BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear waste disposal is rarely safe/efficient; it is too much to expect a sqeaky clean disposal/disarmament of nuclear weapons

We're all well aware of the problems/issues associated with nuclear waste disposal; ranging from radiation/disease to pollution to the construction of dirty bombs with stolen components of used/faulty nuclear material. Now imagine, the horror of attempting to obviate all the workable nuclear weapons in the world. This will be a tardy task that will require considerable effort,time and money. To safely remove nuclear weapons will prove too expensive for nuclear states with third-world economies and it is likely that since most nuclear waste disposal is inefficient and unsafe; nuclear weapon disposal will be much more inefficient/unsafe. Poor Nations will have the incentive to sell weapons to terrorists or whoever during the disposal process to curtail costs. Poor Nations will also not be able to pay for a safe removal of nuclear weapons and during the disposal/disarmament nuclear material will/would be more exposed than ever before. Making the threat of impending nuclear-terrorism very likely as a result.
Proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the chances of nuclear accidents

Once again, the probability of an accident occurring and leading to a nuclear attack is incredibly low. Today, there are many safety mechanisms on nuclear weapons that make accidents very unlikely (such as permissive action links). Older weapons are being secured, and the United States is taking action to help other nations increase safety mechanisms on their weapons [[Bruno Tertrais, The Case for No First Use: An Exchange, Survival, Vol. 51, Issue 5]] Second, the risk of an accident is too dangerous for leaders to overlook security measures for their nuclear arsenals. No matter how poor or crude the nation's government, leaders obviously want to safeguard their nuclear weapons and would spend a considerable amount of resources to prevent the likelihood of accidents. (Waltz elaborates on these ideas)
The existence of nuclear weapons deters large-scale conventional warfare

The theory of deterrence assumes many things, including rational actors, the absence of accidents, and the absence of terrorist threats/nuclear weapons being given to terrorists. If any of those are likely scenarios, then deterrence fails, because it relies on these principles in order to be true. However, as explained elsewhere, each of these scenarios are actually possible. Second, the existence of nuclear weapons actually increases conventional conflict. The widespread fear of other nations acquiring weapons of mass destruction has pushed nations into waging pre-emptive wars (e.g. the United States against Iraq) that undermine global stability. While nuclear weapons may seem to deter large-scale conflict (which they don't, as mentioned earlier), they also cause more conflict among nations, especially those that want to prevent other nations from becoming nuclear.
The abolition of nuclear weapons would actually incentivize the development and use of even more dangerous weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons

Some nations pledged not to use chemical and biological warfare because they had nuclear weapons. In other instances, nuclear weapons have directly deterred the use of chemical and biological weapons - for example, Saddam Hussein confessed that Iraq wanted to use chemical and biological weapons, and that US conventional forces were insufficient to deter them, but the presence of the nuclear threat ultimately swayed him. Chemical and biological weapons are just as harmful as nuclear weapons (if not worse). Related authors: Keith Payne, Anthony Cordesman, John Holdren, Raymond Zilinskas
Terrorists will steal nuclear weapons from poorly guarded arsenals

There have been over hundreds of cases of documented thefts of nuclear material, especially from poorly guarded arsenals. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many nuclear weapons arsenals' security deteriorated rapidly, and it is becoming increasingly easy for terrorists to steal them. Terrorists can also obtain materials necessary to build nuclear weapons from the black market. The only way to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons or the materials necessary to build them is to completely, openly, and safely disarm. Related authors: David Krieger, Abdul Mannan, Micah Zenko, Matthew Bunn, Anthony Weir, Harold Brown, Ira Helfand 250 reported nuclear weapons' thefts in 2007-[[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/world/28nuke.html]]
Nothing to fear.

In an idealistic world, nuclear weapons would not exist. However, in the modern society that we live in, being unprepared for terror attacks leaves a nation in serious danger, which after all, is a primary concern for governments. There is no way of guaranteeing we, as a nation, can live in a safe environment without knowing we are properly prepared for any event. All nations should have the same rights when considering nuclear weapons; there is no clear way of telling if one nations stability is more suited to possessing such a dangerous weapon from the next. By trying to place limitations on other nations we simply encourage resentment, further increasing the dangers of a weapon which would otherwise no doubt lie dormant. The fact is, often these weapons are portrayed in the media to be the end of man kind, therefore decreasing public support. However, these weapons play a crucial role in security a countries position as a super power; something more important now than ever.
Proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the chances of nuclear accidents

An accident with nuclear weapons could set off warning systems and a chain reaction that would be disastrous. There are numerous documented cases of safety mechanisms failing on nuclear weapons, very nearly causing nuclear launches. New proliferating states often have crude security measures and are not as advanced as established nuclear powers, increasing the chance of an accident. Moreover, some nuclear programs are also secretive, decreasing the transparency and ability for groups to scrutinize and criticize the process. Instead of risking a potentially catastrophic accident, nuclear weapons should simply be eliminated. Related authors: Scott Sagan, Morton Mintz, John Leslie, Bruce Berkowitz, Robert Art, Tad Daley, Martin Hellman, Nathan Busch, Paul Kerr
The existence of nuclear weapons deters large-scale conventional warfare

Superpowers that possess nuclear weapons are deterred from instigating large-scale conflict because they know that the cost of a nuclear war is total annihilation, and the outcome is much more obvious. Since the invention of nuclear weapons, there have been no world-wide conflicts, largely due to the peace and stability that nuclear weapons bring. With the knowledge that attacking a nuclear power would be virtual suicide, nations refrain from being aggressive toward the superpowers. Related authors: Kenneth Waltz, Paul Huth, Bruno Tertrais, Shai Feldman
States will give terrorists nuclear weapons

There is no reason states would simply give away their nuclear weapons. First, it is very likely that the international community would trace the nuclear weapon back to where it came from, giving the state no incentive to cooperate with terrorists for fear of intense international backlash. Second, nuclear weapons take considerable effort, time, and resources to build, and no nation would simply hand over nuclear weapons to a non-state actor that it ultimately has no control over. The state cannot obtain any guarantee that the non-state actor will actually carry out its stated aims, and the state is much better off not cooperating with non-state actors. Third, terrorists would not even use nuclear weapons. Terrorists use destruction as a tool to gain political leverage, not as an end goal in itself. If terrorists were to use nuclear weapons, they would cause massive destruction, promptly alienating a good portion of their support base. Using nuclear weapons would be self--defeating for terrorists.
Disarmament is impossible, rendering efforts to disarm pointless and simply wasteful

There is no reason disarmament is impossible - nations such as South Africa, Kazakhstan, etc. had nuclear weapons at one point but decided to disarm. If a few nations can do it, there is no reason that the larger superpowers cannot let go of their weapons, either. And even if disarmament is very unlikely, there is no reason that the international community should not make an effort to reach that goal. It is still true that nations ought not possess nuclear weapons and that a world of global zero would be better, even if the chances of reaching that global zero are incredibly small. Attempting to achieve an impossible goal is not always fruitless; for example, society strives toward a crime-free society, and while that is arguably impossible, there is still merit in attempting to do so.
Irrational leaders make the possession of nuclear weapons dangerous

No leader is irrational enough to launch a nuclear weapon without clear cost benefit analysis. All leaders are at least rational enough to work their way into positions of power. Moreover, even aims such as honor and glory require the leader to actually be alive, and the assurance of annihilation that nuclear weapons would cause is enough to deter leaders from actually using them. Today, no leader would be irrational enough to show such a predeliction for self-annihalation.. It is wrong to assume that national leaders, including dictators like Kim Jong-Il, make decisions in isolation. Every 'leader' is wholly dependant on some kind of power base or popular support in maintaining their position. In a democracy, the leader is only one component in the complex executive-legislative structure. They cannot act without the support of the constituent elements of this structure, meaning that in this context even an irrational individual would be constrained by the system within which they operate. Similarly, in an autocratic state like North Korea, Kim Jong-Il is wholly dependant on a military elite whose support allows him to rule. If Kim Jong-Il were to suddenly decide that a nuclear strike was desirable for the cause of 'glory' or 'honour', it is almost certain that his power base would recognise the abject consequences of such an irrational move and move to stop or remove him. In short, it is reductive to argue that today's national leaders can act with the autonomy of medieval kings, and in the end no government is likely to succumb to the wholescale irrationality necessary to justify a nuclear strike. The consequences are too major for any right thinking nation to consider the possibility.
It is immoral to use the threat of nuclear annihilation in order to achieve foreign policy aims

The ultimate intent of nuclear deterrence is to protect people - both the innocents in the target nation and the innocents of the original nation. The small infringement upon human liberty that occurs when a state threatens another state is negligible, compared to the benefits. Also, states always treat other states as entire groups and not as individuals. A government by definition can only deal with other governments, and cannot always distinguish between innocent actors and guilty ones - for example, during war, innocents unfortunately die, but these deaths are an inevitable byproduct of international actions.
Nations should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons in self defense

Nuclear weapons are an excessive form of self-defense. There is no reason that nuclear weapons are necessary in order for a country to defend itself; these weapons can only be seen as hostile and antithetical to the idea of global cooperation and peace. If no nations had nuclear weapons, there would be no need to have second strike capabilities. Further, nations have committed atrocities in the name of self defense, and there clearly need to be some well-define limits constraining what a nation can and cannot do in order to defend itself. The possession of nuclear weapons is by its very nature offensive and cannot be viewed as defensive..
Disarmament would actually cause increased insecurity among nations, as there can never be any guarantee that a nation has disarmed

Potential conflicts would arise from the disarmament process itself, as nations would constantly second-guess each other and doubt the other nation's counts of nuclear arsenals. This tension would make relations even worse than they were in a world with nuclear weapons, and thus disarmament actually causes more conflict. Related authors: George Dvorsky, Christopher Ford, Takaya Suto, Hirofumi Tasaki
States will give terrorists nuclear weapons

Non-state actors are always looking for new ways to cause mass terror, and nuclear weapons would be useful in terrorists' pursuit for political leverage. States sympathetic to terrorists' aims or ideals may develop nuclear weapons and give them away (e.g. Iran). In order to prevent states from dangerously empowering non-state actors, we must rid the world of nuclear weapons. Related authors: David Krieger, Valerine Wilson, Sheena Chestnut, Harold Brown, Graham Allison Counter-argument to second: Terrorists do not need to expend time/energy on building nuclear weapons/arsenals; as stated above they have the option of buying weapons from sympathetic states or sympathetic non-state actors(Case in point: A.Q.Khan). Whether the state would be better or worse off; after cooperating with blackmailing terrorists can only be determined if both options(Cooperating&not-Cooperating) could be availed simultaneously. Such is impossible therefore baseless assumptions on this untested hypothesis are best avoided altogether. Counter-argument: to third: Again, this is rather presumptuous; especially in light of the thousands of deaths that occurred on the historic date of 9/11; not discounting the death toll in a host of countries/nations worldwide resulting from bombings,shootings and suicide-bombings conducted by terrorists on a daily basis. On a side note: Terrorists on a suicide mission should not care about self-defeat. While there has been no successful use of dirty bombs or nuclear weapons by terrorists to date. Attempts by terrorists to use these have been reported and preemptively countered. We may not be as lucky the next time around. Ignoring previous attempts and pretending there is no threat, will not make it go away: Terrorism is not the Bogey man. [[http://www.nti.org/h_learnmore/radtutorial/chapter02_01.html]]
Disarmament is impossible, rendering efforts to disarm pointless and simply wasteful

Nations will never entirely give up their nuclear weapons, and more countries want to proliferate, not fewer. There is no way to actually enforce a ban on nuclear weapons; attempts to date, including the NPT and the CTBT, cannot actually enforce a ban and have done relatively little to stop determined nations from proliferating. Instead of focusing their attention on abolishing nuclear weapons, nations should focus on alternatives, such as increased weapons safety and decreased arsenals. Related authors: Bruno Tertrais
A pupil is unable to give or withhold their consent to participating in school prayer. This is becau...

A pupil is unable to give or withhold their consent to participating in school prayer. This is because the school environment does not facilitate the free exercise of consent. It mandates attendance, it is delivered in an inherently instructional facility, and its subjects are immature, having underdeveloped faculties of resistance and consent, and being subject to the pressure of their peers. The Supreme Court in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe recognised that such social influence upon pupils, exerted by colleagues and staff, can render even attendance at voluntary extra-curricular events, such as a football game, a matter of compulsion. A pupil does not opt into the practice of prayer. The practice typically takes place in the context of an assembly at which attendance is compulsory. The consent of the pupil to the prayer is not sought but merely presumed.
The provision of school prayer fundamentally undermines the proper role of the parents or guardians ...

The provision of school prayer fundamentally undermines the proper role of the parents or guardians of the child. The Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Wisconsin v. Yoder recognised that the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing of children under their control extends to the religious faith that is imparted to the children. The proper purpose of schooling is not indoctrination. Should religion be considered a valuable part of a balanced curriculum, it ought to be taught in a broad and critical context in the classroom. A formal prayer instils obedience to a faith that the child might neither understand nor accept and to which the parent or guardian might properly object. The practice does not stimulate discussion or debate.
The prohibition of school prayer is wholly compatible with the free exercise of religion and the den...

The prohibition of school prayer is wholly compatible with the free exercise of religion and the denial of its establishment. The dynamic tension between the free establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment is neither novel nor insoluble. A formal school prayer cannot properly be considered as the free exercise of religion. The practice is directed by an ordinance of the local board of education. The staff of the school implement the ordinance. By participating in the prayer, the pupils simply obey it. The free exercise clause protects religious liberty and not religious compulsion. In the alternative, it might be assumed that banning school prayer impairs to some degree free exercise. Yet, this infringement is exceedingly minor given that the pupil is not precluded from engaging into private or group prayer of her own accord.
Any limitation of free exercise must be balanced against the significant hazards posed by deviation ...

Any limitation of free exercise must be balanced against the significant hazards posed by deviation from the rigid separation of church and state. The Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution and the Justices of the Supreme Court for over two hundred years have recognised that even seemingly the slightest integration of religion and government 'tends to destroy government and degrade religion': Engel v. Vitale. Justice Black expounded in this case the unfortunate historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions have tended 'to go hand in hand'. To insist on the separation of church and state even in the school assembly is not to conjure a slippery slope and a pair of skis. It is to practise awareness of the tragic experience that founded the Republic and informed the Constitution.
Religious discrimination is completely unacceptable and should certainly not be condoned or even fac...

Religious discrimination is completely unacceptable and should certainly not be condoned or even facilitated by a school. Yet, in order to be meaningful, a prayer must also be discriminatory between different religious beliefs. The imprecation of one deity (as opposed to another or several others), the choice of language and the supplication sought are distinctive to each faith. The incorporation of any or all such addresses into a single prayer at best confuses its meaning, and at worst renders it meaningless. Where the practical precatory choice is between discrimination and equivocation no school prayer should be permitted.
Neither democracy nor taxation is sufficient for the scientific management of a school. The majorit...

Neither democracy nor taxation is sufficient for the scientific management of a school. The majority of voters are unlikely to be expert in the constitutional issues of the separation of church and state, or free exercise and free establishment. The majority is also unlikely to select candidates for the board of education on account of their attitude towards school prayer and the candidates equally unlikely to seek such a mandate. Mere payment of taxes does not qualify or entitle a majority of residents to determine the circumstances of local education. Few would suggest that simple non-violation of tax laws also allowed taxpayers to choose, say, the amount of time devoted to the teaching of history, the opening hours of the school, or the appointment and dismissal of the members of staff. The facts that the local board of education is elected and that local property taxes fund schools are simply irrelevant to the specific discussion of school prayer.
A pupil is unable to give or withhold their consent to participating in school prayer. This is becau...

The provision of formal prayer does not invalidate the consent of the child concerned. Should a child or parent of guardian object to the practice of prayer, the child is entitled to refrain from participation. Pupils consistently exercise their consent in their education, from the curricular and extra-curricular options chosen, to the dress worn, to the food eaten. No one ought to defend a school curriculum or staff member that is considered to manipulate the consent of the child concerned. However, there is nothing inherent in the school environment that impairs the consent of a child to prayer. A child might of course feel a small and perhaps significant degree of social isolation from not participating in the prayer. Nevertheless, this sentiment is the necessary price of conscience or nonconformity.
The provision of school prayer fundamentally undermines the proper role of the parents or guardians ...

The guidance of parents or guardians is wholly compatible with the formal school prayer. First, the primary caregiver of the child can simply direct the child not to attend the prayer, in the alternative or in addition to requesting the school not to permit the child to participate in this activity. Second, the proposition argument tends heavily towards the hysterical. An American public high school does not typically embrace the Jesuit aphorism of taking a child and building a believer for life. A brief prayer, perhaps even conveying a nondenominational message, is exceedingly unlikely to confuse a child or damage the teaching of the parents or guardians. Third, a school necessarily and properly stands in loco parentis of its pupils. It is entirely proper that, in the absence of expression to the contrary on behalf of the parent or guardian, the school should make the deliberately paternalistic choice to hold a school prayer for the pupils. Fourth, if a court or legislator could ever be so presumptuous as to tender a definition of the ‘purpose’ of schooling, it should reasonably include the spiritual development of its subjects. A moment of prayer or reflection is consequently a valuable and not supererogatory element of the curriculum.
The prohibition of school prayer is wholly compatible with the free exercise of religion and the den...

The prohibition of school prayer violates the second component of constitutionally protected religious liberty. The First Amendment precludes state interference in the free exercise of religion. Formal school prayer merely assists pupils in the free exercise of their religious beliefs The suggestion that those children who wish to engage in prayer could initiate spontaneous prayer without the direction of staff is hopelessly unrealistic. When a congregation attends any formal service of worship they are engaged in the free exercise of religion, notwithstanding the fact that the members did not write the prayers or hymns or passages they hear, speak, sing or recite.