BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
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

The proposition's naive claim on energy dependence defies the basis of our current international trade system. Nearly all industries present the very feature of which the proposition accuses energy, yet, we don't ban export of technology to cut royalty revenue. For example, Mexico is a major importer of corn from the US and Brazil. While the US corn price may sway the Mexican economy, should the export be banned when Mexicans can't produce enough to feed themselves? Even if a risk may exist, an importer shall make the choice, not the UN. But the risk is not even substantial. The level of market specialization in international trade makes dependence for a variety of, often essential, products and resources inevitable. The same would apply to any of the other alternative energy sources (like solar energy or biomass). Some nations will simply be more competitive for any technology or resource, especially when it is in its early stages. In an international system of inter-dependence, drastic attempts at energy independence is folly. As for the concern regarding oligopolization of nuclear technology, this is not something to be worried about. Unlike oil, where natural geographic limitations centralize control, technology, even nuclear reactor technology, is open to developed and developing countries in the long run. Contrary to the affirmative's point, already there were actually six countries exporting the technology in 2009, including the US, Russia, China, France, Japan and S. Korea, [[http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/business/2009/12/27/34/0501000000AEN20091227001800320F.HTML]] and is continuing to expand into countries like India. As with any technology goes, not every nation will be producing this technology, but it can be expected that nuclear reactor technology will not be exclusive and will expand parallel to the growth of the industry.
Bottled water costs up to 1,000 times the price of tap water

Sometimes I am prepared to pay 'up to 1,000 times the price of tap water' for the convience of not having to carry water around with me. I can just buy a bottle when I need it and dispose of it when I'm finished. I'm prepared to pay a premuim for that. http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS446US446&q=water+gallon&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=2219514242572637643&sa=X&ei=BImVT42xEIiw6AHVq8y2BA&ved=0CJ0BEPMCMAA 1 Gallon for $1. not a bad price...
Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway

In the UK the terms 'natural mineral water' and 'spring water' denote water from an aquifer or underground source, with rules on hygiene and mineral content. Similar laws on how you describe your product exist in the US. If you're stupid enough to pay a premium for something which just says 'water, product of the Coca-Cola company' then you probably deserve getting the hefty dose of bromide that came free in bottles of Dasani. More importantly, whether or not the bottled water comes from the tap, there is still the convenience of being able to purchase, albeit at a premium, water without having to carry a bottle around with you. Moreover if you were, say, travelling in India, or any similar area, the very process of filtering the tap water is rather useful given the reputation of the country's 'potable' water supply.
It enhances enjoyment and feeling of wellbeing

Walking in the countryside, playing chess or swimming may improve one's sense of well-being - but these activities have no detrimental consequences for the wider environment. This is not just a reference to the scientifically debatable concept of 'carbon footprints' &c. involved in bottle production and transit, but to the landfill and litter that the consumption of bottled water inevitably produces. If it is the feeling of wellbeing one seeks, then purchase only one bottle, and re-fill it, as required from the tap, or perhaps a tabletop water filter. One doesn't need to keep purchasing bottled water to feel good.
Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water

We could, if we could be bothered, take water purification devices with us. The inconvenience suffered would be far preferable than seeing beautiful paradise islands overcome by plastic bottles, as has happened in Thailand to my knowledge and I'm sure other places too. We have a responsibility when we travel, the responsibility to leave the place as we found it - as much as we possibly can. Dumping water bottles ruins an environment for decades to come. Taking our own means of purifying water is the responsible thing to do.
People believe the marketing hype too much

Marketing, that's all it is. Like Madonna, it's all hype. The elemental problem with the purchase and continuation of the bottled water industry is the marketing of it; if bottled water were advertised simply as a means to hydration in the same way that juices, fruits themselves, tap water, etc. are seen by the general public, then it may soon be realised that the coincidental nature of the sounds of the words 'l'evian' and 'live young' are just that: a coincidence. Water that has trickled through mountains for hundreds of years will not be like 'manna from heaven' trickling from the edges of the holy grail, it's just H2O.
Bottled water costs up to 1,000 times the price of tap water

Why when it comes cheaply out the tap would you pay 1,000 times more? Volcanicity perhaps... Take, for instance, Pepsi’s Aquafina or Coca-Cola’s Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks — and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than one cent per gallon. Now consider another widely-sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station. In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at fraction over 2 cents an ounce. And that’s why there’s no shortage of companies which want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame.
Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway

It is often just straight from the tap and therefore no better for you than tap water. Case in point: The Coca-Cola company attempted to release Dasani water in the UK, which was just filtered tap water. It is still on sale in the USA. In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group’s National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there’s very little empirical evidence which suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.
Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water

In a cosmopolitan age, many tourists and business people wish, or are required to travel to areas of the globe where tap water is dangerous to drink, or simply not available. However costly, bottled water provides a solution to the problem of water availability in such areas. Given the length of time it takes to squeeze a cupful of water through a reverse osmosis pump, I suspect bottled water is here to stay for travellers. Drinking 'dirty but 'purified' water is ALWAYS a last resort for travellers. Also it tastes disgusting which is a pretty minor point morally speaking, but in any case will still affect large numbers of people. Make it safe and not taste as horrible then try to convince people.
Its no better for you.

The proposition forgets that most bottled waters marketed in this country are "mineral" or "spring" waters. For a water to possess the name of "mineral" or "spring" water, it must come from a spring in the ground and be bottled at source. Waters such as Dasani are unpopular - Dasani itself was itself completely withdrawn from sale in the UK. The bottled waters popular in this country, i.e. Evian, Volvic, San Pellegrino, Buxton, all come from natural springs and contain natural elements, such as iron, potassium etc, which are all necessary for the human body to function healthily. Often, some natural flourides occur in mineral water. Fluorides are only sometimes artificially added to tap waters, and in large quantities this has the undesired effect of staining teeth instead of improving their health. Tap water is often highly chlorinated. Bottled water does have a health benefit and is better than tap water.
Water quality

Just because the quality of something is high does not mean that we should not have the right to drink it if we so wish. If we banned bottled water because "we don't need it" where would this lead? We don't need toasters - we can make fire. We don't need washing machines because we can use the river. We don't need cars because we've got legs. Banning bottled water would start an irreversible trend of banning that which it can be argued we don't need.
Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine

Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world’s major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist — somewhere.
It quite simply can taste better.

There is a growing movement against bottled water. All kinds of folks from newspaper columnists to religious groups to city governments (for example, San Francisco, Salt Lake City) are eschewing bottled water. Here's why: * 86% of plastic water bottles used in the United States become garbage or litter. That means less than 15% are recycled. * Transporting heavy bottled water uses lots of oil for shipping. More oil is used to make the plastic for the bottles. That means more air and water pollution, and increased dependence on petroleum products. * 40% of the bottled water is just over priced, high-falutin tap water. Read the label.
Its no better for you.

The source of your bottled water is likely to be the same one that serves your home. Coke revealed last year that the source of it´s highly publicized Dasani Brand water was London's municipal water supply (with a 3000% markup). PepsiCos Aquafina Brand bottled water is treated tap water coming from 11 different wells around the USA. Mostly the only difference is that bottled water has added minerals and salts, which do not actually mean the water is healthier. Drinking water is better for your teeth as it contains flourides. Bottled water does not.
If companies are not allowed to patent the products of their research, then other companies can expl...

If companies are not allowed to patent the products of their research, then other companies can exploit their findings to profit themselves. If there are no safe-guards to prevent this, then companies will virtually cease to fund their Research and Development (R&D) departments, and the research into this potentially revolutionary area will end. Banning patents would take away the lucrative incentive to invest in this area, which is what drives on medical research.
It is only right that an inventor should be able to protect his invention. Moreover, other companie...

It is only right that an inventor should be able to protect his invention. Moreover, other companies will pay the necessary dues to the patent holder, because even after that the field of new medical treatments is lucrative. There will be many treatments available, as well as affordable screening processes. Many palliative medicines for Aids have been developed through the channels of private, medical research and these channels are driven by the incentive of profit.
Patents are typically granted for twenty years only. After this period the monopoly ends. All comp...

Patents are typically granted for twenty years only. After this period the monopoly ends. All companies ask is that for a limited time they are able to benefit from their investments, and that in that period if another company wishes to pursue a project in their area then they should consult them. Patenting does not mean withholding information in secrecy. On the contrary, patents actively encourage openness in science, because if you were not able to disclose your findings without fear of exploitation, then you would keep your findings secret. This would be to the detriment of medical advancement.
The same option of patenting is open to public institutions. They can protect their research in exa...

The same option of patenting is open to public institutions. They can protect their research in exactly the same way. The purported differences between public institutions and biotech companies are unfair assertions. The companies are as scrupulous in safety and standards and operate with the same integrity as other researchers; it is only the existence of a profit incentive, which is proven to be the most practical means of prompting medical advances, which attracts ill-conceived, unrealistic and Utopian criticism.
The patenting office stipulates that a successful patent applicant must have found something in natu...

Of course it should be different; genes are the very basis for human life and to claim that anyone has the right to be regarded as the ‘owner’ of a particular gene, which we all share in our bodies, shows a venal disregard for humanity. If companies want to patent treatments which target specific genes, then that’s okay, but not the genes themselves. The principle can be expressed by analogy: you are allowed to protect inventions such as breathing apparatus, but not the oxygen it uses.
If companies are not allowed to patent the products of their research, then other companies can expl...

Most research is not done by private companies. The Human Genome Project has contributed by far the greater amount of knowledge in this area. In some cases it seems that private companies have speedily patented genes, which public scientists claim to have discovered first. The percentage of ‘Biotechnology’ firms’ budgets spent on R&D is minimal. Indeed, banning patenting actually protects the public investment into genome research which could become wasted if private companies stifle attempts to research into genes, on which they hold a patent.
It is only right that an inventor should be able to protect his invention. Moreover, other companie...

This is simply not supported by the facts; the Myriad company, which holds patents on BRCA 1 & 2, genes connected with breast cancer, prevented the University of Pennsylvania from using a test for these genes, which was substantially cheaper than the company’s own screening procedure. The companies are putting private profit before public good, and in such serious areas as cancer and Aids, the very notion of doctors having their hands tied purely because of private profiteers seems abhorrent. Instead of protecting their research investment, companies should have a moral duty to facilitate in any way they can, the development of cheap, available treatments and screenings for diseases which are so dangerous to so many people.
Patents are typically granted for twenty years only. After this period the monopoly ends. All comp...

In those twenty years of a patent’s duration, any prospective research is carried out in fear of recriminations and law-suits from the patent-holder. Academic medical scientists are scared into discontinuing research lest there institution be hit by a costly law-suit from a patent holder. Where one company has the right of exploitation, they possess a monopoly and inevitably will be able to charge what they like. It is only after immense public protest, for example, that companies offered to decrease the price of their Aids medicines for African countries.
The same option of patenting is open to public institutions. They can protect their research in exa...

The Human Genome Project makes all its research freely and publicly available. The prevailing belief is that this is an area of such great importance and potential benefit to mankind, that there should be no, self-interested impediment to genome research. The only barriers should be those of conscience. There is, moreover, evidence that corners are being cut in the safety of experiments. In one Harvard trial of gene therapy, the deaths of three of the six patients led to the trial’s suspension. More worrying is the recent finding in America that out of 691 cases of ‘serious, adverse effects’ in trials, 652 were not reported to the National Institute of Health. This should be taken as compelling evidence that the biotech industry needs to be scrutinised more thoroughly, and that we should approach genomics and its potential benefits with a more cautious, prudent and respectful attitude.
Hacks as political statements.

"Hacker culture itself is a political statement about freedom of speech and freedom of information." Having scanned the hacking web site and blogs they are hypocritical, it would appear that the moment anybody speaks out against them their website or network is taken down. These kind of actions are creating a culture afraid to speak its own mind for fear of reprisals. So who determines what can and can't be said? The hackers, that make them no better than the people they are attacking. In the recent PSN attacks it is costing Sony millions, how much more will it cost them, and how long before that then transpires into loss of employment for potentially thousands of employees that are just trying to earn a living. It appears that hackers do not always consider the "bigger picture" when they exercise their right to steal peoples information and then display it on the network for all to see. Surely a more effective way would have been to demonstrate to Sony that they had been hacked privately to allow them to improve their security, and then published on the net that Sony had been breached and have been advise of their weakness in security. This would have achieved the same end result, everyone would know and peoples personal information would not be up for grabs. How many fraudulent actions can be made from the information released that will end up costing the user.
Stealing and invading privacy is fundamentally wrong.

While it may be a technically be a crime, it should again pertain to the points outlaid above on wether it is still ethically justified for the hack to take place, as it may uncover criminal activity or malpractice/corruption. Also, if the hackers genuine attention is to simply find a breach and report it - then what's wrong with that? And to respond to the analogy used by the Opposition, if someone found a way to get into your property, tried it themself and found it worked, but told you so you could fix it, then I am hard pushed to find anything 'fundamentally wrong' about it.
What hacking is doing to the fundamental structure of the Internet...

it is reducing it to the same level as the Shin Megami Tensei alignment of Chaos (http://megamitensei.wikia.com/wiki/Alignment) 'We care not whether the actions we have taken in this struggle have complied with laws of the United States or any other country. What your lot fail to understand is that we live in cyberspace. The only laws that apply are the laws set forth by our individual consciences. We break your nations' laws when we recognize those laws to stand between the people and their freedom. Anonymous is not simply „a group of super hackers". Anonymous is the embodiment of freedom on the web. We exist as a result of the Internet, and humanity itself. This frightens you. It only seems natural that it would. Governments, corporations, and militaries know how to control individuals. It frustrates you that you do not control us. We have moved to a world where our freedom is in our own hands. We owe you nothing for it. We stand for freedom for every person around the world. You stand in our way. We hope you come to see that your attempts to censor and control our existence are futile. But if this is not the case, if you continue to object to our freedoms -- we shall not relent. We do not fear your tyranny. You cannot win a battle against an entity you do not understand. You can take down our networks, arrest every single one of us that you can backtrace, read every bit of data ever shared from computer to computer for the rest of this age, and you will still lose.' - http://www.reddit.com/tb/hto2s Such a world would not be one in which any human would want to live. It would be totally anarchistic, dependent on the whims of the strong who have the resources, charisma and knowledge to control the flow of the Internet, where those who are less influential are used as pawns or discarded entirely. There are no laws or hierarchy to constrain anybody - but also nothing to stop them preying on the weak. This is certainly not a good model for humanity outside the Internet, as Anonymous seem to want it to be. Law is by no means a good faction in SMT. This doesn't mean that Chaos is a good faction.
Hacks to demonstrate holes in security.

The hacker group Lulz Security recently accessed and published on the web the details of millions of users on SonyPictures.com, including passwords and personal details such as home addresses. They accomplished this using a simple and widely known hack involving using SQL to confuse and overload the site's programming. 'A LulSec press release said: "SonyPictures.com was owned by a very simple SQL injection, one of the most primitive and common vulnerabilities, as we should all know by now. "From a single injection, we accessed EVERYTHING. Why do you put such faith in a company that allows itself to become open to these simple attacks?" ' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13636704) Sony, as a major technology company that handles the data of millions of customers worldwide, should be able to defend itself against simple and widely known hacks. To highlight this vulnerability to both Sony, who genuinely may not realise their web security has holes, and the customers, who may wish to reconsider entrusting Sony with their personal details. Hackers demonstrate these kind of vulnerabilities in the security of large corporations and even Governments (see Gary McKinnon and his relatively simple hacking of the US Defence records - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon) in the most direct and visible way.