BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community

Global consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy. One of the most powerful weapons in the international community’s arsenal is the soft power of condemnation. One of the most important things the international community can do is use its weight and influence to advocate protection of vulnerable peoples and promote moral and social causes. The West with its immense wealth and importance in international institutions such as the United Nations have a lot of power when it comes to influencing discriminatory policies in other nations. Granting asylum to people on the basis of sexual orientation sends a clear message to the international community that it is not okay to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and that the West not only strongly disapproves of this behaviour, but that, more importantly, they will take active steps to counter-act your discriminatory policies. This has immense impact on pressuring governments to change their policies. What is important to note here is that there is a gradual normative consensus that is manufactured under this system. Through the use of soft power, the policies of nations are slowly but surely moderated and a global consensus is created. Not only can this policy influence current state behaviour, but that the influence and change that creates becomes part of a larger global move towards universal acceptance of the norm and the diffusion of that idea throughout all strata of society. This is important in two ways: Creating a discourse centred on a universal consensus against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore making discourse be dominated by agreement with this principle and thus creating a dialogue that creates an accepting atmosphere through disseminating the norm of acceptance throughout the international community and global society. This is important is forging international legal protections for the rights of the LGBT community. International law arrives from a consensus of opinion around a particular issue and its need to be legislated on. Making sexual orientation grounds for asylum creates the framework that explicitly states that legislative international protection is necessary for these groups. This policy therefore begins that process in and of itself. However, more importantly, the reduction of opposition and trend of nations removing discriminatory laws against sexual orientation consolidates this statement of legislative need and furthers the cause for international protection. Making sexual orientation a category for asylum not only saves lives, but also sends a strong and influential message that helps craft policy in nations who use discrimination as a tool of oppression against the LGBT community. This begins the foundations of global consensus on equality for all sexual orientations and a lasting solution to the issue of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty

Asylum is a concept reserved for the direst cases of political persecution of individuals. It was created as a last resort protection mechanism for people being unlawfully or unjustly pursued by their home country when no other form of protection will work to guarantee the safety of these individuals. The reason it is such a last resort option is because it is effectively intervening within the sovereignty of a state and removing its monopoly on violence and coercive force within that state and administering a parallel system of justice. No nation has the right to infringe on the sovereignty of another nation without just cause. The moral viewpoints of a nation and its peoples are not what can be considered ‘just cause.’ It is a religious and moral viewpoint to believe that homosexuality should be prosecuted and it is the obligation of any individual living in a state to abide by the laws of the state that they live in. It is not within the rights of other countries to decide if the domestic laws of another country are in line with their views nor is it legitimate for them to violate sovereignty on this basis. If an individual wishes to break the laws of their society on moral grounds, they have knowingly and intentionally violated the law. Just as people who think any other law unjust and thus breaks it, the LGBT community is in no way less culpable for the breach of law nor is any state any more justified in allowing them to evade punishment.
Kenya needs the trial now

Kenya doesn’t need a trial. The Kenyan parliament voted against such a thing – the Kenyan people decided in 2013 that they want to give Kenyatta and Ruto a democratic mandate. While there is a terror threat – something that Kenyatta and Ruto can deal with in their role as head of state – Kenya did not have post election violence in 2013, and ethnic conflict is not going on at a major level. Even if there is no justice, there is peace, which is more important.
Kenya would be better off without them

Kenya does not need or want government by those who hand out illegal title deeds[1] and threaten the freedom of the press[2] as Kenyatta’s government does. In addition to that, the allegations that the president used a banned occult gang, the Mungiki, in order to perform acts of mass murder is enough to end his credibility as a leader in the country – the best interests of good governance in Kenya mean that Kenyatta should go. [1] Chanji, Tobias, “Raila Odinga says title deeds issued by President Uhuru Kenyatta illegal”, Standard Digital, November 25th 2013, http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000098610&story_title=raila-s... [2] Shiundu, Alphonce, “President retains punitive fines against media in new law”, Standard Digital, November 27th 2013, http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000098841&story_title=Kenya-p...
A delay is necessary for national security

Kenya is at risk of terrorist attack. Al-Shabab, a group linked to Al Qaeda have launched a number of attacks against Kenya. In addition to the Westgate massacre, there have been grenade attacks on bus terminals[1] and suicide bombings in refugee camps[2]. Kenya’s waters are also used by Somali based pirates as a ground for attacks on international shipping, including possibly targeting ships travelling towards the port of Mombasa. It is more important to the international community to have credible action taken in order to protect the Kenyan people from terrorism. This needs a strong Kenyan government – which means that there cannot be a change due to an international trial. [1] Associated Press, “Two grenade blasts rattle Nairobi; 1 dead”, USA Today, 25/10/2011 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-10-24/kenya-grenade... [2] Ombati, Cyrus, “Terror suspects die after bombs explode on them”, Standard Digital News, http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000075252&story_title=Kenya-T...
Head of state immunity

Traditionally, heads of state have had immunity in foreign courts. This is for the normal functioning of diplomacy – so heads of state can engage in business at other states and travel to summits without the risk of harassment by vexatious claims in foreign courts, or foreign governments trying to attack the decisions of other governments in their own courts. The ICC trying sitting heads of state would set a terrible precedent of a method of regime change – not even by foreign militaries, but by the ICC prosecutor. Regimes should change according to democratic mandate not foreign courts.
Interferes with a democratic mandate

Unlike many of the other ICC defendants, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto have a democratic mandate from elections that “represented the will of the voters”[1] – electoral mandates given to them after their indictment by the International Criminal Court. This must be respected by the ICC and the international community as a whole: even though they are suspected of crimes against humanity by a foreign court. [1] European Union Election Observation Mission To Kenya, General Elections 2013 :Final Report,  http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/eu-eom-kenya-20...
Criminal defendants don’t get to pick and choose trial dates

Irrespective of who they are, Kenyatta and Ruto are nothing special – they’re just another two criminal defendants. A person who is on trial murder or any other offence, whoever they are, can’t pick and choose their trial date for their own convenience or for their own business interests – why should these two particular defendants get a special privilege? Silvio Berlusconi was prosecuted by the Italian courts; the slow speed was due to the glacial pace of the Italian legal system rather than him particularly agitating for a special hold-up. The court cases were not done at his convenience.
Kenya needs the trial now

Without justice, there cannot be peace. Following the total failure of the Kenyan justice system to take action, exemplified by the Parliament’s complete and utter rejection of the Waki Commission, the ICC, which Kenya voluntarily signed up to, has to step in. Ethnic violence still goes on in Kenya[1], and if there is impunity in this case, no message will be sent out: justice must be done and seen to be done to prevent similar abuses and prevent justice being taken outside of the courts. [1] Wachira, Muchemi, “Cattle raids and tribal rivalries to blame for perennial conflict”, Daily Nation, November 18 2012, http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Cattle-raids-and-tribal-rivalries-to-blame/...
Just hold the trial by videolink

It has already been agreed that defendants can appear at the court by videolink[1] for parts of the trial. This is not problematic, unless the defendants want to start representing themselves. Bearing in mind that Ruto and Kenyatta have been continuing to co-operate with the trial throughout the process, there is no reason to think that they would flee the international criminal court. Either way, if they change their mind, they could simply not travel to The Hague for the trial. [1] Corder, Mike, “International court changes trial attendance rule”, The Wichita Eagle, November 28th 2013,  http://www.kansas.com/2013/11/27/3145973/international-court-tweaks-tria...
A delay is necessary for national security

Kenya is an advanced state with a functioning system of the rule of law – except for those in power. With modern video technology, Ruto and Kenyatta could oversee the governance of the country from The Hague, or, alternatively, participate in the trial through videolink. Even so, Al-Shabab are unlikely to be defeatable within the terms of Kenyatta and Ruto. Such a delay would only be useful if there was government reform or fresh elections necessary, rather than anti-terrorist action.
Head of state immunity

It is accepted as a position of international criminal law that head of state immunity does not apply before international tribunals[1]. Any such immunity that Kenya had was waived by them joining the ICC, which they did voluntarily. Even so, just because someone has a position of power does not mean they should have impunity from liability for very serious crimes.  [1] Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), 14 February 2002, http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3c6cd39b4
Interferes with a democratic mandate

 A previous Kenyan government, operating with a democratic mandate, ratified the Rome Statute. Therefore, there is no interference with Kenyan sovereignty: a Kenyan government legally and lawfully submitted Kenya to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Besides, a “democratic mandate” would not stop the prosecution of a prosecution of someone for an offence committed prior to getting into office, which is what happened in Kenya. Neither is a “democratic mandate” a defence to perform crimes against humanity either in or out of office.
EU expansion is good for current members economically.

The current economic crisis within Europe masks its immense success in turning new member states into prosperous economies while also benefiting those who were already members. Between 1999 and 2007 trade between the new and old member states grew from 175 billion Euros to 500 billion, this outweighs the cost of EU financial assistance to the new members which only amounts to between 0.2-0.3% of EU GDP.[1] For example British exports to the 12 new member states were worth £11.6billion in 2009 compared to £4.5billion in 1999 whereas the Dutch government estimates that the benefits of enlargement to each of its inhabitants was 650 Euros.[2] Admitting new members is also necessary over the long term in order to counter the aging that is occurring in Europe. Every member of the European Union has an aging population and a fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1. Encouraging economic growth in countries that are old and getting older is difficult because they are less inclined to take risks and be innovative.[3] This means that Europe needs more young workers; these can be gained either through immigration from the rest of the world or through admitting more vibrant economies into the European Union. Turkey is a good example of the kind of country the EU needs to allow to join; its economy is growing rapidly, even faster than China’s in the first half of 2011,[4] and the median age of the population is still only 25.[5] [1] ‘Good to know about EU Enlargement’, European Commission – Directorate General for Enlargement, March 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/publication/screen_mythfacts_a5_en.pdf [2] David Lidington, ‘European Union Enlargement: Tulips, Trade and Growth’, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 9 March 2011, http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=562922482 [3] Megan McArdle, ‘Europe’s Real Crisis’, the Atlantic, April 2012,  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/europe-8217-s-real-crisis/8915/ [4] Ergin Hava, ‘Robust private sector fives Turkey fastest H1 growth worldwide’, Todays Zaman, 12 September 2011, http://www.todayszaman.com/news-256556-robust-private-sector-gives-turkey-fastest-h1-growth-worldwide.html [5] Euromonitor International, ‘Turkey’s Population Young and Rapidly Expanding’, 24 January 2012, http://blog.euromonitor.com/2012/01/turkeys-population-young-and-rapidly-expanding.html
Expansion furthers EU ideals.

The prospect of joining the EU has been an impetus for reform in many ex-communist countries, driving changes (e.g. legal reforms, privatizations, human rights) that are desirable in their own right. The progress made in a few years by the first wave of eastern European states to join the European Union was impressive and membership was their deserved reward. Conversely, if the prospect of EU membership was now denied to those states that are still hoping to join in the future, these states are likely to be unwilling to implement the unpopular reforms that the European union would like. Even in countries that are not on any EU lists of applicant or potential members the door to enlargement has a positive influence. The prospect of joining the European Union has tempted even those who might naturally be inclined to look the other way. Viktor Yanukovych was the Pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine yet he has continued on the path towards EU membership since taking office for example creating the legislation necessary for an EU-Ukraine free trade zone.[1]  Enlargement is a unique opportunity to encourage nations to take a path which will lead them to becoming prosperous developed democracies. Most states are unwilling to accept lectures on where they are going wrong and would, like Russia has for example done, accuse western nations of violations against its sovereignty if there are attempts to encourage civil society, democracy or more westernized economies. Vladimir Putin has many times made statements referring to western NGO such as “the activities of "pseudo-NGOs" and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.”[2] However these are much more palatable if the end result is membership in the European Union and the reforms are accompanied by European expertise and money, per-accession assistance currently totals 12.9 billion Euros.[3] [1] ‘Yanukovych: Laws for creation of Ukrainian-EU free trade zone will be adopted in June’, Kyiv Post, 24 May 2010, http://www.kyivpost.com/news/politics/detail/67511/#ixzz1pa38RYLE [2] Putin, Vladimir, ‘Russia’s Place in a Changing World’, Moskovskiye Novosti, 27 February 2012, Trans. Igor Medvedev, http://worldmeets.us/Moskovskiye.Novosti000001.shtml#axzz1peaNQNuc [3] 2007-2013.eu, ‘Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. (IPA)’, 2006, http://2007-2013.eu/by_scope_ipa.php
Expansion will create conflicts of interest between members.

Continuing expansion will mean a dilution of common national interests between the member states. National interests are to a large extent based upon geography and the economy. The EU-15 could be said to have both a unity of purpose; preventing another war between France and Germany as well as similar cultures, similar levels of wealth, and even a similarity in social policy. This has meant that the EU-15 member states had a lot of common interests so could agree to continuing integration. Newer member states have very different post World War II national experiences, shaped in particular by communist occupation. This makes many new EU members less willing to share sovereignty or contemplate the Union deepening. Moreover as the European Union gets bigger and more geographically diverse other interests diverge. For example some countries such as Germany are already inclined to conciliate Russia while others have been much more outspoken. This was particularly highlighted during Russia’s conflict with Georgia in 2008 where Poland strongly supported Georgia.[1] [1] Andrew Curry, ‘Old Europe vs. New Europe Will Poland Split EU over Russia Policy?’, Spiegel Online, 14 August 2008, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,572105,00.html
The European Union is no longer in a financial position to be taking in new members.

The financial crisis and European Union member states’ having to bail each other out means that there will be less money available for any new members. The bailouts have cost the EU more than $500 billion plus financing the European Stability Mechanism with $650 billion.[1] Hence current prospective entrants will not have such auspicious conditions for adoption as there were for all previous entrants into the EU. This means that all the benefits will have to come from the extension of Free Trade, something which could happen without full membership. Joining the EU as full members would at the same time work against these poorer countries’ competitive advantages. European labor regulations will make many workers in these countries less competitive and stringent environmental regulations will impose a cost that countries at their level of development cannot afford. For example Croatia will require an extra 10.5 billion Euros to implement the EU’s environmental regulations.[2] [1] Alessi, Christopher, ‘The Eurozone in Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, Backgrounder, 14 February 2012, http://www.cfr.org/eu/eurozone-crisis/p22055 [2] ‘EU environmental regulations will cost Croatia €10.5 Billion’, Macedonian Intl News Agency, 27 December 2011, http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/19954/46/
There will be an even greater brain drain from poorer countries to richer.

As the EU expands allows poorer and poorer countries to join there are likely to be increasing problems with internal migration creating a brain drain. The EU will not in the future be able to be nearly as generous in terms of funds to develop new members’ economies. If any new members are allowed freedom of movement their will almost certainly be even greater migration flows than there were as a result of the 2004 enlargement. Poland for example despite being the only European country to avoid recession has still had a net loss of 1.4million people who have stayed abroad more than a year.[1] If the talented and skilled from a country that is experiencing rapid economic growth are staying abroad when the rest of Europe is in the middle of a downturn how many more would move from the poorer potential members such as Macedonia? [1] Marcin Sobczyk, ‘Poland Loses 1.4 Million People to Brain Drain’, Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2010, http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2010/09/24/14-million-poles-leave-in-eu-brain-drain/
Expansion would be unpopular.

As expansion moves outward to places that are further and further away from the western European countries and into countries that are culturally less ‘European’ there is bound to be less enthusiasm for allowing them to join. Turkey is the country most likely to be a victim of public opinion against membership. Polling in 2010 showed 52% against membership and only 41% backing it if voting in a referendum. The main reason for being against was Turkey being “a Muslim country… not compatible with the common Christian roots” of Europe.[1] The trend has been for a decline in support for further enlargement falling from a high of 49% in 2004 to 41% two years later in 2006.[2] [1] EU Business, ‘Europeans split over Turkey EU membership: poll’, 24 January 2010, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/enlarge-turkey.2ed [2] Antonia M. Ruiz-Jiménez, José I. Torreblanca, ‘Is there a trade-off between deepening and widening? What do Europeans think?’, European Policy Institutes Network, Working Paper No.17 April 2008, p.3 http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1632.pdf
EU expansion is right.

European Union expansion is not a moral process. No one in Europe is trying to claim some kind of ‘civilising mission’. The remaining countries that are outside the European Union cannot be said to be countries that the members of the European Union had abandoned to Russian rule in the same way that could be said of Poland from 1945. Instead these were either within Yugoslavia which largely escaped Soviet control or were already within the borders of the USSR before World War II. The sheer fact that a country is on the European Continent is not enough for a country to be admitted. Neither is it true that EU countries have a duty to give membership in order to help. The EU is already involved in aid, reconstruction and development programs all over Europe and should not have further obligations.
EU expansion is good for current members politically.

While membership in the European Union might contribute to peace, economic cooperation and good diplomatic relations being a member is neither the cause such stability nor is it sufficient on its own. There are countries outside the European Union that are stable states – such as Norway and there are countries within the EU where membership is no longer creating stability and possibly even undermining it such as in Greece where being dictated to by other member states is one cause behind the anti-government riots in the country. Once both the EU is ready/willing to expand and the countries have fulfilled the criteria for joining, membership can be extended, but it should not be considered to be a quick fix to create international stability.