinions equally valid or equally nonsensical. On one level, this is an understandable and even noble over-correction for our history of racism, ethnocentrism, and imperialism.  But it is an over-correction nonetheless. As I try to show in my book, it is not a sign of intolerance for us to notice that some cultures and sub-cultures do a terrible job of producing human lives worth living.' Nothing can actually be done – no set of moral laws can be approved and made official - until there are at least some concrete solutions that are proven to work. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape-q-a-with-sam-harris/ 'Moral truth entirely depends on actual and potential changes in the well-being of conscious creatures. As such, there are things to be discovered about it through careful observation and honest reasoning. It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values—allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals—is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do.'
Science can't produce faith.

Science can produce answers but it can never give us quite the motivation that faith does. To live a morally good live, even under adversity – to help others even when you are misunderstood and persecuted – requires enormous faith. Just because a respected scientist said that this is the best way isn't enough. Moral codes are something inspired in us by deities, our parents, our own experiences and flashes of insight and inspiration – the most powerful authorities. Apart from that, science is always up for debate and always being revised. Morals are supposed to be codes to live by, something that will take you through everything – they can't be under threat that they might be changed tomorrow! Science cannot equal faith because faith requires you to believe in something when you can't find evidence for it or prove it to be true, or even when it seems to go against logic.
Science can't have a spiritual aspect.

'http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape-q-a-with-sam-harris/ Religious ideas about good and evil tend to focus on how to achieve well-being in the next life, and this makes them terrible guides to securing it in this one' This makes a massive assumption that happiness in this life can be divorced from happiness in the next, and from the spiritual dimension of the world and other planes of existence than the mundane. To a strongly religious person, it can't – the spiritual is ingrained in everything they do. These are problems that are real to them and need to be dealt with, a system of morality that ignores such things is only half complete. Avoiding the question of someone's spiritual health would be like looking at only physical well-being and not mental health. Science can't deal with these aspects of moral life because spiritual phenomena can't be scientifically tested.
Leads to exploitation of developing countries

First of all, team affirmative has taken the UNEP and nuclear reactor technology exportation in a singular perspective. Promoting nuclear energy expansion is not simply a ploy for profit. It is undeniable that nuclear energy will be a crucial contributor of energy in the future and that it is especially advantageous for poorer countries to gradually transition out of fossil fuel dependence, especially because they are most dramatically hit by fluctuating oil prices. In this light, convincing developing states with rising populations and thus rising carbon emission rates, and thus rise for energy demand, may even be beneficial and in the best interest for many of such importing nations (which maybe why the UN promotes such practices). Moreover, even in the perspective presented by the affirmative, such reasons still do not substantiate enough reason for a ban. Like said before, conflict intertwined in trade and politics happens in any and all industries. A ban, however, in the name of energy independence, does not solve any problems. Energy security is certainly a problem that must be inevitably met and compromised, however energy independence is a pipe dream. Regarding the affirmative's example of Iran, this case is irrelevant as there was admittedly controversy regarding the high possibility of arms development under the guise of energy development. Which was further unverifiable and understandably distressing to the international community. This is another problem of the self-development plan the affirmative suggests. Bans will likely put nuclear development in a shade, if anything, only increasing the very safety issue the affirmative itself has mentioned. An open and safely regulated trade of the technology would bring development and exchange into light, setting standards, and establishing guidelines in which could be properly headed by the IAEA. Also to reemphasize, the monopoly the affirmative suggests will never last nor is it necessarily a bad thing.
Freedom and Sovereignty

Trade of technology is a matter between two countries. “Nothing contained in the present Charter”, the UN states, “shall authorize [itself] to intervene in matters…essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.”[[www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml]] The UN may intervene if that trade poses a clear threat to other nations. As our rebuttal shows, the nuclear reactor is not a free pass for a bomb. The statistics is also clear; among over thirty countries with nuclear plants, less than 10 countries have advanced far enough to possess nuclear weapons.[[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country]]The technology in question, therefore, does not qualify as such a threat. Even if the proposition believes otherwise, individual states are to make that judgment, not the UN. Sovereignty of a state comes from its citizens; and that of the UN, its member states. The UN shall not represent individual states’ people; only states shall judge whether their citizens are in danger. As many countries are interested in usage of nuclear energy[[www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.html]], the UN should not block them. The situation is more complex since the trade involves private corporations. As in case of the US and the UK[[www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41_US_nuclear_power_policy.html, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom]], nuclear reactors are often constructed and managed by corporations, despite various government regulations. The trade of technology therefore is often not a diplomatic pact but commercial business. A state shall decide whether to restrict that individual freedom, not the UN. A democratic state cannot interrupt that business unless it poses a clear harm to the public welfare, which is not the case here—how does the UN get to do so? Note that a state also has duty to protect the individual freedom—to defy the ban.
Nuclear energy is a crucial alternative energy source that is too valuable to be restricted.

While none can truly replace fossil fuels, only one source is currently a contributor strong enough to supply a large portion of what fossil fuels power now, and that's nuclear energy. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6860191.ece]] Nuclear energy may well be the only possible candidate that produces anything nearly as close to what fossil fuel sources do now while being committed to significantly reducing carbon emissions. [[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/05/INGRBH0HFH1.DTL]] Currently the third largest source, nuclear energy supplies about a sixth of all electricity generation in the world, only slightly less than hydro power. [[http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html]] Nuclear power plants are far more gross-land efficient than both fossil-fuel plants and hydro-electric plants and have much potential to expand throughout the world. Moreover, experts predict that nuclear energy will be a sustainable source for 30,000-60,000 years. It is also expected that energy security will be considerably reliable considering the widely available 16million metric tons of uranium. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last]] While being the only feasible large-scale alternative to fossil-fuels, nuclear energy is also an excellent method in curbing carbon emissions. In the US, nuclear energy provided about a fifth of all produced electricity, saving 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions yearly, an amount that matches the amount from all US passenger car exhaust. [[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=204363]]. As a source with such potential, limiting expansion is simply putting a choke-hold on our future.
Safety concerns

Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, countries are encouraged to work together for the development of Civilian Nuclear projects, this happens with direct Bi-Lateral Agreements between countries which may not keep strong safety standards, for example China has offered Energy starved Pakistan its old Nuclear power plants.[[ http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/China-to-Sell-Outdated-Nuclear-Reactors-to-Pakistan-118572049.html%5D%5D When nuclear technology is exported to different countries around the world, they will lack the technical knowledge of maintaining such sensitive installations. Even those countries who develop such technologies themselves have proven to be incapable of maintaining them, In the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster of 1986, thousands of people lost their lives due to dangerously high levels of radiations which spread throughout most of Europe, even though the plant was under the direct control of Russian authorities, they failed to maintain a level of safety.[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster ]]Recently, in Japan the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster was also a Level 7 Nuclear disaster which took place because of inadequate safety measures in the wake of a natural disaster. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant]]. Even countries that develop such technologies cannot be trusted to maintain adequate levels of safety. Hence it would be potentially disastrous to export such Nuclear Reactor technology to other countries that are incapable of safely handling it. Moreover, resources starved countries like India will not dispose nuclear waste safely because of the costs associated with it. Even financially strong countries have been known to be involved in the improper disposal of nuclear waste, in the 1980s, an Italian organization was found dumping drums of nuclear waste in Somalia .[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta]]
Response to rebuttal)Strawman fallacies

The Proposition relies on strawman fallacy. First of all, the issue here is the export of civilian technology. The proposition may list broad UN monitoring of civilian usage, but that’s as far as the UN can go, to avoid overinclusive suppression on indirectly related technology. Moreover, we provided factual basis on why civilian and military nuclear usage are utterly different; the proposition simply couldn’t respond. It seems that the proposition is also aware that its logic is flawed, dangling on irrelevant regulations and statistics. Note that three (not five!) countries’ success in nuclear armament did not result from civilian tech import, either; Pakistan received assistance from China, etc. in developing WMD and North Korea exchanged info with Iran. More importantly, the proposition doesn’t respond to the core point; states shall decide whether threat exists. The growing reliance on nuclear energy shows that many countries weigh benefits over risk. The proposition’s belief is irrelevant as long as it can’t present contradictory consensus. As for feasibility, the proposition provides wrong facts. 1, No force for environment as it doesn’t harm global peace: unbalance of carbon emission among countries and consequent “unfair” transmission has caused significant conflicts, not to mention long term disaster. 2, sanctions on Iran and North Korea: the status quo speaks for itself. Whether they were strict do not matter; and certainly whether the proposition believes sanctions to be strict is irrelevant to this debate. 3, Lack of military action due to North Korea’s attitude: the only reason is that China and Russia don’t want it. Similarly we argued many members of the Security Council will block any substantial ban, yet the proposition failed to respond. Ultimately, the proposition is silent to priority. It didn’t show why controlling civilian nuclear usage, which at maximum has faint link, is more important than widely acknowledged global w
We believe that the export of nuclear reactor technology results in an imbalanced economic and political dependence that is both harmful for the importer country and the global political climate

Carbon based fuels currently account for more than two thirds of the total electricity generation world wide. However, the worsening ecological situation of the world means that countries are being forced to turn to other methods of power generation to meet rising demand. Nuclear power offers the most suitable alternative to fossil fuels. However, only 3-4 countries in the world posses the ability to completely process and produce enriched uranium fuel used in nuclear power stations. Even if countries were willing and able to develop uranium enrichment facilities strict IAEA regulations mean that they would not be allowed develop such technology. Thus, we have an arrangement where countries import nuclear technology, and rely on the USA, Russia or one of the other supplier countries for the nuclear fuel rods used in the reactor. For countries that rely extensively on nuclear power for their electricity generation needs but import the fuel necessary for the functioning of these plants, an arrangement being proposed by the EU for Iran, this means that well being of their economy is completely dependant upon their supplier country, this gives the supplier country significant political and economic clout with the importer country ,and we as a responsible government believe that such a situation is harmful for the global political situation Although this situation is similar to the current status quo whereby oil exporting countries enjoy a similar amount of clout, incase of nuclear technlogy this dependancy would be much more acute and irreversable since the initial cost of a nuclear plant is mich higher and nuclear plants unlike those using fossil fuels cannot be converted to use other forms of energy
Leads to exploitation of developing countries

The UNEP states one of its key goals to work for the progress of environmentally friendly technology in the developing world. Not only is the United States the most influential member of the UN, it is also the leading exporter of nuclear reactor technology. What this means for importer countries is, that the US will pressurize them to opt for nuclear technology just so they can sell this expensive technology to them. This might seem improbable to some, but it has been going on from a long time now, The United States is mounting diplomatic pressure on even developing countries to slash carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. The only way for them to do so is to purchase Nuclear power systems from countries like the US on a higher price. Environment is not the only factor that is being used by countries like the United States to sell more Nuclear power systems. The United States is also declares certain countries “incapable” of managing their own Nuclear power plants and is offering such countries to buy this technology or face diplomatic pressure. The United States is working on a Nuclear Power project itself in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, but has pressurized neighboring Iran to give up its nuclear program just because they think it’s not safe enough just because Iran developed the program itself.[[ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123862439816779973.html%5D%5D In ways similar to these countries like the United States are pressurizing the developing world to purchase nuclear technology from them, against their own will by threatening to sideline them if they initiate their own nuclear program. Nuclear Technology is far too expensive for most developing nations to afford in the first place and thus it is criminal on part of the UN to allow countries like the US to exploit their position. By banning the export of nuclear reactor technology, we are restricting this from happening and hence allowing countries to develop nuclear programs at their own pace and
Feasibility

As far as the authority and the jurisdiction of the UN in dealing with these matters in concerned, we have already dealt with this matter in our previous rebuttal. Contrary to what team opposition would have you believe, the UN does have the ability and authority to enforce these measures .Before the opposition claims incompetence on part of the UN we would urge them to understand that the primary purpose of the UN is to uphold global peace and that it only uses force in cases where this is threatened, and although the environment, which is where team opposition draw almost all of their examples from ,an important issue the Undoes not use force in such matters. Such matters cannot command the kind of focus that a potential nuclear threat would. Thus the parallels of incompetence drawn by team opposition are completely irrelevant. In cases where the security of the whole community was threatened the UN has repeatedly shown that it has the ability and the will to take action: the UN has placed strict sanctions on Iran[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6205295.stm]] and North Korea [[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-30/obama-widens-sanctions-against-north-korea-in-bid-to-cut-off-nuclear-funds.html]] which stands testament to the UN’s commitment to dealing with issues of Nuclear threats. In the example of North Korea given by team opposition, the only reason the UN hasn’t taken military action is because North Korea has repeatedly shown the willingness to diplomatically resolve the issue. Furthermore North Korea in using the NPT to acquire Nuclear weapons know-how has vindicated our stance on how the NPT has failed to do its part[[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/npt-fails/]], and thus the spread of Nuclear technology that was allowed under it should be banned.
Being the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel energy, expansion of the technology must be available through trade.

Although this argument seems to be a rephrased form of the previous argument, team propoition will be dealing with it again. Team opposition will have you believe that countries that are incapable of producing such technologies themselves should promptly be offered this technology by other more developed countries. In doing so, they fail to realize the security threat the region will face if this sensitive technology gets transferred to countries that are incapable of maintaining and securing it. It is crucial under this case to see how even one incident caused by such a lack of responsibly by an importer country will devastate the whole region. Furthermore team opposition fails to realize that it is nuclear technology we are debating on. They fail to even notice the great security threat it poses to the region when one power plant in one incapable, under developed country falls short on security measures and cripples the economy of the region, in addition to a potentially colossal loss of life. We at team proposition realize the importance of even the life of one individual, who may lose his/her life just because of the incapability of the state. As we explained time and again, under developed countries lack the resources and expertise to maintain and secure such imported nuclear power plants, if they did have these resources and expertise, they would initiate their nuclear program themselves and hence the threat to their security cannot be ignored. Just because it seems nuclear power can replace the use of fossil fuels does not mean that the threat to global security be ignored. According to statistics, 43% of nuclear power plants in the US failed in countering mock security threats. What would happen if we transfer this technology to countries in Asia and Africa that are completely incapable of dealing with even minor security issues? At team proposition we cannot ignore this threat.