BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Better ways to fight global warming than geoengineering

Mike MacCracken, chief scientist for climate change projects at the Climate Institute in Washington DC, said in 2006: "If I'm going to put satellites in orbit, why not put energy generating satellites that capture solar energy and beam it down to Earth?. Rather than blasting sulphur into the stratosphere, why not invest in other kinds of energy systems, such as wind energy or ocean energy, that don't cause these kinds of problems? There's a lot to do well before you get to geoengineering."[5]
Private control of geoengineering projects has great risks

Alan Robock. "20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist. 2008: "15. Commercial control of technology. Who would end up controlling geoengineering systems? Governments? Private companies holding patents on proprietary technology? And whose benefit would they have at heart? These systems could pose issues analogous to those raised by pharmaceutical companies and energy conglomerates whose products ostensibly serve the public, but who often value shareholder profits over the public good."
Discontinuing solar shading would result in rapid warming

Alan Robock. "20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist. 2008: "10. Rapid warming if deployment stops. A technological, societal, or political crisis could halt a project of stratospheric aerosol injection in mid- deployment. Such an abrupt shift would result in rapid climate warming, which would produce much more stress on society and ecosystems than gradual global warming."
Solar shields can be adjusted according to effects

Russel Dovery. "Supervillainy: Astroengineering Global Warming". Kuro5hin. 8 Apr. 2005: "The reduction in incoming sunlight would be 0.5 to 1%, enough to neatly stop global warming and keep temperatures stable. It would give us time to stabilise our emissions, then start the long process of filtering greenhouse gases back out of the atmosphere and storing them somewhere. The Lens can of course be adjusted, so as greenhouse gas levels dropped the diffusion effect would be reduced as well, until we reached a point where the Lens was no longer required and could be safely dismantled, or more playfully used to frighten the hell out of everyone in a medium-sized nation with an appropriate orbital insertion to enter the Earth's atmosphere flat-on."
Solar shield reverses global warming; emissions reductions do not

Robert Roy Britt. "No Stopping it Now: Seas to Rise 4 Inches or More this Century". LiveScience. 17 Mar. 2005 - "Even if all industrial pollution and auto emissions suddenly ceased today, Earth's climate will warm at least 1 degree by the year 2100 and seas will rise 4 inches (11 centimeters), according to a new study...The warming is likely to continue through 2400, another study forecasts...The worst-case scenario projects the global average temperature rising 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit within this century and the sea level climbing a foot or more..."Many people don't realize we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise because of the greenhouse gases we have already put into the atmosphere," said Gerald Meehl, who led the study out of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)."
Solar shading is a just response to irreversible global warming

Catherine Brahic. "Solar shield could be quick fix for global warming". New Scientist. 5 June 2007 - "Lesser of two evils?...Hansen's study suggests that only moderate additional warming is likely to trigger the disintegration of the west Antarctic and Arctic ice sheets - events which would be near-impossible to reverse..."If this is the case, then I am not clear on what the 'greenest' path is," says Caldeira. "Is it better to let the Greenland ice sheet collapse and let the polar bears drown their way to extinction, or to spray some sulphur particles in the stratosphere?""
Irreversible climate change makes geoengineering unavoidable.

It is impossible for humans to avoid geoengineering in the future. The earth's climate has always shifted dramatically throughout its history. The Earth will, for instance, enter another ice age fairly soon. Should we, then, just allow this to happen? No, particularly if it means sacrificing millions of human lives and civilization as we know it. We should make the world work for us, not allow it to obliterate us. And, if we assume geoengineering is enevitable, then there is no moral boundary to doing it now, when global warming poses the threat that does to human civilization.
A space ring would be far too expensive

"Space Ring Latest Implausible Warming Solution". Technovelgy.com: "The journal Acta Astronautica has published what is probably the most outlandish suggestion yet to stop global warming on Earth - a planet-girdling ring of small particles or micro-spacecraft with reflective umbrellas...The price tag? Oh, about $6 trillion to $200 trillion for the particle solution. Much less for spacecraft."
Solar shading might cool tropics, but not high latitudes and poles

"Earth sunshade would not rewind the climate". New Scientist. 28 May 2008 - "Dan Lunt of the University of Bristol, UK, and colleagues...found that Earth under a sunshade would not simply revert to its pre-industrial climate. Instead the tropics would be cooler than pre-industrial times by 1.5 °C, while high latitudes would be warmer by 1.5 °C, leading to less sea ice"
Sunshield costs are reasonable in face of global warming

Russel Dovery. "Supervillainy: Astroengineering Global Warming". Kuro5hin. 8 Apr. 2005 - "Dr Benford, while doing most of the work himself, has exploited his friends at NASA to confirm that the engineering is viable, and the results were astounding: The whole project could be achieved with today's technology at a cost of $10 billion US dollars up-front, and another ten for maintenance over the decades of designed lifespan. That's a lot of money, but it's still about two-fifths of the initial appropriation from Congress for the Iraq war. Benford proposes an international collaboration between wealthy nations to spread the load, and I would also suggest commercial sponsors. This would make the project almost indecently viable, considering the return each nation would get from being able to ignore Kyoto and its successors for as long as they feel like."
Geoengineering is just as likely to damage the environment as help

Ken Caldeira at the Carnegie Institution of Washington told New Scientist: "Personally, as a citizen not a scientist, I don't like geo-engineering because of the high environmental risk. It's toying with poorly understood complex systems. I think the Earth's system is so complicated that our interfering with it is very likely to screw things up and very unlikely to improve things. And this is the only planet we have."[1]
Evolution is unobserved; it is an unproven theory

- The term evolution can describe a number of things, some of which are directly observable while others are not. Evolutionists extrapolate evidence for observed evolution to be evidence for unobserved evolution. We have directly observed that random mutations invoke change and that nature sometimes selects for these mutations. Such mutations, however, are the result of the degregation of already existing information, not the development of new information. The development of new information via random mutation has not been observed. What has been observed is a very low ceiling for the number of mutations that the economy of life will allow before fitness costs become fatal. This is why bacteria have yet to grow arms, despite our direct observation of billions of generations.
Teaching darwinism is comparable to teaching flying spaghetti monsterism.

We've observed the ability of rapidly moving water to carve out canyons resembling the Grand Canyon (see: Little Grand Canyon, Mt. st Helens); we haven't observed gradualistic processes accomplish the same feat. Intelligent scientists have manipulated genetic information to create novel new functions (see: glow-in-the-dark pigs, cats); we haven't observed the ability of nature to generate the same sort of novelty via the natural selection of random mutations, the alleged engine of evolution.
The theory of evolution is not falsifiable

The fact that evolution is present is true, and that isn't what many creationists who are well informed argue. Yes, evolution happens, but Darwin's theory was simply that; a theory. Even he said that he wasn't sure it was true. To the extent to which evolution occurs, no scientist can prove. If evolution was present, why is it no longer? Where are all of the half ape-human creatures? Why are humans now borne from other humans, and monkeys from monkeys. They may be the most similar mammal to humans, but that in no way proves that humans "evolved" from them. Yes, a plant or an environment may evolve over time. New species are formed, but that cannot in any way prove that for millions...no, billions of years evolution has created humans, and all other life forms. It's just as "out there" as creationism is, but that is automatically pushed aside as not possible to many because it involves religious views. If a theory is going to be taught in schools, all other theories should be given equal credit in the classroom. It IS NOT a proven theory what they are teaching in schools, but it is taught as if it is the only option. That isn't how it should be.
Attempts to teach the creationism-evolution controversy to students are disingenuous promotions of activist Christians.

Certainly, it sounds reasonable that creationism should taught in public schools in the context of it being a cultural/religious perspective? Who could argue with this? Many non believers would argue that creationism and Bible are wonderful literary works of fiction, and so, yes, they should be taught. Unfortunately those that uphold creationism as true cannot be satisfied with this because their doctrine drives them to require it to be taught as the truth. This is what many creationists are calling for in school systems. They frequently call for individuals classes to be created that teach "creationism science" as truth.
Teaching the creationism-evolution controversy is important to student learning.

- One of the greatest lessons that a school can teach its students is the ability to use their own logic and reasoning to develop an objective opinion of the world around them. By teaching creationism in the classroom, schools are broadening students' knowledge. It is possible to teach both creationism and evolution in the same school. The goal is to expose students to all widely held 'beliefs'. The path to understanding requires the teaching of both Creationism and Evolution.
Creationism makes a false historical/scientific claim that is detached from the broader precepts of belief in God.

The belief that God creates and sustains the world is not the same as the belief that God created the world in seven days a few thousand years ago. The former is a theological position which implies the goodness and sovereignty of God, and his continuing involvement with his creation, not a scientific claim. The latter is an empirically testable claim which has been empirically tested and found to be false. We should not allow schools to teach our children things that are just plain wrong, and known to be wrong. This is distinct from allowing the teaching of religion, which is culturally and historically significant and which involves beliefs which are in principle distinct from science.
Preventing the teaching of creationism violates freedom of religion.

Many groups contend that evolution directly instructs that Genesis is wrong. If this is true, than allowing only the teaching of evolutionary theory directly undermines a religious doctrine. Young, impressionable students are more likely to believe such teachings. This should not be the case. Public schools should allow for the teaching of all salient doctrines and theories. No favor should be given one way or another. This principle is known as "Freedom of Religion" and is protected in the United States by the Establishment Clause. This clause ensures that no favor or dis-favor be given to any religious doctrine, yet this is precisely what is happening if creationism is prevented by the state from being taught in schools.
Creationism is not scientifically testable.

- The creationist account is an explanation that is not based on empirical evidence. It is not, nor claimed to be by those that uphold it, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. The creationist account requires a belief founded on faith and is not a 'working hypothesis' testable using observation or experiment. 'Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science' – National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism [1] Furthermore, all scientific theories are necessarily unproven - that’s what ‘theory’ means. A hypothesis is an assumption that is not taken as "truth", but as speculation. Evidence is used to test a hypothesis with the goal of demonstrating that it is likely true or unlikely true. If the evidence demonstrates that a hypothesis is likely false, then it is scrapped, and a new hypothesis is formed. This is the strict process of the scientific method. Critics of creation argue that creationism takes the Genesis account (actually there are two Genesis accounts, in Gen 1.1-2.3 and Gen 2.4-3.24) as necessarily true in every particular, and then bends the historical evidence to fit that so-called ‘hypothesis’. Because creationism attempts to advance an unalterable hypothesis or doctrine, it does not follow the basic principles of science, which stem from doubt, hypothesizing, and re-hypothesizing on to accepted theory. Because creationism fails to follow this basic scientific, theoretical approach, logically it is argued that it should not be called a "science".
Schools should not teach theories that are completely at odds with each other.

Evolution should be a central part of the science curriculum, because the rest of biology is dependent on it. Understanding how and why different organisms work as they do requires a knowledge of mutation, natural selection and adaptation, which are rejected by creationism. For creationism, the classification of living things based on lines of descent and chronological speciation makes no sense. Furthermore, understanding how evolution works as a theory helps teach students about the nature of scientific method - a matter on which creationists are notoriously shaky.
Because students are impressionable, if you teach them the literal truth of Genesis as science, they may well believe you.

Since you are wrong, this is not to be welcomed, particularly since what your teaching involves is a wilful misunderstanding of the nature of scientific method, with implications for their understanding of science in general for the rest of their lives. The fact that more than half of all Americans believe that the world was created by God in seven days is a testament to political pressure from Christians to water down the science curriculum, and it is harmful - because it is wrong. We may allow children to be sent to faith schools, but we do not allow those schools to teach them whatever they like.
The Bible is simply wrong if a literal interpretation is taken:

On this question, the Bible just is wrong, and if you insist on holding a literalistic approach to Scripture then the implications you claim do indeed follow. However, there is no theological need to do this. The Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches, for example, have accepted the truth of evolution and they still hold what is a recognisably and distinctively Christian faith. If the authors of the Bible meant their creation stories to be taken literally then their claims are open to scientific test. It is widely held that they wrote stories designed to account for the world as they knew it, and by todays standards these could not be held up as scientific accounts.
Teaching creationism's truth is necessary in upholding the truth of the Bible.

There is a great deal at stake in the claim that God did not create the world in seven days: the Bible says that he did; if he did not, then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong on this, we cannot trust it on anything else and the entire Christian faith can be viewed as a lie. Atheists claim it is not appropriate to teach creationism as a 'truth' and evolution should be taught as a theory. However, those churches that fail to uphold the faith in creationism and even accept the theory of evolution are compromising their faith.
The idea that creationists reject mutation or natural selection is ridiculous.

These are observable facts. What creationists defend is the idea that these changes cannot create new species, and as a result, a design, a designer, and a creator is necessary. Furthermore, if schools do not teach competing theories, it is comparable to teaching there is no alien life. This cannot be proven or demonstrated, however, it would seem that if that fit in with their theory for the rest of biology, the evolutionists would teach it without question.
Teaching evolution exclusively is dangerous to science and reason.

To exclude a set of ideas a priori is to potentially exclude the truth. Thus, as a matter of principle, science should not be constrained to a single set of ideas. Creationists argue that both sides should be taught. Evolutionists, on the other hand, limit the scope of science to a narrow acceptance of just one theory. Thus, to teach evolution exclusively is to promote limitations on the power of scientific inquiry. To teach creationism along side evolutionism is to promote open scientific inquiry and critical thought.
Schools should teach competing theories

The idea that creationists reject mutation or natural selection is ridiculous. These are observable facts. What creationists defend is the idea that these changes cannot create new species, and as a result, a design, a designer, and a creator is necessary. Furthermore, if schools do not teach competing theories, it is comparable to teaching there is no alien life. This cannot be proven or demonstrated, however, it would seem that if that fit in with their theory for the rest of biology, the evolutionists would teach it without question.
Open-mindedness toward creationism is important.

People should not reject discussion of Creationist theory simply because their belief in science and evolution contradict evolution. That would be closed-minded toward the subject. One must be open to the concept or idea (not just debunk it because the theory states a power called GOD and that's not yet proven by science). Many have had a meta-physical experience in their lives that cannot be explained by the existing science. People take to deep faith in these experiences, and would not accept someone else telling them that their experience was false or an illusion. The same can be considered in the notion of creationism, and that off-hand rejection of it is overly closed-minded to the possibility of valid metaphysical realities unexplained by science and evolution.
The TGD helps to alleviate drought.

The Yangtze, which is 6,300 km long, usually experiences a dry season between November and April. This is often followed by spring flooding.Cargo ships are often stranded in the sections around Yichang, Wuhan and Jingzhou of Hubei Province, and Jiujiang, Hukou of the neighboring Jiangxi Province and block the route. The TGD can abate the effect of drought by controlling the water discharge to maintain normal shipping along the China's longest river,.
Floating garbage is piling up behind the TGD

When droughts occur in China, as occurred in 2006, garbage can pile up in the basin behind the damn. Then, when the basin begins to fill back up with water, this garbage is lifted to float on the surface where it is both visually unappealing and damaging to the environment. The damage is particularly acute for local wildlife that suffer from higher chemical levels in their habitat or that become ensnared in the garbage and die.
Argument: The Three Gorges Dam has destroyed Chinese cultural artifacts

According to Chinese recent archaeological discoveries, the Three Gorges are viewed as the cradle of ancient Chinese culture.There are a total 1208 archaeological sites(441 above ground and 767 underground)covering nearly 2 million years of history in the inundated areas of 632 square kilometres along the YangtseRiver extending nearly 700 kilometres from Chongqing to Sandouping.
Three Gorges Dam damages water quality

The reservoir of the Three Gorges Dam is, similar to other dams, fostering algae blooms and elevated levels of phosphate and nitrate pollutants that are damaging to water quality for both the wildlife and for human consumption. Because the reservoir is so massive, the effect on water quality is going to be on a scale never seen before, particularly as tributaries coming off of the 60 kilometer reservoir are experiencing the ill effects as well.
Hydroelectric power from the TGD is much cleaner than coal.

While there may be some environmental costs associated with the TGD, it is important to keep in mind that the only primary energy alternative to the TGD is coal energy. But coal is a major environmental hazard both on the local level, where it covers Chinese cities with lung-damaging pollution, and on the global level in the context of global warming (coal is one of the worst greenhouse gas emitters). Therefore, the TGD is the lesser of evils.
Allowing priests to marry would not increase vocations

Kathryn Nicole Stockhausen. "Should Roman Catholic Priests Be Allowed to Marry?". Washington Post. November 7, 2004: "I have heard some who state that it would lead to an increase in vocations, but there is not a single piece of statistical data to prove that. Of those who have contemplated a vocation to the priesthood, very few have stated that a vow of celibacy was a stumbling block that they could not overcome. In fact, I have known of many ordained individuals who see celibacy as a blessing, and as a way to allow them to focus more on their vocation of service to others and to the church."
Allowing priests to marry would require Church pay them more

Kathryn Nicole Stockhausen. "Should Roman Catholic Priests Be Allowed to Marry?". Washington Post. November 7, 2004: "And as for financial considerations, most Roman Catholic priests, especially diocesan ones, receive a substantial portion of their pay in the form of in-kind contributions. This would be difficult to maintain if a priest took on a wife and children, and their pay would have to be increased as well. The church, especially in America, is having enough financial problems right now without adding to it by allowing priests to marry."
Celibacy is not divine law, only Church law

Muriel Porter. "Church will benefit if priests are able to marry". The Age. January 31, 2005: "Unlike the issue of women priests, which the Pope has declared to be theologically impossible, the celibacy requirement is not a matter of church doctrine. Rather, it is a discipline only formally imposed on the clergy in 1139, when a church council declared clerical marriage invalid. What the church has banned, the church can restore."
Priests should be allowed to marry to increase vocations

Muriel Porter. "Church will benefit if priests are able to marry". The Age. January 31, 2005: "The present plea is justified on the basis that drastic action is needed to restore priestly numbers, which in the Western world have dropped markedly over the past 30 years. In Australia the decline is estimated to be about 20 per cent overall, with a much greater drop - about two-thirds - in the numbers of trainee priests. [...] The requirement of priestly celibacy is perhaps the sole reason for this unprecedented decline. The Anglican and Protestant churches, which permit their clergy to marry, have not suffered any significant shortage of trainees over the same period."