BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear facilities are designed to withstand terrorists attacks

Patrick Moore. "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case". Washington Post. April 16th, 2006: "Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. The six-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel protects the contents from the outside as well as the inside. And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode. There are many types of facilities that are far more vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and numerous political targets."
Nuclear energy has a carbon footprint, but it is negligible.

Fossil fuels are not inherently required in mining Uranium and building nuclear plants. It just so happens that all modern machinery and vehicles involved in this process are powered by fossil fuels. Yet, these fossil-fuel-based machinery can be replaced by electric vehicles and machinery, possibly supplied by nuclear power plants themselves. In sum, nuclear energy is inherently clean. It is only the processes surrounding it that are dirty. This can and will change.
Nuclear power is relatively inexpensive

Patrick Moore. "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case". Washington Post. April 16th, 2006: "[Claim] Nuclear energy is expensive. [Counter:] It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future."
Nuclear energy always carries risk of a major disaster

"Pros and cons of nuclear power". Time for Change.org. Retrieved 1.23.08 - "High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world."
Entire nuclear cycle may emit substantial greenhouse gases

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "nuclear plants threaten our ability to solve climate change. The nuclear industry would like us to believe that nuclear power offers a much better option for generating electricity without releasing significant amounts of greenhouse gases or toxic pollution. However, nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the ‘clean air energy.’ Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of GHG. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of highgrade uranium are depleted."
A terrorist strike on a nuclear facility could be devastating

"Nuclear’s Fatal Flaws: Security". Public Citizen. Retrieved 1.24.08: "The 9/11 Commission noted in June 2004 that al Qaeda’s original plan for September 11 was to hijack 10 airplanes and crash two of them into nuclear plants.[1] A successful attack would release 'large quantities of radioactive materials to the environment.'[2] A September 2004 study by Dr. Ed Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, using the NRC’s own analysis method, found that a worst-case accident or attack at the Indian Point nuclear plant 35 miles north of New York City could cause up to 43,700 immediate fatalities and up to 518,000 long-term cancer deaths. Such a release could cost up to $2.1 trillion, and would force the permanent relocation of 11.1 million people."
Waste heat from nuclear reactors can be used

"How nuclear power could fertilise fields." New Scientist. September 23, 2009: "WHO would have thought that nuclear power could be used to make fertiliser? It will if a new direction in US research proves a success. The Department of Energy (DOE) is expanding its development of nuclear reactors that churn out large amounts of waste heat, which could be used in a number of other industries. [...] On 18 September, the DOE announced that its Next Generation Nuclear Plant project will receive a $40 million boost in funding. The gas-cooled reactors involved will run at temperatures in excess of 800 °C, more than twice that of existing light water reactors. The heat is valuable for industrial processes that use thermal chemical reactions, such as fertiliser production and hydrogen generation, says Tom O'Connor of the DOE."
Nuclear energy internationally demonstrates its viability

John McCarthy. "Nuclear Energy is the Most Certain Source." Formal.standard: "Nuclear energy is uneconomical compared to other sources. I don't really have to answer this for the primary objective of showing the sustainability of progress, because I need only show that it is economical enough to sustain progress. It seems to me that the French, Japanese and American experience shows this. As to its relative economy, many countries are expanding and initiating programs of nuclear energy. China and Indonesia are recent examples." [And, why would nuclear energy be expanding internationally if it wasn't inherently economical?].
Any risk of another Chernobyl or Mile High is intolerable

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "The Three mile Island and Chernobyl accidents should never be downplayed. The Chernobyl disaster is perhaps one of the worst in human history. Serious radioactive contamination spread over 150,000 square kilometers in Byelorussia, Ukraine and Russia. Radioactive clouds deposited radiation thousands of kilometers away. Hundreds of thousands people had to be evacuated, and millions more were left to live in areas that were dangerous to their health and lives. Moreover, scientific studies have shown that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers. [...] Renewable energy, on the other hand, is the cleanest, safest and most reliable form of power generation."
Nuclear waste radiation no worse than natural radiation

William Tucker. "No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste." Wall Street Journal. March 13, 2009: "There is no such thing as nuclear waste. Ninety-five percent of a spent fuel rod is plain old U-238, the nonfissionable variety that exists in granite tabletops, stone buildings and the coal burned in coal plants to generate electricity. Uranium-238 is 1% of the earth's crust. It could be put right back in the ground where it came from."
Nuclear energy economies of scale are improving

Pascal Zachary. "The case for nuclear power". SFGate. February 5, 2006: "In recent years, several electric utilities have emerged as nuclear-power specialists, reaping economies of scale and building expertise that enables them to run safer, more secure operations. [...] PG&E was typical, building only a single nuclear plant (with two reactors) at Diablo Canyon. This on-off tendency made it more difficult and costly for utilities to gain the expertise in nuclear power or to run plants properly."
Taxpayers, not nuclear industry, assume risks of disaster

"6 reasons against nuclear energy". 1 million Europeans against nuclear power: "Although nuclear power is a hazardous business, the nuclear industry hardly has any financial liability. In the case of a nuclear disaster, most of the damages will be paid by society and not the companies' insurances. None of the various international conventions on nuclear damage currently in force are designed to make operators, or owners, of nuclear facilities liable for damage they cause."
Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels

"The future is green, the future is nuclear." Times Online. October 4, 2009: "Professor David MacKay, the government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change, has said what many people have long believed. You cannot meet Britain’s future energy needs and reduced carbon emissions without a big expansion of nuclear power. [...] As we report today, he believes we should aim to be producing four times the amount of electricity from nuclear as now. Alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and wavepower will never provide more than a fraction of the country’s energy needs. Relying on gas, coal and oil, with an increasing proportion imported, does not square with Britain’s international climate commitments."
Nuclear plants are being closed due to safety; this should continue.

Some argue that nuclear energy is fine, or else nuclear plants would be shut down. However, they are being shut down. The following nuclear power plants have been shut down due to being unsafe or past their operating life in the US: Big Rock Point, Bonus, Dresdent-1, Elk Rivers, Enrico Fermi-1, Frt St. Vrain, GE Vallecitos, Haddam Neck, Hallam, Humboldt Bay, Indian Point-1, Lacrosse, Maine Yankee, Millstone-1, Pathfinder, Peach Bottom-1, Piqua, and many others. Some reactors were shut down much sooner than their design lifetime.
Nuclear energy is needed to meet growing electricity demands

Pascal Zachary. "The case for nuclear power". SFGate. February 5, 2006: "Electricity demand is rising -- some say by as much as 50 percent during the next 30 to 50 years. Demand might even increase more with the spread of electric cars. Without a crash program to expand nuclear power, America's new electricity needs will be satisfied chiefly by new coal-burning plants. Coal is a remarkably democratic resource, spread fairly evenly around the globe. Scores of new coal plants are planned for the United States, where they already generate about half of the nation's electricity. Many hundreds are likely to be constructed around the world before the end of the decade."
Nuclear energy should not be banned on mere risk of weapons-use

Patrick Moore. "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case". Washington Post. April 16th, 2006: "Nuclear fuel can be diverted to make nuclear weapons. This is the most serious issue associated with nuclear energy and the most difficult to address, as the example of Iran shows. But just because nuclear technology can be put to evil purposes is not an argument to ban its use. [...] The only practical approach to the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation is to put it higher on the international agenda and to use diplomacy and, where necessary, force to prevent countries or terrorists from using nuclear materials for destructive ends."
Nuclear energy produces dangerous radioactive waste.

"The Case Against Nuclear Power". Public Citizen. Retrieved 1.24.08: "Nuclear power is not a clean energy source. In fact, it produces both low and high-level radioactive waste that remains dangerous for several hundred thousand years. Generated throughout all parts of the fuel cycle, this waste poses a serious danger to human health. Currently, over 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and 12 million cubic feet of low level radioactive waste are produced annually by the 103 operating reactors in the United States.4 No country in the world has found a solution for this waste. Building new nuclear plants would mean the production of much more of this dangerous waste with no where for it to go."
Nuclear energy needed to prevent future power outages

Christine Todd Whitman. "The case in favor of nuclear power." Business Week. September 12, 2007: "The cost of failing to meet these needs will be steep. The global economy relies on world-class power grids to trade stocks, to communicate instantly, and to buy and sell around the clock. If anything points to the frustrating effect that a failed power grid can have on profits, it's the San Francisco power outage that took down Silicon Valley enterprises like Craigslist and Netflix (NFLX ) in July. Although it only cost them two hours of online business, that minor power blip illustrates how a lack of electricity [without sufficient nuclear power in the future] can render even a tech-savvy company impotent."
Renewables can meet all future energy needs, nuclear unnecessary

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "There are now dozens of studies, including many by government, engineering consultants, eminent academics and energy industry bodies all showing how this scale of electricity generation could be met through energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and state of the art decentralised power stations like they have in Scandinavia.
Nuclear energy is too costly to be competitive

Mark Hertsgaard. "The True Costs of Nuclear Power". Mother Earth News. April/May 2006: "The best case against nuclear power as a global warming remedy begins with the fact that nuclear-generated electricity is very expensive. Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power still costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running."
Uranium is abundant and will last for hundreds of years

Uranium supply is expected to last for over 200 years, which could be extended to 30,000 with modern technologies. "How long will the world's uranium supplies last?". Scientific American www.sciam.com. Retrieved 12.3.09 Extract: "According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time." New techniques could extend this to 30,000 years, even 60,000.
Burying nuclear waste is an environmental and health risk

"The Case Against Nuclear Power". Public Citizen. Retrieved 1.24.08: "Yucca Mountain. The Yucca Mountain project continues to be mired in controversy and may very well never open. Numerous unresolved problems remain with the geologic and hydrologic suitability of the proposed site, and serious questions have been raised about its ability to contain highly radioactive waste for the time required."
Nuclear plants only produce electricity and can't replace oil and gas

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. And it’s a similar case for oil as it’s virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can’t take its place. [...] Indeed, 86% of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. So nuclear power, which can only generate electricity, is almost irrelevant."
Nuclear plant construction runs over-time and over-budget

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 - "No nuclear power station anywhere in the world has ever been built on time and on budget with the average reactor costing three times as much and twice as long to build. [...] Worldwide, the cost of building a nuclear reactor is consistently two to three times higher than the nuclear industry estimates. In India, the country with the most recent experience of nuclear reactor construction, completion costs for the last 10 reactors have, on average, been 300% over budget. In Finland, the construction of a new reactor is already €1.5 billion over budget."
Nuclear energy risks being diverted to nuclear weapons development

♥ "Nuclear's Fatal Flaws: Proliferation." Public Citizen. January 24, 2008: "Sensitive nuclear technology such as uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing are ostensibly employed to create fuel in power reactors, they may be easily adjusted or redirected to produce weapons-grade fissile material. Moreover, power reactors themselves produce plutonium, which may be used in bombs. In practice, there is no way to segregate nuclear technologies employed for “peaceful” purposes from technologies that may be employed in weapons—the former may be, and have been, transformed into the latter."
Nuclear energy relies too heavily on subsidies/taxpayers

"The Case Against Nuclear Power". Public Citizen. January 24, 2008: "Despite its promise more than 50 years ago of energy “too cheap to meter,” the nuclear power industry continues to be dependent on taxpayer handouts to survive. Since its inception in 1948, this industry has received tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies but remains unable to compete economically on its own.[1] On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed an energy bill that included over $13 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, as well as other incentives, for the nuclear industry."
There are many novel sources of uranium

Given that the ash from coal-burning power stations "when coal is burned contains radioactive elements, notably uranium and thorium", it can be used as a future source of nuclear fuel. Moreover, the costs are brought down due to the fact that this uranium does not have to be mined. Additionally, uranium can be found even in seawater, and "the element can be sucked out of it by ion exchange." "Rising from the ashes", The Economist, April 2010
All carbon-free energy sources are needed, including nuclear

Pascal Zachary. "The case for nuclear power". SFGate. February 5, 2006: "At the same time we need to push wind, solar and other renewable technologies. We need to promote mass transit and curtail automobile use by sharply raising taxes on gasoline and restricting cars altogether from some areas. We need to campaign more vigorously for conservation. And, yes, we need nuclear power."
The benefits of nuclear energy are outweighed by weapons-use risks

Michael Levi, Council on Foreign Relations Fellow for Science and Technology. "Wasted Energy". CFR.org. April 18th, 2006 - "Moore turns to the question of whether nuclear power can be diverted to make nuclear weapons, and to his credit calls it 'the most serious issue associated with nuclear energy.' But he then proceeds to treat it unseriously. He notes that 'If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire.' That’s true, but the question here isn’t whether nuclear power is dangerous; it’s whether the dangers associated with it outweigh the benefits it entails. Simply because fire had greater potential for good than harm does not mean that the same is true for nuclear power."
Natural methods of contraception can provide the solution to high population growth

This is particularly true in areas where there is a cultural stigma against condom usage. (aboriginal communities in Australia provide a non-Christian example, as do even some Protestant areas in North Carolina, USA) and in areas where condom distribution is impractical. There is a disturbing rise in couples in medium term relationships who choose not to use condoms because they consider them unpleasant; for them natural methods offer an alternative to invasive procedures such as the implant.
Church contraception policy undermines the moral obligation to protect life

Marcella Alsan. "Catholic Church condom prohibition comes face to face with reality of AIDS in Africa". Catholic.com. 24 April 2006 - "At least, this is the view of many Catholics at the front lines of the global HIV battle. Catholic organizations mercifully provide around 25 percent of the care AIDS victims receive worldwide. Many of the clergy and laity involved in treating people with AIDS, who otherwise fully ascribe to the church’s teachings on sexual ethics and the sanctity of marriage, nevertheless endorse the use of condoms. They argue that the preservation of human life is paramount.
Natural birth-control helps developing world avoid dependencies on developed countries.

Condom use in developing countries results in a a reliance on condoms from the developed world which can often not be distributed to remote areas and need to be stored within a certain temperature range, impractical in mid-summer in Sub-Saharan Africa where refrigerators are often scarce. Indeed the WHO and the Indian Parliament have recently diverted funds towards education programmes in order to ensure that Natural Family Planning is a viable alternative to barrier methods in terms of birth control.
Church policy against contraceptives worsens HIV/AID pandemic

There are clear harms that result from even a small proportion of the world’s 1.09 billion baptised Catholics (143m and 541m of whom live in Africa and Latin America respectively) failing to use condoms to protect against AIDS. In 2003 there were 43m HIV/AIDS sufferers worldwide, 29.4m of whom lived in Sub-Saharan Africa with the total figure predicted to double by 2010. The Catholic Church is thus partly responsible for at least some of the 3.1m deaths every year from HIV/AIDS. Whilst the trend in European nations is towards lapsed Catholicism, in Africa strict obedience to the Church’s teachings remains strong and so it is reasonable to assume that the Church could prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths by changing its policy.
Back-tracking on Church policy against condoms would fracture the Church.

Regional Churches often feel obliged to follow their faith. Rome changing its position on contraception would be seen as illegitimate by the regional Churches that are currently most vocal in their opposition to condoms. The break from Rome under Henry VIII and current Anglican controversies over gay and female bishops highlights the fragile and often decentralised nature of the Christian Church. To backtrack on matters of doctrine risks similar schisms within the Roman Catholic Church which would inevitably lead to more radical regional Churches further involving themselves in partisan politics. They may even return to a position of denial that condoms even protect against HIV/AIDS - a position which Rome and scientific pressure was instrumental in pulling them away from but which could easily have resulted in divisions. Therefore, continuity of Church policy maintains an international stability among Church's.
While not 100%-effective, condoms reduce risk of HIV-transmission

Marcella Alsan. "Catholic Church condom prohibition comes face to face with reality of AIDS in Africa". Catholic.com. 24 April 2006 - "Although it is true that condoms are not 100-percent effective in preventing HIV infection, they do reduce the risk of transmission significantly. Comparing condom use to a suicidal dare, as Cardinal Trujillo does, is scientifically inaccurate and socially irresponsible.
Church policies against condoms are invasive against developing-country policy.

The Church’s stance on contraception causes the invasive involvement of the Church in the politics of predominantly Catholic developing nations whose governments are promoting contraceptive use in order to fight AIDS. This has negative consequences for both the states and the Church. In the mid-1980s, the Catholic Bishops Conferences of the Philippines and Cardinal Sin in particular conspired to campaign against the parties of the left in order to ensure that the 1987 Constitutional settlement “protects our people against the contraceptive onslaught”. This obligation which anti-contraception bishops felt to involve themselves in politics can be attributed to the central policy of the Church. Regional Churches have also played a role in rallying support against NGOs who distribute contraceptives as part of their missions. Prohibition of contraception commits the Catholic Church to undermining the separation of Church and state which is accepted in the Constitutions of many developed nations and often to actively undermining the policies of governments designed to protect their own people.