BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Turkey is not in Europe

Given that the European continent does not really have a clearly defined frontier it is difficult to see that the EU should be entirely based upon Geography. It should also be noted that while Turkey's land area is almost entirely in Asia the European part does have immense historical significance and has population in Europe of about 14million out of a total population of 72million, larger than many of the smaller EU members. Then again Turkey is part of NATO and it is difficult to argue it is on the North Atlantic. The answer to why not Iraq or Iran is indeed why not? But both would have an immense way to go. Turkey has been trying to be European for almost a century while Iran in particular rejects much of what it means to be European, so if they ever became secular democracies that are westward looking and are reasonably prosperous then indeed why not. But I would not expect the issue to arise for well over 50 years if ever (as by then everyone will be looking east not west!)
Turkey is near some global flash points.

Turkey is near some global flash points, but its entry into the EU would not bring these potential dangers closer to current EU members. Turkey is already a long-standing member of NATO, the defence club to which the large majority of current and prospective EU states belongs. This means that any security crisis on Turkey’s borders already involves its European neighbours. Furthermore, as the EU has begun to develop its own defence identity outside NATO, it has had to involve Turkey over issues of planning and access to NATO assets. Finally, engagement between Turkey and the EU has greatly reduced historic enmity between Turkey and Greece, and held out hope for a solution to the division of Cyprus, showing the benefits of a closer relationship.
Turkey was promised a chance to join the EU at the Helsinki summit in 1999.

Turkey was promised a chance to join the EU at the Helsinki summit in 1999, when its candidacy was unanimously accepted after three decades of consistent Turkish requests. Clearly economic and political reforms are necessary, but that is true of all member states and should not be used as an excuse to backtrack now. Starting negotiations will focus attention upon what must be done before entry can take place, perhaps in a decade or so, as it has in Central Europe over the past few years. If the EU is seen to break its promise to Turkey it may turn a potential friend and partner into a suspicious and hostile neighbour.
Turkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the country is as firmly secular.

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.
Fear of a Backlash Due to Turkey's Political and Religious Influences

The fact that Turkey is politically and religiously divided is another unspoken pink elephant in the room. Yes, Turkey is overwhelmingly Islamic, but it is not Saudi Arabia - they are also the most moderate and 'western' Islamic country there is. However, proponents arguing for Turkey's bid for EU membership should consider that Turkey is a diverse country, arguably divided religiously and politically between the more liberal and moderate Western influence, and the more politically and religiously conservative influence (which continues to be an influence, although this influence tends to be focused more in East Turkey). Should Turkey accede to the EU which is overwhelmingly liberal and whose laws supercede those of national laws, this would almost certainly lead to a backlash and political actions (which might not necessarily be democratic or non-violent) from the conservative influence over this perceived 'triumph' of liberalism within Turkey. There are also persisting fears that if Turkey were to join, they would press 'Islamic' issues and concerns to the fore, and might clash with the EU in this respect, e.g. over Palestine, which, if the EU were to be perceived as not being in agreement with Turkey, might lead to opposition and hostility to the EU, which would not easily be resolved.
Turkey is not in Europe

There might be other reasons that would mean Turkey could not join the EU but the most important one is that it is not in Europe. We have to draw the line somewhere - the EU is not a worldwide confederation. True - a part of Turkey is in Europe but only a little part. For the same reason we should be clear to Israel, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia that they may not join. Russia could join if it split from Siberia. If Turkey could join why not Iraq or Iran?
The EU has welcomed poorer entrants before without disaster.

The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically. Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). It has huge debts following a banking crisis and crash in 2001 and only survives due to massive aid from the IMF (which many see as its reward for providing support to the USA over Iraq, Israel, etc.). It will already be very difficult for the EU to integrate the much wealthier Central European states, and to provide the money for reconstruction in the Balkans. Coping with a much poorer, much less stable, much more indebted Turkey is simply not possible.
Precedent (Romania and Bulgaria)

Romania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records in the EU were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU has in the past rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU, and yet member states have only taken these steps after being issued hope from EU elites themselves that there was a strong chance of success in their application. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession; and yet there is not much point in doing so at present as EU elites seem hostile to Turkey ever being a future member state. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises and so spending vast quantities of time and resources in preparing to make similar changes would be likely to be a poor investment. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them, not discouragement about future prospects of joining even as these states have since acceeded to the union. It is the EU's attitudes and hostility to future membership that has hindered Turkey's bid for membership and has made efforts to appease Brussels essentially pointless.
The industrialised world’s emphasis on green issues holds back developing countries. Because this i...

The industrialised world’s emphasis on green issues holds back developing countries. Because this is seen as interference in their affairs, it also contributes to a greater divide between the First and Third worlds. Many also believe it is a deliberate attempt to stop possible economic competitors. After all, the USA and EU already put high tariffs (import taxes) on products made cheaply in developing countries (e.g. canned tomatoes, shoes) which could be sold in America or Europe. By limiting the development of profitable but polluting industries like steel or oil refineries we are forcing nations to remain economically backward.
Obviously the world would be better if all nations stuck to strict environmental rules. The reality...

Obviously the world would be better if all nations stuck to strict environmental rules. The reality is that for many nations such rules are not in their interests. For example, closing China’s huge Capital Iron and Steelworks, a major source of pollution, would cost 40 000 jobs. The equal application of strict environmental policies would create huge barriers to economic progress, at a risk to political stability.
Rapid industrialisation does not have to put more pressure on the environment. Scientific advances ...

Rapid industrialisation does not have to put more pressure on the environment. Scientific advances have made industries much less polluting. And developing countries can learn from the environmental mistakes of the developed world’s industrial revolution, and from more recent disasters in communist countries such as China and the USSR. For example, efficient new steelworks use much less water, raw materials and power, while producing much less pollution than traditional factories. And nuclear generating plants can provide more energy than coal while contributing far less to global warming. We are also exploring alternative, renewable types of energy such as solar, wind and hydro-power.
It is hypocritical (two-faced and unfair) for rich developed countries to demand that poorer nations...

It is hypocritical (two-faced and unfair) for rich developed countries to demand that poorer nations make conservation their priority. After all, they became rich in the first place by destroying their environment in the industrial revolution. Now that they have cut down their own trees, polluted their water sources and poured billions of tons of carbon into the air, they are in no position to tell others to behave differently. In any case, as countries become richer they become more concerned about the environment, and can afford to do something about it. For developing countries conservation can therefore wait until they are richer.
The “Green Revolution” has doubled the size of grain harvests. Thus, cutting down more forests to p...

The “Green Revolution” has doubled the size of grain harvests. Thus, cutting down more forests to provide more space for crops is no longer necessary. We now have the knowledge to feed the world’s increasing population without harming the environment. Genetically modified crops can also benefit the developing world by requiring much less water, fertiliser or pesticide use while giving better yields. This is another example of economic development leading to environmental benefits.
Taking care of millions of people who are starving is more important than saving natural resources, ...

We have already wasted and destroyed vast amounts of natural resources, and in so doing have put earth at risk. We must preserve the earth for our children and grandchildren. In any case, poverty and environmental damage are often linked. Destroying the rainforest gives native peoples nowhere to go except urban slums. Polluted water can lead to crop failures. Climate change will turn fertile fields into desert and flood coastal areas where hundreds of millions live. Developing countries have to choose sustainable development if they want a future for their people.
The industrialised world’s emphasis on green issues holds back developing countries. Because this i...

No one wants to stop economic progress that could give millions better lives. But we must insist on sustainable development that combines environmental care, social justice and economic growth. Earth cannot support unrestricted growth. Companies in developed countries already have higher costs of production because of rules to protect the environment. It is unfair if they then see their prices undercut by goods produced cheaply in developing countries at the cost of great pollution.
Economic development is vital for meeting the basic needs of the growing populations of developing c...

Unchecked population growth has a negative impact on any nation, as well as on the whole planet. Both the poverty and the environmental problems of sub-Saharan Africa are largely the result of rapid population growth putting pressure on limited resources. At the same time China has become wealthy while following a “one-child” per couple policy. Limiting population growth will result in a higher standard of living and will preserve the environment.
Rapid industrialisation does not have to put more pressure on the environment. Scientific advances ...

Scientific progress has made people too confident in their abilities to control their environment. In just half a century the world’s nuclear industry has had at least three serious accidents: Windscale (UK, 1957), Three Mile Island (USA, 1979), and Chernobyl (USSR, 1986). In addition, the nuclear power industry still cannot store its waste safely. Hydro-power sounds great but damming rivers is itself damaging to the environment. It also forces huge numbers of people off their land – as in China’s 3 Gorges project.
It is hypocritical (two-faced and unfair) for rich developed countries to demand that poorer nations...

Looking after our fragile world has to be a partnership. Climate change will affect the whole planet, not just the developed world. In fact it is likely to have particularly terrible effects on developing countries as sea levels rise, deserts advance, and natural disasters become more common. It is no use Europe trying to cut its emissions into the atmosphere if unchecked growth in China and India leads to much greater overall pollution. Instead, developed countries need to transfer greener technologies to the developing world, paying for environmental protection and making sustainability a condition for aid.
The “Green Revolution” has doubled the size of grain harvests. Thus, cutting down more forests to p...

The Green Revolution is threatening the biodiversity of the Third World by replacing native seeds with hybrids. We do not know what the long-term environmental or economic consequences will be. We do know that in the short run, such hybrid crops can cause environmental problems by crowding out native plants and the wildlife which relies on them. The farmer growing hybrid crops must buy costly new seed every year because it cannot be saved to plant the following year’s crops. Farmers using hybrid seeds in what was the richest part of India went bankrupt. As a result, fertile lands lay idle and unploughed, resulting in droughts and desertification.
Humans benefit from us seeing wildlife documentaries.

Whilst some extreme animal rights' protesters may argue that animals deserve privacy, I think most of us would agree that it is a matter of degree. We need to weigh the cost and the benefit. Given that we have already weighed, above, that animals do not have the same sense of privacy that humans do, we need to analyse the benefit we obtain for minimal harm to animal welfare. Documentaries show humans how animals live. They give us a greater insight into how animals behave and for what reasons. This in turn can lead to further research into human medicine and nature. We learn from animals. Surely this is a huge benefit which by far outweighs any notional sense of animals wanting privacy. Um reality T.V, hidden cameras, security cameras,satellites, bugged phone conversations; Google views emails/searches, ; people are not asked before they are viewed/filmed/other-wise recorded. Actors are paid to perform; they can't perform against their own will; now can they? Paparazzi/people photograph celebrities/people all the time without their permission. we have learned a lot from animals in terms of camouflage, aerodynamics and spiderweb-research led to the invention bulletproof vests. From fashion to hard science watching animals has contributed significantly all across the knowledge/development sphere.
Benefit to animals

If you do not agree in weighing the debated restriction to animal privacy against the benefit to humans then surely you would be persuaded by the benefit obtainable by the animals themselves. If we see documentaries on how animals give birth, how animals die, why animals die, how animal conceive then we as humans will all have a greater awareness as to how to cure these ailments should we ever be confronted by them. Not many of us would know a number to call in an emergency for animal welfare. However, via documentaries we may be able to work out some first aid before getting the animal to the appropriate domain for care. Given that the animals themselves benefit greatly from an apparent intrusion of privacy; surely we can see this ‘intrusion’ as justified. There was a readers' digest article on how a child saved a snakes' life because he recognized the scale-pattern to be of a non-poisonous snake; a kind often confused with a venomous snake of the same color/colours but a different order of bands. Animal control spared the snake's life after the child showed them the relevant portion of his book. So yes video/photo documentaries do save animal lives. Books on cat/dog behaviors have aided pet-lovers everywhere in rearing them.
Animals do not respect their own privacy

This debate is trying to point our attention to the fact that animals are not all that different from humans and that we should not presume that they have no sense of privacy. However, should we not take into account how an animal uses it's own privacy? If you look at how humans give birth, it is behind curtains. Often the family will not be in the room only the father of the child and he necessary doctors. If you look at how humans mate, it is confined to the bedroom. If you look to how we go to the toilet in times where we have choice, we go behind closed doors. Now, look at animals, animals do not hide, they show no shame. They mate in the open, they release their waste in the open and they give birth in the open. Given that this is how they treat their own privacy, why should we think that they value it? If they do not value their own privacy, why should we value it?
Awareness of endangered species will improve respect for animals

Humans are very self-centered in the fact that until a problem arises before our eyes we are unthinking and unconcerned. It is for this reason that animal privacy is neglected. We can never interpret whether an animal is private or not. We will assume instead that the animal is scared as this is what we know of animals. However, by broadcasting documentaries based upon animals we are raising human awareness of them. This brings issues into the public eye and this in turn means that humans have more regard for animal welfare. This can help us, and has, protected endangered animals. As a result of these documentaries: People protest against animal hunters and fishermen who spoil a whale’s dinner. People take action. This is how documentaries can ascertain a benefit to the animal themselves.
Animals(like humans) want moments of privacy and public exhibition

We live in an era of paranoia; of satellites and security cameras. People 'are' watched in public bathrooms; to make sure they aren't stashing weapons/bombs there. We might see 'Voyeurism' as a bad thing but there's no denying the fact that most of us are guilty of it; either by watching pornography/Hollywood-films/most-films-from-any-country. Watching animal documentaries isn't the half of it. And Although we value our privacy; we go through terrific lengths to keep it. There's no paucity in 'peeping toms','neighbourhood/neighborhood watch members' 'impertinent old ladies' in every neighbourhood/neighborhood.
They deserve to have their privacy considered

The fact that we as humans take into consideration animal welfare during a documentary, the fact that we are not bulldozing into it shows that humans show respect to animal welfare. However, if we are leaving out one seemingly vital part of the ethical argument against animal documentaries, and we have done for many years, surely this shows that instinctively, we do not believe that animals have a right to privacy. Maybe this is the closest notion to whether animals do or do not have privacy comes from. How have we all come to the same conclusion? Why do we all ignore this feature of the debate? There must be an answer underlying that question, and that answer is that animals do not have a sense of privacy!
Animals have no interest in privacy

This argument is stating that we are assigning human emotions/ideals to animals. However, this argument is doing much the same thing. They are placing their human knowledge onto the template of an animal and assuming they are correct. However, humans can never make such assumptions as to how animals feel. In which case we should respect animals privacy because we will never know if we are offending them or not, and it is better to be safe than sorry. Actually animals are aggressive when they are afraid or they 'play dead' to confuse the enemy. Scurrying off should just mean they do not wish to be bothered.
Humans benefit from us seeing wildlife documentaries.

How can animal documentaries play any benefit to humans? Medicine cannot be based around animal behavior-isms. For one, how animals behave is not reliant on medicine – unless we injected the animals and then watched – but this is an altogether more serious question into the moral viability of animal testing. This leaves us with the notion that the only real benefit that humans gain out of animal documentaries is entertainment. When we have human actors who wish to see themselves on TV, why would we place animals on TV when we do not know if we have their consent or not. Given that the only positive we can see to animal documentaries is entertainment; this does not seem proportionate to the possibility of insulting an animal’s privacy.
Benefit to animals

Take a moment to reflect upon how many animal documentaries there are. Take a minute to think about how many animals are in each documentary; of the same species of a different species. Now think of how many pregnant animals you have come across in ordinary life. Think about how many injured animals you have seen lying in the road. Think about how many incidents you went over to help an animal and thought to yourself ‘My, I wish I had watched a documentary on this’. The benefit to animals as I am sure you will discover then is minimal in comparison to how many animals lose their privacy. animals do not like being watched up-close otherwise documentary makers wouldn't have to drug them and strap them with hidden cameras to get in on the good stuff.
Animals do not respect their own privacy

This is a mere after thought justification as opposed to one that we actively think about before we film animals. Some animal do conduct activities in private. Animals build nests, dig burrows and build all sorts of things in their power that would be to us a ‘home’. Now if the animal has gone to these lengths to keep intruders out, surely we should respect their privacy in at least this regard? Animals 'do' hide and they do push away documentary-makers. But these people drug them and strap with hidden cameras to see their secrets worlds. Which really is wrong.
Be aware of your surroundings and know your enemy

Say for a moment you lived in a land where you didn't know much about the creatures inhabiting the biome around you. What are you going to do? Assume theyre all safe? Assume theyre all mean? Assume the cute ones are safe and the ugly ones are mean? If you ask me, the Tasmanian Devil is a pretty cute little animal that i would not want to see in the wild. It would also be absurd to be running from a turkey vulture, which is a rather ugly animal. Point is, you don't know what to trust. These people explore the nature and gather information so we can say "Turkey Vultures, though very ugly carnivores, are safe to be around since they only eat dead bodies. But that cute little Tasmanian Devil is actually capable of tearing me to shreds!"