BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Geoengineering is one part of larger climate fight

Jamais Cascio. "It's Time to Cool the Planet." Wall Street Journal. June 15th, 2009: "let's be clear about one other thing: We will still have to radically reduce carbon emissions, and do so quickly. We will still have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and adopt substantially more sustainable agricultural methods. We will still have to deal with the effects of ecosystems damaged by carbon overload. But what geoengineering can do is slow the increase in temperatures, delay potentially catastrophic 'tipping point' events such as a disastrous melting of the Arctic permafrost and give us time to make the changes to our economies and our societies necessary to end the climate disaster. Geoengineering, in other words, is simply a temporary 'stay of execution.' We will still have to work for a pardon."
Risks of geoengineering smaller than risks of climate change.

If we do not undertake geoengineering, the effects will be much worse than anything that could happen if we did work with it and possibly even made mistakes. The tests that have already been carried out have been very successful with limited or no unintended consequences. Examples include solar radiation projects (such as using pale-colored roofs to reflect the sun’s light, and doing the same to pavement). Other test projects such as the iron fertilization of algae blooms have gone well, with little or no consequences.
Human error could cause devastating impacts with geoengineering.

Geoengineering proposals often start with the best of intentions and with no negative foreseeable outcomes, but human error could result in the deadliest of consequences. Robert Jackson, director of Duke University’s Center on Global Change warns, 'Playing with the Earth’s climate is a dangerous game with unclear rules, we need more direct ways to tackle global warming, including energy efficiency, reduced consumption, and investment in renewable energy sources.'
Geoengineering gives time and optimism to climate fight

Samuel Thernstrom. "What Role for Geoengineering?" The American. March 2, 2010: "Seen in the proper light, geoengineering is potentially the key to unlock the mitigation puzzle—a way of controlling climate risks during the many decades that it will take to transform the global energy system. Asking nations to spend trillions to avoid damages (mostly many) decades in the future while doing little to address warming’s more immediate effects is a difficult task. But if geoengineering can stave off short- and medium-term harms while giving time for a long-term solution to take effect, the result is a coherent policy proposal that may enjoy broader public support."
Geoengineering is temporary intervention to buy time.

Gwynne Dyer, author of Climate Wars: "Holding the temperature down is an intervention. It’s an intervention that’s intended to be temporary. It wins you time to get your emissions down. The goal is still to get the emissions down. And many other goals that you and I would agree upon are attainable, but only with time. And we don’t have the time. We are going to be—the last report out of the Hadley Center suggested, on current track, we are four degrees Celsius hotter, average global temperature, by 2060. It’s only fifty years."[2]
International community will accept necessity of geoengineering.

Without cuts to CO2 emissions, Geo-engineering is the last option. Many experts warn that if CO2 emissions aren't cut drastically, then Geo-engineering will be the last option. If it is the last and only option, the international implications would be that if nothing is done, the Earth would be doomed, so it is very likely that, internationally, Geo-engineering solutions would be accepted widely.
Consequences of geoengineering could be worse than climate change

Graeme Wood. "Re-Engineering the Earth." The Atlantic. September 12th, 2010: "as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life. Perhaps more disturbing, it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the climate that would hit the globe unevenly. 'Plausibly, 6 billion people would benefit and 1 billion would be hurt,' says Martin Bunzl, a Rutgers climate-change policy expert. The billion negatively affected would include many in Africa, who would, perversely, live in a climate even hotter and drier than before. In India, rainfall levels might severely decline; the monsoons rely on temperature differences between the Asian landmass and the ocean, and sulfur aerosols could diminish those differences substantially."
Geoengineering ideas can help scare world into climate action

Samuel Thernstrom. "What Role for Geoengineering?" The American. March 2, 2010: "intuitively, it seems more likely that most people, when told about geoengineering, would be more inclined to support greater mitigation, not less, thinking: If such extreme measures are really being contemplated, surely we ought to more aggressively pursue other solutions."
Geoengineering tests/consequences distract from other problems.

There is the possibility of devastating long term effects if natural cycles or processes are interrupted or thrown off by geoengineering techniques. If the balance of nature is upset, it could result in natural disasters such as drought, famine, or extreme weather situations brought on by sudden changes in the composition of the atmosphere. All natural disasters cause disruption in the political system of a country. Money has to be expended to try to minimize the loss of life, research has to be paid for to find out what caused the disaster and what could prevent it from happening in the future, and politicians will have conflicting and ever changing ideas about what should be done and to what extent, and who should be doing it. While the government is scrambling to solve these problems, other important issues are pushed aside in its wake.
Geoengineering can be gradually tested and implemented.

Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution for Science, thinks we should test the technology gradually, comparing it to a knob on a device: "You can turn it gently or violently. The more gently it gets turned, the less disruptive the changes will be. Environmentally, the least risky thing to do is to slowly scale up small field experiments. But politically that’s the riskiest thing to do."[3]
Many geoengineering solutions cut atmospheric greenhouse gases.

These approaches address the root cause of climate change: greenhouse gases. They include: Fertilizing oceans to raise the amount of carbon-consuming algae, reforestation, biofuels combined with carbon sequestration and burying the resulting carbon mass, as well as large building-size air filters to draw C02 from the atmosphere. This responds to concerns by skeptics that geoengineering does not address the root cause of climate change - rising C02 and greenhouse levels. Certainly, these carbon-absorbing approaches do.
Geoengineering risks can be tested, corrected, avoided.

Very rarely, one of these projects goes bad, and even when they do, much is learned and the problem is soon fixed. Out of mistakes, a lot of astounding new ideas are born, and with these ideas, genial solutions are thought of. This has been shown throughout human history. Medicine is a good example, where plenty of mistakes and risks are present in the testing and production of new medicines, and yet nobody doubts the overall benefits of medicine. The same applies to the research, testing, and implementation of geoengineering.
States w/o nuclear programs still generate radioactive waste.

Nearly all countries produce nuclear waste. No matter what, therefore, the world must find a way to deal with it. If underground storage is the best way, then the world has no choice but to adopt the practice. A November 2010 EU Nuclear Commission report: "All EU member states generate radioactive waste, whether or not they have a national nuclear power program, and therefore have to identify solutions and define national requirements to manage it properly."[2]
All nuclear waste storage dangerous; no good option.

Jeremy Shere. "What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?" Moment of Science. March 23rd, 2010: "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. So far the containers seem safe, but there’s always the possibility of corrosion. So, basically, there is no best way to store nuclear waste."
The primary process reduces the level of debate at national conventions

Traditionally, the conventions were sources of ideological and policymaking debate for organisations – both Republican and Democrat – that are far less pan-national than their European counterparts (especially when the party concerned is out of power). Now, the conventions are little more than coronation events. As a result, policy-making suffers and a party's position on an important issue may change from election to election, depending only upon the personal views of the candidate.[3]
Superdelegates are not bound to represent the electorate.

In the past, "Super Delegates" have been a way for the Democratic party to secure a candidate at their convention. These elected officials make up a significant portion of the delegates and are not bound to vote for a particular candidate besides who they want to vote for them. This means that the electorate has no influence on who these "Super Delegates" vote for. In a close election, this can mean a small number of people with no concrete ties to the electorate, will decide the Democratic Candidate for the General Election.
US primaries give needed power to state parties

Both Democrat and Republican parties have national and state entities. State parties are to the national party organizations as states are to the federal government. State parties have somewhat of an independent interest that must be respected in the broader electoral process. Primaries achieve this, by empowering state parties to play a part in formulating the process by which delegates will be selected in the primaries. Given the importance of state power in the United States, it is necessary to keep state parties relevant in this way through the current primary system.
Parties don't have to treat all candidates equally in primaries

In political Parties that have a First Amendment right to free association, there is not really an obligation to be "fair" to every candidate and offer something equivalent to "equal opportunity". The party has a right to define what candidate is good for their political agenda and what candidate is bad for their political agenda. Basically, political parties can say, "if a candidate doesn't like it, too bad, run for office with a different party."
US primary elections help strengthen political parties.

The interests of state party organizations, such as the Tennessee Democratic Party, are important to consider in addition to the interests of the umbrella party organization (Democratic Party, Republican Party). And, these two organizational layers must work together cohesively to function most effectively. The primaries offer an opportunity for cohesion to be created, as it become necessary for state and national party organizations to coordinate their efforts and election processes and to reconcile their agendas. Such cohesion could not be flexed and exercised through something like a national primary.
Iowa and New Hampshire are not socially or culturally representative of the U.S.

New Hampshire also does not remotely represent the vast diversity of this country's racial, cultural and ideological background, according to the Census Bureau. The national average for Caucasians in a state population is 73.9 percent, but New Hampshire is over 95 percent white. African Americans and Hispanics make up only a combined miniscule 3.4 percent of the state population, while the national average is 27.2 percent. It also has a much smaller percentage of foreign-born individuals and people below the poverty level, while our median household income is significantly higher than that of the rest of the country
Primaries are too undemocratic relative to general elections.

The Primary elections are equally as important as the General election. For Democrats that hope to see a Democratic president, the Primaries are the elections that determine who that Democratic president might be. The same goes for Republicans. Yet, the general elections are a far more democratic process than the primaries, as the primaries give far more power to the Parties and delegates to determine the winner and nominee. Why is this? Primaries should be more democratic.
Well organized conventions have always been "coronation" events.

Conventions only degenerate into arguments when the party concerned has been in trouble, as at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago that saw street fighting between students and the police as the convention selected Vice-President Humphrey. Of course parties want well-orchestrated, triumphal conventions – they want to give the impression that their man is a winner and that they are united behind him. Furthermore and more importantly, the pre-primary conventions were corrupt, horse-trading events, with deals made in the fabled smoke-filled rooms filled with power brokers deciding who would become President. Delegates, whose votes would in theory decide the victor, were controlled by interest groups such as regional political patronage machines and business lobbies. The primaries make the convention a true party event, with all members of the party able to contribute.[2]
A national primary would violate Party rights to association

The problem with a national primary is that it would violate many of the interests and powers that are constitutionally and politically necessary to preserve. First, it would violate the state governments' powers in establishing the election process and state parties interests in working together with the state to craft this process. Second, it would violate the interests of the Parties to preserve their right to free association and to ensure that their nominee reflects the interests of their party.
“Backloading” of the primary schedule can help reduce the special interest effect contained in all “big money ‘ campaigns.

The specific alternative model of allowing small states to go first provides a chance for particular candidates to start a campaign in smaller states with fewer funds. They can build their support so they can actually succeed in getting votes from the bigger states. By allowing this to happen, large billion dollars worth campaigns will not be the only possible way to be a presidential candidate. The big money behind campaigns generally enhance the special interest effect of certain groups or individuals that have founded campaigns and later may be able to get benefits trough policies or legislation.
Primaries help reveal candidates to the public.

While some complain that the primaries are too long, these elections should be this long. These are not ordinary elections, but elections to select the most powerful man or woman on earth. It is worth taking the more time than most elections held around the world to scrutinize the candidates for this particular office. And, there are many important character traits that can only be revealed in such a lengthy grueling process. Endurance, fortitude, grace under fire are all necessary abilities in the face of such a massive campaign challenge, and they are all necessary abilities in the presidency itself. Therefore, the length of the process seems a greater asset than weakness in primary election system.
Rotating regional primaries solve the problems of the current process

. This would break the country into four regions, with the states in each region holding their primaries simultaneously on the first Tuesday of March, April, May, and June. Every year, the regions would rotate, with a new region getting the chance to go first. This would solve the problem of New Hampshire and Iowa receiving far too much voting power, would generally average-out the voting power of different states and voters, and yet would also preserve the basic state-primary systems and their important function in giving states due power.
Primaries create pride in unique local systems

While the primary system is complicated, this complication also produces pride within states and at precinct levels in the uniqueness of their particular process. This creates in voters a sense of identity with their state and Party and the process that they jointly develop. This is natural, since the United States is a government based on power-sharing between the federal and state governments. State governments benefit from the sense of pride and belonging that primaries foster. In short, the complicated primary system keeps states relevant and preserves their constitutional power.
Child beauty pageants sexualize children

Parents can also contribute to the sexualization of their daughters in very direct and concrete ways - for example, by entering their 5-year-old daughter in a beauty pageant in which she and the other contestants engage in behaviors and practices that are socially associated with sexiness: wearing heavy makeup to emphasize full lips, long eyelashes, and flushed cheeks, high heels to emulate adult women, and revealing “evening gowns.”
Child beauty contests worsen pedophilia, sex abuse

"Child beauty pageants. Um, no." Lovelyish. January 15th, 2011: "Another problem I have is that these kids are from the same parents who bitch and moan about pedophiles and perverted men watching their kids. Yes, these men are disgusting creatures and every parent has a right to not want them near their children. However, why are you vehemently boycotting pedophiles and other sick people all the while doing this to your kid. Yes, predators are fully responsible for their own actions; these mothers aren't telling them what to do. It just wouldn't be a bad idea if the parent would reevaluate their actions when they start wondering why their child is being stared at by an adult."
Beauty pageants foster destructive perfectionism, self-criticism.

William Pinsof, a clinical psychologist and president of the Family Institute at Northwestern University: "Being a little Barbie doll says your body has to be a certain way and your hair has to be a certain way. In girls particularly, this can unleash a whole complex of destructive self-experiences that can lead to eating disorders and all kinds of body distortions in terms of body image."[8]
Plenty of other activities are exclusive to boys/girls.

Some complain that beauty pageants are exclusive to women, but there are plenty of other sports that are exclusive to one sex or another, such as American football or female field hockey. None of this means that any discrimination is occurring. Rather, it just means that another alternative option exists among a myriad of other options for each sex. Sufficient options for extra curricular activities exist that neither complain that there is any kind of discrimination or unfairness going on.
Child beauty contests amount to child abuse.

"Child beauty pageants. Um, no." Lovelyish. January 15th, 2011: "I'd also like to point out that a little girl screaming, begging her mother not to 'tear it off' as she's held down in a chair for a brow-waxing is not just insensitive on the mother's part - it's abusive. Putting your four year old child through hours of hair-dying, waxing, extreme dieting, tanning, and who knows what else is so she can look like Cindy Crawford is child neglect. Why this is even legal is beyond me. I don't see a difference between repeatedly ripping your kid's hair out in the name of beauty and repeatedly hitting your child in the name of authority."
Child beauty pageants are almost wholly gender-based.

Leslie Cannold. "The ugly face of child beauty pageants." Sydney Morning Herald. May 21st, 2011: "Parents who propel their children into after-school study say they want the experience to teach their kids confidence and the value of practice. They also want their sons and daughters to learn how to follow a schedule, to develop the speed necessary to perform well on standardised tests and to become more disciplined and focused. This contrasts with the wish-list pageant mums have for their daughters which includes becoming comfortable on stage, learning poise, how to present themselves and to dress appropriately. The child beauty pageant issue must not become fodder for the seemingly endless mummy wars, or be used to satisfy the rapacious desire of evangelical Christians to have influence over other people's children. Instead, we need to support parents to have the same aspirations for their daughters' development and future success as they do their sons."
Better alternatives to beauty pageants for building character.

Kate Sullivan. "Should Child Beauty Pageants Be Banned Altogether?" Allure.com. May 26th, 2011: "Anything good that a pageant does for a child, something else does it better. As a former basketball player and competitive cheerleader (yes, it's a sport), I know that competition, and the wins and losses that went with it, educated me about the real world. But it's exactly because I did those self-esteem building activities that I know there are options for parents who want confident, happy kids. In a childhood that's full of opportunities for soccer games and spelling bees, why can't we just put away the self-tanner and baby high heels?"
Moms enter kids into beauty pageants for own insecurities

Leslie Cannold. "The ugly face of child beauty pageants." Sydney Morning Herald. May 21, 2011: "Some pageant mums are living out their own dreams of 'go[ing] somewhere in life', as one mother put it, rather than being 'stuck at home' due to early childbearing. While self-focused female ambition continues to be stigmatised in Western societies – with the ambitious working woman always contrasted unfavourably with the mum who sacrifices her career to stay at home – pageant mums justify their application of false eyelashes or even Botox to their children as evidence of a competitive desire for their daughter to win."
Beauty pageants aim for beauty, not sexy.

Beauty pageants are not trying to sexualize children. They are judging children on their beauty and how beautifully they dress and are "made up". Some parents might aim for "sexy", but this does not mean this is a winning formula; it would usually be considered offensive if there was such an over the top attempt. In general, contestants are going for classy, sophisticated, cute, adorable, even if they're only 5 years old.
Child beauty contests help teach kids to deal with competition.

William J. Cromie. "The whys and woes of beauty pageants." Harvard University Gazette. June 8th, 2010: "Parents with higher incomes and education beyond high school often cite teaching a child how to deal with competition as a main reason for entering pageants. Many of them want their daughters to be doctors, dentists, or to have professional careers, Levey discovered in interviews."