BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morsi was going to implement Islamic policies on a secular country

Morsi maintained relatively moderate rhetoric and did not declare any intention to impose sharia law. When questioned about Islamic society and non-Muslims he stated that he believed Coptic Christians had inherent rights and stated that Islam and sharia law ‘cannot be imposed on the people and it cannot be done from the top’[1]. Morsi’s comments on the respect owed to everyone’s rights and beliefs seem to contradict any notion that he planned on enforcing a strict interpretation of sharia law. [1] El Amrani, 2011
Most Egyptians still supported Morsi

While just over half of respondents to the poll thought that deposing Morsi was wrong, 46% of Egyptians felt it was the correct move[1]. This shows that there was still a large amount of support for the Egyptian army’s actions. 51% of the population is not an overwhelming figure. In addition to this, the poll which produced these results only interviewed 1,405 people. With a population of over 84 million, it is possible that majority of the population actually supported the Army. [1] Smith, 2013
Mohamed Morsi had been democratically elected

The Morsi government had acted to monopolise their power within the government, hence undermining their democratic position. To begin with, Morsi’s cabinet had consisted of about 25% candidates from his own party, with the rest belonging to the opposition parties. This by 2013 this had dropped to roughly 1/3 Morsi supporters. This, in combination with Morsi’s extra judicial powers implied that the president was attempting to extend his political power. Many liberals feared that this would be done to enforce the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda in Egypt[1]. To preserve the democratic integrity of the Egyptian government, the army had to intervene. [1] CNN Staff, 2013
Morsi Undermined Democratic Principles

Separation of powers is a key democratic principle which Morsi undermined with the November 2012 declaration. The underlying idea of the separation of powers is that one branch of government should not have undue power over any other. That is why there are a number of checks and balances set out which allows each branch to constrain the actions of the others to prevent them acting illegally[1]. Morsi’s declaration that he would remove the checks and balances which the judiciary held over the presidency violated this principle. This led many to fear that Morsi was returning the country to a dictatorship where he could force through the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda[2] , undoing the work of the Arab Spring[3]. The army’s intercession was welcomed by many as maintaining democracy[4]. [1] Wikipedia [2] CNN Staff, 2013 [3] Spencer, 2012 [4] Reuters, 2013
Failed to gain control of the Egyptian crisis

The official line of argument for the Egyptian army’s intervention was that Morsi’s administration was failing to grasp control of a worsening situation[1]. The response to Morsi’s judicial immunity had been largely negative, with tens of thousands taking to the streets to protest.  Soon after, pro-Morsi protestors began their own protests. Muslim Brotherhood supporters were called to defend the palace and the resulting clashes left ten dead[2]. On the 1st July 2013 millions of protestors gathered in Tahrir Square, as well as in Alexandria, Port Said and Suez[3] and the Egyptian army stated it would intervene if the government did not ‘meet the demands of the people’ by restructuring the government to appease protestors[4]. The protestors did not disperse, and there were several ministers who resigned from government. With no clear policy change in sight, Morsi had evidently failed to take control of the situation. General el-Sisi, leader of the coup, claimed that they ‘could not stay silent and blind to the call of the Egyptian masses’[5]. The intervention was necessary as Egypt had become ungovernable. [1] El-Tablawy & Fam, 2013 [2] Loveluck, 2013 [3] Maqbool, 2013 [4] Abdelaziz & Wederman, 2013 [5] Bowen, 2013
Morsi’s economic and social policies had been ineffective and unpopular

Morsi’s inability to tackle the main issues which faced Egypt was another issue which caused the large-scale protests leading to his removal. One of the major reasons for Egypt’s Lotus Revolution was the lack of economic reform. Rising living costs, unemployment and wage levels were causes of grievance for the majority of Egyptians. The Egyptian population hoped that, once the corruption of the Mubarak regime was replaced by a democratic system, their economic condition would improve. This was not to be the case. The Morsi government planned to reduce its fuel subsidies to entitle the country to a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund[1], raising the living costs of the average citizens. In conjunction with the subsidy cuts, the government failed to tackle unemployment. At the time of Morsi’s ouster from government there were 3.6 million unemployed, an increase of one million since 2010[2]. Analysts linked the lack of jobs to the security of the state claiming that unemployment would lead to greater numbers of rioters and furthering instability[3]. In a poll assessing the Egyptians’ attitude toward their government and their future, 61% felt they were worse off than five years ago[4]. This dissatisfaction then led to dissent. [1] Werr, 2013 [2] Ahram Online, 2013 [3] Fam & Shahine, 2013 [4] Zogby Research Services, 2013
Morsi was going to implement Islamic policies on a secular country

Another major concern of the anti-Morsi protestors on whose behalf the Egyptian army intervened was the Islamist nature of Morsi[1]. While many supported the Islamic nature of the Muslim brotherhood, there were equally many liberals and Coptic Christians who were afraid of Egypt transforming in to an Islamic state. Mubarak had managed to secure popularity within these groups by exploiting this fear that, should his regime be overthrown, extreme Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood would take control and deprive them of their rights. The Morsi government’s constitution was thus perceived as a threat to minority and secular rights, and thus a security issue. Even if this was not the case, Morsi should have done more to calm the population’s fear rather than allowing discord to materialise. [1] Khalil, 2012
Most Egyptians still supported Morsi

A poll conducted in November 2013 illustrated that the majority of Egyptians still supported Morsi. The Egyptian army’s claim that they were acting in the name of the people is therefore invalid. The poll, conducted by Zogby Research Services LLC, found that 51% of Egyptians believed that it was wrong to depose Morsi[1]. The fact that the army were acting to the contrary of the wishes of a sizeable proportion of the population therefore exemplifies that the army were not acting ‘for the people’ as a whole. [1] Smith, 2013
Mohamed Morsi had been democratically elected

It was wrong to depose Morsi as he had been chosen to serve as the first democratically elected president in Egypt. Morsi was elected as president with 51.7% of the vote.  Having won the 2011-2 elections, Morsi and the Freedom and Justice party had a democratic mandate which they should have been able to fulfil. The military coup which removed them from power was therefore a violation of the democracy which Egypt had fought to establish.
Television is an adequate substitute for museum trips

Today television plays a much greater role in transmitting our cultural heritage and a sense of national identity. Usually free to the viewer, it reaches into almost every home, both rich and poor. Most countries recognise television’s power by giving broadcasters a duty to include cultural and educational programming. It is a far more effective way of reaching a mass public than expensively subsidising every museum on the off-chance that people will enthusiastically flock to them. Often, inspirational television programmes will increase the popularity of relevant museum exhibits – for example, Britain’s historical and geological museums saw greatly increased attendances after the BBC’s Walking with Dinosaurs series (Wealden News, 2007, p.7).
State funding should be used elsewhere

Clearly this is a question of balance, as the government cannot afford to fund every activity of possible value, especially given the social and economic costs of increased taxation. It is reasonable for governments to focus their attention upon schools and higher education in an attempt to provide more equality of opportunity. A MORI poll in 2002 found that though visitor numbers to museums had increased, the profile of a typical museum was still the same; the same people were simply going more often  (Martin, 2003, p.4). Funding the middle-class’ museum habit is not a worthwhile taxpayer cause. In any case, there are alternatives to state funding in the private sector – today many companies or private patrons sponsor museum exhibitions, acquisitions and new building work. This philanthropy is linked to a desire to make a difference, so it is unlikely to be strong when the government is seen as the source of all funding – it is most advanced in the USA for example, where government funding is very limited compared to other developed countries.
Museums preserve and display our heritage and therefore should be accessible to all of the public free of charge

Not everyone wishes to visit museums, which are essentially a form of entertainment for the middle classes and tourists. The majority of adults never visit a museum, preferring instead leisure pursuits such as football, the cinema or clubbing. As Philippe de Montebello has wondered, if the public can pay for other events, ‘what is it about art that shouldn’t be paid for?’ (Smith, 2006) Why should they have to pay for their chosen entertainment while subsidising the generally wealthier middle class through their taxes? Tourists pay no taxes here and so gain a free ride at the expense of domestic taxpayers. The state provides educational opportunities for all through free schooling, which often includes free museum trips. If free museum entry were considered a cultural right, shouldn’t the state make theatre tickets free as well?
Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education

Such potential and economic benefits are dubious and rely upon access to collections that are excellent in their content and in the way in which they are conserved and displayed. If museums are to be funded entirely out of public money, the pressure on any government’s budget from the demands of hospitals, schools, pensions, etc. will inevitably mean that museums will come a poor second, resulting in under-funding and poorer museums at the end of the process. This will not help our creative industries or tourism. It is excellence rather than the cost of visiting attractions which attracts tourists in any case; acquisition budgets have fallen in both London and Edinburgh over the last few years, our national galleries continually outbid by foreign rivals as they seek to keep their collections contemporary (Hunt, 2011).
Free museums encourage attendance

Entry figures did increase when the UK scrapped admissions charges at some museums, but studies have found that this was not because more people actually visited the museums. Instead similar numbers of people as before chose to make more individual visits to the same museums, pushing up admissions numbers (Martin, 2003). In this way subsidising free admissions acts as a giveaway of public money to the privileged middle classes, who would in any case pay to attend the same institutions.
If state-funded, there is little incentive to increase numbers of visitors

Museums have a valuable role in preserving and transmitting a nation’s history and heritage to new generations. Free access will encourage more people to find out about their country and help to promote feelings of national unity and identity, while promoting greater understanding and acceptance of foreign cultures. A museum’s admission policy ‘encodes the institution’s core values’ (Smith, 2006); free admission symbolizes the relationship between museum and community, rather than that between museum and collections in for-profit establishments. A report by the London School of Economics in 2006 found that in the year free admissions were introduced in the UK, visitor figures jumped from 27 to 42 million (Russell & Taylor, 2007). As such, there is no evidence to suggest visitor figures will decrease with state-funding.
Television is an adequate substitute for museum trips

Television is not an adequate substitute for widely accessible museums. At a museum a visitor can choose what to see and for how long they wish to study it; television is a much more passive medium making the viewer dependent upon the interests and interpretation of the producer - it is likely to present sensationalist and controversial material in a bid for ratings, for example. Nor can a two-dimensional medium compare to viewing an object, even a flat painting, from many different angles, or even handling it, in a museum. Furthermore, museum trips encourage activity, not merely physical but creative; TV is passive entertainment; museums are increasingly active, imploring the museum goer to participate in the exhibits.
State funding should be used elsewhere

Education is not just in schools, parents also have an important role in broadening their children’s cultural horizons through museum visits, among other forms of creative and intellectual stimulus. Children may have free entry at many museums, but parents are often charged high prices, deterring family visits, especially from the poor and from those families who do not prize education so highly. Again, this is an equal opportunity issue, being one of the reasons why middle-class children outperform their less-privileged peers academically.
Museums preserve and display our heritage and therefore should be accessible to all of the public free of charge

Museums preserve and display our artistic, social, scientific and political heritage. Everyone should have access to such important cultural resources as part of active citizenship, and because of the educational opportunities they offer to people of every age. Glenn Lowry, director of the Museum of Modern Art, claims ‘it’s almost a moral duty that museums should be free’ (Smith, 2006). If museums are not funded sufficiently by the government, they will be forced to charge for entry, and this will inevitably deter many potential visitors, especially the poor and those whose educational and cultural opportunities have already been limited. Visitors to the Victoria and Albert Museum in London declined by 13% after it started charging for admission. Free access is essential to provide freedom of cultural and educational opportunity (Garrett, 2001).
Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education

Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative industries (e.g. art, design, fashion, and architecture). As the Secretary of the National Union of Teachers described, ‘free access means that every child can benefit from the treasure chest…regardless of the depth of the parental pocket’ (Russell & Taylor, 2007). Free access is an investment in the future of both the education and creative sectors of the economy and therefore has long-term benefits in securing prosperity for the whole of society. Similarly, tourism is an important sector of our economy and many visitors will be deterred from visiting our country if they think it will be very expensive to visit its great museums and galleries. Tourists do contribute hugely to government revenues through the indirect taxes they pay and the jobs they generate, tourism is a £115bn industry,(BBC News, 2010) so free museum access to support the tourism industry is a sensible investment.
Free museums encourage attendance

In the UK, Labour government policy resulted in some of the leading national museums ending admissions charges. Their policy was in response to evidence from the 1980s that suggested museums that started charging visitors ‘saw their numbers plummet on average by a third – and never fully recover’ (Barrie, 2001). Labour’s policy shift had the effect of increasing visitor numbers greatly, proving that free entry is beneficial in increasing public exposure to culture. This can be shown by the UK having the highest number of visitors to art museums of any country based upon The Art Newspaper’s figures for top 100 visited galleries in 2010.(The Art Newspaper, 2011) Other countries should follow this example in order to draw more people into their own national museums.
Museum charges can be offset by government funding

The contributions of government funding have been shown to be capable of sustaining the costs of a museum, preventing those costs being passed on to the public in the form of admissions charges. The examples of the British Labour government funding national museums has been noted above. The National Museum of the American Indian in Washington was set up partially with government funding and partially with private funds, ensuring it has remained free since its opening in 2004 (Democracy Now, 2004). In 2011, China also announced that from 2012 all of its national museums would become publicly-funded and cease charging admissions fees (Zhu & Guo, 2011
If state-funded, there is little incentive to increase numbers of visitors

If museums are entirely funded by the state, they will have little incentive to increase visitor numbers and to make their collections exciting and accessible for all. The need to attract paying customers concentrates the minds of museum and gallery directors upon the needs of the public and produces imaginative and popular exhibitions, as well as adding value through guided tours, lectures and tie-ins with television programmes. All of this ensures that more people, not less visit museums. In addition, if museums were made entirely reliant upon public funding, it is likely that money would be channeled to those institutions the government felt were most important, forcing smaller, local or more specialist museums to close. While it is an extreme example totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany point to the dangers of allowing politicians control over interpretations of national identity and presentations of other cultures. Even a much more liberal government is likely to want the arts that it funds to represent it in a good light.
Immunity for politicians is an unjust double standard

Every victim deserves to have the perpetrator of their suffering answer for their misdeeds.  It is unjust that certain offenders would avoid retribution, and certain victims would be denied their day in court, simply because of a factor external to the commission of the crime.  Even if the crime is not external to the criminal’s political role, the foundation of a free and fair justice system is that all individuals are treated alike, regardless of perceived importance.  Hence, a wealthy philanthropist will not be spared from prosecution simply because they are a pillar of the community.  Politicians should receive no greater reprieve.
Giving politicians’ immunity from prosecution allows them to focus on performing their duties

Politicians have to divide their focus anyway.  As the examples above concede, being a politician means being pulled in several different directions.  Elections are particularly distracting, and in jurisdictions with fixed election cycles like the United States can make periods of up to a year prior to the election a write-off for getting real work done.  Thus, personal liability is nothing special among the many concerns a politician has.  In fact, accountability, of this direct type, and for serious offences, is probably more important than most of the things a politician is forced to consider, and at the very least deserves inclusion among them.
Immunity creates a perverse incentive to hang on to their office as long as possible.

Prosecutorial immunity brings about a massive side-benefit to being in office.  It is easy to get used to a life where minor indiscretions go regularly unpunished, as has happened with dignitaries holding diplomatic immunity.[1]  Immunity from prosecution may spur a politician to seek reelection into their old age when they are significantly less effective at performing their duties.  This is one reason why in the vast majority of democracies elected representatives, while far from poor, are not paid massive salaries; we don’t want people getting into politics for the wrong reasons. [1] Uhlig, Mark A., ‘Court Won’t Bar Return of Boy in Abuse Case to Zimbabwe’, The New York Times, 1 January 1988, http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/01/nyregion/court-won-t-bar-return-of-boy-in-abuse-case-to-zimbabwe.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm [Accessed September 9, 2011]
In the event of major abuses of power it should be the public that holds politicians to account.

These mechanisms are not immediate enough to put an immediate stop to an aberrant behavior.  Impeachment proceedings take months at least; elections may be years away; and reputational damage is even more long-term.  Moreover, these punishments are nowhere near a sufficient deterrent.  If loss of one’s job, and damage to one’s public image were sufficient deterrents, we would not prosecute business leaders for insider trading, nor celebrities for drunk driving.  The fact is that a criminal justice system which punishes everyone equally is not just fair; it’s also a practical method of achieving meaningful deterrence.  Finally, even if we are willing to settle for one of these lesser punishments, the threat of a great punishment gives prosecutors leverage to strike deals with the politicians, such as offering not to prosecute in exchange for coming forward with the details of misdeeds.
Prosecutions of politicians are often motivated by partisan concerns.

Motivation does not matter.  Almost every time someone presses criminal charges, it is for their own personal concerns (such as wanting retribution), rather than concern for the public good; that does not change the fact that if charges are laid, it is because the prosecuting authority has decided that, regardless of why the crime has come to their attention, the interest of society at large requires that the individual be prosecuted.  If political motivations are what is needed for politicians to be held accountable, so be it.  Even if this is a problem, it can be mitigated with sufficient oversight from an independent prosecuting authority.
Immunity for politicians hurts the image of their office

The difference between the harm to the office of a politician getting away with a crime and the harm from them being tried for that crime is that the trial is inherently public.  Short of widespread corruption – the sort that would probably preclude prosecuting politicians anyway – it is unlikely that unpunished wrongdoing in an office will ever become public.  A trial, by contrast, creates a media flashpoint that captures the public consciousness.  Thus, even if the damage to the integrity of the office is greater per person in cases of unpunished crimes, the act of punishing the crime informs enough people to outweigh the fact that it may not do as much damage per capita.