BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The security wall effectively means the annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel. Palestinian ...

The security wall effectively means the annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel. Palestinian leaders assert the route chosen could lead to almost half of the cultivatable land in the West Bank being annexed. Most western governments have criticised the barrier because part of its route departs from the so-called Green Line, Israel's pre-1967 boundary and the internationally recognised border. The route is not based on security considerations, but is clearly political, concerned to tie the land around Israeli settlements to Israel. It also violates property rights, as thousands of acres of land have been taken away from Palestinian owners in order to build the wall and the wide strip of access tracks beside it.
The security wall hinders the everyday activities of Palestinians. A great number of Palestinians h...

The security wall hinders the everyday activities of Palestinians. A great number of Palestinians have land or jobs, hospitals and schools on one side of the wall and houses on other side. To go to school or work they must use designated gates which are often far away from their regular route. That takes time as well as money. Moreover special passes that are hard to obtain are needed to enter the Israeli side of the wall. People that don’t own land on the Israeli side but were merely working on it in the past have huge problems in obtaining passes and many seasonal workers are unemployed because of the wall. Poverty is widespread and sick people have died because problems getting through gates delayed their journey to hospital.
By carving up the West Bank, Israel is stopping the development of a workable Palestinian state. Th...

By carving up the West Bank, Israel is stopping the development of a workable Palestinian state. The barrier and the settlements it protects will ensure that the Palestinian people will remain desperate, and that their government will be unable to control its own territory effectively. Yet it is in Israel’s long-term interest to promote the development of a stable, viable neighbouring state for Palestinians. Only a strong Palestinian government, able to give its people an economic future and to enforce its decisions internally, will ever to able to negotiate a lasting peace with Israel.
There is no 'agreed' set of Ten Commandments.

If the Commandments are to be displayed, which version will be used, of the three in the Bible? Which interpretation – the Protestant, the Catholic, or the Jewish? The equivalent passages from the Qur’an? How will this be decided? Will denominational schools that hold alternate versions have to display a (not yet agreed) ‘standard’ version? It is hardly a marginal issue. The original Hebrew says “thou shalt not murder,” not “thou shalt not kill.” Every time the Ten Commandments are displayed, someone is making a choice – a choice about which social, linguistic, cultural interpretation to favour. Who will (or can) make this choice on behalf of all the peoples of the nation, as represented by their children?
Morality and religion should not have to be linked.

Schools need to teach students morality for the modern world, and there’s no better source of moral values than the Ten Commandments. Many schools wishing to display the Commandments point to the moral emptiness of children such as those that massacred their fellow students at Columbine as a motivating factor. Schools ought to teach moral values and if they do not, they are failing in their responsibility not only to educate young people but also to make them responsible and moral adults.
A display would be a substitute for real Christian instruction.

Displaying the Commandments and teaching Christian beliefs and philosophy are not mutually exclusive, but some acknowledgement of religion's power and wisdom is better than none at all. In any case, America was founded by God-fearing people who viewed their actions through the prism of the Ten Commandments, and based their legal system upon it. Even those people today who do not share such beliefs must accept their importance in our historical, cultural and legal heritage. Displaying the Commandments acknowledges their importance to our society.
There is no 'agreed' set of Ten Commandments.

This is an attempt to confuse whether there is a right to show the Ten Commandments, with the issues involved after that right has been accepted as existing. Even if the practicalities prove as difficult as the proposition says, that’s an irrelevance as to whether one is allowed to show them or not. That having been said, it is very unlikely that it would be a complicated business, anyway. For a start, why should a standard version have to be displayed - couldn't schools or school boards agree on the most appropriate for their own communities?
The State should be separated from the Church or churches.

In displaying a faith’s text it is effectively endorsing it. The state is secular: government schools may teach religion, but not preach it. It is clear that displaying the Commandments is intended not merely to inform students of their existence and meaning, but rather to instruct them in and promote Christian belief. Schools should be teaching children to think critically and form their own worldview rather than being forced to conform to a religion so early in life.
The Ten Commandments are exclusive to the Christian faith.

Many faiths are practised in the USA – it is an increasingly multicultural country. To single out one faith and raise it above all others is wrong. The only possible solution would be to feature the fundamental beliefs of all faiths on school walls – few schools are big enough for that! Other faiths are positively insulted by the state adopting one faith in schools. The Commandment says, ‘thou shalt have no other Gods but me.’ What is a tax-paying Hindu US citizen to make of this?
Morally Troubling Outcomes

An experienced debater once summarized the problem with utilitarian analysis as such: Say we have one person strapped to a machine where all we need do is push a button and they will die. The mastermind of this experiment will poke you with a stick if you do not push the button. Do you push the button? Obviously not. The utility you lose from being poked with a stick does not equal the death of another human being. But what about 100 people being poked by sticks? A thousand? A million? At some point, the disutility of the masses being poked will outweigh the utility of keeping the person alive.* If this conclusion seems absurd, that is because it is. Clearly utility does not "aggregate" in such a manner that a minor inconvenience times a thousand (or a million, or even a billion) can equal the murder of a human being. Yet this is precisely how utilitarian thought functions. Without this additive quality of utility, the theory becomes meaningless. With this quality, it produces absurd conclusions. *Some would probably like to counter that you can assume that disutility of death is infinite. However is this were true than a utilitarian system would be paralyzed if any decision it made would result in the death or suicide of a person. Clearly this is nonfunctional.
Tyranny of the Minority

A utilitarian calculation is satisfied if there is greater overall gain of utility. Therefore, if the vast majority of people are happy, even at the expense of a small minority, the conditions are satisfied and it is classified as an ethically sound situation. This means that certain minority groups whose interests clash continually with the majority will always be at a disadvantage in a utilitarian calculation. This is unfair to people who are outcasts or who don’t agree with society’s norms but haven’t done anything to justify not being counted as people.
INDIVIDUAL HEDONISM NOT ALWAYS POSITIVE FOR SOCIETY/INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES.

In a strict hedonistic utilitarian calculation, pleasure is seen as a positive ethical outcome and pain as a negative outcome. While most people might want pleasure, it isn’t necessarily their primary goal in life. For instance, a person who wants to pass their exams, simply for the sake of academic achievement, might study too hard, forgo food and sleep and cause themselves pain, but still consider themselves to have achieved their goal because they performed well in the exam. Even in a system where utility equals satisfaction of interests, some people may not be working towards their own interests –they may have voluntarily subsumed their own interests entirely to someone else, or to a greater cause. Victory conditions are rarely as simple as win or lose. As with the above point, the person in this position is left at a disadvantage in the calculus simply because they are not like the majority of people. Individuals need to suffer in order to live a full life and there are many circumstances where people should not feel happy, e.g. when grieving the dead. Utilitarians had never heard of masochists.
PROMOTES EQUALITY

In theory, Utilitarianism is just. However, in practice it justifies the killing of innocent jews over Nazi régime, for example. If Utilitarianism in its strictest form were to be applied throughout, Gays, Transgenders, even disabled people would be outcasted or even murdered to keep the "greater good" tothe majority. I am proud to be in a society which is trying to promote positive attitudes to different ways of life.
draws upon basic human needs

Simple concepts are vague and hard to achieve. Pleasure is not achieved by the same means for all people. Freedom from pain is completely unavoidable, how can anybody be free from pain(emotion,psychological and physical) and freedom from physical pain in the extremities is a very dangerous aspect of diabetes that has caused the need for foot amputations for millions of diabetics. Pain is a great teacher, it an indicator of our physical/emotional/psychological bounds. If we did not experience pain, we would die pretty quickly. Causing pain (via emotional blackmail or wartime torture) is a means of getting what you want(fulfilling interests) from other people. Fulfillment of interests, again this could involve stepping on other people's interests.
Tyranny of the Minority

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of utilitarianism. There is no allowance for a tyranny of the majority (a situation whereby a simple, numerical majority claims it is justified in enforcing its viewpoints on a minority by right of might - I think you got a bit confused about this when you named your point). Although utilitarianism seeks to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number, it recognises that as happiness is a subjective value, it can only be determined by the individual. An individual will discover what makes them happy through a series of learning experiences, a process that can never be properly replicated by the state or wider society. Once we have learned what makes us happy, utilitarianism fosters this by encouraging a non-interventionist approach to morality. In other words, no one is justified in interfering if a person's actions are self-regarding. They have no impact on anyone else, so it is up to them to determine their own morality. Therefore, contrary to the assertion that "this is unfair to people who...don't agree with society's norms", utilitarianism is the perfect system for ensuring the rights of minorities are respected and not left vulnerable to the mob. While I agree with your sentiments on the dangers posed by tyranny, I fear you have misunderstood the nature of utilitarianism.
INDIVIDUAL HEDONISM NOT ALWAYS POSITIVE FOR SOCIETY/INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES.

The pleasure from a high score in the exam exceeds the pain/sacrifice/cost (studying hard), for this particular hypothetical person. Overall pleasure is maximized with a cost constraint.For a masochist the pleasure from pain is greater than the grievance or physical damage caused by it. Again his/her utility is maximized/maximised under a cost constraint.This link explains constrained maximisation in economics:[[http://homepage.newschool.edu/~foleyd/GECO6190/MaxNotes.pdf]]
Animosity Between Turkey and Existing Member States, i.e. Greece

Existing animosity between a member state and a non-member state is a good reason not to allow Turkey in to the union. The EU has been a successful security regime over the past half century - introducing two member states who have a conflict over another member state, Cyprus, would only lead to tensions and conflict and might hinder further EU cooperation and strength through taking time out to mediate Greek-Turkish relations.
Turkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the country is as firmly secular.

Turkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the country is as firmly secular as France in terms of its constitution and government. 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.
Stability of Turkey's Democracy

Side Propositions argument precisely links us back to the nature and obligation of the European Union. Isolating Turkey so it can fix it's own problems by itself and then coming back and register is not what a leading European Body should do. Embracing Turkey as a needy state and providing advisory and physical support(such as military aid etc.) is what can both help Turkey and strengthen EU. Military role is not a pretext for halting progress, but rather, a reason for speeding it up. we cannot open up the EU for perfect nations to come in, our goal is to help those who require aid to become a stable nation.
The EU has welcomed poorer entrants before without disaster.

The EU has welcomed poorer entrants before without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania among current prospective entrants all have lower GDP per capita. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth.
Human Rights Record

Surely countries with a history of bad human rights activities should be embraced by the EU, in the hope that the EU will have a positive influence on them. It is true that banning them from membership is an effective punishment but that will not enforce any change. If we wish to see compliance with Human Rights conventions we have to ensure that countries that may contravene them are under the jurisdiction in the first place! Once they are members we can then encourage better behaviour through punishing any further contraventions.
Free Labour Market - Turkish and Kurdish Migrants Would Flood to EU States with Better Living Standards

The unspoken elephant in the room when it comes to EU discussions on whether Turkey should be allowed to accede is the fact that Turkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly different living conditions and lower wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This brings the fear of immigrants coming in significantly - especially for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.739 million Turkish people living in Germany (one third of which are Kurds), [[http://www.faz.net/s/Rub594835B672714A1DB1A121534F010EE1/Doc~E0F99A1C8B80A445E84A70B8453383895~ATpl~Ecommon~SMed.html#F603AFF15A3548B08367A3ED2DB2733A]] who make up approx. one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany - to allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further.
Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states.

Turkey does not have a stable democracy and has a poor human rights record. The military has intervened three times to remove governments of which it disapproved in recent decades, most recently in 1997. Police use of torture is widespread and peaceful protestors, including but not only those wanting improved rights for the Kurdish minority, are still tried and imprisoned under anti-terrorist laws. There are also restrictions on the freedom of the press. It is true that reforms have begun, but there are questions as to how thoroughly these will be implemented. Until political dissidents are freed, those accused of human rights abuses are brought to trial and punished, and Kurds are given equal rights, Turkey cannot be judged a suitable candidate for EU accession.
Stability of Turkey's Democracy

Just over a decade ago, Turkey's armed forces forced the ruling coalition to resign and the Islamist party Welfare, who had won parliamentary elections in 1995 and joined the ruling coalition the following year withdrew from power [[http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7508]]. The nature of the struggle between Turkey's generals - who try and keep the country as secular as possible (arguably at the expense of taking away the right of the people to decide for themselves which party/representative best represents their views) and the increase in votes for conservative Islamic political views and, resultantly, influence of conservative Islamic political forces the generals want to avoid coming to the fore paves for an unstable political environment which is vulnerable [[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/opinion/01tue2.html]]. The EU surely cannot accept a government in which the military plays such a large role, and yet neither can it accept a member state with conservative Islamic leader, leaving the EU essentially with no option except to deny Turkey membership until it resolves this issue.
Turkey is near some global flash points.

Turkey has some dangerous neighbours and its inclusion within the EU would expose Europe to a greatly increased risk of crisis and conflict. 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.
Turkey was promised a chance to join the EU at the Helsinki summit in 1999.

Turkey first applied to join the EU back in the 1960s but there is no document where EU leaders have promised to include Turkey in the future. Even if they had, past declarations (as opposed to treaties) cannot be held to bind today’s leaders in weighing both their own national interest and the wider European interest. The possible negative impact of Turkish EU membership upon existing members must be considered. The recent rise of far-right anti-immigration politicians, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen, Jorg Haidar and Pym Fortuyn point to a dangerous public reaction to more open borders and unchecked migration.
Human Rights Record

The sine qua non of EU norms is having a strong human rights record - which Turkey does not have. In 2006, 10% of the pending cases to be addressed by the European Court of Human Rights were against Turkey [[http://www.taa.gov.tr/proje/dersnotu/Zwaak-EfficiencyofECHR.pdf]]. As the European Court of Human Rights was set up to uphold principles set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights, which all member states are required to sign, this clearly poses somewhat of a problem. And in cases where judgments have been put forward by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey is often loath to implement the advice of the court, as in the Loizidou Case, [[http://www.taa.gov.tr/proje/dersnotu/Zwaak-EfficiencyofECHR.pdf]]. In particular, Turkey represses its main minority, the Kurds and has been criticized for the routine use of torture by the Turkish armed forces in interrogations of PKK members and sympathizers. Amnesty International reports that over 400 detainees have been tortured to death since 1980. Human rights workers, journalists who report on the civil war, and doctors who attempt to provide medical care to wounded Kurds also are frequently arrested and tortured. During this decade, disappearances have also become common [[http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7508]]. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances reported that in 1994, there were over 50 disappearances in Turkey, more than in any other country [[http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/efb18eb4337a6c768025672b003c3b30?Opendocument]]. Turkey refuses even to acknowledge that Kurds have a seperate culture and ethnicity, referring to them as 'Mountain Turks'. From Turkey's beginnings, Ataturk banned the use of the Kurdish languages and did not allow Kurds to be recognized as distinct from the Turkish people. Contemporary Turkish leaders clearly don't see the need to stop repressing the Kurdish people simply for wanting independence (and, let's face it, who could blame them?). This is a clear violation of human rights and contradicts the ethics on which the EU is based.
Fear of a Backlash Due to Turkey's Political and Religious Influences

Regardless of one's beliefs surrounding Turkey's possible ascension to the European Union, the fact that the nation's predominant religion is Islam is surely not one of the issues to be considered. If the EU is to be regarded as an institution that promotes freedom for the citizens of its member states then surely this also means that it promotes freedom of religion. If EU member states are fearful of building closer relations with Islam, which they will inevitably have to, proceeding with the world's most moderate and 'western' Islamic country is the most logical first step.
Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states.

Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its recent election of a party with islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). Turkey’s human rights record is also improving rapidly, with the recent abolition of the death penalty and the removal of some restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. These advances have been prompted by the improved prospect of EU entry if Turkey conforms to 'democratic norms', and this process is sure to continue to the benefit of both Turkish citizens and the EU if accession is offered in good faith.