BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vaccines have severe side effects

Some of the used vaccines may have severe side effects, therefore we should let every individual asses the risk and make choices on his/her own. Besides introducing foreign proteins and even live viruses into the bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative, neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are indigenous to the body. For instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which includes Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and aluminum phosphate, and that's from the Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons: aluminum potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium phosphate. The packet insert for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The packet insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for measles, mumps and rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a mixture of antibiotics.[1] Evidence also suggests that immunizations damage the immune system itself. By focusing exclusively on increased antibody production, which is only one aspect of the immune process, immunizations isolate dysfunction and allow it to substitute for the entire immune response, because vaccines trick the body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized response. They accomplished what the entire immune system seems to have been evolved to prevent. That is, they place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it. The long-term persistence of viruses and other foreign proteins within the cells of the immune system has been implicated in a number of chronic and degenerative diseases. In 1976 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers university addressed science writers at a seminar of the American Cancer Society, and pointed out the following. "Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. These latent pro viruses could be molecules in search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer."[2] Vaccines may cause a child who is genetically predisposed to have autism. If the trend of increased Thimerosal in vaccinations correlates so well with the trend of increased autistic diagnoses, there is a link. Thimerosal in vaccinations (which means 'contains mercury') causes autism. Too many times has a child been completely healthy, and then a vaccine containing Thimerosal is injected into the child. The child becomes ill, stops responding visually and verbally, and is then diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. [1] Roger R. Gervais. Understanding the Vaccine Controversy. Natural MAgainse May/June 1996. http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/naturalparenting/vaccines.htm [2] Alex Loglia, Global healing center, http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/vaccinations-the-hour-of-the-time.html, accessed 28/05/2011
[Iran specific] Iran has threatened to destroy Israel

Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated,[1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons.[2] On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis.[3] Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas. [1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?adxnnl=1&a... [2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8627143.stm [3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3570266,00.html
Existing international treaties that grant nuclear weapons to the US and other countries no longer reflect the changing global balance of power.

Regardless of its origins, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of an international system that has prevented the rapid proliferation of Nuclear weapons for nearly half a century. The dangers of Nuclear weapons, especially in the wrong hands, mean that the ownership of nuclear weapons is an issue which transcends moral standards of “fairness”. It may be true that the treaty should be revisited in the case of say India or Brazil, but this debate is not about the nuclear ambitions of fundamentally stable, democratic states that would willingly comply with all of the terms of the non-proliferation treaty if they were permitted to become signatories. Rather, the question of America’s right to act to enforce the treaty should focus on rogue states that present a significant danger to their neighbours, and whose acquisition of such weapons is likely to destabilize regional balances of power, and make the entire world less secure. Iran, Syria and Pakistan’s use of the language of anti-colonialism is a sign of nothing more than political opportunism.
The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction makes war less likely.

Not all states are inherently rational, either by our standards or generally. North Korea is a xenophobic state based on the belief that they are racially and ideologically superior to all other states.[1] A government that does not consider its enemies fully human in its official propaganda is unlikely to blanch at the prospect of nuking them, even at their own expense. Even seemingly rational states make tactical mistakes, like Saddam Hussein did when he invaded Kuwait. Nuclear Weapons raise the stakes, and have the potential to make the consequences of those errors far more serious and deadly. Furthermore, MAD does not operate solely due to the possession of Nuclear Weapons, but rather it requires that a state possess a “Second-Strike” ability. A “second Strike” ability means that a country has the capacity to nuke another country after it has already been attacked, whether through hardened silos or submarine launched warheads. Without such an ability, a state like Israel would risk losing its nuclear deterrent in an Iranian attack, and would therefore have every incentive to strike first if it thought such an attack might be about to occur. Iran, which is far less likely to be able to develop a “Second Strike” capability due to financial and technological limitations, would in turn almost constantly face a “use it or lose it” situation of its own. [1] Myers, B.R., ‘Excerpt: The Cleanest Race’, The New York Times, 26 January 2010,  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/books/excerpt-cleanest-race.html?pagew...
The United States has an obligation to protect international stability due to its unique military strength.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the lynchpins on which the current Western-led international political and diplomatic order is dependent.1,2 Just as any normal legal system requires laws that are predictable and enforceable, so too does the international system. The Non-Proliferation Treaty provides this level of consistency and control over states’ nuclear assets. In particular, one of those key principles is the assumption that once a country enters a treaty it will abide by its terms. If a country can leave a treaty at will, it means that no policy can be made with any degree of predictability. States are not able to formulate plans for future policies and development strategies if analysts and politicians are prevented from making reliable predictions about neighbouring state’s behaviour, economic policies and territorial ambitions. This is particularly important with treaties relating to armaments, and of vital importance when it comes to Nuclear Weapons, because other countries choose to participate in military alliances and actions based on such assumptions. Historically, arms build-ups and wars have occurred when the Great Powers fail to uphold the international legal system – fail to regard it as binding and inherently valuable and consequential. For example Germany’s willingness to disregard Czechoslovakian sovereignty prior to World War II. For that reason the United States has a vested interest in upholding the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is because the US is the major beneficiary of the present international system, both economically and politically. Economically, the major loser in any upheaval around the world is almost guaranteed to be the United States or its corporations. However, the political incentives for the USA to continue upholding the non-proliferation treaty- by force if necessary- are far greater. A failure on its part to act will not just lead to nuclear proliferation, but also undermine other treaties banning chemical weapons and guaranteeing human rights as nations’ realize they are only pieces of paper. 1. ‘The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’, 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),  1 July 1968, http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html 2. Kasprzyk, Nicholas, ‘Nuclear Non-proliferation and Regional Changing Strategic Balances: How Much Will Regional Proliferation Impinge Upon the Future of the NPT?’, in Krause, Joachim and Wenger, Andreas eds., Studies in Contemporary History and Security policy, 2001, http://kms2.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/EINIRAS/343/ichaptersection_...
Nuclear weapons can fall into the wrong hands.

Even if states do not use nuclear weapons themselves, or attempt to threaten their neighbours, they can sell their technology to other, less savoury states and individuals. This was a particular problem with Pakistan. The former head of the Pakistani nuclear program, AQ Khan, sold technology on detonation mechanisms and Uranium enrichment to North Korea and Iran.[1] Iran is also likely to be willing to pass on its own nuclear information to other states, particularly Assad’s Syria.[2] Such weapons could also find their way into the hands of terrorists. Iran has close links to Hezbollah and Hamas which it funds substantially, and a strong desire to hurt Israel.[3] North Korea has close links to a number of nasty groups ranging from drug cartels to Islamist terrorists. [1] Kerr, Paul K., and Nikitin, Mary Beth, ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues’, Congressional Research Service, 30 November 2011, pp.20-23, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34248.pdf [2] Gekbart, Jonathan, ‘The Iran-Syria Axis: A Critical Investigation’, Stanford Journal of International Relations, Vol. XII, No. 1, Fall 2010, http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/12-1/fall10-final_5.pdf [3] Bruno, Greg, ‘State Sponsors: Iran’, Council on Foreign Relations, 13 October 2011, http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
[Iran specific] Iran has threatened to destroy Israel

Iran has explicitly threatened to destroy Israel, President Ahmadinejad described Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth".[1] Such a prospect would be disastrous, not just in its initial consequences, but for the entire region. Even an unsuccessful attack on Israel would provoke a counter strike. The US would take much of the blame for the casualties of such a strike even if it counselled Israel against it. The United States must prevent Iran from ever being able to put such threats into action which may mean having to engage in military action to prevent Iran gaining the capability. [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and McGreal, Chris, ‘Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran’s president’, The Guardian, 27 October 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran
Existing international treaties that grant nuclear weapons to the US and other countries no longer reflect the changing global balance of power.

The Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty is inherently unfair, in that it prevents countries that did not have nuclear weapons as of 1964 from developing them, but makes no effort to force those who already possess nuclear devices to disarm. The result is that the list of countries with such weapons, the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China, represents the balance of power as it existed at the time that the non-proliferation treaty was drafted. Countries that have entered the club subsequently, like India and Pakistan, did so in violation of the treaty and international law. Any sort of treaty that seeks to limit access to nuclear arms has to provide opportunities for countries like Brazil to enter the “club” as they gain political or economic power. In the absence of any such mechanism the current treaty system is nothing more than a tool of Western dominance in order to keep the status quo which is favorable to the current nuclear powers something which is bound to build up resentment. This would in effect offer not only to the pursuit of nuclear weapons by the targeted regimes, but to the rest of their policies. States like South Africa and Brazil already find it difficult to support a strong international line against Iran[1] due to seeing the inequality of allowing some countries nuclear weapons programmes but seeking to punish others, especially when the nuclear weapons states that are signatories to the NPT have not moved towards disarmament as the treaty stipulates.[2] This would in effect alienate them completely. Second, even if the harm was justifiable by the ends, it would seem that in the long run, invading- or even censuring- every country that attempts to develop Nuclear Weapons in violation of the NPT is impractical as the United States and the rest of the world have de facto admitted by ending sanctions on Pakistan and India in 2001, two years after their nuclear tests.[3] As such, there needs to be a political means that can separate states like Brazil from states like Iran, lest the policy collapse under its own weight. The West, rather than using force, should attempt to repair the existing non-proliferation treaty framework, such that the standards for possession of nuclear weapons are based on behaviour rather than history. [1] Charbonneau, Louis, ‘Q+A: How likely are new U.S. sanctions against Iran?’, Reuters, 9 November 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/09/us-iran-nuclear-sanctions-idUSTRE7A86Z220111109 [2] Spektor, Matias, ‘How to Read Brazil’s Stance on iran’, YaleGlobal, 16 March 2010, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/how-read-brazils-stance-iran [3] BBC News, ‘US lifts India and Pakistan sanctions’, 23 September 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1558860.stm
The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction makes war less likely.

States are fundamentally rational, and as such, nuclear proliferation has generally made war less likely, by promulgating the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD). States go to war with other states when they think they can win the conflict they will provoke. By making victory impossible, MAD makes wars unprofitable, and thereby prevents them from beginning in the first place. The Cold War never turned hot partially for this reason, and it is possible that the Israeli-Iranian relationship could be stabilized by both states possessing a nuclear deterrent. North Korea may well desire to Nuke the United States and Japan, and may well feel that there would be no moral issues with doing so, but they have refrained from doing so. As they have refrained from invading the South since 1950. There is substantial evidence that even the most irrational regimes can be deterred. No matter how dictatorial and authoritarian a state government, the prospect of complete nuclear annihilation will be effective in restraining its ambitions.[1] In the case of Iran, the threat to Iranian cities by the Iraqi army moving on to the offensive and using chemical weapons motivated Khomeini to make peace in 1988.[2] It is worth noting that they have not explicitly attacked Israel themselves, preferring to work through proxies. It would seem unlikely that Iran, if it were to become the only nuclear power in the Islamic world, could avoid responsibility if Hamas or Hezbollah were to utilize a weapon. [1] Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” I, Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981), http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm [2] Globalsecurity.org, ‘Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)’, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm
The possession of nuclear weapons by some states drives others to militarize, creating arms races.

This would be an argument in favour of preventing countries from developing any deterrent at any time, because it would make them easier to invade. It presumes, firstly, that it would be a good thing for the United States to be able to invade countries that do things it does not like at will, and secondly that it assumes that deterrence will not deter the initial invasion in the first place. The main reason why great powers involve themselves in wars, is because many smaller countries are not able to fight off larger ones using their own resources and so the great power expects an easy victory assuming it can avoid intervention by other great powers. Jammu and Kashmir could not stand up to the Indian army in 1947 and Kuwait could not stand up to Iraq; Georgian was unable to mount armed resistance against a Russian incursion and neither was Chechnya. Nuclear Weapons are a great equalizer, and if one consequence of Iran developing Nuclear weapons is that all of her neighbours do so as well, then war will become far less likely, and US intervention will become unnecessary. As a consequence, in the long-run, Nuclear proliferation is a self-correcting problem.
The development of nuclear weapons creates a self-perpetuating cycle of proliferation among other states.

This is in fact a good thing. Nuclear weapons are a great equalizer between large and small countries.[1] One of the great problems of history for tiny nations like Georgia or the Baltic states is that they have consistently been at the mercy of Russia. Nuclear weapons will allow them to fight the Russians on an equal level, and therefore deter the Russians from intervening as actively as they have in the past. In the case of Iran and its neighbours, Iran’s position would actually be weakened if everyone in the region acquired nuclear weapons as the United Arab Emirates or Bahrain cannot compete with Iran conventionally, but could compete in a nuclear arms race. Wider uptake of nuclear arms would reduce Iran’s power and influence. Moreover there is little evidence that this domino effect will happen. North Korea detonated its first nuclear weapon in 2006 but there has been no response from other countries in the region even though South Korea and Japan could have rapidly gone for nuclear breakout.[2] [1] Buchanan, Patrick J., ‘The Great Equalizer’, The American Conservative, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2003/feb/10/00007/ [2] Berganas, John, ‘The Nuclear Domino Myth’, Foreign Affairs, 31 August 2010, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66738/johan-bergenas/the-nuclear-...
No country has an inherent right to invade or use aggression against another.

The United States would ideally move with the backing of the world community, but even if that is not present, we think that the United States is more than capable of making clear that it is not anyone’s puppet and that it is intervening solely to uphold international law. Any military action whether justified or not will cause resentment, but this not a reason to let genocide run amok or dictators get away with invasions nor is it a reason to let the same dictators get their hands on nuclear weapons, security is a vital interest whereas being liked by the rest of the world is not.
[Iran specific] Iran has not invaded any other country in three and a half centuries; the same cannot be said for US allies including Israel, Pakistan, etc.

What is not at issue is whether Iran will invade anyone. No one expects that, at least not immediately. Rather, the harm of Iranian possession of nuclear weapons is that they will provide Iran with immunity from retaliation which will encourage it to escalate its Cold War against Saudi Arabia in the Gulf, and increase its assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas. As noted above, Pakistan has in fact behaved in exactly this manner. Safe behind its nuclear shield, it has provided increasingly blatant backing to anti-Indian terrorist groups and opp is right to note that there is little that can be done about that. The best bet is not to allow Iran to do the same thing
The possession of nuclear weapons by some states drives others to militarize, creating arms races.

er, the government possesses nuclear weapons it can threaten to use them, and thereby deter a counter-invasion or prevent the International community from being able to intervene to depose it. This can be seen in the relative coddling Pakistan has received both from its political and territorial opponent India, and from the United States since its development of Nuclear Weapons.[3] Actions that previously would have led to sanctions or worse, such as aid to the Taliban, assistance to the Nuclear Programs of Rogue States – most famously through the A.Q. Kahn network that supplied Libya, Iran and North Korea,[4] and complicity in terrorist attacks in India are brushed off with empty words[5] and meaningless semi-sanctions, India itself is deterred from making any response.[6] Indeed, US policy in recent years has been to try to buy off Pakistan rather than to coerce it. [1] Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth ed., 1978, pp.4-15, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm [2] Kaplan, Robert D., ‘Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things)’, the Atlantic, January/February 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheim... [3] Miglani, Sanjeev, ‘Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, a deterrent against India, but also United States?’, Reuters, 9 April 2011, http://blogs.reuters.com/afghanistan/2011/04/09/pakistans-nuclear-weapon... [4] Kerr, Paul K., and Nikitin, Mary Beth, ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues’, Congressional Research Service, 30 November 2011, pp.20-23, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34248.pdf [5] The Associated Press, ‘India reluctant to blame Mumbai blasts on Pakistan’, CBCnews, 15 July 2011, [6] Narang, Vipin, ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Posture: Implications for South Asian Stability’, Harvard Kennedy Sc http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/15/mumbai-explosions-attacks-... Belfast Center for Science and International Affairs Policy Brief, January 2010, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Pakistans_Nuclear_Posture_poli...