BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Moonbase will help answer remaining scientific questions

Robert Roy Britt. "10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon." Space.com. December 8, 2003: "4. Gather rocks [...] The Apollo era answered many questions about the Moon. But much was left undone. [...] Scientists see the Moon as an attic of Earth, a place where rocks long ago blasted from our planet are sitting around waiting to be studied. This history has not decayed much because there is almost no atmosphere and little geological activity on the Moon. [...] Earth, on the other hand, regularly recycles clues to its past, pulling material inward, and spitting it back out as unrecognizable lava. [...] 'We are talking about finding material from the very early Earth,' says John Armstrong of the University of Washington in Seattle. 'Samples of the Earth 3.9 to 4.0 billion years ago could tell us a lot about the state of the early atmosphere, what the crust and surface were like, and possibly even when life began to evolve.'"
Colonizing Moon will improve cooperation between countries

Robert Roy Britt. "10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon." Space.com. December 8, 2003: "2. Bring nations together Just as the International Space Station packed explorers from previously antagonistic nations into tight quarters, an effort to return to the Moon could bring nations together in an era of increasing international tension, some analysts say. China, with its own lunar ambitions, is a good example of a country the United States might want to work more closely with. 'I think the international public would cheer a program designed as a flagship for how space technology can be a role model for letting technicians of various countries work together in programs that would benefit all of us,' said William K. Hartmann, a senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson."
The Moon would be ideal site for a space observatory.

A lunar base would provide an excellent site for any kind of observatory. Particular advantages arise from building observatory facilities on the Moon from lunar materials. As the Moon's rotation is so slow, visible light observatories could perform observations for days at a time. It is possible to maintain near-constant observations on a specific target with a string of such observatories spanning the circumference of the Moon. The fact that the Moon is geologically inactive along with the lack of widespread human activity results in a remarkable lack of mechanical disturbance, making it far easier to set up interferometric telescopes on the lunar surface, even at relatively high frequencies such as visible light.
The proximity of the Moon to Earth makes it ideal to colonize

The Moon is the closest large body in the solar system to Earth. While some Earth-crosser asteroids occasionally pass closer, the Moon's distance is consistently within a small range close to 384,400 km. This proximity has several benefits, making it easier to transport supplies and build a colony, requiring less energy to do so, offering the prospect of emergency rescues and mission abortions, and also enabling timely communications.
Unfair fight; bull is severely injured before matador

Mac McDaniel. "It's Time to End Bullfighting." Care2. 2011: "The bulls in a standard bullfight are drugged and confused animals, debilitated and run in circles by others who stab them with spears before the matador approaches to make the "kill shot" with his sword. Anyone who believes this fight to be fair, is mistaken. By the time a matador approaches to actually kill the bull, the animal typically has enough spears in his neck and back muscles to prevent him from fully lifting his head."
Bullfighting celebrates death and cycle of life

Robert Elms. "End bullfighting and you give in to the neutering forces of accepted taste." The Independent. July 31st, 2010: "Our squeamishness means that we prefer death which is mechanical and invisible, while the Spanish understand that it is part of a cycle.[...] It is a public celebration of death (a subject we prefer to hide from in Britain) which, when it is done well, becomes a celebration of life. The man charged with the task of delivering a fine end to this fierce and powerful creature will dance with it along the way, laying his own life on the line to create a swirling symbiosis."
Bullfighting is not that big of a tourist draw.

Caroline Lucas. "Cut the bullfighting." The New Statesman. June 5th, 2008: "Economic concerns focus on bullfighting as a vital part of the tourist industry in Spain; as a generator of money and as an employer of people. Yet, tourists will visit Spain regardless of whether or not bullfighting exists, and as people become more ethically aware on their travels, tourist attendance at the shows looks set to fall even further. Indeed, a ComRes poll commissioned in April 2007 found that 89% of the British public would not visit a bullfight when on a holiday."
Bullfighting is an indecent form of torture

Jeremey Bentham, Theory of Legislation. Principles of the Penal Code. "The Culture of Benevolence". 1802 - "Cock-fights and bull-fights, the chase of the hare and the fox, fishing, and other amusements of the same kind, necessarily suppose a want of reflection or a want of humanity; since these sports inflict upon sensitive beings the most lively sufferings, and the most lingering and painful death that can be imagined."[2]
Bullfighting has long historical and mythical roots.

Bullfighting traces its roots to prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice. The killing of the sacred bull (tauroctony) is the essential central iconic act of Mithras, which was commemorated in the mithraeum wherever Roman soldiers were stationed. The oldest representation of what seems to be a man facing a bull is on the celtiberian tombstone from Clunia and the cave painting "El toro de hachos", both found in Spain.
People need not see bull die in order to understand death.

Video, pictures, books, and news reports all make it possible for individuals to learn about and understand death. It's occurring around us naturally all the time. It is completely unnecessary, therefore, to artificially produce death in the bullfighting arena in order to create an appreciation of the cycle of life and death, etc. Nature watching is also a good alternative. Or even hunting or fishing, in which an individual generally attempts to quickly and decently kills an animal that they will then eat. Torturing and bull for entertainment is unnecessary when compared to these outlets for understanding life and death.
Not a fair fight; bullfighters rarely injured/killed.

BullfightBloodbath.com: "What about the "brave" matadors, picadors and their ilk? Bullfighters are rarely injured and seldom killed in the ring. With their armory of weapons to weaken the bull until it can no longer fight, their lives are not at great risk. In fact, in the last 50 years only 10 bullfighters have been killed worldwide."
Majority on bullfighting shouldn't dictate end of tradition

Robert Elms. "End bullfighting and you give in to the neutering forces of accepted taste." The Independent. July 31st, 2010: "The real danger of all this is that [the ban on bullfighting in Cataluna] will begin to convince those Spaniards who are agnostic about the bulls – which may well be the majority, in the same way that most English people don't much care for cricket but aren't remotely opposed to it – that the corrida is doomed to die a slow death, that inevitably it will fade away as Spain becomes more like everywhere else, dominated by gaudy globalism and neutered by the homogenising forces of technology and accepted taste."
More risks the bullfighter takes the better

The best bullfighters are the ones that come closest to the bull, letting its horns pass inches by the fighters side, etc. The greater the risk for the bullfighter, the greater the reward from the crowd. This pressure makes the fight more fair. The bullfighter is not trying to stay as far away as possible in order to make a riskless kill; they are trying to demonstrate their courage and bravery in the face of potentially fatal risks.
Bullfighting thrives due to devout local fans, not tourists

Robert Elms. "End bullfighting and you give in to the neutering forces of accepted taste." The Independent. July 31st, 2010: "The oft-repeated claim that such rings are kept alive by tourists is ludicrous. Despite the economic recession, which has hit Spain especially hard, the corrida is still thriving. Its top practitioners are huge stars, and its fans, among them a prominent group of British aficionados, intensely devoted, because it is still the very soul of this dark and complex country."
Life of bullfighting bull more decent than factory bull.

Robert Elms. "End bullfighting and you give in to the neutering forces of accepted taste." The Independent. July 31st, 2010: "Those who see bullfighting as cruel are, of course, right. It is cruel that man should breed and kill animals for his enjoyment whether as a dinner or a dance. But to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beefburgers."
Majorities in bullfighting states & elsewhere oppose it.

"What's wrong with bullfighting?" League Against Cruel Sports: "Recent polls have shown that the majority of people are against bullfighting. 89% of British people would not visit a bullfight (ComRes 2008), whilst in Spain 67% are not interested in bullfighting (Gallup 2008). In France, 69% of people oppose public funding for bullfighting (YouGov 2009)."
Inflicting pain for the purposes of entertainment is wrong.

International Movement Against Bullfights: "The truth is, if a creature suffers then there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. All animals are sentient beings that experience joy, happiness, fear and pain, in the same way that human beings do. We can have no right whatsoever to make them suffer for our "enjoyment". If any torture inflicted to an animal deserves condemnation, bullfights are the worst kind of torture since they are performed solely in the name of entertainment. We must end the animals' torture and stop these shows of brutality and violence. It is too small a step from the intentional infliction of pain on an animal to the torture and killing of human beings."
Bulls are celebrated and honored in bullfighting.

In most bullfighting countries, bulls are honored as mystical creatures of immense strength and beauty. Statues of bulls regularly stand outside of bullfighting stadiums, and depict the animals in the most majestic, strong, and beautiful way possible. These statues frequently stand alone without an accompanying matador in the depiction. This respect and appreciation of the bull is a demonstration of the decency with which the art form treats the animal.
Horses suffer in bullfighting as much as bulls.

Bullfighting bloodbath.com: "Bulls are not the only creatures to suffer in bullrings. The tormented bull does not understand that it is the man on the horse's back that is causing his pain, only that he is in agony. He therefore sees the horse as his enemy as much as the man. It's not unusual for horses used in bullfights to be so badly gored by the bulls that they have to be killed, but only after they have been dragged from the ring and the view of the spectators."
Test ban may actually increase risky waste disposal.

If all the nuclear technology possessors comply to the CTBT then weapons that are already there have to be disposed of and the present method used of vitrification is a little bit expensive for developing countries. As, U.S.A has already been found disposing of waste material such as burying it under soil or geologic disposal which will affect land and water in a very bad way creating so many further problems such as pollution and diseases. Proper nuclear waste disposal technique have to be found which are viable and solve the problem of nuclear waste. But, in the meantime, the CTBT may actually increase risky and environmentally harmful waste disposal."[9]
Detecting nuclear tests is too difficult to enforce ban

Robert Irion. "Scientists convene in San Francisco to discuss Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty". University of California, Santa Cruz. January 6, 1997: "While the treaty calls for a total ban on nuclear testing, there is a threshold beneath which the seismic network will be unable to detect tiny events, Lay says. [...] 'We'd have to be able to look everywhere in the world for a magnitude 2.5 event, detect it, and discriminate between an earthquake, nuclear test, mining blast, or some other event. That's a staggering objective.'"
Nuclear test ban reduces risks of nuclear fallout

John F.Kennedy's Radio and Television Address to the American People on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Washington, D.C. July 26, 1963: "Our own atmospheric tests last year were conducted under conditions which restricted such fallout to an absolute minimum. But over the years the number and the yield of weapons tested have rapidly increased and so have the radioactive hazards from such testing. Continued unrestricted testing by the nuclear powers, joined in time by other nations which may be less adept in limiting pollution, will increasingly contaminate the air that all of us must breathe."
Test ban halts R&D and development of nuclear weapons

"A Case against Virtual Nuclear Testing." Scientific American Magazine. September 1999: "By barring explosive tests, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty severely constrains the way nations have traditionally evaluated changes in bomb designs and confirmed the performance of weapons to be stockpiled for military use. A ban on test explosions cannot alone prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, but it does pose a significant barrier to the development of weapons that rely on fusion reactions, including lighter, more compact and more powerful missile-borne nuclear warhead designs, such as those China has allegedly acquired from the U.S. through espionage and intelligence-gathering."
World can better leverage rogue states after ratifying CTBT

Samuel Berger, Sam Nunn, and William Perry. "Case for ratifying Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". Politico. June 2nd, 2009: "Let's be clear: we are not saying that if we set a shining example by ratifying the CTBT that Iran and North Korea will suddenly see the light and immediately abandon their nuclear programs. That is not our point. We do believe, however, that if the U.S. can move forward on CTBT it would help build and sustain the international cooperation required to apply pressure on nations like North Korea and Iran still seeking the nuclear option, enhance America's standing to argue that all nations should abide by global nonproliferation norms and rally the world to take other essential steps in preventing nuclear dangers."
Nuclear test ban lacks commitment to nuclear disarmament

Commenting on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in September 1996, India's former Minister for External Affairs, IK Gujral, said" "It is not a ‘comprehensive treaty,’ (as) it permits the nuclear weapon states to continue their weapons related research and development activity using non-explosive technologies; it lacks any meaningful commitment to nuclear disarmament and instead of being the definitive first step of the nuclear disarmament process, it only serves to perpetuate the existing discriminatory status quo.” This was the keystone of India’s stand on the CTBT in the 1990s."[3]
Nuclear Test Ban lacks force behind it

Paula A. Desutter "The Test Ban Treaty Would Help North Korea". The Wall Street Journal. June 1, 2009: "As for deterrence, it's a simple concept: convince others that the cost of taking an action you wish to prevent is far greater than any benefits. At a minimum, violators should not benefit from their violation. The Obama administration's special envoy for North Korea, Stephen Bosworth, has been touring the region warning of 'dire consequences' if North Korea tests. Strong words, but likely empty of substance."
Test ban is a key step toward nuclear disarmmaent

Daryl G. Kimball of the Arms Control Association, said in a speech delivered September 22, 2005:[1] "The de facto global nuclear test moratorium and CTBT’s entry into force are crucial barriers to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states and are essential to the future viability of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). They are the first two of the 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive nuclear disarmament that were unanimously adopted in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. In fact, the nuclear weapon states' commitment to the CTBT was vital in securing the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995."
Test ban treaty helps reduce wasteful government spending

By the virtue of this treaty if the countries comply to it then the money spent on building new weapons and research development can be reduced and this money can be used in different areas of economic development. The Five important and heavy economic earning GDP who are actively a part in this arms race if they all reduce it the world expenditure can be cut down and the money can be used for things like recovering from the 2008/2009 economic crisis. Estimated expenditure as shown by the various index shows massive amounts spent by countries to develop nuclear arsenals so as to react to any nuclear war by any country.[5]
Test ban ties hands of good states, while rogue states ignore it

Mikhail Gorbachev said on April 17, 2009: "There is no way to unmake nuclear weapons. Like guns, restrictions on them never seem to deter the rogues we fear but only tie the hands of the responsible citizens of the world. While we can certainly try to avoid producing unnecessary numbers of them and pointing them at each other threateningly, we will never see a world rid of them until and unless some new technology makes them obsolete. That is why a functional missile defense system has to be a priority for the US."[4]
Enforcing a nuclear test ban is a risky proposition.

Under a test ban treat, any sort of testing, whether civil or military in nature, will be - officially - intolerable. But, how is the world to respond to such an "intolerable" threat? Through military action, sanctions, or by other means? It may be forced to respond militarily simply to protect its legitimacy in upholding the ban, yet with great consequences as a result. Or, more likely, aggressive action will not be taken, and the legitimacy of the United Nations will be further undermined. Either outcome would be an unfortunate result of the CTBT.
Test ban helps prevent nuclear arms race

Daryl G. Kimball of the Arms Control Association wrote on September 22, 2005: "The CTBT is an essential step towards nuclear disarmament because it helps to discourage dangerous nuclear competition and block new nuclear threats from emerging.Given the series of crises with grave nuclear overtones that have shaken the South Asian sub-continent since the 1998 nuclear explosions, it should be self-evident that another round of tit-for-tat testing would adversely affect regional and international security."[2]
Test ban, as a means to abolishing nuclear weapons, is unrealistic

Many see a test ban treaty as a good means to abolishing nuclear weapons. Yet, the objective of abolishing nuclear weapons is not realistic, primarily due to the constant uncertainty among nations as to whether other nations, and particularly rogue nations, will abide by such a ban on nukes. Fears will likely cause countries to keep some nukes "just in case". Therefore, a test ban, in so far as it is seen as a means to abolishing nuclear weapons, is unrealistic.
Monitoring NCBT could further alienate countries.

Monitoring a country (an intrinsic part of implementing a test ban), would cause certain countries to feel as though their sovereignty was being unfairly infringed upon. Thus they would feel alienated to a degree, causing unnecessary international tensions. Often the counter argument for this would be something like: "if these countries are opposed to international laws, and monitoring, then why would they agree to them in the first place?" Countries like Iran and North Korea put themselves in these positions quite regularly, and there is no reason that a nuclear test ban treaty would not be an extension of this. Therefore, to the extent that their sovereignty is infringed upon under a test ban treaty, the ban could cause an increase in tension and conflict between these states and the rest of the international system.
Fear will cause nuclear proliferation, despite testing ban.

The Utopian model suggested by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that it will prevent nuclear war and hazards by stopping nuclear testing is fallacious, primarily because fear of nuclear arsenals will continue, which may lead to wars similar to the War in Iraq, just to see whether a country has nuclear weapons or not. Such fears of countries' nuclear capabilities will continue to cause conflict, even if nations are unable to test their nuclear capabilities.
Nuclear deterrence is less relevant today; test ban does little damage

"Kissinger, Shultz, Perry & Nunn call for A World Free of Nuclear Weapons". The Wall Street Journal. January 4, 2007: "Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective." [Therefore, in so far as the CTBT might damage the nuclear capabilities of a state, it will be irrelevant, as the need for nuclear deterrence is much smaller today.]
Test ban would help combat growing nuclear threats

Samuel Berger, Sam Nunn, and William Perry. "Case for ratifying Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". Politico. June 2nd, 2009: "Fast forward 10 years, and nuclear proliferation's perils have only become more apparent. Pakistan, a new nuclear state, is facing an existential threat that could put its arsenal at risk. Terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda are actively seeking weapons of mass destruction and would not hesitate to use them. North Korea and Iran are pursuing dangerous nuclear programs for themselves, underscored by the May 25 North Korean nuclear test. The world is on the precipice of a new and perilous nuclear era. Threat reduction demands urgent action."
Nuclear test ban eliminates negative environmental

Greenpeace wrote in a background article on the CTBT: "Since 1945, there have been 2,046 tests worldwide, about one nuclear test every nine days for the last fifty-one years. The U.S. has carried out 1,030 nuclear weapon tests; the former Soviet Union has done 715; France, 210; Britain, 45 and China also 45. India has exploded one nuclear device, which it claimed was for peaceful purposes. Wherever nuclear weapons testing has occurred there have been environmental problems. Large areas of land are contaminated as a result of atmospheric tests and the long-term consequences of underground nuclear testing are unknown. Fallout from the peak years of atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950s and 1960s, contaminated food, milk and water around the globe."[6] A test ban treaty can, therefore, eliminate these environmental consequences.