BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A global iron fertilization plan would cost only around $20 billion.

Some ocean trials did indeed report remarkable results. According to IronEx II reports, their thousand kilogram iron contribution to the equatorial Pacific generated a carbonaceous biomass equivalent to one hundred full-grown redwoods within the first two weeks. Researchers on Wegener Institute's 2004 Eifex experiment recorded carbon dioxide to iron fixation ratios of nearly 300,000 to 1. Current estimates of the amount of iron required to restore all the lost plankton and sequester 3 gigatons/year of CO2 range widely, from approximately two hundred thousand tons/year to over 4 million tons/year. Even in the latter worst case scenario, this only represents about 16 supertanker loads of iron and a projected cost of less than €20 billion ($27 Billion). Considering EU penalties for Kyoto non-compliance will reach €100/ton CO2e ($135/ton CO2e) in 2010 and the annual value of the global carbon credit market is projected to exceed €1 trillion by 2012, even the most conservative estimate still portrays a very feasible and inexpensive strategy to offset half of all industrial emissions.
Precautionary principle favors solving global warming.

Global warming is the principle risk facing planet Earth, ecosystems around the world, as well as human civilization. The greatest risk in modern times, therefore, is not being able to find a solution to global warming. While there are some risks involved with iron fertilization, the greater risk is not pursuing it, when we know there is a very good chance that it will make a major contribution to combating global warming. The precautionary principle would have us error on the side of precaution toward global warming, and pursuing all logical strategies toward solving the crisis.
Idea of Jewish state, in two-state solution, is undemocratic

Todd May. "The Emerging Case for a Single-State Solution". Counter Punch. September 9, 2004: "A first objection might appeal to the motivation for recognizing [...] a Jewish state in the first place. [...] That the Holocaust proves that European Jews deserve protection against the history of hatred against them is undeniable. It does not follow from this that they deserved a state where they would be privileged vis-à- vis another people. That idea has more to do with nineteenth-century nationalism than with the internationalism more characteristic of the contemporary world. Moreover, history has shown the effects of this privileging."
Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution

There are many indications that, despite the rhetoric, Israel will not accept a two-state solution. The most important factor is the growth of settlements, which would have to be removed under a two-state solution, which many believe would be met by violent resistance by Jewish settlers. Territorial vulnerabilities from a two-state solution, and the inability to control the borders of the Palestinian state are also problems that make Israel unlikely to accept a two-state solution.
A two-state solution will not assuage Iran.

"Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. May 7, 2009: "Iran's disbanding its nuclear weapons program is surely not dependent on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region. [...] If Iran's motivation to develop WMD was to effect resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Saudi Arabia and Egypt wouldn't have grave concerns."
Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop.

Jerusalem - PLO Executive Committee Secretary Yasir Abd-Rabbuh replying to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statements that he is ready to negotiate immediately with the Palestinians by affirming that no negotiations will take place before the suspension of the settlement activities. "Abd-Rabbuh said in statements to Al-Ayyam: There can be no negotiations unless the Israelis stop the settlement activities and we no longer wish to meet with the Israelis on the same table to exchange views and ideas while they change the facts on the ground in Jerusalem and all the West Bank. This is a policy that represents the highest forms of deception."
Two-state plan respects democratic will for separate states

Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defense. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages."
Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability.

For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.
Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state

While it is nice to believe that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principals of inclusion, while nice, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas.
Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution

Jeff Jacoby. "Peace isn't Arab goal". Boston Globe. May 20, 2009: "International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down."
Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state.

MJ Rosenberg. "Loving The Two-State Solution to Death". Huffington Post. December 22, 2008: "we are further from implementing the two-state solution today than we were in 2001. In fact, it can't be implemented because the Palestinians themselves constitute two states. Without Palestinian unity -- unity that ended with the Hamas election and then full seizure of power in Gaza--the two-state solution is simply not achievable."
Israeli settlements ought not justify denying Palestinians a state.

The intent of the Israeli settlers - and of any government policy, official and unofficial, that has supported the settlers - has often been to squeeze the Palestinians out of the "Israeli homeland" (including both the West Bank and Gaza). This objective is unjust, as it denies the right of the Palestinians to exist in what has been their historic homeland. It is wrong, therefore, to use the settlements as a justification for denying the Palestinians their own state (even if it is only argued as a matter of practicality). This is precisely what nefarious settlers have intended to do from the beginning: create facts on the ground that become too impractical for Israel and the world to deal with, and which are subsequently used to deny Palestinians their own homeland. Policies should not cave to these nefarious intentions, even if it is more practical. It is wrong to reward the immoral settlements in this way, by using them as an argument against an independent Palestinian state (within a two-state solution).
Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor

Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Those not committed to this solution argue that, after the creation of a Palestinian state, Israel's waist would be too narrow -- some six miles -- to ensure security for its citizens. [...] Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defense but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow."
Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution

Mohammed Khaku. "The Case for One-State Solution for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Cross-Cultural Understanding. May 2008: "The only solution for the Palestinians is the creation of a single state in Palestine-Israel. Since the Palestinian and Israeli populations are so intermingled and a million Palestinians live throughout Israel the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote."
Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible

Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "The two-state solution is on its deathbed. [...] Since the Six-Day War of June 1967, the two-state solution, based on the concept of 'land for peace,' has been the central focus of almost all diplomatic efforts to resolve this tragedy. But because of Israel's unrelenting occupation and settlement project in the West Bank, the long-fought-for two-state solution has finally, tragically, become unworkable. Consider: In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land." [Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Palestinian state would be base for terrorism

"Gaza and the two-state solution". The Recliner Commentaries. May 16, 2009: "Gaza was the perfect test case for Palestinians to prove they were ready for "the two state solution" which everyone seems to think is the best solution to peace in the mid-east--everyone but Muslim hardliners who want nothing less than Israel's destruction, that is. [...] And yet the Gaza experiment has failed miserably. The people elected a terrorist government which has spent so much of its money, not on the welfare of the Palestinian people, but on attacking Israel! [...] How can Israel be expected to support a two-state solution when Gaza has only turned out to be a base for attacking Israel?"
A two-state conflict will not end conflict

Prof. Hassan Nafaa. "No Room for Two States". Global Research. February 12, 2008: "The conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist movement is not over disputed borders or material interests and, therefore, resolvable by merely coming to an agreement over permanent borders and a give-and-take over material interests. Rather, it is a conflict between two identities, each of which claims sole propriety right over a given territory. Such a conflict cannot be solved by the same means that are brought to bear on conventional international conflicts."
Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians

Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Dissenters from the two-state solution contend -- not without some reason -- that Gaza and the West Bank are too small to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Yet this would also be the case under the one-state formula; it would result in a state that is merely 24,000 square kilometers and that already overflows with a population exceeding 10 million (5.5 million Jews and 4.5 million Arabs). While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance."
Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights

"The One State Declaration". Issued by participants in the July 2007 Madrid meeting. November 29, 2007: "A two-state solution is] predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return."
Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state

Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "it was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a binational state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'"
One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state

Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "A minority of Middle East pundits have recently emerged as advocates for a one-state solution, which would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of my forefathers. [...] From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state." [The reason for this is that it could not be considered a Jewish state if it housed a very large Palestinian population].
Most prisoners don't care about voting

Jonathan Aitken. "Prisoners don't care about their right to vote". Telegraph. 15 Dec. 2006 - "I can offer some well-informed guesses about how my old cellmates in HMP Belmarsh might react to the news that their Christmas present from Brussels is to be a new right to put their crosses on ballot papers from behind bars. Indifference, incomprehension or dismissive expletives would be their likely responses."
Prisoners should have very right to make a decision based on their own morals .

Part of the freedom of this country is the freedom to choose based on personal moral ethics. Several debates have been held discussing whether or not people should take a test to decide whether or not they are aware enough of the issues to make their choice. However this debate has been won a hundred times over based on the fact that people have the right to make decisions based on their own reasoning. If that reasoning is sufficient is a matter of personal opinion, something that has no place in our legal system.
Prisoners are rightly punished by denying their vote

They are shut away not only to protect society, but also to symbolise society’s disgust at their acts. Although prisoners are no longer executed in many jurisdictions, the idea of “civic death” is that they lose the rights of citizens without dying in a literal sense. Those who offend against the common good of society should have no right to contribute to the governance of society. They can only be readmitted to society, both physically and in terms of their rights, when they have made amends to society by serving their sentence.
There is no state interest in denying prisoners a vote

Depriving a citizen of a right requires a compelling state interest. But there is no solid one for depriving them of a right to vote. The primary purpose of sending a criminal to prison is to punish them and to protect society from their criminal acts. Depriving them of the right to vote cannot be said to be a serious part of either of these main reasons for sending a criminal to prison. Taking away someone's freedom of movement is sufficient punishment; depriving them of a vote is excessive punishment. Preventing them from committing another crime is sufficient protection for society; protecting society from a prisoner's vote/opinion is a rediculous notion.
Prisoner voting offers dignity, aids rehabilitation

This is essential if they are to avoid re-offending after being released. Denying prisoners the vote implies that they are sub-human: this damages their dignity and sense of self-worth, undermining efforts to help them control their behaviour. Arne Peltz, a lawyer defending Canada's inmates in the 2002 supreme court case on the matter, said, "There will be a little more dignity in prison and I think over time that will help reduce crime over the long term."
Prospect of losing voting rights does not deter crime

People are deterred from committing crimes by the prospects of their movement being restricted and of being separated from loved ones. The effectiveness of a sentence can be measured by how well it protects the public, how well it rehabilitates the offender, how well it reverses the effects of the crime committed and how well it deters future offending. Banning prisoners from voting is either counterproductive (i.e. in terms of rehabilitation) or has no positive effect. Other factors include the fact that those that commit crimes are less likely to vote in the first place, so it's not really a punishment to deprive them of a vote. Second, the low visibility of the fact that imprisonment entails the loss of voting rights means that few will even consider that their crime will lead to this consequence.
Most liberal democracies extend voting rights to prisoners

"Voting Rights, Human Rights" New York Times. 14 Oct. 2005 - "The United States has the worst record in the democratic world when it comes to stripping convicted felons of the right to vote. Of the nearly five million people who were barred from participating in the last presidential election, for example, most, if not all, would have been free to vote if they had been citizens of any one of dozens of other nations. Many of those nations cherish the franchise so deeply that they let inmates vote from their prison cells."
Depriving prisoners a vote continues legacy of disenfranchisement

Te-Ping Chen and Maggie Williams. "Keeping Felons from Voting". July 9, 2007 - "Last month, the New York State Assembly unanimously passed a bill expressing regret for New York’s role in the slave trade. The move was a recognition of the state’s history as much as it was an apology. “A lot of people don’t even think slavery happened here,” said its prime sponsor, Assemblymember Keith Wright of Manhattan.
Voting offers prisoners a sense of citizenship, reintegration

Voting encourages prisoners to take an interest in current affairs, which will aid their reintegration into society. Where prisoners are allowed to vote, they are usually required to vote in their home constituency, to avoid several hundred inmates in one jail causing a sudden swing in the constituency in which the jail is sited. This encourages them to take an interest in the particular community from which they came and into which they will probably be released.
If minors have no right to vote neither should prisoners

Not all citizens have the right to vote. Only trusted members of society have a right to vote. Indeed, minors are not yet fully trusted members of society, given that they are not yet mature enough. This is why they can't vote. With this precedent in mind, it is appropriate to conclude that prisoners should also not be able to vote. They have demonstrated that they are not responsible enough to vote. If this was deemed unreasonable, we would really have to re-do the voting age.
Linking a ban on voting to imprisonment is arbitrary.

Many people who commit serious crimes are not sent to prison, because of their age, the effects upon their dependents or the likelihood that they will not re-offend. Others committing equivalent or lesser crimes, without these special circumstances, may be imprisoned. Even if it were ever right to deprive people of the vote as a punishment (the proposition arguments above would suggest this is never justified), this should not automatically be associated with imprisonment, but should be decided separately, as in France and Germany.
Depriving prisoner vote "disenfranchises" only because more minorities are felons

Edward Feser, Ph.D. Instructor, Pasadena City College. "Should Felons Vote?". City Journal. Spring, 2005. - "The frequently heard charge is that disenfranchising felons is racist because the felon population is disproportionately black. But the mere fact that blacks make up a lopsided percentage of the nation's prison population doesn't prove that racism is to blame. Is the mostly male population of the prisons evidence of reverse sexism? Of course not: men commit the vast majority of serious crimes - a fact no one would dispute - and that's why there are lots more of them than women behind bars. Regrettably, blacks also commit a disproportionate number of felonies, as victim surveys show. In any case, a felon either deserves his punishment or not, whatever his race. If he does, it may also be that he deserves disenfranchisement. His race, in both cases, is irrelevant."[8]
Felons have bad judgement, should not help elect reps

Tucker Carlson, MSNBC News Commentator. "The Situation with Tucker Carlson". June 26, 2006. - "Now why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives. If you're a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you have bad judgment. Why do we want people with that judgment picking our representatives?"[4]
A right to vote hardly diminishes a prisoner's sentence.

Even with the right to vote, more fundamental freedoms would continue to be deprived from a prisoner (most importantly, their physical freedom of movement). In general, therefore, offering the right to vote to prisoners hardly diminishes the principal forfeitures of these citizen-prisoners or the punishment they incur for their crimes. It is, therefore, an unnecessary and excessive punishment or forfeiture to deprive them of their right to vote.
The right to vote does not follow from the obligation to pay taxes.

In many countries, people start earning money and paying tax before they are old enough to vote (particularly if they leave school as soon as they are allowed to do so). This implies that the right to vote is given to those who can be expected to use it responsibly. Those convicted of serious enough crimes to be imprisoned have shown that they have no respect for society. They therefore cannot be trusted to vote responsibly in the interests of society.
14th amendment permits denying voting rights to criminals

Alex Kozinski, J.D. , Circuit Judge, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Dissent (PDF) in Farrakhan v. State of Washington. February 24, 2006 - "Unlike any other voting qualification, felon disenfranchisement laws are explicitly endorsed by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. [...] They are presumptively constitutional. Only a narrow subset of them - those enacted with an invidious, racially discriminatory purpose - is unconstitutional."