BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Turkey is a fully secular state with a predominantly Muslim population.

The new Justice and Development Party (AK) government is not seeking to overturn the secular constitution, although it does want to amend some laws that positively discriminate against devout Muslims. These include rules such as the ban on women wearing headscarves in government buildings; restrictions on expressing religious belief which would break human rights laws within the EU! In any case, millions of Muslims already live within the EU; excluding Turkey from membership on the grounds of religion would suggest these European Muslims were second-class citizens in a Christian club. It would also presumably rule out future EU entry for Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo. The EU should welcome a state which could provide a positive example of how Islam is completely compatible with democracy, progress and human rights.[6]
Turkey's admission would expose the EU to new conflicts and dangers.

The Caucasus is very unstable, with some of its nations looking to Turkey for support for religious and cultural reasons. A Middle Eastern border would involve the EU in the Israeli-Arab conflict and give it a border with an aggressive and unstable Iraq (and Iran), with whom it would share an assertive Kurdish minority seeking statehood. Turkey even has major disputes with Greece, a current EU member, over territory in the Aegean and over the divided Island of Cyprus, where it alone recognises and backs the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, preventing a settlement.[14]
Genocide allegations irrelevant to Turkey EU membership

"Javier Solana: History should be analyzed by historians." Zaman Newspaper. 4 April 2009 Javier Solano, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Secretary-General of both the Council of the European Union (EU) and the Western European Union (WEU), when asked a question on whether the allegations of Armenian Genocide were an impediment for Turkey to accede to EU stated on April 3 2009, that "history was history and should be left to historians to be analyzed."
Turkey's EU membership would help the fight against terrorism

David L. Phillips. "Turkey's Dreams of Accession". Foreign Affairs. Sept/Oct. 2004 - "Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The eastern flank of NATO, straddling Europe and Asia, it played a critical role in containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, it helped monitor Saddam Hussein and protect Iraqi Kurds by permitting U.S. warplanes to use its bases. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became a staging area for coalition forces in Afghanistan, where Turkish forces eventually assumed overall command of the International Stabilization Force. Turkey continues to be a pivotal partner in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, despite attacks by radical Islamists at home."
Admitting Turkey undermines European values.

It is fundamentally wrong to admit a country that directly violates laws of a significant number of European states (in Germany denying genocide is illegal), the more if it concerns such a sensitive issue. Denying genocide is immoral because a) it shows selfish interest for how a country/government is viewed by its people (instead of how it is perceived by international actors), b) it goes against the principle "never again", c) it denies responsibilty and d) it tries to rewrite history instead of drawing lessons from it.
Turkish membership would increase terrorist threats in EU

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald - "Turkey will not be admitted to the E.U. It will not be admitted because, at this point, given the behavior mainly of Arab Muslims (for does anyone doubt that it was the Arab influence that caused some Chechens to embrace not only the idea of Jihad, but all of the current methods being used to further it), Europeans have lost their stomach for parroting phrases about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance." They do not want to admit a country of 70 million Muslims, who would then move freely about Europe. They do not want Turkey admitted because it will be an easy conduit for non-Turkish Muslims to enter Europe, posing as Turks."[15]
Most opposition to Turkish membership is unrelated to "Christian club" in EU

Tom Spencer. "GOOD REASONS FOR SAYING NO TO TURKEY". http://www.publicaffairs.ac. August 19th, 2004 - "It has become fashionable to denounce those who oppose Turkish membership as wanting to keep Europe as a ‘Christian club’. This is to vulgarise thirteen centuries of complex interaction between Europe and Islam. In any case there are already somewhere between twelve and thirteen million Muslims living in the Europe of 25. There are a further seven million Muslims in Balkan states. Indeed one might reasonably expect there to be three predominately Muslim states in the completed European Union – Albania, Kosovo and the rump of Bosnia Herzegovina. It is nonsense to say therefore that the European Union refuses to admit Turkey because the predominant religion of its citizens is Islam. What matters much more is the nature of the historical experience and mindset of the nations which make up Europe."
Turkey has acted according to EU wishes in Cyprus

"Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU". Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series. Vol. 5 No. 26. August 2005 - "As part of this pressing ahead, Turkey duly ‘fell into line’ on Cyprus, by – successfully - urging Turkish Cypriots to support the April 2004 referendum in northern Cyprus on the Annan Plan for re-unification of the island. Re-unification did not subsequently occur, but this was because in a parallel referendum Greek Cypriots voted against the Annan Plan. In consequence, the main responsibility for the continuing division of Cyprus was now seen to rest in the eyes of all EU-25 states - apart, of course, from the Republic of Cyprus itself - with the Greek Cypriots rather than with Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots."
Turkey's membership would economically benefit the EU

Turkish Delight - Does Turkey's Accession to the EU Bring Economic Benefits? RUUD A. DE MOOIJ , ARJAN LEJOUR CPB Netherlands Bureau of Economic Policy Analysis; CESifo (Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute for Economic Research)May 2004 "We explore the economic implications of the possible Turkish accession to the European Union. We focus on three main changes associated with Turkish membership: (i) accession to the internal European Market; (ii) institutional reforms in Turkey triggered by EU membership; and (iii) migration in response to the free movement of workers. Overall, the macroeconomic implications for EU countries are small but positive. European exports increase by around 20 percent. Turkey experiences larger economic gains than the EU: consumption per capita is estimated to rise by about 4 percent as a result of accession to the internal market and free movement of labour. If Turkey would succeed in reforming its domestic institutions in response to EU-membership, consumption per capita in Turkey could raise by an additional 9 percent. These benefits would spill over to the EU."
Turkey's government and politics has Islamist elements:

Turkey is not a Christian country but a Muslim one, unlike all the current or prospective EU states, which have been shaped by a shared legacy of Christian values, history and culture. Indeed Turkey’s history represents a clear rejection of any Christian tradition, from the centuries-long Ottoman Muslim conquest of Byzantine Christian territories, to the early twentieth century population exchange with Greece which removed millions of long-established Christian families from Turkish territory. Most recently, Turks have elected to government a party with islamist roots, likely to undermine the country’s secular constitution.[8]
Kyoto Protocol is important beyond fighting global warming.

Reducing carbon emissions is important on many levels, not just on the grounds of fighting global warming. Reducing emissions can help fight air pollution, which is becoming an increasingly significant health risk in major cities around the world. Additionally, petroleum resources are running out. It is essential that we move beyond them to renewable alternatives. The Kyoto Protocol provides a good pretext for cutting carbon emissions and moving to renewable resources. It is important to recognize, therefore, that the Kyoto Protocol benefits the world in critical ways other than fighting climate change.
Fighting climate change means cutting emissions with Kyoto Protocol

Fighting global warming requires that countries move from a path of higher and higher greenhouse gas emissions each year to decreasing their greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol sets in motion this process, so is an essential step in the fight against global warming. As of January 2008, and running through 2012, countries will have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a collective average of 5% below their 1990 levels. This is a significant reversal.
US has a responsibility to lead on climate change and in Kyoto

Joe Biden, US Senator (D-DE), stated in a Mar. 30, 2001 press release - "The President's decision to turn his back on this treaty is a huge setback for the environment and could delay action on global warming for years... The United States has an inescapable responsibility to lead on global environmental challenges. It's wrong to simply walk away from this international agreement."[23]
Kyoto is a cost-ineffective approach to solving global warming

"The Case Against Kyoto." The Guardian. 21 February 2004. - "Kyoto is among the least cost-effective ways to address climate change. It thus violates the UN framework convention on climate change (to which both Britain and the US are parties), which obliges governments to pursue "cost-effective" measures to address climate change. Our poll found that 70% of Britons believe that the UK should pursue these more cost-effective measures, rather than Kyoto."
Humans are not causing global warming so Kyoto can't solve it

Natural causes are principally responsible for global warming today, making Kyoto irrelevant. Every 100,000 years, a cycle of glacial and inter-glacial periods occur. We are at the peak of the 10,000 year interglacial warming period before the next 100,000 year ice age. Our warming now is part of this cycle. Only planetary interactions between the sun and earth can cause such regular, but lengthy cycle's. This leads to the conclusion that the sun is most responsible. Yet, the Kyoto Protocol bases its carbon-cutting objectives on the assumption that humans are chiefly responsible for global warming; a false assumption.
The Kyoto Protocol's target cuts in emissions are achievable

Stephen Leahy. "CLIMATE CHANGE: Kyoto on Track, Despite Some Slackers". Inter Press Service. November 21, 2007 - BROOKLIN, Canada, Nov 21 (IPS) - Total greenhouse gas emissions of 40 industrialised countries rose to a near all-time high in 2005, but the Kyoto Protocol will still exceed its reduction targets, a United Nations agency said two weeks before political leaders meet in Bali, Indonesia to begin negotiations on a new and more aggressive treaty to battle climate change."
Kyoto Protocol employs inefficient government controls

Alan Keyes, former Assistant US Secretary of State, stated in a Sep. 16, 2000 article titled "Canning Kyoto." - "It is difficult to know where to begin in listing the evils and dangers of the Kyoto Protocol...[M]assive, inevitably clumsy and arbitrary government intervention to reduce the energy metabolism of the American economy would dramatically reduce -- or even reverse -- our long-term economic growth."
US cities are adopting Kyoto, the federal government should too

Eli Sanders. "Seattle leads U.S. cities joining Kyoto Protocol". International Herald Tribune. 16 May 2005 - "Unsettled by a series of dry winters in this normally wet city, Mayor Greg Nickels has begun a nationwide effort to do something the Bush administration will not: carry out the Kyoto Protocol on global warming...Nickels, a Democrat, says 131 other like-minded mayors have joined a bipartisan coalition to fight global warming on the local level, in an implicit rejection of the administration's policy."
Kyoto Protocol conflicts with some international trade agreements.

Jinnah, Sikina. "Emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol: NAFTA and WTO concerns." Georgetown International Environmental Law Review. Summer 2003 - "Conflicts may arise between MEAs, such as the Kyoto Protocol, and international trade agreements, such as the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT)/WTO and the NAFTA.4 Member trade obligations under the GATT/ WTO and NAFTA may restrict freedom to participate in the emissions trading system established under the Kyoto Protocol.5 Members to the GATT/WTO and NAFTA are restricted in their ability to place quantitative barriers to trade (such as quotas, sanctions, and taxes) affecting products or services from other member nations. Conflict may emerge because Kyoto Protocol member nations may only account for emission reduction units (ERUs) created in other Kyoto Protocol member nations. Concern arises about the ability of a country that is member both to the GATT/WTO or the NAFTA as well as to the Kyoto Protocol to place trade restrictions on ERUs created in countries that are member to the GATT/ WTO or the NAFTA but not party to the Kyoto Protocol."
Industrial countries caused global warming so should carry burden

Al Gore. "Moving Beyond Kyoto". New York Times. 1 July 2007 - "There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product — countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis — really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?"
Kyoto makes insufficient emission cuts to fight global warming

Leslie Evans. "Kyoto Protocol Said to Harm Effort to Stop Global Warming--But There Is Something Better". UCLA International Institute. 25 May 2007 - "1. It is entirely insufficient. Most scientists say we need a 50% reduction of current levels by 2050 to stabilize world climate. But human emissions of greenhouse gases are expected instead to quadruple in the next hundred years. A 5.2% reduction in the next sixteen years would compound to an 8% reduction by the end of this century, i.e., it allows a 92% increase. At this pace we would need another 29 protocols to get where we should be."
The Kyoto protocol would harm the American economy

"The Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Economic Growth and Projected Budget Surpluses". American Council for Economic Formation. 25 Mar. 1999. - "Macroeconomic Effects of CO2 Emissions Limits Are Significant. A wide range of economic models predict that reducing U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to either 1990 levels or to the Kyoto target (7 percent below 1990 emission levels) would reduce U.S. GDP and slow wage growth significantly, worsen the distribution of income, and reduce growth in living standards. If the United States is not able to take advantage of "where" flexibility (reducing emissions wherever it is cheapest globally) through international emissions trading to meet the Kyoto target, the cost in terms of lost output will range from about 1 percent to over 4 percent of GDP."
Markets alone won't reduce emissions; Kyoto necessary

May, Elizabeth, Executive Director of Sierra Club Canada. "The Kyoto Debate: Separating rhetoric from reality". Sierra Club. Dec. 2002 - "Perhaps, as people like Bjorn Lomborg, the self-proclaimed “Skeptical Environmentalist,” all this [emissions reductions] will happen by the natural action of the market. Perhaps fossil fuel exploitation will go the way of the dinosaur for purely economic reasons. There is not much evidence for that. We did not wait for the economy to solve acid rain or ozone depletion. The economy and rational economic choices kick in once the rules are clear. The Kyoto Protocol begins a long road to reduction. It starts with a fairly modest effort to monetize carbon. It is just the first step, and we should take it now."
Kyoto Protocol is too controversial in the US to be ratified

Al Gore. "Moving Beyond Kyoto". New York Times. 1 July 2007 - "I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here — much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty."
China is actually taking good measures to fight global warming.

Ma Kai. "China is shouldering its climate change burden". Financial Times. 3 June 2007 - "China has worked hard to adjust its economic structure to improve energy saving and cut emissions. From 1991 to 2005, with national energy consumption rising each year by 5.6 per cent, China sustained an annual economic growth rate of 10 per cent and lowered its energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product by 47 per cent, saving 800m tons of coal and cutting 1.8bn tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions."
Kyoto is too difficult to implement; won't cut emissions

Leslie Evans. "Kyoto Protocol Said to Harm Effort to Stop Global Warming--But There Is Something Better". UCLA International Institute. May 25, 2007 - "2. The Kyoto Protocol is extremely difficult to implement. "It is costly and involves moral hazards." There are three implementation mechanisms: (A) Trade in permits to emit greenhouse gases. (B) Joint implementation mechanism. (C) Clean development mechanism."
Regulating C02 is wrong approach; market investments are better

Marco Verweij, senior research fellow at the Max Planck Project Group on Common Goods - "You need to invent the technology and distribute it. You don't need to have every country involved in regulation and measurement. A single company can have a big impact, whereas in Kyoto every country in the world has to create a major bureaucracy to administer the Kyoto standards. and costs."[18]
The Kyoto protocol cannot significantly cut emissions without the US

Lord May, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government between 1995 and 2000, said in 2005, "The Royal Society has calculated that the 13 per cent rise in greenhouse gas emissions from the United States between 1990 and 2002 is already bigger than the overall cut achieved if all the other parties to the Protocol reach their targets. Even if emissions from the United States stay at the same level until 2012, which is an unrealistically conservative assumption, while the other targets are met, the overall results for the original parties to the Protocol will be a rise in emissions of 1.6 per cent instead of the desired reduction of 5.2 per cent."[6]
It is unimportant for the US to join Kyoto now

Lachman, Brenda. "Kyoto Protocol: Why the US should join". Helium. Retrieved 9 Jul. 2008. - "Whether the US joins or not is not that important now, what really counts is that the industry in the US, individually, like California has, takes the necessary steps to lower the emissions of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide for the sake of the environment, because the environment is precious to our survival."
Voluntary emissions schemes do not effectively cut emissions

Bramley, Matthew. "The Case for Kyoto. The Failure of Voluntary Corporate Action. Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation. Oct. 2002. - "Since 1990, Canada has been relying on industrial firms to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to help slow climate change...the voluntary approach to cutting Canada’s industrial emissions has been wholly inadequate. The report concludes that Canada needs the legally binding framework of the Kyoto Protocol if it is to begin reversing the emissions increases seen since 1990."
Kyoto regulations on developed nations hurts developing nations

Hans Martin Seip and Sigbjørn Grønås. "Organized opposition to the Kyoto Protocol". CICERO. 16 Mar. 2005 - "A report from the International Policy Network (IPN) claims that restricting emissions of greenhouse gases in industrialized countries will hinder growth in developing countries. This is used as an argument against international agreements that restrict emissions. The report can be seen as urging Europe to follow the U.S. example in its climate policy."[13]
US is just a scapegoat for the failed Kyoto Protocol

Gwyn Prins1 & Steve Rayner. "Time to ditch Kyoto". Nature. 25 Oct. 2007 - "Kyoto's supporters often blame non-signatory governments, especially the United States and Australia, for its woes," say Mr. Prins and Mr. Rayner. "But the Kyoto Protocol was always the wrong tool for the nature of the job."
Voluntary emissions reduction schemes have low participation levels

Bramley, Matthew. "The Case for Kyoto. The Failure of Voluntary Corporate Action. Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation. Oct. 2002. - "The level of participation in the VCR, impressive at first sight, turns out on closer inspection to be mediocre. Out of 493 industrial entities registered with VCR in mid-2002, only 102 actually reported their year 2000 emissions by March 31, 2002."
Kyoto protocol is too costly a symbol

Sterling Burnett. "Was U.S. wise to reject Kyoto treaty on climate change?". National Center for Policy Analysis. 1 May 2005 - "even as the champagne corks popped, Kyoto’s apologists were quietly admitting that the treaty would not prevent global warming, stating its importance was largely ‘‘symbolic.’’ After eight years and tens-of-millions of tax dollars spent: Kyoto is, indeed, an expensive symbol!"
Kyoto Protocol is generally not a good model for future treaties

Bronwen Maddox. "Why Kyoto will vanish into hot air". Times Online. 29 Nov. 2005 - "The best way forward now is not a "successor" to Kyoto, which covers the years until 2012. Another treaty that attempted to set fixed targets for cutting emisssions could be economically very damaging — in the unlikely event that countries ever reached agreement...The better answer is in the plethora of bargains between a handful of rich and poor countries, which some are already exploring. It is also in the development of new technology to combat global warming, and in deals to spread these quickly to poorer countries."
The Kyoto Protocol stimulates new industries

"Rudd a green light for eco-businesses". News.com.au. 1 Dec. 2007 - "ECO-lobbyists emitted tonnes of greenhouse gases this week as carbonated wine corks popped following the victory of the 'lower-emission' Labor Party. 'We're still drinking bubbly,' said one pro-renewable energy advocate midweek. The more than 400 businesses operating in the energy efficiency and zero emission industries had despaired for their bottom lines after the Coalition's Kyoto stand-off had stalled economic incentives to cut greenhouse emissions for 11 years."
Kyoto does not require we choose between environment and economy

Joseph Biden wrote in a 2001 letter to President Bush - "It's a false choice to say we need to favor the economy over the environment. Especially given the progress we've made in developing the technological knowhow to profit from a shift to cleaner energy production. The previous Administration was successful in working with business and environmental groups toward an agreement that protects both American interests and the world environment. The Bush Administration would have been wise to build upon this success."[14]